"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "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)
>
> That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It was garden-variety
> wage-based labor strife. The original (1960s) boycott occurred because
> the workers were non-union, and the unions wanted a piece of the action.
> Alleged environmental risks for the workers was only the pretext.

Even so, the principle is the same. *If* you believe that the pay rates for
migrant workers is unconscionably low, *if* that is seen as a wrong, then
buying those products perpetuates the wrong, and the correct response is to
remove one's complicity with a boycott. It is precisely what vegans do not
do, as we see, instead they wriggle and squirm, anything to pretend they are
not complicit.

>
>> Once legislation was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of
>> safety was raised to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.
>
> No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a contract with Cesar
> Chavez's UFW.