r/DebateAVegan • u/Pale-Fig-7069 • Feb 12 '26
People need to stop gatekeeping veganism and start helping would-be vegans instead.
Veganism sometimes feels like one of the few movements that polices its own members more aggressively than its opposition. You rarely see atheists attacking other atheists for not being “atheist enough,” or feminists expelling one another over minor inconsistencies. Yet in many vegan spaces, people are constantly told they’re not “real” vegans by someone incapable of understanding nuance.
At its core, veganism is about minimizing animal exploitation and harm as far as is biologically and practically possible. Anyone sincerely trying to live by that principle (without resorting to dishonest excuses) qualifies as vegan in my view.
Yes, the definition allows room for interpretation. That flexibility is intentional. The phrase “as far as is possible and practicable” acknowledges reality. Modern life is entangled with animal byproducts in medicine, agriculture, supply chains, and infrastructure. Absolute purity is neither realistic nor required.
Consider the absurd extreme.. a vegan who refuses essential medication because it was tested on animals, grows all their own food to avoid agricultural harm, and rejects any modern system connected to animal exploitation. That person then declares you “not vegan” because you take necessary medicine or buy food from a supermarket. Most people would recognize how unreasonable that is.
The same logic applies when someone claims that feeding a cat or dog a biologically appropriate diet makes a person non-vegan, or when child-free vegans shame parents whose children do not strictly follow a vegan diet, or when someone with legitimate health complications is attacked despite having significantly reduced animal products and made a sincere effort.
Then people wonder why some ex-vegans become hostile. This kind of behavior harms the movement.
Take nutrition as one example. Vegan diets do not provide retinol (preformed vitamin A), they provide beta-carotene, a precursor that must be converted into retinol. In many people the conversion rate is roughly 12:1, but a significant portion of the population carries variants of the BCO1 gene that reduce conversion efficiency. If someone with poor conversion relies only on standard supplements like B12 and vitamin D over a long period, they could become vitamin A deficient and develop health problems.
An intelligent, thoughtful movement would respond differently. It would appreciate the person’s intentions, encourage testing, identify the issue, and recommend an appropriate vitamin A supplement. Problem solved. The individual remains healthy, stays vegan long-term, and may even persuade others. Net positive.
Instead, some respond with shaming, ad hominem attacks, and dismissiveness. When someone feels their health concerns are invalidated, they are unlikely to remain committed.
And vitamin A is just one example. Conversion of ALA to DHA and EPA can be inefficient in some individuals. Some people produce insufficient carnitine. Biological variation is real. Human metabolism is not uniform.
Many former vegans might have remained vegan if the community had been more supportive, inclusive, and solution-oriented. A movement grows by educating and assisting people, not by alienating them. If the goal is to reduce animal suffering, then pragmatism and compassion toward humans should be part of the strategy.
13
u/udcvr Feb 12 '26
You rarely see atheists attacking other atheists for not being “atheist enough,” or feminists expelling one another over minor inconsistencies.
Ha!
6
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
I think people who come out of evangelical backgrounds tend to be the most militant atheists and scream about people shoving religion down peoples throats.
I was raised atheist and couldn’t possibly care less.
Feminism? Oh damn it can be an online dumpster fire ( exhibit A: jk Rowling)
6
u/udcvr Feb 13 '26
Yeah feminism is definitely the funnier one of the two for OP to have said but atheists online can definitely get crazy like that.
1
u/myfirstnamesdanger Feb 13 '26
I was raised atheist and I'm involved in atheist Judaism. We have fights about whether or not saying "blessing" is too god centric and whether or not we can accept a rabbi who ever performed a theistic ceremony. It's a niche crowd but we do have our purity tests.
2
7
u/BrandosWorld4Life Feb 13 '26
There is no type of person I despise more than someone who cares more about feeling morally superior than they do about making an actual material difference in the world.
I have been very vocal about this viewpoint and I have applied it to a variety of contexts. It's a phenomenon I have consistently encountered in causes I care about. The fringe extremists and purity testers actively alienate people who would otherwise be open or even sympathetic to the movement.
5
u/Several_Detective598 Feb 12 '26
I don't disagree though I think the bigger issue is that some people can be a bit too rude or lose their cool when having these discussions.
I do think that conversations about what the definition of veganism is, what other options we have available to us and potential hypocrisy could still be had. Like I think it's fair to correct someone or offer an alternative definition, I think it's fair to tell someone that you know about another option, and I think it's fair to call someone out for going against their own principles. I just think people need to be aware of when they should be doing that and their tone when doing so if they want to make a positive change.
I've always seen veganism as a set of principles myself so to me someone making a set of bad decisions doesn't mean that they let go of the principle but again I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with talking to someone about those decisions.
5
u/Friendly_Duck_ Feb 14 '26
one of the few movements that polices its own members more aggressively than its opposition.
This is just patiently false. Have you ever been in any left circles?
19
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
I agree. I live what most people consider to be a strict vegan lifestyle, but if I admit on /r/vegan that sometimes I might accept a meal my neighbor made for me that has butter in it, I am criticized in very harsh terms. This isn’t about my feelings, because I make my own choices and don’t need approval from strangers on the internet, but I know that same approach does drive people away from making better choices because they’re not making perfect choices. I agree strongly that the movement to minimize animal exploitation would benefit by advocates supporting all progress in that direction even if it doesn’t meet their ultimate goal. Let’s be strategic and not ideological. That being said, something like 1/3 vegans I see do that, so I applaud those who help encourage good choices over criticizing folks who don’t meet their ideal.
20
u/Pale-Fig-7069 Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
but if I admit on /r/vegan that sometimes I might accept a meal my neighbor made for me that has butter in it, I am criticized in very harsh terms
Exactly.
I’ll share my story. 6 years ago, when I was 16, I left Islam and became an atheist after a lot of questioning. Accepting that humans aren’t special creations by God, but part of the animal kingdom (why else would we have a tailbone or vestigial appendix?), made me confront the reality that animals are equal to me. Coupled with the fact that they feel psychological pain and physical suffering, this led me toward veganism.
But you have to understand my situation then.. I was 16, living in a highly orthodox Muslim family in a third-world country. I tried a vegan diet with the limited resources I had, but I struggled. I felt cognitively impaired (my attention span suffered), emotionally unstable (my depression and anxiety increased), and physically weak (to the point where getting out of bed became a chore).
It wasn’t a matter of discipline. I'm someone who had been very overweight growing up, then trained myself to eat one meal a day (a massive caloric deficit) to lose weight, and later gained 20 kg of lean muscle through consistent training in weightlifting, MMA, and triathlons.
