usual suspect wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> There are few
> examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue of collateral deaths.

There are equally few non-vegans who know about or
acknowledge them. You are not applying an equal standard
to them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> and irrelevant in any case.

> It's relevant, Karen. In fact, "don't harm animals" is the foundation of
> veganism. We know vegans continue to harm animals through either
> ignorant consumption or ambivelant consumption.

So do non-vegans -- and they add an additional list of harms
by using animal products. It is easier for a vegan to reduce
harm by choosing less harmful vegetable products than for a
non-vegan to reduce harm by continuing to use animal products.

>> Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
>> animal products.

> Veganism doesn't even address that issue. Vegans suggests they're not
> harming animals by not eating them, not wearing their hides, not using
> products tested on animals, and so on.

Insofar as that is true, they are not.

> That's all rhetorical -- in
> practice, their consumption continues to harm animals by giving up a
> fraction of an animal at a meal and instead causing many more animals to
> die from crop production (pesticides, flooding, farm machinery,
> predation, field-clearing fires, etc.) and by recommending
> petrochemical-based synthetics in place of leather or fur.

All those things can be changed as vegans become aware of them.
They begin from a better foundation, and a better basic
philosophy, and have to change fewer things if/when they come
to know more about other aspects of their consumption.

How can anyone move toward more humane consumption based on
your philosophy of "it doesn't matter how much harm
consumers cause to animals if humans find the results more
tasty or convenient for them"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>