Hmm, I think you're giving me short shrift here. I'm not taking the piss on purpose at least, and (since you seem to hold personal responsibility dearly) I really feel it's important to raise the point of whether we are constructively addressing important issues or not.

I'm confused about the person who eats less meat non-sequitur. It feels like you're shoving me around a bit there.

The person who got short shrift is the person you initially replied to. They proposed individual virtue, and you used that as an excuse to raise a different point that you like talking about.

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.

I'm afraid GP literally stated his proposal as related to the general situation (thread topic), and if not then his post would be a non-sequitur making my reply a non-non-sequitur or just a regular old sequitur.

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?

The toes which are sore are those of "discussion".