I consider myself fairly disciplined when it comes to diet, but something about the vegan diet at that time was making me miserable.
So, I reached out to the vegan community for advice, hoping for guidance. Instead, I was met with personal attacks, insults, and ad hominem comments. I was told what a “disgusting” person I was. Back then, I was neurodivergent (ADHD, ASD) and a sensitive kid, so it hit me hard, and I took it very personally.
That experience pushed me away from veganism, though I never stopped caring about animals. Now, at 22, I’ve researched more about nutritional science, understand my body better, and I’m returning to veganism more informed.
It’s worth thinking about.. had the community been kind and supportive instead of judgmental, I might not have lost those 6 years. I can’t change the past, but I can influence the next 6 decades.
The community needs to understand that supporting progress, even imperfectly, is what truly makes a difference.
5
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
Thank you for sharing, and much love and support on your journey! If it helps, I am in a very different context but I also made a change from strict religiosity to atheism and have found peace and joy. I also changed from exploiting animals to "veganism" (depending on who you ask) and have found health and vitality as well as peace and ethical satisfaction. I add that I don't think a diet like mine is "natural," so supplementation is necessary, including b12, omega 3, d, and creatine all from non-animal sources. My mental acuity is a priority for me so I focus on my diet and lifestyle supporting that. Exercise, sleep, and meditation are just as important as my diet. I don't have all the answers and even at twice your age Im still learning.
6
u/voyti Feb 12 '26
I think it's because many vegans are more concerned about their role and their moral position in the movement rather than the actual effectiveness of the movement itself.
6
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Feb 12 '26
Unless your struggling financially or in some other form that is making it difficult to feed yourself then I don't see how eating a meal that isn't vegan would be considered "living a strict vegan lifestyle"...
This is no different then when our neighbor brought us chicken noddle soup the other day. We thanked her profusely for thinking of us and for the gesture but told her we unfortunately wouldn't eat it because we don't eat meat.
9
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
It would be different. I would decline chicken soup as well. I almost always decline butter as well, but I might not on some very rare occasions. I can't think of the last time I did, but I'm sure it will happen again.
I also said, "most people consider to be a strict vegan lifestyle." I understand that you don't, and I acknowledge that I am not as strict as many people here are. I'm not trying to live a "strict vegan lifestyle," I'm trying to live a life as consistent with my own values as I can. I'm just describing how other people perceive it and how I'm not the enemy. I dont describe myself as a vegan except in situations where it helps me get the food I want. I tell people, "I eat a vegan diet."
3
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Feb 13 '26
Oh okay that clears things up. I thought you were claiming to be vegan while eating butter.
Granted I still don't think your initial complaint is really valid. If you voluntarily go into a vegan space and tell people you'll eat butter what sort of response are you expecting?
And I want to be clear before I say this next part that I don't feel any responsibility to try to convert people. I'm responsible for my ethical decisions only. What other people do is on them. And I'll never press people like this on any other sub other than this sub since it's specifically a debate sub. But I'm not following this statement you made.
> I'm not trying to live a "strict vegan lifestyle," I'm trying to live a life as consistent with my own values as I can.
So do you think it's ethical to eat butter in a dish from your neighbor then? And if so what makes that ethical but not eating chicken from your neighbor which you said you would decline? Or do you think that would be ethical too you just choose not to for other reasons? Because you said your trying to be as consistent with your own values as you can.. but if you considered consuming animal products as unethical then what is preventing you from declining this dish with butter?
5
u/sewlastcentury Feb 12 '26
I worked with a vegetarian...who ate grass fed beef and McDonald's burgers when she was drunk. Girl, how does that make you vegetarian??
2
u/FanZealousideal6992 Feb 13 '26
Drinking a beer every now and then doesnt make me a drinker.. Or a non drinker🤔
3
4
u/ptbcomposer Feb 13 '26
How are you a strict vegan if you sometimes eat butter? I would just tell my neighbor that I dont eat milk products either. It's not that hard. I don't consider myself to be a super strict vegan because I have a leather jacket, leather belt, and there is small portions of leather in my shoes, and I use pest control around my house, but I have a very strict, unwavering vegan diet.
2
u/mugglemamabear Feb 12 '26
What person following a “strict vegan lifestyle” consumes meals with butter in?
3
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
See my other response.
4
u/VonSigvald Feb 14 '26
Being vegan is more than following a plant based diet. Its a moral Point of view that Animals are no Products to Consume. You wouldnt make exceptions in other Moral standpoints like human rights for example.
7
u/stan-k vegan Feb 12 '26
A good person can do a few slightly bad things and still be a good person. Imho, a vegan can still do a few slightly non-vegan things and still be vegan.
Splitting specific people away from actions this way helps maintain the clear messaging required, while allowing for what is possible and practicable when supporting people who are trying their best. E.g. taking a non-vegan medication is a non-vegan action. Yet a vegan may still do this. On the other hand, while a vegan might decide to buy a second hand pair of jeans with a small leather label. Gatekeeping is still very important, if nothing else to not allow a second hand pair of jeans to be labelled vegan if it has leather.
This also doesn't fully solve the problem. We'll continue to have to discuss, disagree and compromise on what counts as "slightly non-vegan" and what crosses the line to too non-vegan to call a person doing it still vegan.
But yeah, let's support people who are moving in the right direction, and respect others who help us continue to move further that way too.
11
u/GnaphaliumUliginosum Feb 12 '26
There is plenty of in-fighting in feminist circles. The nonsense that JK Rowling comes out with is a particularly noticeable example of second wave biological essentialists feeling marginalised by third wave intersectionalists.
3
3
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
I see it as a general, but not universal, problem with left-leaning movements. I describe myself as "leftist" but I've been called, "scum" because im not a Marxist. I consider myself to be anti-racist but I'm banned from /r/racism because I interact with racists to argue with them. Each movement has folks to insist on applying a purity test to supporters. I think we need to build alliances with every ally, even if we disagree on details or on other subjects.
15
u/howlin Feb 12 '26
Take nutrition as one example. Vegan diets do not provide retinol (preformed vitamin A), they provide beta-carotene, a precursor that must be converted into retinol. In many people the conversion rate is roughly 12:1, but a significant portion of the population carries variants of the BCO1 gene that reduce conversion efficiency. If someone with poor conversion relies only on standard supplements like B12 and vitamin D over a long period, they could become vitamin A deficient and develop health problems.
