You may have come across this piece in Slate, where a supposed vegan rationalizes the eating of oysters.
It's really quite inane, and launches off a false premise. I wrote a note to a friend who messaged me about it, and it went a little something like this:
I made a few minor edits for public consumption, but that's what i sent a few friends this morning. Then, just a few minutes ago, another friend posted a link to an even dumber take on the issue, no less from the mush-brained Erik Marcus.
EM insists the Slate piece is 'well-written' and 'well-argued'.
Sure, maybe EM might find it so, but the predictable stupidity ensues... EM doesn't try and make a case not to eat oysters on their own merit. Nah-uh. Instead, he focuses on 'sustainability', questioning if the practice is actually sustainable. No EM - this is not the "only glaring weakness" of the article. There are many, and i've addressed the more significant one that relates to veganism.
So no, this "vegan" won't defend oysters on their own merits. Instead, he raises a topic he probably knows NOTHING about (aquaculture impact of oyster farms). Although to be fair, there seem to be few topics EM has demonstrated any real depth or familiarity in. So he blabs on like Karl Pilkington from the Ricky Gervais show, tapping into a massive depth of ignorance to build mind-numbingly stupid narrations.
But this isn't supposed to be a funny and stupid podcast like Gervais. This is supposed to be a part of the vegan movement. The guy couldn't even speak up for oysters. Reading EM's bit doesn't even come close to making a case that there might be something wrong with eating oysters themselves. (And then the dolt touches on making a case for eating eggs!!!)
Erik Marcus - hand over the "Vegan.com" domain name to the Vegan Society of the UK. You've done enough damage already.