S. Maizlich 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.

> Why would non-"vegans" need to acknowledge them? There is no
> implication of CDs that is relevant to normal human omnivores'
> philosophy.

They are, because many people who are not vegans are still
concerned about *unnecessary* death and suffering of animals.
If it is shown that conventional methods create many deaths
and much suffering which could be prevented by better methods,
even meat-eaters would support change in most cases.

> There *is* an implication of CDs that is crucial to
> "vegans'" philosophy, though: CDs queer the whole idea.

No, only according to the skewed definitions of anti-vegans.

As Francione says: "Surely, however, there is a significant
difference between raising and killing animals for food and
unintentionally doing them harm in the course of planting
vegetables, an activity that is itself intended to prevent
killing of sentient beings." Raising and killing animals
for food is inherently unethical according to vegan philosophy.
CDs in vegetable production are a result of *methods* used,
failures which can be reduced with greater or less effort,
if not eliminated entirely. The analogy I have often used is
between the inherent injustice of chattel slavery, and the
injustice of sweatshop labor. We do not have to stop wearing
clothes if we find our clothes are produced by laborers in
sweatshops. We can first switch to other brands of clothing
produced by non-sweatshop workers (as individual consumers),
and then work as activists to change social attitudes and laws
to eliminate or greatly reduce sweatshop production. OTOH,
it would remain unethical to farm humans to make leather coats
of their skins or to eat them, no matter what.