Some perhaps. Another set of attempted jokes (if they were real jokes, they would be funny ;-)) is due to irritation, much similar to the irritation of the mainstream with leftists: vegetarian advocates are perceived as holier-than-thou pontificators. Some perceive the issue of animal rights a distraction and a wrong ordering of priorities. Some take individual offence. So on and so forth. It is lamentably true, IMHO, that many (who echo right-wing disparagement of animal welfare/rights) are not interested in seriously and analytically examining the question.
> I have never seen a coherent ethical argument in favor of eating
> meat (as opposed to practical ones).
Anti-vegetarians will argue that the burden of argument rests upon those who are advocating vevgetarianism or animal rights/welfare. To many, it (the eating, as opposed to the treatment) is not an ethical issue at all for various reasons. Carrol has argued that this is an issue of individual consumption choice and he finds they irrelevant to the struggle (I paraphrase, perhaps wrongly and if so I apologise)... to him, I think, this is no different from those who boycott Exxon, etc.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself ;-) PeTA => http://peta.org/ Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/