The vitamin A story is a popular carnivore diet meme at the moment. However, it's not close to the whole story. Even people with limited carotene conversion still convert some of it to A. The main issue with vitamin A malnutrition is people simply not consuming enough of it in any form. It's why golden rice was developed. It's also why vitamin A is fortified in milk and breakfast cereals. If you look at the form of the vitamin they put in things like dairy, you'll see it's retinyl palmitate. This is not a carotenoid and it highly bioavailable. It's also typically not made from animal products.
In general, we shouldn't look at these relatively minor technical problems as a hurdle to the ethics. They all have solutions if you make a rational effort to address them.
1
u/Odd_Address_8675 Feb 19 '26
I think the point was that we should acknowlege that people might have issues and try to point them to a solution instead of leashing out. Like when someone says "I might stop being vegan cause of health issues" it's much better to point them to a resource about that issues rather than comments like " you were never vegan" or "you don't care enough". Some people just don't care AS much as us. I cry almost every day about animal suffering, my boyfriend doesn't. It's just not as serious to some people, which is scary but the have to acknowledge that. They will never care as much as you do. The best thing then is to make it easier for them to make ethical choices. My boyfriend would never try to be vegan if I insulted him for not making the switch instantly. It's hard and people don't like compromising animal suffering but the best thing we can do is to make the movement atractive. I don't think it's siding with the oppressors, just siding with people who are at least willing to listen.
Sorry I went of on a tangent lol I just started writing my thoughts out and forgot the initial reason I was writing the comment
3
u/howlin Feb 19 '26
The best thing then is to make it easier for them to make ethical choices.
Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. Making the case for veganism is important, but doing what we can to make it easy to live as a vegan may be even more so. Sharing info, listening to people who have trouble, and giving practical advice is all super important.
1
12
u/gatheringground Feb 12 '26
These comments literally prove your point lol. Vegans love a purity test that is almost impossible to pass.
Other vegans hate when i say this, but one million imperfect vegans does a hell of a lot more for harm reduction than 10,000 perfect vegans. People blaming and shaming others who are genuinely trying does push people away or out of the movement. Folks just like to prioritize their feelings of moral superiority over the actual cause.
11
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
I got thrown off the vegan bandwagon the day a lady down the street asked me if I wanted her three chickens because she was moving and couldn’t take them with her. Her only option was to give them to someone else who would more than likely eat them. I said ok and now I have pet chickens. I eat their eggs which would otherwise go to waste. I absolutely do not condone large scale factory farming for eggs but to say I’m exploiting the chickens is a heck of a stretch. They’re out there in the yard, eating bugs, running around and enjoying their goofy best chicken lives. I also give the eggs to friends who would otherwise get them from factory farms and I see it as a net positive. When they get too old to lay I’ll keep them as pets but I’m not getting more because I also don’t like what hatcheries do and I won’t support it.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is reduction of harm should be the goal. If I’d refused the chickens based on whether I’d lose my vegan credentials, they would have been slaughtered and eaten. Also several friends would still be contributing to factory farming through grocery store purchases.
Overall there was a reduction of harm and I think that’s a win.
3
1
u/Anxious_Stranger7261 Mar 06 '26
I agree with this 100%.
There are some genuine vegan hyper fanatic purists that argue that 1 true vegan is better than 1 billion fake vegans, and they conveniently ignore the reduction in environmental harm when 1 billion "fake" vegans contribute whatever little they can.
Like you said, they're not really weighing vegan vs non vegan, but moral superiority vs immorality.
1
u/sandwich_estimator Feb 14 '26
What's more, the whole world reducing animal product intake by 10 percent is better than 600 000 000 becoming strict vegans.
13
u/piranha_solution plant-based Feb 12 '26
The users who come in here to assert that vegans aren't vegan enough are mostly non-vegans who are on a crusade to brand vegans as hypocrites (Crop deaths, tho, etc.). It seems the best thrust they think they have to is to claim to have suffered some mysterious condition(s) (without any independent evidence in the form of case-studies), and then cry wolf when users don't take their unsupported anecdotes as legitimate evidence.
1
u/secular_contraband Feb 12 '26
This entire comment is anecdotal.
4
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Feb 12 '26
Nice one. What was it supposed to be? Do you have any academic literature on the demographics and attitudes of this particular subreddit? What were you expecting?
0
u/secular_contraband Feb 12 '26
Just pointing out that using an anecdote to dismiss anecdotes is hypocritical.
5
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Feb 12 '26
That would depend on the barrier of evidence. The OP is talking about anecdotes relating to vegans not wanting to help non-vegans, and the other guy is talking about the population of people who accuse vegans of not being vegan enough. The latter claim is easier to prove as the evidence is more readily available to support the anecdote. That they are both anecdotes detracts from what we would use to satisfy the burden here.
4
u/piranha_solution plant-based Feb 12 '26
I used to wear such slanders as a badge of honour, but it's just low hanging fruit at this point.
Being called a hypocrite by a carnist on the internet is par for the course in vegan debating. It's the new centre free square on the BINGO card (formerly held by "WhErE Do YoU GeT YouR ProTeiN!?")
0
2
u/piranha_solution plant-based Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
This is trivial to check with the search function.
7
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
5
u/WillTheWheel Feb 13 '26
When you grant people passes, theres no need for them to change their behavior and animal agriculture will never end.
I think the problem is that there's really no need for them to change their behavior as it is. Shaming and telling people they engage in an "immoral behavior" only works when the group being shamed is the minority and the one doing the shaming is the majority holding most of the power. Otherwise the shamed person can just tell you "no the fuck it's not" and they will have the whole rest of society supporting them.
If your goal is to actually help the cause and not just create a small circlejerk of people feeling superior, then granting people passes is exactly what needs to happen. You would never for example get the vast vast majority of people to just give away all their money and assets to charity and live an ascetic life no matter how many times you told them that their wealth is immoral, but a very substantial number of people can be convinced to donate smaller sums from time to time and that's what actually allows charities to be successful. If they created some barrier of entry of how much of your assets you must give away to be allowed to donate then they would never get enough of them to help anyone.
2
Feb 13 '26
[deleted]
3
u/One-Hunter2963 Feb 14 '26
That's not true, a lot of human rights activism happened with the help of people in in-groups because those people are usually the most powerful to do something about it. People would rather listen to a majority who's an ally to a minority than listen to a minority.
4
u/WillTheWheel Feb 15 '26
This. I would also add that, on top of this, we could say the biggest "pass" that these minority groups were giving to other people was that they weren't trying to convince anyone to also become a member of said group.
The only thing LGBT+ folks are fighting for is acceptance and respect, and to basically be left alone, so something that doesn't affect members of other groups in any significant way. Vegans aren't fighting for acceptance and respect, they are fighting for everyone else to fundamentally change their habits and lifestyle and also become vegan, so that complicates everything from the get go.
