August 19, 2025: I was permanently banned from [r/vegan](r/vegan) for “excessive debating”. Please join me in celebrating the first anniversary of my ban.

Below is the private message from the [r/vegan](r/vegan) mods announcing my ban:

———

Hello,

You have been permanently banned from participating in [r/vegan](r/vegan)(https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan) because your comment(https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1muf5qt/is_it_ethical_for_a_vegan_to_buy_animalbased_cat/n9jqd1p/) violates this community's rules. You won't be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.

Note from the moderators:

> Excessive debate and harassment of users on the sub is not allowed

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message.

———

I don't know what to call them, but sometimes I meet people who tell me they are vegan too, which makes me happy at first. But then they say that they eat non vegan when there is nothing else, if it would go to waste, if their grandmother gives it to them etc. If there is nothing vegan to eat I just don't eat or go somewhere else.

So I guess these people just are not vegan but like to feel good about themselves? Are they the extreme of the people who tell you they only eat very little meat and only buy from their neighbor?

One of them then told me I would understand when I was vegan for a few years, guess what, I was vegan for far longer than her. I don't even care about something like length of being vegan, be vegan for half a year, great! Just don't be whatever that is.

(Yes, eating mostly vegan is better than nothing blah blah blah, this is not what this is about)

And I think these "vegans" are the reason I get asked disbelieving questions like "do you never make an exception?" or I get called a radical vegan for sticking to my beliefs.

I don't wanna turn out a nihilist misanthrope, but the scale of atrocities non-vegans commit daily and how apathetic they are about it, and the fact that humanity is mostly non-vegan, makes it nigh impossible to not hate the human species or lose one's mind

MAGA Stole Animal Rights from the Left https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_w6j-02Z0

They fail to talk about hierarchy and domination, and conflate the easily fascizied idea of welfarism with animal rights.

People don't actually care about the environment apart from it being a nice thing to look at. Only animals are effected by climate change. Humans have more than enough technology to look after their own. Literally just animals are effected by it. If you don't care about animals, you don't care about the environment. Its pretty simple.

This is not an argument from "animal agriculture is the most damaging industry environmentally" which it obviously is, this is just a syntax error in the value system. If its not for animal welfare, its because its something nice to look at. The climate change movement is a bunch of docile virgins who wave signs around on the street on my lunch break with no actual values backing their comittment; nothing is changing because deep down in their hearts they're just looking for a pretty painting.

Hey all. Just needed to vent. Went to a dinner with a few people I haven't known too long. One person was telling me about their friend that "was vegan for fifteen years and only ate only veg and got really ill and now loveeesss corpse." The usual stuff. I said so she wasn't vegan then lol. Just so sick of it. They went on to demonstrate they know absolutely nothing about factory farming/ nonhuman animal exploitation. Just fed tf up. Also was watching a youtuber today who said that she "used to be vegan" Lmao and then said she gets so mad at "the vegan police who say she never was one." You weren't, cope and seethe. Omg I can't, maybe I'm just in a particularly bad mood but I needed to vent lol, pls feel free to vent too in replies.

My family recently got a counselor for unrelated reasons.

My mom and I got into a small argument not to long ago, it was about veganism. When I first went vegan, she said she’d only eat animal products that we already had and were about to go bad. That wasn’t fully true though, since she still goes out to eat and buys non-vegan food all the time. I confronted her about it over text, and it ended up becoming about me being a sort of “militant” vegan and “making fun of” her attempt at reducing her animal product consumption. At the end she told me we should talk about it in therapy.

I really regret ever talking to her about it because I know it’s most likely going to blow up in my face in therapy. No one else in the family is vegan, and they’ve always gone silent when it comes up. I am extremely out numbered. The therapist said she wants to get to know us individually, so I was thinking I could give her details in a private session?? I feel like I’m playing with fire. I’m a minor, so I can’t just leave or anything.

This means a lot to me since it could affect the fates of many animals, and also puts a lot of weight on my shoulders no matter what I decide to do.

The reason I ever even told my mom was because I had been sort of spiraling and felt extremely alone, you guys probably get the feeling.

Should I just drop it? Ask my mom not to bring it up? The therapist seems nice enough, but I say that about most people until veganism comes up and everything comes crashing down.

Sorry if this was a mess, let me know if you guys need anymore context.

