usual suspect wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It's easy to attack something when you make it up out of whole cloth.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.

false.

> Vegans don't
> distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or
> non-cruel treatement.

Some may not, but most do.

> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,

False.

> and
> that just about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
> the latter by the former.

For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.

> They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all*
> hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all*
> livestock production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even
> further and want an end to humans having pets.

All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather? What
benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?
The issue of companion animals is more complex. Not all keeping
of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
question that these things *are* exploitation, even if you
believe humans are justified in this exploitation.

> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
> conditions for animals.

Not for the animals involved in factory-farm production of meat
and animal products.

> They suggest replacing meat with proteins from
> soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these
> alternatives to meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths
> caused by one's diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They
> likewise recommend synthetic furs and leather even though these are made
> from petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
> during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
> animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of
> leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for
> animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops
> with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse
> since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
> defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
> See Rick's links.
>
>>> The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
>>> death.

Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat. You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use. If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.
The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

>>> It's on those who oppose people consuming meat

Usually because of those very abominable conditions.

>>> and who make
>>> categorical statements of their own moral superiority.

Which all vegans do not do.

>>> When faced
>>> with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument you did and
>>> claim a virtue relative to the actions of others. They're not more
>>> ethical because others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least
>>> according to their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics
>>> test when they measure themselves by their own standard.

It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against. I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.

>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
> washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
> their consumption and/or work.

That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.

>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
>> be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
> already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
> have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
> credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is
> a widespread abuse of animals.

Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
blind to the obvious evidence. The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>