Yep. Here it is. From Singer himself, in response to the Jewcy vegetarian dialogue. Truly, all things are possible, if only you pester, flatter, beg, and resort to myriad other methods of persuasion, inducement, coercion. Here's his take. — Joey  [Also, read Peter Singer's recent Jewcy article, here.]

Where does Charles Eisenstein get this "vegetarians must kill" stuff, as if all vegetarians have the same reason for being vegetarian, and it's about killing? He's obviously deeply out of touch with the modern animal rights movement, which is at least as concerned about suffering as killing. I wrote Animal Liberation without ever appealing to arguments against killing—in fact I specifically set them aside, saying that they were more complicated, and not required for the case I was making against the way we treat animals. And yes, that book does have a chapter arguing that we should be vegetarians.

My point was, and remains, that no large-scale system of commercial animal raising is likely to treat animals as they should be treated—that is, as sentient beings with lives of their own, and the capacity to enjoy those lives, if they go well, or to suffer miserably, if they go badly. The commercial pressure to cut corners—essentially, to treat animals as things, as machines for converting grass or grains into meat—is always going to get the better of concern for the animals. That's why a concern to avoid being responsible for the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals should lead us to be vegetarians.

Or almost all of us, anyway. I suppose it is possible to raise your own animals with loving kindness, see that they have really good lives, and then kill and eat them. I've met people who tell me they do this, and I can't say they are liars. And if it is possible to do it yourself, maybe it is possible to find a few small-scale farmers who do it as well, and buy meat from them. But with such delicious, nutritious non-meat options around, even if eating that kind of meat could be defended ethically, I wouldn't be interested. To me, it seems a lot better to make a clean break and take a strong stand against abuse of animals that is—let's say—almost inevitable with commercial production.

[Singer says the modern animal rights movement is "at least as concerned about suffering as killing." That's quite an understatement. It seems a family secret of the animal rights movement that to the extent we're influenced by Singer (which is a great deal, and in general very much to our benefit), animal rights advocates care about killing not at all. Animal Liberation has left many of us with the understanding that death has no value whatsoever in Singer's utilitarian calculations, and is undesirable only to the extent that it comes with associated suffering. If Charles Eisenstein were to detonate a neutron bomb on a small island full of chocolate labrador puppies, I don't know that Singer would find this of any great concern.

So if that's all true, you can understand why Singer and others are perplexed by the persistent claim that ethical vegans are death-obsessed.]