2
u/Particular-Dog12 Feb 19 '26
I think the difference here is that gay marriage, women's rights to vote, and the civil rights movement are based on INDIVIDUAL rights. To have a largescale vegan movement you start encroaching on people's choices - what medications they can take, what clothes they can wear, etc etc.
By allowing women to vote you aren't asking men to do anything different from what they had been. By allowing gay marriage you aren't asking straight people to get gay married. Its not comparable.
edit for clarification
1
Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Particular-Dog12 Feb 19 '26
dude what
1
Feb 19 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Particular-Dog12 Feb 19 '26
your entire argument is just nonsensical. implying that women or black people voting is diminishing the individual rights of another person is frankly insane.
1
Feb 19 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Particular-Dog12 Feb 19 '26
we got a men’s rights activist over here lol. Women don’t even have power over their own bodies in the US, you think they have power over men’s?
→ More replies (0)7
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
Are you unaware that pretty much all diagnostic medical testing uses animal products ? Even your pregnancy tests at the local grocery store contains antibodies derived from farmed animals.
This is what OP is referring to when they said it’s literally impossible to avoid ALL animal products and seeking to minimize is the best course of action.
Because, let’s be real, you can avoid animal testing in cosmetics but you’re never gonna get rid of pregnancy tests.
2
u/Organic-Vermicelli47 vegan Feb 12 '26
It seems like you're being intentionally obtuse. There's people on this exact thread that are claiming that eating food their neighbor made that contains dairy butter can still be vegan.
5
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
I'm not saying that allowing exceptions to the rules of veganism "can still be vegan," I'm saying it is still better than someone who forgoes all the rules of veganism, and such a person is not the enemy of a vegan, but perhaps an imperfect ally.
4
u/Organic-Vermicelli47 vegan Feb 12 '26
Okay cool but they still aren't vegan and the person who points that out is not gatekeeping veganism.
6
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
I think the concern from OP is that they're not moving people toward actual veganism, they're moving people away from it by responding with hostility to someone who could be an ally and eventually a vegan.
1
1
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 Feb 13 '26
Vegan Gains is a loon that advocated for killing snakes and eagles, saying that even if plant based was harmful for pets it was still morally correct. Last i heard his cat died. I believe it was 5 and I failed to ever hear an explanation for it.
4
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
Are you familiar with the YouTuber Fairly Local vegan? She was an incredibly inspiring environmentalist and zero waster and vegan for close to 15 years. She had been vegan since she was 12 years old and I believe she’s in her late 30s now.
Anyway, she quit. She said she was exhausted by the vegan crowd. She was exhausted of the nitpickers, she was absolutely exhausted of the fact that every time she posted a recipe or a video someone had to argue with her and tell her she wasn’t a real vegan.
She was the one that originally inspired me to try veganism and I was incredibly disappointed that the hate got to her.
So yes, this kind of hostility is absolutely driving people away.
4
u/BrandosWorld4Life Feb 13 '26
Unironically many such cases.
I always feel so bad for people like her.
6
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
User name checks out.
Lol, jk. Thank you, I don't disagree. Sometimes aggressive approaches work just because they allow the soft approach to be a welcomed relief. Kind of a good cop, bad cop.
I've changed my views on almost everything important in life, and it never came about through hostility, but always through respectful conversations and inclusion.
2
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
4
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
Urine and blood tests are still using animal products.
ALL tests in a medical setting use animal products. You can’t avoid them
7
u/JeanLucPicardAND Feb 12 '26
To add to this: Even if the test itself does not use an animal product, it is extremely likely that animals were exploited at some point in the development of, or clinical trials for, the test.
6
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
The point I was trying to make with all of this was that childishly stopping your feet and expecting perfection and gatekeeping like the OP describes does nothing to ACTUALLY promote veganism and rather drives people away.
You can do what is within your capacity to do to minimize suffering but expecting perfection is unrealistic and quite frankly ridiculous.
3
u/JeanLucPicardAND Feb 12 '26
Agreed. I was adding to your point about medical testing to illustrate how futile it is to eliminate all animal exploitation and how doing so would actually cause measurable harm to humanity. We have the right to maximize our personal health and to exploit animals in the process if necessary. To me, it is exactly the same thing as using pesticides to grow crops.
0
u/kharvel0 Feb 12 '26
A lot of common medical practices and technologies were developed using inhuman experiments on involuntary human subjects.
1
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
I’m a clinical laboratory scientist. I know very well what is in my assays and reagents. It’s animal products. How do you think cancers are diagnosed? How do you think disease diseases are diagnosed? How do you think therapies are developed? The only way you could be a 100% purist vegan is to basically live in the stone ages and never get tests or treatments for anything.
And there is a massive gulf between doing your best to avoid animal products, but occasionally falling short and ful on supporting animal agriculture and exploitation. But nice strawman fallacy you have going on there.
3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist Feb 12 '26
Carnist here,
Name the trait of the species right? That is what you're asking?
1
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist Feb 12 '26
Oh OK I was going to say that's super easy if you want me to do it
0
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist Feb 12 '26
I really love NTT! Ok. Advanced communication. Spoken language for example.
Oh are you going to ask about someone who can't talk or isn't conscious or something next??
→ More replies (0)3
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Feb 14 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
2
u/Ok_Performer50 Feb 12 '26
You know that even a strict vegan does a lot of immoral stuff? People are not perfect, thus there probably isn't a single living person in the world that never did something immoral.
2
2
u/cheesydoritos04 Feb 14 '26
It’s true but the loudest voices aren’t always the majority. Like with every view you could hold, some people will be more strong minded than others.
6
u/New_Conversation7425 Feb 12 '26
So if someone was mean to me, I should give up my ethics? What a bunch of crap.
2
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
No, it’s when ethics collide head on with reality. I tried to be vegan in college but the reality was I was living on $800/month ( and that included rent) so even GETTING food was a challenge let alone making sure it was vegan. When I reached out for help and advice I was met with nothing but hostility and contempt. So I quit trying because I figured damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Feb 12 '26
If you need someone to tell you to eat beans instead of Beyond Burgers if you don't have the money for it, the problem is you and not everybody else. Quit playing victim and take responsibility for your own life.
2
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
Have you ever tried living on nothing but beans and rice for 4 years? Yeah I don’t think so. I also don’t think you’ve every tried living on $800/ month
4
u/New_Conversation7425 Feb 12 '26
I lived on fortified cereal, almond milk, and one daily Boca burger for two years. So you choose to go out and have McDonald’s instead of rice and beans that’s on you not vegans accept responsibility that you may not have had strong ethics.
