It's doubtful that many people would argue against vegan ethics, unless they were simply a contrarian, or if they were genuinely lacking in empathy. At this point, it is determined by historical precedent, and system. The changes that would need to occur - moving at the speed demanded by most vegans - would very likely cause greater problems than the ones you rail against, and ultimately be counter-productive. See similar faulty observations/propositions in the "holocaust under 120s" argument.
I'm surprised at how many people do argue against vegan ethics. They will make any excuse to keep their heads stuck in the sand and to not have to think critically about their own involvement in animal abuse. I've been impressed with people's willingness to engage the topic in this forum though. As for the speed of change argument, I can see that if the whole world turned vegan tomorrow, chaos would probably ensue, but the reality is that change is occurring far too slowly. The percentage of vegans in the world has increased encouragingly during the past ten years or so, but the last thing I'm scared of is that the world will turn vegan too quickly.
1. Let's get our terms straight. Humanity is a part of nature, as is well, everything else. Humanity is able to "modify" the environment, but so can just about every other form of life. It's simply a matter of scale & intent.
2. The contradiction is in asserting that humans should know better while simultaneously claiming that they no more special than any other form of life. You are on one hand, placing them above all other things (ethics) while the other, asserting that they aren't above all other life. You've done it again, by the way, through your assertion that humanity is the only species who are capable of modifying nature. That is a bold claim.
1. We don't just modify the environment. We intentionally manipulate the overall systems in which nature functions. Civilisation has a fine level of control over nature, suggesting to me that we have separated ourselves from nature, while retaining many of the instincts we evolved from having been a part of nature. No other species fits this description. I guess the problem with such an argument is that we are possibly both defining nature differently. If your definition requires that nature is a system that contains civilised society, then there is no arguing with you as I would be wrong by definition.
2. I think you've missed the point a little bit while saying that I assert that humans "aren't above all other life", as I actually reject the idea of inherent value in sentient life (as I think most people here do). I personally value my family members ahead of anyone else, as well as having other biases, but a social justice viewpoint is separate from this (whether that viewpoint is anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-speciesist etc.) in that what matters is the individual's capacity to value his or her own life
. I don't have to like or value someone in order to want basic justice for them. I may have a personal dislike of Mexicans, and assign less value to them because of bias, but I will always stand against racist actions and in favour of social justice because I know that the evidence suggests Mexicans have an equal capacity to value their own lives (yeah...I'm a pinko liberal...sorry).
I'm not making you into a problem. This started with a simple observation: Why are most vegans persistently angry? You responded to my observation and thus we proceed from there. I'm not going to bother with the rest of that.
My apologies for that.
I'm confused. Why are you limiting the choices I may make from the toolkit I have before me? What is the logic behind limiting an honorable kill to tooth and claw? Why not intellect? Why not use these these wonderful appendages to fashion myself a spear? It seems like you are looking for a "fair fight" in which case I would suggest you spend some time in the wilderness and see if other life approaches you "fairly."
So are you saying that there IS honour in hitting a man with a baseball bat while he is asleep?
Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether a kill is honorable, but I was simply answering a question of whether hunting/killing could be considered honorable. I would maintain that an honorable fight means a fair fight, but this is irrelevant coming from me as I would advocate that any violence against the innocent shouldn't happen in civilised society.