:nod: My ex was a veggie because she didn't like the taste of meat, she'd happily still cook me food with meat in it.
But the point is that to do something about the one thing while demonstrably not doing something about the other is morally dubious to say the least. It is quite possible to - for instance - give up your mobile phone, not drive a car, not travel by aeroplane, refuse to transact with morally questionable businesses, etc, etc. However, those choices are likely to have negative professional and financial consequences, so most people eschew them.
To me, a vegan or vegetarian is someone who has decided to publicly announce themselves as a moral being in a world replete with injustice, suffering and misery and - rather than choosing to take a difficult stand - has chosen the easy one of just not eating animals. That strikes me as a fairly huge cop-out and tells me the person isn't actually serious about morality, merely posing.
What you actually said was that the only valid reason was not liking the taste. I was pointing out that it was entirely possible to have reasons for not wanting to eat meat, beyond not liking the taste, without forming an ideology or boring everyone to tears.
Oh we can all have contempt for the overt posing/posturing/moral grand-standing aspect of veganism and vegetarianism. But from a purely utilitarian point of view, there is logic behind it all.
Quite simply, if we can all agree that the worst possible thing is for all sentient beings to experience the maximum suffering, then to reduce that suffering by any margin is a desirable outcome. If that can be achieved while being morally inconsistent, smug, experiencing cognitive dissonance or any number of other unattractive human traits, then it is still arguably worthwhile.
Forgive me, I thought your condemnation was more all-encompassing. The ideological vegetable-botherer is a species with whom I have been intimately familiar and would tend to classify as ranging from the selfish virtue signaller to the actually mentally ill. The ones who feed their cats a vegan diet are espsecially worthy of a good kicking.
There is a worrying tension in your argument here b. You seem to be suggesting that it is morally bankrupt to tackle one problem without tackling all the others. As though giving money to one charity is wrong unless you give to them all. This is remarkably unfair.
We all prioritise what we choose to care about, what we choose to act on. If your issue is vegans announcing themselves as pure and superior beings, I agree wholeheartedly.