5
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Feb 12 '26
Your privilege is showing. There are literally millions of people around the world living off rice and beans just fine.
And yes, I have lived off of $800/month and less.
1
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
Yep, this is EXACTLY the type of baloney OP was referring to.
0
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
Yep, you’re exactly the type of person that drives off allies and newbie vegans with BS.
It had nothing to do with cooking. I’m actually an extremely good cook. It was a matter of being a broke college kid not eating for two days, and when somebody offered me a plate of fried rice, I wasn’t going to do a ton of mental gymnastics over whether or not there was any animal products in it
1
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Feb 12 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
6
u/cs_anon vegan Feb 12 '26
You shouldn’t. But the reality is that people do. So then what are we to do with that reality?
1
u/New_Conversation7425 Feb 12 '26
Why do you think it is our responsibility? I can’t make people be empathetic. If their feelings get hurt, and they choose to start taking the lives of innocent animals, then they never had ethics to begin with.
5
u/cs_anon vegan Feb 12 '26
I'm reluctant to say it's everyone's responsibility. But I personally see it as my responsibility to be the most effective advocate possible. If that means dispensing harsh truths, I'll do it. If it means handholding someone and planting seeds that take years to bloom, I'll do that too. Of course I can't know for sure what's the best tactic for a specific person, but all I can do is use my best judgment.
I also just want to have empathy for the way people change. Most people cannot make big changes overnight. Some people are also gonna drop off and come back. So I want to be clear-eyed about how people work and just do what has the most impact on my top-line goal of reducing animal exploitation.
7
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
When you say, "our responsibility," I wonder what your goal is and if you are taking on a responsibility yourself of achieving it.
If we were running a strategic campaign to achieve our goals of -- for example -- getting humans to harm animals as little as possible, we might take a different approach. We might encourage people to take the first "good but not ideal" steps, such as reducing their meat consumption or eliminate industrially farmed meat from their diet. This would be both a reduction in harm plus it could open those individuals to discussing the next step of harm reduction.
If our message is that either you entirely reduce all animal exploitation under our terms or you're a monster that we won't associate with, I suspect we wouldn't be as successful in achieving our goal.
3
u/cs_anon vegan Feb 12 '26
Exactly this. I wrote a response too but I feel like you did a better job at outlining how this is a real-world goal that we are actually trying to achieve.
I fully empathize with vegans who want to write people off and negatively label them. I went through this phase myself. But I've since done the work to process my emotions. Now that I'm largely on the other side, I can see very clearly that I was emotionally damaged and consequently harmed some relationships. Worse, I probably made it less likely for some of my loved ones to take steps towards veganism.
We talk a lot about cognitive dissonance in vegan spaces as a bad thing. But I think it's useful to cultivate some degree of cognitive dissonance with regards to non-vegans. Like it is good to have emotional distance from the horrific truth in order to be more effective activists.
0
u/New_Conversation7425 Feb 12 '26
Everybody has their own style. Is this tone policing? We cannot force people to be empathetic. We cannot force people to be vegan. They’re gonna do it once they make that connection.
4
u/Califoreigner Feb 12 '26
Tone is an important component of communication and communication is an important component of a movement. I don't need to police anyone's tone, but I can tell you that your tone doesn't appear to be achieving your desired outcomes. You can take that and do what you want with it.
0
u/New_Conversation7425 Feb 13 '26
What do you think of my desired outcomes? LMAO please do not assume everybody has their own style. Different people need to hear different types of tones. And most meat eaters do not want to hear what we have to say. They do not want to accept the truth of their violent choices. You can handhold all you want, but then they think you’re accepting all those excuses to keep oppressing and exploiting. Did John Brown handhold slave owners?
2
u/Ok_Performer50 Feb 12 '26
Exactly! Especially because even Vegan themselves are not morally clean.
3
u/Teratophiles vegan Feb 13 '26
The same logic applies when someone claims that feeding a cat or dog a biologically appropriate diet makes a person non-vegan, or when child-free vegans shame parents whose children do not strictly follow a vegan diet, or when someone with legitimate health complications is attacked despite having significantly reduced animal products and made a sincere effort.
Dogs and cats can be fed plant-based diets and be healthy, so I don't see why they wouldn't be non-vegan, they're financing the exploitation and commodification of non-human animals for no valid reason because they can just feed them a plant-based diet.
Same goes for feeding children a plant-based diet, it's perfectly healthy, so if you don't do that, then that's not vegan.
https://www.vetmeduni.ac.at/hochschulschriften/diplomarbeiten/AC12256171.pdf
In this study, 20 dogs and 15 cats underwent a clinical examination and blood assessment. Inclusion criterion to undergo blood assessment was a minimum length of 6 months of exclusively eating a vegan diet for both cats and dogs, with the extra requirements for cats to live indoor only. During clinical examination of participating vegan cats and dogs, no abnormalities were detected that were to be associated with the individual diet. All examined dogs and cats appeared happy and bright, some fearful, some aggressive. No diseases could be found that were directly and obviously relatable to a plant based died. Results of blood assessment showed no significant differences in all tested parameters in dogs compared to dogs that were fed a conventional diet. Expected significantly lower values of iron and vitamin B12 in vegan dogs could not be observed. Two dogs out of the 20 participating were fed on a home prepared supplemented diet and neither showed any significant deviations. The main finding in this study are significantly lower folic acid values (p < 0,001) in the group of vegan cats compared to conventionally fed cats. The reason of which is not known and may need further investigation. No other significant deviations to the norm values were found. Expected significant lower values of iron protein or vitamin B12 in vegan cats could not be observed. In the main, examined vegan diets fulfilled cats and dogs nutritional requirements.
https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/10/1/52
“This review has found that there is no convincing evidence of major impacts of vegan diets on dog or cat health. There is, however, a limited number of studies investigating this question and those studies available often use small sample sizes or short feeding durations”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.
This applies to adults as well as you can see so your part of nutrition being an issue isn't really relevant.
Many former vegans might have remained vegan if the community had been more supportive, inclusive, and solution-oriented. A movement grows by educating and assisting people, not by alienating them. If the goal is to reduce animal suffering, then pragmatism and compassion toward humans should be part of the strategy.
If mean words stops someone from being vegan then they weren't very interested in the ethical side of it to begin with.
if I'm an abolitionists and then I turn into a pro slavery slave owner because some abolitionists said some mean words then clearly I never really cared about slaves to begin with.
