It's funny calling this "being offended" when the original post is offended by the idea of eating meat to the point of calling it unethical.

Not that there's anything wrong with being offended if you think a moral evil is happening, but it's hard to call defending yourself after being accused of evil deeds "being offended by a different opinion"

I completely understand why somebody would consider eating meat unethical. I also understand that people disagree about ethics all the time and it's often not a huge deal.

I know people who feel this way about the ethics of meat and I respect them and their opinions but I don't follow their standards and I don't think they mind, I remain friends with them.

You call it defending oneself but there is nothing to defend. So it struck me as "being defensive".

I'm not offended. I'm examining why their transparent attempt at emotional and moral manipulation is how they are approaching this issue. It's pathetic.

Again. You're attacking them. If you let them express the opinion and move on, nothing happens. But you call them a pathetic manipulator. That to me suggests disproportionate anger and a bit of paranoia. I don't think they're really trying to manipulate you so much as explaining how they feel about it.

Such a bizzare response. I'm attacking an idea and a methodology. What's the problem with that?