And yes, a person who eats less meat eats less meat, which is another way to say that you're introducing a non-sequitur about something which is nothing like your bus example.
I'm confused about the person who eats less meat non-sequitur. It feels like you're shoving me around a bit there.
As for the bus thing, the people responsible for reducing deaths around buses are responsible for actually solving the problem. So I agree that they should not do ineffective things like they did in your story. Meanwhile, a person eating less meat is not responsible for making sure that overall meat consumption falls.
So there's no relationship between the two situations, and that's the non-sequitur. Sorry that I didn't get this point across effectively.
And yes, I used his proposal of individual virtue as an "excuse" to raise a point about the role and reason of individual virtue in the topic at hand, it's called "having a discussion." Why should I leave virtuous people alone on the internet? Is he some kind of unassailable saint of meat-moderation who must be protected from non-sequiturs and sequiturs alike?
Whose toes are sore here?