In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
> meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
> vegans.

So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw man.
Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a primary one.
Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic.

If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one would
immediately commit suicide. Barring that, one would eat a vegetarian diet
of carefully harvested plant materials. But one certainly wouldn't kill
some animals to prevent killing others; not if one could just pick one's
own fruit and vegetables and such.

Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every thing they
think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American involvement in
WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that it is not
about absolutism, no?

Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical principle of life.

And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, fewer animals
would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat animals). If
all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, there would be
no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, and all
life on Earth would probably be in trouble. Which of those is a better
lifestyle to advocate to others?