"Rupert" > wrote

However, it is almost universally acknowledged that we have *some*
obligations towards nonhumans, even some that are legitimately
enforceable. I discussed this in a different thread. The question is
whether they are sufficiently extensive that individuals like you and
me who live in agriculturally bountiful societies and in no way need
to consume animal products to survive, are morally required to adopt a
lifestyle which involves almost completely avoiding the consumption of
animal products.
--------------->

This is a non sequitur. Having obligations towards animals (e.g to minimize
harm) or to see them as holding certain rights against us if you like, does
not lead directly to the non-consumption of animal products, the two are not
necessarily linked. The main problem with veganism is that adherents tend to
see abstension from animal products as both necessary and sufficient steps
when such is clearly not the case. (See the vegan in an SUV (or like some
celebrities with private jets) vs the omnivore on a bike) A glaring
illustration of this issue plays out as a vegan examines a condiment in a
restaurant to ensure it does not contain even a milligram of animal cells,
(the horror!) all the while a 1% reduction in his caloric consumption would
do far more to reduce his impact on animals.

The elephant in the room is the notion that man ought not to view animals as
commodities, everything serves that master. Working from that perspective
the desire to avoid animal products makes perfect sense. If we're talking
about attempting to count and compare the number of animals that are harmed
or killed and assign some acceptable moral level, then we're kidding
ourselves, we're not actaully doing that, nor can we.

Nobody can say fairly that a vegan lifestyle is not likely to have a pretty
low level of associated animal deaths, but this is not the type of
reasonable argument being made.