The hunting argument

Pretty sure your piece of bacon isn’t hunted and therefor spared a horrible death. So why give this argument? And the hunting argument supposes that the hunter always kills an animal with one clear shot. Which isn’t the case.Also the *bang* causes major distress for a long time.
But even more. The whole argument doesn’t make sense. Why?
Let’s say you shoot that animal with one clear shot and spared him a horrible death by a predator or hunger. If that deer for example is not replaced by another deer you only cause the predator to suffer hunger. If that deer is replaced by another deer and the population stays the same. You’ve only killed another deer.

The Dalai Lama and Gandhi argument

And talking about the Dalai Lama, his translator (Matthieu Ricard)wrote a book called “A plea for animals” it’s the best book one can read about the morality of eating animals.
But the Dalai Lama doesn’t cause any animals to be killed for their meat. He just doesn’t refuse when given to him because it makes no sense from a moral point of view.
It seems to, you bring up the Dalai Lama and Gandhi to align yourself with them. They are seen as morally good people by the general public. But it doesn’t add anything to the argument. Also you might as well say Hitler was a vegetarian, he was a bad person so it’s good to eat meat. Aligning oneself with the greats of history (Like Gandhi or the Dalai Lama) is just a sign of a superiority complex (which in it’s turn is just a sign of insecurity)

Militant Vegans

Then, talking about militant vegans. You use this image of them as a reason to confirm your own choices. Why? This doesn’t make sense. It’s a personal choice that has nothing to do with others.

The only real questions that matter?

Did the animals suffer? And: “Did I cause the suffering on purpose?”