Laurie wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>> "Laurie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> @@^> wrote:
>>>> http://veganoutreach.org/health/b12letter.html
>>>>
>>>> An Open Letter from Health Professionals and Vegan Organizations
>>>> This information sheet was prepared by Stephen Walsh, ...
>>>> Dr William Harris, MD, USA
>
>>> http://www.ecologos.org/harris.html
>>
>> I'm getting a "The page cannot be found" message, Laurie.
> Right, there were some server problems earlier today, it's OK now.
> Thanks. Try again.
>
> Laurie

On that page you begin by claiming the following,

"Since vegetarians/vegans select themselves out of the general
population, they are representative of same, and include the
normal range of ill-educated, self-aggrandizing, abusive,
intellectually and ethically challenged, as well as irrational
behaviors as the masses."

A fairly accurate indicator of the severity of a misguided
personality is the degree to which they describe their own
aberrant profile in their rantings, you have laid claim to the
world championship of this.

You conclude the page by stating this,

" One of the more embarrassing and meaningless concepts bouncing
about in the alternative diet movement is that of "Ethical
Veganism", or "Ethical Vegetarianism", wherein the argument for
a plant-based human diet is supposedly founded on "ethical", or
"moral", principles.
What its proponents, and opponents, alike clearly do not
understand is that "ethics" is highly idiosyncratic; that is, "A
structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an
individual or group.", or "A particular strange or unusual
habit, way of behaving, or feature that someone or something has".
Thus, an individual's personal sense of "ethics" is
originally the result of early, parental conditioning: (Do this!
Do not do that!), and later, "ethics" are just made up to suit
the particular circumstances as one's world view changes and,
hopefully, matures.
That is, there is no objective standard of "ethics"
against which one can test or measure one's own "ethics" to
determine their validity, or lack of validity. Therefore, any
particular set of "ethics" is equally as valid, or invalid, as
any other set.
The obvious consequence of this is that any discussions of
"ethics", especially those always-humorous ones between
vegetarians/vegans and meatarians, wherein each falsely tries to
convince the other that their "ethics" are wrong or inferior,
are simply a waste of time."

My question is, if ethics are indeed "meaningless" and
"idiosyncratic" then what is the meaning of the accusation that
a person is "ethically challenged"?