I found the article you suggested quite interesting, but it lost me at the end with the following question:"So who is the most brutal--Joe who eats his barbecue sausage without a thought or Sid who ponders endlessly the poor animal that died horribly upside down, was dismembered, ground up, and cooked with fat rendered by another grisly process that he could describe in detail?"
Since there is no other argument provided by the author, I can only assume this is how he justifies his return to meat-eating to himself and to others. It seems to me that it falls short of being convincing. First of all, it assumes that all vegetarians are obsessed with gory pictures of animal slaughter. Frankly, I have a hard time looking at them. Some vegetarians may try to force-feed these pictures to meat-eating acquaintances in an attempt to inflict guilt. While this might not be my prefered tactic, people of all persuasions do use the shock-factor to win moral arguments.
I personally feel that consumers should become more aware of the consequences of their purchases. This also means that we should take significantly more responsibility for where our food comes from. With meat-eaters, this includes knowing about animal slaughter. If you see it, and don't like it, then you should try to stop it, or at least try not to perpetuate it. (This is not to say there are no other reasons people should not eat meat, but it is the relevant one here.)
The author of this article is basically saying whistle-blowers are the bad-guys, and it is virtuous to be ignorant, even when it is willful ignorance. Could the same type of argument be used to justify slavery, spousal abuse, or torture? If I say, "Look, that man is trying to abduct that child! Hey, You! Stop that!" Am I "brutal"? What if I make it my life's work to help prevent child abuse? Am I "brutal" then, since I am drawing attention to the issue? What a bizarre thing to suggest, that angel-dom is defined through ignorance, and the demons are those who raise a stink about things.