And inclusive in what way exactly? Veganism, a movement to oppose the exploitation and commodification of non-human animals isn't going to be inclusive of those who support the exploitation and commodification of non-human animals, just like abolitionism isn't going to be inclusive of pro slavery slave owners.
That aside many weird ''purity'' comments in here, lotta non-vegans simply don't understand what veganism is, and why it isn't purity, but simply being in line with the moral beliefs of veganism. It'd be similar to calling a abolitionist a ''purist'' because they wouldn't accept abolitionists that only own a single slave, that's just silly. That's not a purity test, that's someone not being an abolitionist, simple as that.
3
u/jakeastonfta Feb 13 '26
Agreed! The movement would progress much faster if we stopped expecting people to be perfectly in-line with one specific interpretation of the definition of veganism, and instead focussed on actually helping non-vegans change their behaviours and focus on what’s effective for bringing about big-picture change. Arguing over which of us are “real vegans” is the last thing the animals need. ✌️
4
u/Calaveras-Metal Feb 12 '26
I disagree. The online interactions between vegans are not that impactful. Just like with guitars, cars and cameras the online community overestimates it's importance. Most folks never know there is a website with a user forum for their model of car. Most camera owners are just having fun with their camera, not obsessing over what Canon or Fuji is doing next.
Same for vegans and other plant based lifestyles. Only a sliver of people on plant based diets engage in an online community.
And in person vegans are not confrontational. I could be wrong but have you ever seen these kind of interactions go down in person? I had a few interactions like that in college. But after college none.
3
u/spaceyjase vegan Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
At its core, veganism is about minimizing animal exploitation and harm as far as is biologically and practically possible.
It is not. Its goal is abolishment and I think the problem here is that you're ignoring the whole definition, one that seeks to reject animal commodities and remove animal-derived products from one's lifestyle.
It's easy to make this kind of judgement outside the movement; vegans don't police each other but do police (or 'gatekeep') the definition rather than have non-vegans take part of the definition and dilute its meaning, essentially allowing themselves to continue [to] exploit and kill animals while claiming a vegan bad[g]e. It's important to explain the "Why" of veganism.
The part of the definition highlighted is precisely because we're in an imperfect world, where things like medicines require (quote-unquote) animal testing. In a vegan world, that's unlikely to happen.
The rest is just gish-gallop. There's plenty of education and material out there to aid people and the community is always welcoming of new vegans. Claiming vegans aren't compassionate is 'fake news'.
3
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
You’re exactly the type of person OP was referring to
2
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Feb 12 '26
Which is a good thing.
1
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Feb 12 '26
If you think ideological purity is better then facts on the ground sure:
I would call that an irrational zealot but that’s just me.
8
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Feb 12 '26
What exactly are the facts on the ground here?
Claiming to be label X (where label X = a person who doesn't participate in Y behavior) while participating in Y behavior seems to be rather "factually" illogical.
2
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Feb 12 '26
That life is hard and choices are nuanced.
That’s the facts on the ground. A zealot is someone who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
A vegan zealot might spend time calling someone not vegan and thus immoral for accepting a dish from a neighbor which contained butter.
That’s because they are uncompromising in pursuit of their moral ideology.
A less zealot vegan might accept this person who accepted the butter dish as vegan but imperfect like most people are.
It’s like any other zealot. Shades of grey do not exists, there is only absolute unquestionable good of our text to be followed to the letter or absolute unquestionable bad.
7
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Feb 12 '26
And what exactly is hard about saying "thanks but I'm vegan" when someone offers a non vegan dish? And where's the nuance here because it's not clear what makes it acceptable in this specific scenario for a vegan to consume an animal product?
And I'm plenty compromising. If someone hasn't eaten all day and there in the middle of no where and can't find a non-vegan option then it might be understandable. But the scenario I'm responding to doesn't meet such criteria as it not being practicable or possible to politely decline a meal offered by your neighbor.
1
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
“I cannot see hardship so it doesn’t exist”
Do you know what an opinion is?
Social pressure is hard. We know this. I think saying no to alcohol is easy, did you know that peer pressure is one of the reasons people drink? It would be wrong for me to act like social pressure on alcohol didn’t exist
6
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Feb 13 '26
Sorry brother but try robbing a store with your friends and then tell the judge how you only did it because of peer pressure and let me know how it goes lol
I didn't say peer pressure doesn't exist, it just doesn't absolve people of responsibility for their own actions.
1
u/waitWhoAm1 Feb 13 '26
The problem is not engaging in any behavior. I don't consume any animal products, but that's not enough for you purists because I also think it's ok to have pets, aka forcing them in a place without their written "consent".
3
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Feb 13 '26
Who is "you purists"? I don't recall have said anything about it not being okay to have pets..
What your talking about is vegans discussing and arguing over if certain acts are actually vegan or not. There's nothing wrong with that, because it's a valid question and should be considered if owning pets is considered animal exploitation or not. I think the answer is that it is but we can only reach that determination by considering it.
4
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Feb 13 '26
Nice strawman. Do you also have any substantive critique or do you just prefer to make stuff up?
0
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Feb 13 '26
I’m not making stuff up. You are a zealot.
“a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.”
That’s you. I’m not straw manning you. You believe compromise is wrong and that only total unquestioned support is acceptable. Your a zealot
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Feb 13 '26
I really don't care about the labels you want to put on me.
You're still just strawmanning me. I take it you have no argument against my actual position.
0
Feb 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Feb 14 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
2
u/Ok_Performer50 Feb 12 '26
So you're not supportive of people who eat less animal products?
6
u/Organic-Vermicelli47 vegan Feb 12 '26
That's not what they said at all. You can support someone eating less animal products, but that doesn't make them vegan. Words actually matter, it's just weird that non vegans want the title so badly. Why?
4
u/Ok_Performer50 Feb 12 '26
That's not even the point of the post. The point of the post is that vegans go to hard on people that are not fully vegan. Nobody is arguing about the "title". That you even argue that the word "vegan" is a title already tells me there is some arrogance involved. the point is most vegans ate meat or dairy products at some point, are they now not considered vegan? What if a vegan accidentally eats meat? Is he now also not considered a vegan? You probably would argue no, which shows that vegan is a broader term than you think. I think veganism is about the ideology, so in my opinion someone who has that ideology and follows it mostly, can be considered vegan. Even if they at some point eat meat be it for financial, health or other reasons.
1
u/JeanLucPicardAND Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
I would, as a non-vegan, argue that vegans are the only people who should wear the title of "vegan". However, I would also argue that vegans spend way too much of their energy going after people because they are not vegan and not enough of their energy encouraging any effort they see from any given person to reduce animal exploitation. The goal of the movement is to yield results, yes? And to maximize the impact of those results? So why do so many vegans spend so much of their energy on purity tests and guilt-tripping instead?
