Not to my knowledge, no
however the vegan pushing seems to be far more prevalent as I've found, mind you I've only met a handful but many of them went on about their eating habits as if it was an ideology and as far as I can tell it is if not it is an identity.
I mean you guys have that in group out group thing going on, very linear meat eater v Vegan thing.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't eat a lot of meat.
I'm a softy that likes animals, enjoys vegetables more most of the time and has a pathological dislike of boned food, and generally I do believe it better to hold back on the meat.
And as much as I agree with some tenants of veganism I do find the practitioners I've met to be illogical and extremist in their views and at times illogical.
Mind you the given persons were a bit crazy, had this whole spiritual thing, would claim to have a lot of hard science to support their claims, without even expressing what the contents were and believed meat led to heart disease (while not wrong per say it's more to do with the preparation of the meat and other foods I would assume than the nature of meat itself, see fried foods, if there is a study that directly links these things).
And worst of all they injected this into dinner time conversation or regular conversation.
I've known vegans to shame people on thanksgiving for eating meat and trying to make the traditional turkey dinner offensive to some, by posting images of turkeys in a slaughterhouse and talking about decaying turkey matter in your guts, and no they were not a troll. Now I personally dislike the modern turkey for taste reasons as much as the bloated chests but this is generally too far, live and let eat.
now something in your text does catch my eye and might explain this issue, depending on the context:
"
Dizchu said:
or how humans have "evolved to eat meat".
"
That is as far as I understand demonstrably true.
Humans have evolved to eat meat by our ability to process, ingest and otherwise gain succor from eating meat ipso facto.
And this is something I have had the miss fortune to have had an argument with a vegan who denied this claim and showed a complete lack of understanding of the terms Omnivore and vegetarian. Now I doubt this is the case with you but I would be likewise quick to jump on that if your arguments are similar enough in structure, likewise it makes a great general reason to explain dietary methods.
Because they are the majority group they tend to have a lot of support.
the following is largely redundant
They are the majority for a good reason I suppose, simply because you can't always be picky about what you eat, from what I remember you guys have to have a number of dietary supplements in order to sustain yourselves. And while it is true that poorer folks around the world and people from older ages would not have eaten anywhere as much meat as we eat today but they in aggregate would not have been able to make that choice, barring rather dedicated Hindus and Buddhists (mind your they were living in food rich environment). The ability to entirely cut out a source of nutrientence is an entirely new phenomenon.
Which just makes me wonder, if they have such strength in numbers and they honestly believe what they're doing is morally/ethically okay then why do they have such knee-jerk, emotional reactions?
Most people don't care about the morality, they care about having food, living their lives, there is only so much shit a person can really fucking take.
So if there are knee jerk reactions then maybe they just didn't want to talk about it. Again it depends on context, individual,etc,etc but the vast majority of people across all cultures and times have not had the time to really care.
And far as I know the only people who are concerned about the morality of eating meat are those who can spare not to.
I'm just curious about why many of them are quick to get defensive if they're the vast majority.
Because there is not in group here, no identity.
There is no as far as I know meat eater identity, maybe it's different in the grease wastelands of the southern lands (America) where it does some to be a sign of status but from what I can tell most people don't have that group identity.
Vegans quite obviously do have a group identity from what I've seen, now it could be like atheists, libertarians or the like, herding cats and all that but at the very least there is a clear out group: "meat eater".
So from what I understand when one approach an individual to talk about something they probably don't care about, have little individual power over enmasse and make them question their ethics process they would likely be much aggrieved, and likely be defensive because one is addressing alone individual and explaining quite plainly why one believes their actions to be immoral.
Any evocation of the numerical superiority could reasonably be hand waved as a display by the less educated on the defensive and is frankly argument from popularity.
Now in the event that a person confronts you about it directly, because the behavior is abnormal then it could also be explained that the populist argument comes from the abnormality of your behavior.
and those two board categories should cover it.
There are quite a lot of ignorant folks, vegan and otherwise, that do not know how to allow others to live their own lives and feel it their duty to police those behaviors they find erroneous. Now there's a lot that don't but it is just possible that the folks that talk to you about it are those folks, likewise it is very much possible that you are one of those folks (no offense diz, but I don't know you very well, though I do like how I have seen you handle yourself) as well as it is equally possible that this is an issue of talking to the wrong people, confirmation bias or simple approach.
Have a nice night