Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.

"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. And in any
case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any
putative moral harm.

All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:

If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I don't consume any animal products;

therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.

This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. In fact, consuming
animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer
and die. Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage
has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore.

The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to
them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death
they cause animals. This position, too, is rubbish. They do not
minimize the harm, for several reasons:

1. they have never measured
2. even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume
cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be
"minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there
are lower-harm substitutes available

So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they
cause. What's the next false claim? "I'm doing the best I can." This
is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was
vitiated. They could be doing something more, by definition: if they
aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can.

So, what's left? Only this: "I'm doing better than you." Not only is
that claim not proved, it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral
bankruptcy. Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some
morally wrong thing than someone else. If sodomizing young children is
wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only"
sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily.
The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed
against children is *never* to engage in it.

If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to
be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any*
of it. Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet
the requirement. All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense
of self-satisfaction. In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and
hypocrisy.

I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue.