The way I see it, common sense is not all that common. I seriously doubt the percentage of those who have common sense is much different among those who voluntarily restrict their diet in some manner than in those who are totally omnivorous. But even for those who are heath conscious, whether vegetarian or omnivorous, "nutritional science" seems more aptly called "nutritional magic 8 ball". The list of foods that are "good for you" and those that are "bad for you" changes from year to year, so knowing what you should and shouldn't eat and drink to stay healthy is something of a guessing game. I'm also inclined to believe that our individual "death clock" was set a birth. Accidents and poor choices can speed it up, but nothing can slow it down. Deciding to eliminate animal products from one's diet can accelerate it if that decision is based primarily on feelings about unrelated issues like animal rights or global warming rather than on a genuine interest in one's own health. I think it's fair to say that there are some in the vegan community who see themselves as martyrs for a cause rather than folks trying to live healthier lives.
You're still missing the point which is not uncommon. My argument didn't hinge on the numbers of people involved in a religion, it relied on the fact that there are people with completely legitimate deities and practices who follow gods that command vegetarianism. I'm fine with conceding the numbers point, look above. It is relatively inconsequential to my argument, and the only part of my argument you can shred. Enjoy shredding what's already been shredded, it is not the point, nor does it negate the basis of my argument. I don't care if there are three thousand or three billion people with a god demanding vegetarianism, they can believe in their god just as much as any Christian believes in his or hers.
While we're being nitpicky about satellite issues: FYI Deacon, it's spelled 'Muslims' these days, and for good reason: http://hnn.us/articles/524.html
I suppose I won't expect to be trusted on demographic information, just as I won't be approaching you for cultural sensitivity seminars any time soon.
I'm most definitely not the poster boy for cultural sensitivity. Borderline misanthrope is more like it. OTOH, the only folks I'm intentionally insensitive toward are those who have done something to earn my disrespect. Otherwise, I couldn't care less about What any group requires of its members, or how they deal with members who have strayed from the fold. Generally, I can even manage to listen politely while they explain their philosophy, even if deep inside I just want to burst out laughing. But, when one of their members tries to shove his views down my throat or call me names for not joining their little circle, I reserve the right to tell him exactly how ridiculous I find it and if I see a pattern of similar behavior from multiple members of that group then the whole group becomes fair game for ridicule. Likewise, if it becomes obvious that violence toward "non-believers" is acceptable to a group, any shred of tolerance I might have felt toward them goes straight out the window and I will treat each and every member of that group with the same degree of caution I use when encountering certain breeds of dogs.
As for missing the point, your initial argument was posted in rebuttal to a post that never claimed that the God of the Bible was the only god, or that there might not be other deities with different views on the consumption of meat and/or "reverence for life". It was, in fact, a rather well constructed IF A AND B THEN C conditional statement. Your interpretation of that post not only missed the point, it tells me that your cultural sensitivity, like mine, is somewhat selective.
In regard to your other pointless point, I can't say I'm the least bit surprised that some segment of a community that can be outraged to the point of organized violence and vandalism on an international scale by a cartoon or a movie would invent one more reason to take offense. It also appears the rationale for avoiding that spelling is less than universally accepted and seems to hinge on the way one pronounces the s which both spellings contain.
We do, however, appear to agree on one important point. Namely that everyone has a right to decide, for whatever reasons, what they will and won't consume but they do not have the right to attempt to impose their culinary choices, or their rationale for those choices, on others.