Since you called me out in semantics:
What you call semantics, I call giving you a chance to either make sense of a ridiculous statement or to take it back.
Also that sentence implies that you think that people who eat meat are complete monsters and are simply not good people.
No, I'm implying that people who have no ethics whatsoever are not good people. Don't you remember your statement? "Ethics are for faggots." I was still responding to it. I'm actually not vegan myself, not by far, and I'm not very strict as a vegetarian either so I wouldn't dream to call all meat eaters complete monsters. If I did, it would immediately turn against me.
Yeah, that is yet another reason why vegans are the actual assholes.
Yeah the all "good is bad" seams like a theme for you. Again, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your statement, but are you saying that whenever someone tries to act good, they are actually criticising everyone else who aren't doing the same which makes them "assholes". So trying to be good is actually being an asshole, so perhaps we should all stop trying to be good and just act like assholes.
And since I'm responding to your statements.
In this context there is no good or evil, just hunter and prey.
In other words, we are excused from any ethical consideration whenever we are playing the hunter/prey role. At least this argument has the merit of not being self contradictory, please tell me, is that a completely arbitrary rule you just made up or is there some deeper rational behind it? I can't think of anything except an appeal to nature. If that where you want to go?
Unless you want to argue that carnivores are all evil assholes.
You can jump from judging actions to judging people if you want. I don't really care if you do it, but don't say I'm the one doing it. I'm actually not vegan myself, not by a long shot, and I'm not very strict as a vegetarian either so I wouldn't dream to call all meat eaters complete monsters. If I did, it would immediately turn against me.
There are scientific facts that speak against meat consumption. The ecological pyramid being one of the strongest, however, there are next to none scientific arguments in favor of veganism – they merely state that less meat consumption would be beneficial. Also, various groups of people – such as dialysis patients – cannot tend to a vegan diet without issues. (In this example, the problem with a lot of "meat replacements" being made from soy (which contains extremely high levels of potassium, an element that can cause cardiac arrest for these people) and containing glutamate (which a lot of people are also allergic against))
The ecological pyramid speaks against any animal based food, not just meat. When you drink milk from a cow fed with corn, corn was the primary consumer, the cow is the primary consumer and you are the secondary consumer, and if it's actually cheese, molds were the secondary consumer and you are the third. Of course the all process is a lot more efficient than with meat but still. I don't think it's a very strong argument though.
Your second point is a non-issue. If veganism became mainstream, I'd think the meat imitation market would diversify to better answer the needs of people with medical conditions, wouldn't you?
And the ecological argument isn't the main one remember. Vegans usually care more about not exploiting animals. I actually disagree with them on this one. I think in a world where cows would be bred mainly for their milk, they would be treated better than in our world where their main product is their meat. That's because if you want to produce as much milk as possible, you will want your cow to stay healthy for as long as possible and so you don't miss treat it. If on another hand it's only its meat you want, so what: getting sick means early slaughterhouse. Therefore, replacing meat with other animal products would probably improve animal well being, all while reducing their number.
