In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers is
wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute minimum
that one could do to deal with the wrong.

Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses. What's
that about.

Is it wrong to exploit migrant workers with low wages? This only
requires a logical response of True or False.


> >> 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.