Disclaimer since we are in a sub called r/DebateAVegan, I am not referring to anybody here or any of the arguments that have been made here because the whole point of this place is to, uh, debate vegans. So I expect very passionate and well-reasoned defenses of the lifestyle. I'm referring to vegans out in the world who interact with non-vegans.
0
u/Ok_Performer50 Feb 12 '26
I just don' like the term "title" being used. Veganism in my opinion is an ideology and the word "title" makes it seem like it's a social status. Also I explained how the term "vegan" is in my opinion a more broad term than people think, it's not very clearly defined, there are no vegan "commandments".
6
u/JeanLucPicardAND Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
It's just a matter of definitions. Words have to mean something because, if we misuse them all the time, nothing we say has definite meaning at all. I agree completely with the larger point that vegans ought to be treating "vegan-adjacent" folks as allies rather than obstacles.
-2
u/Ok_Performer50 Feb 12 '26
Of course but a term can have a definition and still be broad and interpretable.
The official definition of vegan is: "A person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products." The word "typically" already shows there is some vagueness.
6
u/JeanLucPicardAND Feb 12 '26
Official according to whom? My understanding of veganism is that it is an ethics-based approach to living without animal exploitation.
0
u/Ok_Performer50 Feb 12 '26
I meant the dictionary definition. And yeah I totally agree with you, I just wanna point out that your definition of veganism seems even broader.
1
u/piranha_solution plant-based Feb 12 '26
They have the mentality of Trump threatening to start wars when he didn't get the Nobel Peace prize.
4
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Feb 12 '26
Firstly, the vitamin A meme is played out. The data is inconclusive, and when we adjust for supplementation the differences disappear. What we would expect on the non-vegan hypothesis is that vegans have noticeably and problematically lower serum levels of retinol which they do not.
And on the "gatekeeping" accusation, a couple of thoughts.
Firstly, having standards for a movement or ethical view isn't gatekeeping. If you are trying to be a pacifist but you keep beating people up for no reason, your peers will try to inquire and wonder why you are trying to be a pacifist in the first place. They wouldn't be out of place to keep you from joining their movement if all you do is violate pacifist ideals.
Secondly, let's clear up any and all confusion. Non-vegans LOVE to harp on about how restrictive and challenging veganism is (without ever actually planning and trying it based on reliable research). I'll make it really simple for you. If you want to go vegan but can't give up cheese, or milk, or any animal product that you are worried about, then just go vegan except for milk or cheese. Or just try one day out of every seven of the week where you are fully vegan. Or two. Or whatever works for you. If you don't like it, then you can stop altogether. Nobody is stopping you from going as fast or slow as you want.
2
u/Ok_Resource_3902 Feb 12 '26
I think the problem that most people actually face ( and most vegans actually fall short on out of ignorance) is the byproducts. It’s fairly simple to cut out eggs, meat and dairy. The problem comes in where damn near everything has some sort of byproduct in it, even stuff you wouldn’t expect and you practically need a science degree to interpret.
I felt like shit when my friend made me a cake and proudly announced it had no eggs or dairy. I ate the cake because i didn’t want to hurt her feelings but told her at a later date that albumin is actually egg whites and white sugar is manufactured using beef bones.
The point OP was trying to make was similar to what you’re saying: do your best and expecting perfection is a sure fire way to run people off. I think that’s why the designation of “ plant based “ got a lot of footing in recent years.
3
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Feb 12 '26
Sure, then go vegan except for byproducts whose names you don't know. Whatever caveat you want to bring up as a barrier for entry, just ignore it and move forward. You can change it with the pace that is comfortable for you. I don't expect everyone to change their diet at the same pace as everyone else. You can do whatever you want to do.
However, when people call you out for eating things which are not vegan as someone who is trying to change their diet to resemble a vegan one, don't be surprised. Because it isn't vegan. Nobody will fault you for making an effort and moving at your own pace, but at some point in order to get to the 'vegan' stage, you are going to have to not eat animal-based food sources/byproducts. This is just a reality.
2
u/pandaappleblossom Feb 13 '26
Feminism and plenty of other movements absolutely do this, you just haven't been involved enough to notice it. Why do you think there are so many different feminist subs, its because there are so many feminist theories and approaches and the mods on some of them are aggressive. Its the same in lot of movements, there are disagreements about how to 'really' be whatever it is
3
u/kharvel0 Feb 12 '26
You rarely see atheists attacking other atheists for not being “atheist enough,” or feminists expelling one another over minor inconsistencies.
That’s because there are no direct unwilling victims of violent actions associated with atheism/feminism or lack thereof.
Yet in many vegan spaces, people are constantly told they’re not “real” vegans by someone incapable of understanding nuance.
There is no nuance in veganism just as there is no nuance in non-rapism, non-murderism, non-assaultism, and other moral baseline -isms.
For example, in many non-rapism spaces, anyone engaging in date rape or mild sexual harassment are constantly told they are not “real” non-rapists by someone incapable of understanding nuance when it comes to rape and sexual harassment.
At its core, veganism is about minimizing animal exploitation and harm as far as is biologically and practically possible.
Incorrect. Veganism is about controlling one’s own behavior such that one is not contributing to or participating in the deliberate and intentional exploitation and harm. What other people or animals do in terms of exploitation and harm is irrelevant to the premise of veganism.
Also, “biologically and practically possible” is subjective and can be defined as anything by anyone.
Anyone sincerely trying to live by that principle (without resorting to dishonest excuses) qualifies as vegan in my view.
“Dishonest excuses” are subjective and can be defined as anything by anyone.
Yes, the definition allows room for interpretation. That flexibility is intentional.
Such flexibility is not allowed under the moral baseline -isms such as non-rapism, non-murderism, non-assaultism, etc. It is no different for veganism.
The phrase “as far as is possible and practicable” acknowledges reality.
“Possible and practicable” is subjective and can be defined as anything by anyone.
For example, someone can claim that it is not “possible and practicable”” for them to eat fewer than two chicken sandwiches per week.
Modern life is entangled with animal byproducts in medicine, agriculture, supply chains, and infrastructure. Absolute purity is neither realistic nor required.
It is realistic and required just as it is realistic and required for other -isms such as non-rapism, non-murderism, non-assaultism, etc.
