This critique, at Wikipedia, is plainly written by a
person for whom English is a second language, so there
are some serious grammatical problems (that I have not
attempted to fix.) Nonetheless, the synopsis is very
clear.

The primary ethical criticism of veganism is against
it's underlying philosopy of "indirect
responsibility" via reductio ad absurdum. First of
all, vegan diet is not at all bloodless. Field
animal such as roden, snake, rabbit as well as worms
and insects are routinely killed in the course of
producing crops. Moreover, though daily recommended
protein intake obtained from vegetarian diet is
generally less bloodier than diet consisting of
meat, it is theoretically possible to kill less life
if one eat meat from free roaming animal (such as
fish or meat obtained by hunting). In such instance
you are not responsible for life consumed by such
animal while it is growing up.

But more importantly, critics point out that any act
of consumption is likely to involve proxy killing.
When we purchase books (timber), switch the light on
(to use electricity) or drive car (gas, plastic,
steel, electricity), we indirectly contribute to the
destruction of environment hence taking of life. In
essence, human existence cause suffering. Most absurd
implication of this revelation is that one should
not procreate so to avoid proxy killing by the
offsprings and their decendants. One who has led
pious and vegan diet all his/her life but fail to
practice contraception would have caused infinitely
more (indirect) suffering than a man who lead the
life of greed and gluttony but avoid producing
children. In essence, critics point out that
veganism merely serve symbolic gesture while it
obscure the nature of human activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan

Why do you think it "plainly written by a person for whom English is a
second language"; don't native speakers make "serious grammatical
problems"?

It's a shame you extracted such a small part of a balanced piece of
work, when taken as a whole.
I'd recommend the article be read in its entirety.

guillaume wrote:

> Why do you think it "plainly written by a person for whom English is a
> second language"; don't native speakers make "serious grammatical
> problems"?

Pas comme ceux qui se démontent dans le texte.

>
> It's a shame you extracted such a small part of a balanced piece of
> work, when taken as a whole.
> I'd recommend the article be read in its entirety.

Je l'ai lu entièrement.