First of all, Cricket, I'm not vegan for environmental reasons. It just so happens that the meat industry is horrible for the environment and only ignorant people dispute that. But it really makes no difference to me or many other vegans: I consider killing animals for food in an affluent society in the year 2007 unethical. Got that? You need to pay attention to the main arguments and not get lost on little straw-man side points.

By the way, Sartre, your argument about freedom sucks. Why? Let me give you an example: I 'choose' to be the supreme dictator and have a bunch of slaves and fuck your mom...what, that's not okay with you? Don't tell me how to use my free-will man, okay? You see, it's important to impose our morals on each other. That's where laws, and rules against murder and rape come from, the same rules that protect you from the bad, bad men. I'm sorry if that's not what you read in your Lit Theory class but I tell you what, if you can fuck yourself in your own ass right now I'll admit I was wrong about subjectivity.

Which brings me to: do I think I'm better than you? Of course! But I'm not vegan because it makes me feel better than you, I'm better than you because I'm vegan. I used to eat meat (like you) and then chose (unlike you) to make sacrifices to become vegetarian and then a vegan. I almost never discuss my diet with anybody because most people, such as yourself, are apologists of the status quo. Am I hostile? Maybe, but you see, life is not an academic exercise and calling yourself an "omnivore" is just a euphemism for facilitating the suffering of animals. Besides, you are not a struggling 3rd world family or a "small farmer" or anything of the sort. You are obviously just another little yuppie 'choosing' not to sacrifice an ounce of your comfort. Did you ever consider taking your fancy "freedom to choose" and doing something original with it like not torturing and killing animals?