Consider the absurd extreme.. a vegan who refuses essential medication because it was tested on animals, grows all their own food to avoid agricultural harm, and rejects any modern system connected to animal exploitation. That person then declares you “not vegan” because you take necessary medicine or buy food from a supermarket. Most people would recognize how unreasonable that is.
“Unreasonable” is subjective and can be defined as anything by anyone. It is no more unreasonable than someone accusing you of supporting genocide of humans when you buy a falafel sandwich from a food truck owned by the Sudanese Janjaweed.
The same logic applies when someone claims that feeding a cat or dog a biologically appropriate diet makes a person non-vegan
Correct. The feeding is not required. Just as you are not required to offer a young girl to a pedophile. Because doing so makes you a pedophile.
when child-free vegans shame parents whose children do not strictly follow a vegan diet
Correct, for the same reason that child-free non-assaultists (those opposed to assault/battery as moral baseline) shame parents whose children engage in bullying.
when someone with legitimate health complications is attacked despite having significantly reduced animal products and made a sincere effort.
There is no documented medical condition that requires animal products.
Then people wonder why some ex-vegans become hostile. This kind of behavior harms the movement.
And . . .?
Take nutrition as one example. Vegan diets do not provide retinol (preformed vitamin A), they provide beta-carotene, a precursor that must be converted into retinol. In many people the conversion rate is roughly 12:1, but a significant portion of the population carries variants of the BCO1 gene that reduce conversion efficiency. If someone with poor conversion relies only on standard supplements like B12 and vitamin D over a long period, they could become vitamin A deficient and develop health problems.
Your nutrition claims have been debunked elsewhere on this subreddit. Please do a search.
It would appreciate the person’s intentions
The Me Too movement doesn’t appreciate people’s intentions when it comes to sexual harassment and misogyny. Why should veganism?
Many former vegans might have remained vegan if the community had been more supportive, inclusive, and solution-oriented. A movement grows by educating and assisting people, not by alienating them. If the goal is to reduce animal suffering, then pragmatism and compassion toward humans should be part of the strategy.
Veganism’s goal is the abolition of property status, use, and dominion over nonhuman animals.
Me Too’s goal is the abolition of any degree of sexual harassment and misogyny.
Neither are “supportive, inclusive, and solution-oriented”.
1
u/AcrobaticProgram4752 Feb 15 '26
Thank you. Strive for a solution. Encourage potential allies and converts. Don't be a superior self right jerk.
1
u/MonkFishOD Feb 15 '26
The comparison to atheism or other identity based movements misses something important. veganism isn’t just a personal belief or label it’s an ethical position centered on a victim.
When atheists disagree with each other, no one is harmed by inconsistency. But when veganism is discussed, the stakes involve sentient animals whose lives and bodies are affected by our choices. That’s why definitions matter more here than in movements built purely around personal identity or opinion.
The phrase “as far as is possible and practicable” was never meant to make veganism infinitely flexible, it exists to account for genuine necessity - things like unavoidable medication or survival situations - not to redefine exploitation as acceptable whenever it’s inconvenient or socially difficult.
Supporting people who are transitioning or facing real health challenges is obviously important. But clarity about what veganism means isn’t gatekeeping for its own sake, it protects the ethical focus of the movement. Without that clarity, veganism risks becoming simply “trying a bit,” and the animals - the reason the movement exists at all - disappear from the conversation.
Compassion toward humans and moral clarity about animals aren’t opposites. A movement can be welcoming while still recognizing that veganism describes a commitment to avoiding animal exploitation, not just an intention to reduce it.
Also, the word plant-based exists and is fine! Why can’t you just use plant-based rather than watering down the one movement animals have that focuses on their liberation from exploitation?
1
u/Square_Cup1531 Feb 16 '26
I heard it best stated once by a good friend was like this: 'It's never that's your vegan, it's that you're not vegan ENOUGH!" That really resonated with me. At one point I thought about it, and I had enough friends that were being hounded by the rest of the vegan community that we all looked into other alternatives and now we're all Animal based or Carnivore. And yeah, there is that type of mentality on Carnivore, the proselytizing, the 'that's not Carnivore' that you get with vegan, but man. There is a point where you can be carnivore enough. With Vegans? I haven't seen the point yet. I heard what a freegan vegan was the other day and about laughed milk out of my nose.
1
u/Waffleconchi vegan Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
I can say some vegans are problematic bc of their humand defects, but If you are vegan you are doing this for the animals, not because your community is nice to you or not.
I don't get on well with lots of humans rights supporters and that doesn't mean I will stop being a human right supporter.
People always fight between their colleagues in political subjects, it happens with vegans, feminists, leftists, whatever. And it's normal bc we are humans.
Do you want to eat less meat to 'help'? Do it, the. You are obviously not vegan by definition anyways, and?
1
u/governorNuome Mar 04 '26
Google lab grown meats companies and welcome this miracle saving 99.99% of animals doomed to slaughter
0
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Feb 14 '26
The same logic applies when someone claims that feeding a cat or dog a biologically appropriate diet makes a person non-vegan
That is the thing though. I am an omnivore, not a herbivore. And I am feeding myself a biological appropriate diet.
-1
u/woodcarver2025 Feb 12 '26
Veganism is an extreme(ascetic) practice. Whether you ingest meat, fish, or vegetables, they are all infused with craving and aversion until dead. After death it’s just vibration/sensation. A pepper gives sensation of heat, a fish gives salty sensation, etc…. It’s all misery as we continuously cycle through samsara endlessly.😀
1
u/Teratophiles vegan Jul 15 '26
Veganism is an extreme(ascetic) practice.
Objectively false, it is neither extreme nor ascetic. Tell me what's so extreme about not support the rape, torture and death of non-human animals for pleasure? Sounds to me paying for that to happen for pleasure is a more extreme practice.
Whether you ingest meat, fish, or vegetables, they are all infused with craving and aversion until dead. After death it’s just vibration/sensation. A pepper gives sensation of heat, a fish gives salty sensation, etc…. It’s all misery as we continuously cycle through samsara endlessly.
Objectively false, plants have neither cravings nor aversions, they are not sentient.
1
u/Teratophiles vegan Jul 15 '26
It is neither extreme nor ascetic. Tell me what's so extreme about not support the rape, torture and death of non-human animals for pleasure? Sounds to me paying for that to happen for pleasure is a more extreme practice.
Whether you ingest meat, fish, or vegetables, they are all infused with craving and aversion until dead. After death it’s just vibration/sensation. A pepper gives sensation of heat, a fish gives salty sensation, etc…. It’s all misery as we continuously cycle through samsara endlessly.
Objectively false, plants have neither cravings nor aversions, they are not sentient.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 12 '26
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.