I wrote,

"vegans" who become aware of this flaw [denying the
antecedent] most frequently fall back on an equally
defective belief that "veganism" represents a "least
harm" practice.

To this, Karen replied, "No, that veganism *can*
represent a least-harm practice."

The potential of a practice is morally meaningless.
There only is meaning to what one *does*, not what one
*might* do but doesn't.

Karen continued:

The claim of animal rights is not necessarily that
it is "least harm" on a purely utilitarian basis,
but that it is a more -- not *absolutely*, but
*more* -- just practice because it better respects
animals.

Karen seems to want to take a cafeteria approach to
utilitarianism and deontology. (For those not familiar
with her, Karen - "glorfindel", bleaghh - historically
has leaned toward deontology, believing that animals
should hold "rights".) She wants to try to cadge as
much prestige as she can from utilitarian beliefs
without really adopting them. But there is *no*
improvement, in utility or otherwise, from adopting a
belief system, and some half measures based on it, that
don't actually reduce the level of harm one causes.

By trying to make much of her belief that "veganism"
has more potential to reduce harm, but not actually
*doing* things to reduce harm, Karen is demonstrating
once again that "veganism" is almost entirely about
symbolic gestures.