Serious question for consideration here.
Vegetarians love to berate the rest of us with their supposedly superior ethics, and one of their main points is of course the welfare of animals and their right to life. However, the fact remains that in practice people are going to continue to eat meat. It's inevitable.
When you take this into account it seems that really there is only only option for the truly concerned vegetarian: they should offer themselves as food to save the animals. By not doing this they are being morally and intellectually inconsistent with their professed position, and of course this is not a good thing.
Thoughts?
I was a veggie for about 10 years. I NEVER told people they should stop eating meat. In fact I used to tell people they should continue to eat meat because humans are more interested in preserving animals that have a use, for example rare animals in Africa being bred for the purpose of being hunted will ensure that they are continuously bred. If too many people stopped eating meat it would be a disaster.
I stopped eating meat because I wanted to, no other reason. It wasn't about animal welfare (even though that is what triggered it) and at no point did I feel morally superior. I just chose not to eat commonly consumed animals just as I had already chosen not to eat frogs, horses, cats, and dogs.
In fact when I did eat meat I used to look down on people in Asia who ate dogs. When I became a veggie I saw no difference at all and then I stopped believing I was morally superior.
So in summary. Your stereotyping was completely inaccurate, and you are talking shit