> You are using the above as buzzwords. I agree that my reply to you was not very articulate. I originally started explaining why your points were not relevant

> You are using the above as buzzwords. I agree that my reply to you was not very articulate. I originally started explaining why your points were not relevant to the question whether his behaviour was morally acceptable, but then I realised that I would essentially be explaining the above fallacies, even though there are already better explanations available. I may have misread your post, but to me it looked like you were trying to invalidate people's criticism of his behaviour by making (speculative) statements about their behaviour or character. I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa. Anyway, if I misread your post and that was not the point you were making, I apologise.