Neither. I just read the whole thread and I give it to Clarko95 on page 4 (of 6 at present).
Um, I would not call Alcon (or vegetarians, if you meant to speak more broadly) "brainless". He is/they are anything but.
It is true that a vegetarian diet is cheaper than one that includes meat & fish products, and that there are significant long-term health benefits in reducing (or eliminating) meat consumption (especially of red meat). Additionally, the meat industry's practices are major contributors to pollution and rising prices of other food staples. You can get pretty much every nutritional item from a vegetarian diet that you would otherwise get from eating meat products.
I do share the belief that harming animals is immoral, and thus that slaughtering animals for food products is immoral, and yet I still eat meat, poultry, and fish products (especially fish; I'm Bengali afterall). I've never really heard any good moral arguments for eating meat in modern times; it was a topic I dreaded in debate because you simply couldn't defend it. I guess this should make me feel bad and makes me hypocritical, but oh well. Sorry Alcon 
There's nothing extreme about vegetarianism (Going vegan seems extreme to me, however). But a pretty sizable portion of the world is vegetarian by choice or by situational/medical necessity (hell, Bill Clinton is vegetarian for medical reasons now), they seem to be doing just fine.
But "brainless minority" is a ridiculous way to characterize them.
He is able in one post to recognize the arguments at hand, then accept his own cognitive dissonance with those arguments. In a public forum I can easily imagine many heads nodding in concurrence. On top of that I saw no one counter his post, so after a public debate I can see many of the audience leaving with the thought, "I liked what that Clarko95 guy said."
Poll
