Addendum: The argument seems to be as follows:
- It is inconsistent both (a) to eat meat and (b) to condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe;
- I condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe; therefore,
- I may no longer eat meat.
Here are some objections:
- The first premise is false.
- The first premise is true, but I don't care about inconsistency.
- The first premise is true and I care about inconsistency, but, since I am going to continue to eat meat, I no longer condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe.
Singer and his coauthor do nothing to reply to these (obvious) objections. They should have addressed at least the third objection, for I suspect that most readers of their op-ed column, if forced to choose, would stop condemning (or mourning) the killing of Harambe rather than stop eating meat.