summary: I am hoping for some clarification
>>>Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line.
It seems to me that you are offended. If you would like to give me some specific examples of what offended you, I would love to read them and potentially change the way that I post comments here.
Disclaimer: The rest of this comment further explains my confusion and desire for specifics, it is not necessary for you to read it. If you choose to read it, note that it is likely written in a tone that will offend you. I ask you to be as civil as you feel you are capable of being, as you are posting this on a public forum, and Poe's Law is in full effect :D(this smiley face is to indicate a lighthearted mood as opposed to some sarcasm that may offend you).
Until you can help me understand what offended you, I can not intentionally stop offending you, since I did not intend to write anything offensive and you have not cited specific examples about what was offensive to you. I honestly don't know what you think needs changing. I would recommend not reading the rest of this comment since it will likely have the same tone, and serves only to offer some academic frameworks designed to explain why we are having conflict.
-------academic communications issues---------
It is interesting that what I meant to say (thingA), what I actually said(thingB) and what jicksta2 voluntarily chose to infer(thingC) are at the very least two completely different things, related only by the pixels that jicksta2 saw on their screen. It is unfortunate that they were not all identical. The relationship between thingA, thingB, and thingC has been studied by many very famous academians, and is often lumped into a field known as "communications", more specifically "linguistics." More specific to the issue at hand is "semiotics", which concerns the relationship between the "signifier" (pixels on a screen) and the signified (what I actually meant).
Obviously the relationship is very complicated and there is another issue about the relationship between what I said and what I meant(thingA & thingB), which opens up a bunch of epistemological, existential, and quite frankly solipsistic waffling that Dagmar :D Descartes famously reduced to 'cogito ergo sum', Latin for "QED - Trust me, this proof proves it :D." Lojban and other engineered languages are attempts at alleviating some of these issues. There is a conversation about Lojban elsewhere in this thread.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics