Leif Erikson wrote:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>Perhaps we can but we certainly don't. For example people die as a
> >>>>>result
> >>>>>of pollution as a result of airborne pollution and human induced global
> >>>>>warming, both of which easily qualify as "normal circumstances".
> >>>>
> >>>>You need to discriminate between harms. There is a huge difference
> >>>>between
> >>>>doing something that 'increases long-term health risks' and something
> >>>>that
> >>>>kills outright.
> >>>
> >>>Why is this distinction more relevant than the distinction between
> >>>collateral and intentional animal deaths?
> >>
> >>Because harm to animals in agriculture is not increasing the long-term risk
> >>of cancer in mice, it is systematic and repeated decimation of their
> >>populations.
> >
> >
> > Difference in numbers involved is a difference of degree rather than
> > kind.
>
> The difference in numbers is several orders of
> magnitude, dummy. A difference that large tells you
> there is some *underlying* difference in kind.
>
> What do you suppose it is, davey "pesco-vegan"? Let's
> see, below...
>
>
> > Many of the animal deaths that you accuse vegans of hypocrisy
> > over are "statistical", rather than "intentional", just like the human
> > deaths caused by global warming. Birds flying into electricity pylons,
> > fish deaths due to water pollution, pesticide accumulation in the food
> > chain, animals mangled by farm machinery are all examples of
> > "statistical" deaths.
>
> davey, *why* do you suppose there is no mitigation in
> place for those things, except in cases of endangered
> species? That is, apart from species that are
> threatened or endangered, no mitigation is required for
> the use of the technologies you mentioned in order to
> prevent animal deaths. Our concern is not with
> individual animals, who have no right nor expectation
> of not being harmed, but rather with species that we
> don't want to see become extinct.
>
> But it's different with humans. Technology use must be
> done in such a way that the threat to *individual*
> humans is minimized. Not only that, but mitigation
> efforts are ongoing and constant: cars, appliances,
> airplanes, etc. are safer today than they were in 1996,
> and they were safer in 1996 than they were in 1986, and
> so on.
>
> What do you suppose the difference in kind is, davey,
> you ****wit?

The lack of mitigation can be seen as a difference in kind
but so can the difference between collateral and intentional
deaths. IOW we have a "hierachy"; collateral mitigated(cm),
collateral unmitigated(cx), intentional(i). You object to vegans
differentiating between the cx deaths and the i deaths but
are insisting on differentiating between cm and cx. This
is arbitrary and self serving of you.