[macintux]

You don't think it likely that a significant proportion of the loudest opponents are also vegetarians?

I love people who make silly counter arguments. Watched a hunter challenge someone protesting their hunt: "Do you wear leather?"

"I'm a vegetarian" was the entirely predictable response.

(Actually, I now remember it was the other way around. "Do you wear leather" was the next step after asking the protester whether he ate meat and getting the vegetarian answer. As if a vegetarian would go out of his way to avoid meat, protest hunts, and still not be aware where leather came from.)

[macintux]

I suppose the key insight is this: it's human nature to want those who disagree with us to turn out to be hypocrites. Much easier than dealing with the possibility that our moral code is broken.

[notpc]

Identifying hypocrisy is not just about dismissing opponents, it's about getting them to reconsider their views, which are possibly not well-founded and contradictory.

[mistersquid]

Striving for ethical and compassionate behavior toward animals need not be and should not be an all or nothing prospect. For example, a vegetarian who wears leather may very well cause less harm to animals than an omnivore who wears leather.

Restricting one's consumption to vegetables can promote animal welfare despite engaging in other practices that harm animals.

Demoralizing people who strive to promote animal welfare by pointing out their contradictory behavior is less desirable, to my mind, than encouraging people to do as much as they can.

Why not reconsider your own views and encourage such people to promote animal welfare in all the ways they could rather than demoralizing them to give up altogether?

EDIT: spelling, rewrite final sentence, formatting.

[notpc]

I don't think you get me. I'm not concerned about animal welfare and I don't think other people should be either. It is all the way down on my list of concerns, right below the least important human concern.

[mistersquid]

Actually, I do think I get you.

I'm asking you to reconsider your position. I understand you're unlikely to do so.

One thing you should consider is the very strong possibility that "the least important human concern" is not distinct from what you consider to be "animal welfare".

Living beings on this planet are probably deeply intertwined and interdependent in ways we poorly understand. For one example, take the growing research around gut flora and microbiomes.

As individual beings, we are crucially dependent on bacteria that, in fact, extend the boundaries of what we consider to be our bodies far beyond what we have understood to be the case for millennia.

Separating the human condition from "animal welfare" is a grave mistake. For your own good, I think you should reconsider your position regarding the care of non-human organisms.

[notpc]

You're conflating two totally separate things. The treatment of circus and farm animals is completely unrelated to supporting biodiversity.

[macintux]

That's unfortunate on many levels.

[NTripleOne]

>As if a vegetarian would go out of his way to avoid meat, protest hunts, and still not be aware where leather came from.

You'd be surprised.