I take great exception to the vegan proponent in Drew Winter’s column Vegan lifestyle logical decision (SN 1/30). The article was rife with fallacious metaphors and comparisons that left readers at a loss for words.
The idea that people who eat meat and child rapists could even be placed on par with each other would be libelous if it weren’t so laughable. The most distressing point of this article is the fact that its title leads a reader to believe a reasonable, well-thought argument would follow on the benefits of choosing a vegan lifestyle. But it provides nothing but a plethora of abstruse ad hominem attacks.
There were no logical reasons to go vegan, no statistics on the nutrition, no helpful recipes — only emotion. You say that it requires nothing extra to be vegan, but you completely contradict yourself in the title.
A lifestyle implies a basis of who you are as a person; defining yourself by your diet sounds like a little extra. By lambasting those who eat meat, you are no better than the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at the funerals of soldiers: You do it for the attention, not the message. So, from all of us that understand the difference between pathos and logos, what a balanced diet truly means, and those who can never turn down a strip of bacon, we ask that you get off your high horse and grill it.
James Mackinnon
chemical engineering junior
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Comparison of meat-eating to human torture unjustified” on social media.
