"John Coleman" > wrote
>
> "Reynard" > wrote
>
> Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
> weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd. The
fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky ground
vegans are on.

We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals) Once legislation
was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted. This is called
"mitigation". People are still harmed, as in any situation where humans,
chemicals and machinery collide, it is inevitable, but the danger is
"mitigated" to a degree that makes the consumption of those products no
longer a complicity in immoral acts. In other words, it was the failure to
provide safety measures (mitigation) that made people boycott the products.

When you kill another person in an auto accident, one looks at to what
degree you mitigated to prevent the accident. Did you drive in accordance
with the laws? Did you use all due care and attention? If so, then you did
nothing wrong, even though you killed someone.

No such mitigation exists in the vast majority of agriculture, in fact the
very purpose of chemical sprays is to kill, and it is implausible to think
you can protect all field animals from harm by machinery.