This argument is mostly bollocks, because these foods are not exclusively eaten by vegans/vegetarians so they'll still almost certainly have lesser contribution to animal deaths,
My point was directed at the previous poster who was rolling out the old line of animals being murdered so meat-eaters have something to eat. Animals are killed in the production of many foods eaten by vegetarians and vegans also: a meat-free diet is not necessarily death-free. It's the hypocrisy of the "meat is murder" rhetoric that I have a problem with, not the desire to eat a diet free of meat or animal products.
most soy is grown to feed animals and also vegans/vegetarians tend to be much more aware about food provenance and impact than your average Joe.
Exactly. And as I earlier said, it's possible to eat meat from animals that are entirely pasture-fed and not supplemented by soy at all. Meat eaters who seek out organic, local, and non-intensively-farmed meat also tend to be much more aware about food provenance and impact than your average Joe.
Surely it's better for someone to make a significant effort to reduce their contribution to animal deaths as much as is equally possible? Or is perfect only good enough for you?
It depends on your priorities. My priority is broader environmental impact, which includes avoiding crops grown as monocultures (damaging biodiversity), grown with heavy pesticide use, shipped as air freight, packaged in plastic, and so on. It also includes avoiding meat that has any of the above in the food chain. Some of the lowest-impact diets in an environmental context involve meat from animals in the local area that are fed on pasture or forage; and/or wild fish and seafood caught in small quantities.
Your priority might be animals deaths in particular, which is your personal decision. It's neither better nor worse than mine as an ethical stance on food provenance, just different.
Never let perfect be the enemy of the good 