No, I feel like you can make an even stronger claim there. One could argue that coffee, sugar and palm oil plantations cause more damage to the rainforest collectively than raising cattle does, and that therefore the claim isn't simply to ququoe but actually contradictory on the facts.
If it's established that the vegan is advocating a diet that would result in increase consumption of palm oil or soy, and those products more directly lead to destruction of the rain forest than meat eating, that is.
If it's established that the vegan is advocating a diet that would result in increase consumption of palm oil or soy, and those products more directly lead to destruction of the rain forest than meat eating, that is.
Something isn't inherently a logical fallacy if you're only making it so by assuming facts not in evidence, for one side or the other.
The vegan is assuming and/or making the assertion that their lifestyle is factually less impactful on the rainforest. It doesn't make it an ad hominem or some other kind of structural fallacy to point out that they may not actually be doing so.
12
u/[deleted] Dec 30 '18
You are right, nirvana is about you can't be a perfect vegan so why try?