The bolded part is starting to seem like trolling. These are the sorts of things non-vegans nitpick, like "avocados are pollinated by honey bees" ...I mean "avoiding tires that might have involved partial animal products" is utterly beyond the pale, since "practical and practiceable" are in the definition. I do avoid vehicles whenever possible though for environmental reasons, if you're asking me personally.
My guess is that tires probably don't need animal by products in them, and viable alternative is probably available, but they do because the material might otherwise be wasted product from animal agriculture and is therefore cheap.
My intention wasn't to nitpick or grasp for straws to sustain a position, but it was more to get a gauge of yours. "Practical and practicable" is a guideline that can't really be universal, because it's going to apply to different people based on their circumstances. For example, to someone who dwells inner city might not even need a vehicle, as rail transport might be sufficient. On the other hand, businesses and individuals who rely on more independent transport and doing lots of it (long commuters, interstate trucking/transport etc) will obviously need to take advantage of cost effective materials. The point is, the guideline is going to differ depending on who you are and what your circumstances are.
But animal exploitation is animal exploitation. Personally, I'm not sure this is all "evil" per say, in my mind it sort of depends on how that is carried out and why. Just a few centuries ago, mechanized transport wasn't available and humans who wanted to travel long distances in sometimes rough conditions depended on slave animals such as domesticated horses. In fact, for a long time among many parts, living without a horse to carry you around or pull your carriage would be considered "impractical".
As a Vegan with an animal rights focus, can you put yourself in such a time and tell me you would not use animals as a form of protection/transport if that was the only thing available? If so, is it immoral now just because there are alternatives? Does morality of such use of animals fluctuate on whether there are alternatives?
Avoiding bone-char sugar (i.e. refined sugar) is much easier than avoiding things like vegetables pollinated by honey bees, as there's coconut sugar, raw sugar, organic cane sugar, maple syrup and agave syrup on the market, even in places like Wal-Mart. Same for avoiding alcohol processed with animal products, since Barnivore.com exists, and anyone could use it within their price range - alcohol isn't a necessity and most people drink it moderately enough that this would be do-able. The exception would be low-income alcoholics, who have more problems than fish bladders.
"Necessity" as used here is not really owing to it's definition. Alcohol isn't a necessity, but then neither are refined sugars.
Btw - as a person who has made his own beer for over a decade, I can tell you that fish bladders are in no way needed to clear beer. I'd never heard of them being used before becoming Vegan, but I can tell you they are completely unneeded. All they do is speed up the clearing of newly made beer, something that happens naturally with a little time. In the batch sizes I make (for example, a 42 liter batch), this is accomplished in around 7 days after fermentation is completed.
In debate there's a term called "false equivalence" - it's like when someone says intentionally buying milk chocolate is exactly like accidently buying a loaf of bread that contains whey. It's like when someone says buying cosmetics they know is tested on animals is exactly like being a homeless person who has to accept vegetarian charity when they'd otherwise be vegan. It's also like when someone says knowingly buying refined sugar or non-vegan alcohol (both non-essentials) is exactly like taking the city bus to get to work or school or the market.
Have you ever even read a book like Animal Liberation or Dominion? I think it might be in your best interest if you wish to continue engaging in these sorts of debates.
I can't argue against what I haven't read, so that's not something I can address. Otherwise, I agree with your statement, and I think it highlights the fact that "practical and practicable" is indeed relative. There will be people that will abuse that though - insofar as diet is concerned the only situation I can see where it not being possible is either in captivity where your diet is not up to you, a chosen employment (such as on a sea boat) where your diet is mostly not up to you, or in an arctic region where plant food is extremely limited.
PS: I find it highly amusing that the person who labeled your post "winner", a post that includes the "avocado/bee argument" as an example of trolling, is the same person who has used that exact argument. Perhaps someone should be counseled not to implicate him or herself as engaging in trolling behavior, lol.
