If that was directed to my question, that is a complete mischaracterization. I did not call vegans hypocrites but rather asked by what philosophical metaphysic one appeals to in order to deem this method of eating more "ethical" than another. In fact, I asked if utilitarianism was used as the moral grounding on this, and I think a pretty good case based on utility could be used. In fact, and my memory is dim on this, but I think a very noted writer by the name of Peter Singer does just this. Hazy on that though. Forgive me if my first thought was not exactly that you were making a good faith ethical inquiry, given the tone and context of this thread. I'm also a little reluctant to shift from defending veganism from what I perceive to be unjust barbs into making the vegan ethical case for them, as I'm not one. But taking a personal stab, I'd say utilitarianism is along the right track. I would venture that the goal of a vegan is to minimize suffering, but they're not martyrs. Humans do have an equal right to exist and to exist we must eat, and in order to produce food through agriculture, there is a non-zero probability that some animals will die unintentionally. I agree with you on these points - to an extent. Do I think foie can be produced humanely? I think so, though I admit I haven't studied it in depth. On the flipside, can it be produced cruelly? I think so as well, and those practices should be curtailed. And while I don't begrudge people their right to petition city councils etc. to ban it, I personally don't advocate such a ban and I am ENTIRELY opposed to paint-throwing, etc. (Incidentally, this is why the vegans I know cannot stand PETA - because their antics give the lot of them a bad name.) I can't claim credit for that graphic; it's made the rounds on the internet. However, "omnivore" is vegan parlance for non-vegan, non-vegetarians. I don't feel any examination is defensive, no. But, I do feel that few people, especially in this crowd, are out for a good-faith talk about it, and that includes throwing out stale, thoughtless arguments like those illustrated in the bingo board. As I wrote earlier, the attitudes and reaction of the Meaty Majority in this thread and in society to a very slim minority show what I think to be signs of irrational defensiveness at their values and choices being threatened. I eat meat, others don't, I don't care. I don't feel the need to belittle, wish ill will (however jokingly) or otherwise bitch about people who don't eat meat. And that's the crux of it. The problem is none of these fake meat substitutes taste like the real thing. They're merely an approximation of real food and if you can't tell the difference between the two, your taste buds suck. There are enough protein substitutes one can use without creating these vegan frankenfood monstrosities. Tofu, seitan, chickpeas, beans, etc. all taste good without having to use food coloring and strange chemicals to make them seem like meat. +1. Since I revamped my eating habits last year, I figured out I've been going about eating healthier all wrong. Eat food for what it is. Don't shrink from it or try to make it something it's not. I totally agree with both of these statements (except I really don't care for tofu or tempeh. I dig seitan.) I just think it's not hard to see why people might want flavored substitutes for meat, even if they've given up meat itself. On the flip side, I know people who gave up meat because, well, they just don't like meat, so they certainly don't want things that attempt to taste like it.