Steadily eroding "vegan" claims

"vegan" claims, the problems with the claims, and the
path of "vegan" retreat:


1. By refraining from consuming animal parts, I cause
ZERO animal suffering and death.

Problem: Denying the Antecedent fallacy. There are
other ways to cause animal suffering and death that do
not involve consuming animal parts. "vegans" DO cause
animal suffering and death.

Retreat to:

2. By refraining from consuming animal parts, I am
"doing the best I can" not to cause animal suffering
and death.

Problems: "vegans" do not know the relative impact in
terms of animal death and suffering of the things they
DO consume. Rice, wheat and potatoes, three relatively
close nutritional substitutes in the diet, cause
different average amounts of animal suffering and death
in their cultivation, harvest and distribution.
Because "vegans" make no effort to determine the lowest
death toll and eliminate the high-death items from
their consumption, they are seen NOT to be "doing the
best they can."

Retreat to:

3. By refraining from consuming animal parts, I am
doing better than you omnivores.

Problems: self evident. Virtue can NEVER consist of
doing less of some allegedly bad thing than someone
else is doing.

In rec.boats Jay Santos <jay.RemoveThis@philhendrieshow.con> wrote:

> "vegan" claims, the problems with the claims, and the
> path of "vegan" retreat:

Whatever. I just picked up a 12 pound prime rib to cook for xmas dinner.

Dan

--
USENET is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least
expect it.
-- Gene Spafford