"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote
> Isn't it accurate to say that people turn veg*an for two reasons: (1)
> for health reasons; and (2) for philosophical/ecological reasons.

Yes, probably so.

> The
> first is a good start;

Sometimes it is, particularly if the person's previous diet contained
excessive amounts of saturated fat. More often it is the beginning of a
march into narrow-mindedness and dogma. Inevitably, a diligent search for
the ideal health-producing diet will result in the inclusion of at least
small amounts of animal products.

> the second is more nobel.

<sic> "noble". On the contrary, once a person has decided to eschew all
animal products "for health reasons", then any subsequent reasons can be
seen as largely rationalization. That is, why stop at recognizing that I am
obtaining good health with my supermarket choices, when at no extra cost in
incovenience to myself, I can perceive that I have attained a superior life
philosophy, helped the environment, helped feed the starving masses of the
world, advanced the cause of World Peace, and probably Saved the Whales in
the bargain. Such a deal!

> So if people
> complain about the foods they miss, isn't it accurate to say they're
> still in the (1) area?

It is more accurate to say that people who believe that they have attained
all the aformentioned benefits *and* also complain on public message boards
about the foods they miss, are intolerable bores.

> If they had a deep concern about animals and
> the planet, their tastes would become informed by their philosophy.

If they truly had a deep concern about animals and the planet they would
understand that the earth's ecosystem is far too complex to be encompassed
by a self-serving superficial agenda like "veganism".