Glorfindel wrote:

> 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,

There aren't; read on.

> because many people who are not vegans are still
> concerned about *unnecessary* death and suffering of animals.

Irrelevant. They aren't concerned about death and
suffering _per se_. They don't subscribe to a stupid
and logically absurd belief system that says they don't
cause *any* death and suffering; they don't even claim,
as an implication of what they put in their mouths,
that they don't cause any "unnecessary" death and
suffering. They make NO claim regarding death and
suffering, necessary or not, based on what they consume.


> 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.

Perhaps. But meat eaters simply *don't* make absurd
categorical claims based on what they do or don't
consume. "vegans" do, and CDs queer their entire claim.


>> 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.

No, based on simple logical analysis.


>
> 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."

Ipse dixit, and not at all persuasive.


> Raising and killing animals
> for food is inherently unethical according to vegan philosophy.

Deliberately killing animals in the course of doing
*anything*, including raising vegetables, OUGHT to be
unethical according to "vegan" pseudo-philosophy, but
somehow isn't. Note: "collateral" does not mean
accidental.


> CDs in vegetable production are a result of *methods* used,
> failures which can be reduced with greater or less effort,
> if not eliminated entirely.

Yes, which COULD be reduced or eliminated, but which
"vegans" make ZERO effort to reduce or eliminate.
Several years of experience here, with committed
"vegan" ideologues, demonstrates they have no intention
whatever of making a meaningful effort not to
participate in the market for CD-causing produce.


> 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.

And in terms of your analogy, this is EXACTLY the step
"vegans" refuse to make.