One thing I don't understand about vegan philosophy - that by not eating meat we are saving the lives/suffering of beef, pigs, sheep etc. But, if no one ate meat there would be no need for these animals, so they would be allowed to die out, (or slaughtered and burnt en masse because they were no longer financially viable) and probably just become rare curiosities in theme type parks.
I think a lot of vegans would argue that being bred for meat is no life anyway, and as such it would be better to have billions less chickens and cows in the world than we do.
There’s nothing natural about these animals, remember. We have hundreds of varieties of cows and sheep etc because we have selectively bred them this way. And some breeds previously bred by humans have died out as a result of their not being actively bred anymore.
Choosing not to breed millions of animals because we don’t need them anymore isn’t cruelty.
I also have a problem with 'fake' meat, such as quorn (a real problem in my case because my body thinks it has been poisoned if I eat it). If you are, on principal against eating meat, why do you want to eat food that tries to look and taste like meat?
I find this argument utterly incomprehensible and I often think those who make it are just trying to be contrary.
Vegans don’t eat animals products for a variety of reasons, but it’s rarely because they find the appearance or taste of meat unpleasant. It’s usually because they don’t want animals to suffer or be exploited. If no animal suffers in the production of a vegan burger that looks and tastes exactly like a meat one, it doesn’t contradict vegan principles.
You can be against eating meat because it is harmful to animals and still enjoy fake meat for the flavour and texture. You must be able to understand that.
See above. While non-vegans might have a nutrionally deficient diet, (and most don't) vegans actually do.
This is simply not true. It is entirely possible to have a nutritionally complete vegan diet. I agree that it can be more difficult to do so (in which case supplements are available) but there is nothing inherently deficient about a vegan diet.
No diet is automatically healthy. It’s totally possible to be a junk food vegan and have a deficient diet. But it’s also possible to have a deficient omnivorous diet. It’s not the diets themselves that are healthy or unhealthy - it’s what you choose to do with them.
I see the point you’re trying to make, but you don’t need to be so black and white about it. I agree that it’s harder to have a nutritionally complete vegan diet than a nutritionally complete onivorous one. I agree that vegans are more likely to take supplements than omnivores (although I don’t see that as a problem). But you go too far by saying a vegan diet is inherently deficient. That simply isn’t true, and you don’t need to pretend it is to make your point.