[belter]

Many persons are Vegan for several periods of weeks to months at a time, and revert to a carnivore diet by medical necessity. My comment was not against the diet itself, just to point the technical execution behind it.

The problem with some approaches to a Vegan diet, is that they bring with them baggage. An immediate moral and ethical judgement, that some would accuse of being a slippery slope of ambiguity.

Most ambiguity, comes from the way the causing suffering argument is phrased. Declaring it form a high horse of supposedly moral superiority, while for example ignoring the destruction of wild life that intensive farming brings.

Humans with a carnivore diet are not advocating for animal suffering. Vegans advocating a planetary scale plant based diet, if they approach from a moral superiority point, should clarify what level of ALL animal suffering are they willing to tolerate to support their diet.

Some Vegans would argue the suffering to wild life, is an indirect cause of pursuing healthier options, and that not all suffering is the same. The same argument could be used by meat eaters, that none advocates for the abuses of the meat industry.

Unless of course one would use the more radical argument that animals do not exist to feed humans. But the same could be said of plants. They were here before humans.