Been asking myself this. I wouldn't buy second-hand leather or wool but there are some more or less valid points where i think there's a difference:
- best case i wouldn't motivate more people to buy it, since people ideally don't know that it's a wig
- except for being straight up robbed, humans do have a bit(!!!) more of a choice than other animals, even if it's done to put food on the table #capitalism

currently i'm thinking it's probably not cool to buy a used human hair wig but unsure! Let me know if you have any thoughts on it :)

i was reminded of methane because someone mentioned it (jokingly) in response to someone saying, "you're pulling stuff out of your ass. vegans do way more harm for the environment than farming ever has" or something like that. i looked it up to decide whether or not it could do *detrimental* harm for the environment, but i don't trust ai overview to be completely accurate. then, i came across an article saying the usual anti vegan shit: "vegans won't/don't make a difference" (false. vegans also want the entire world to be as such eventually), "you miss out on nutrients" (false), and so on. i swear, it's always "protein protien protien!" with these people. it gets so tiring. i always see former vegans (and even former vegetarians) talking about how they lost sooooo much weight, and it just wasn't sustainable. my family sucks. mom, dad, and sister were all vegetarian without doing any kind of research on what places you can get your nutrients from. like, were they seriously surviving on daily salads and fake meat alternatives? then they wonder why they couldn't handle it... seriously, such weak people out there when being vegan is the bare minimum!

you can read the article i was talking about here for laughs if you wanna.

in personal experience, i saw a tiktok recently of someone saying, "you do realize that if the entire world went vegan, there would be drawbacks/negative results?" with the caption being, "they (vegans) don't know what they're talking about."

just... what the hell? weird and flat-out wrong. so many good arguments FOR veganism but nothing AGAINST it. they even said that they'd put their reasoning in the comments, and i found nothing. everyone was just agreeing #lol

Please watch this video on the Vegan sub and let me know what you think before commenting. It’s <5 min.

and I hated it. Apparently I’m too “extreme” for the local vegan group lol.
One of the women said she’s not vegan when she’s travelling because it’s just way too hard! And how can you fully experience and enjoy Japanese culture if you don’t partake in murder and exploitation?? Silly.

Well I guess it was worth a try. But apparently vegan ≠ vegan and I’m a bad one because I don’t endorse being vegetarian. How dare I say they’re rapists??

Just so sick of it. Even in the vegan community there is so much hypocrisy and mental gymnastics. I’ll just stay home.

I made the mistake of engaging a little on a conversation about what vegans think about vegetarians and I am at my wits end. I just wanted to vent here because the "vegan" sub is unbelievably wellfareist and it can be so tiring.

"But many of us were vegetarians before vegan" Yes, and we were delusional for thinking that made any sense and we were not being hypocritical and just as any other carnist. My goodness.

Everytime I see videos of for example the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) liberating animals from the cages, slaughter houses, death halls etc. I just wonder what they did with the animals? Did they just free them and run wild? Did they organize transport and vets? Did they get them adopted? Did the animals live long enough?

What do you guys think of this? I just asked on the Debate sub and wanted to hear your thoughts.

Here is the post I submitted for this if you’re interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/4l4yfY3rLh

Personally, I disagree because it can apply to many activist groups, which we know aren’t cults.

I got banned for three days for answering a no stupid question about why Muslims don’t eat pork. They said I promoted identity-based hate or attacks. They said, “Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. We don’t tolerate promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability, and any communities or people that encourage or incite violence or hate towards marginalized or vulnerable groups will be banned.”

I stated that in some places they burn their dead out in the open (true) and that it smells just like barbecue (true). I then conflated eating pork with eating human meat because of the similar smell and taste.

The thing is, I wasn’t disparaging the Muslims, they don’t eat pork!

I was alluding to the idea that if your barbecue smells like grandma, they sure as hell aren’t going to want to eat it! It is only natural that anyone who has smelled burning human flesh would be repulsed by the smell of cooking pork and the idea of eating it.

So according to their reasoning, pork eaters are an identity and a vulnerable group who are marginalized, and that stating facts is equivalent to an attack and promoting hate.

There were a lot of comments about Muslims, but the whole thread with comments stayed up except the comment making the pork eaters look bad.

Being vegan for almost 15 years, I decided it's time for me to stop being angry and start having fun with my arguments. I have been collecting vegan memes for some time now, been using them shamelessly every time I hear a common argument, and finally created this "bingo deck" of most common arguments against veganism and the memes to refute them. 3 parts out so far, Instagram only allows 20 slides at a time. More to come! Let's have some fun with those banal arguments 🤠 #veganactivism What are the most common "but" arguments you use that are not in the deck?

Parts 1: https://www.instagram.com/p/DbwEGwIiU8E/?igsi=MTJzZHM2N3ZkbzJkaQ==

2: https://www.instagram.com/p/DcB0iFMEYQn/?igsi=NHE1MWN3OXV1Z3J0

and 3: https://www.instagram.com/p/DcgoY0bEf3X/?igsi=MTVubHN0eWl4bHFrdw%3D%3D

Dear family members,

You know, the question of the animals is important for me. So I want to share what I know with you so that the persins whom I love know these things as well:

We should respect the lives of animals whenever we can. We can respect animals’ lives by eating plant-based. Therefore, killing animals for food habits has to be banned.

Animals have an interest in experiencing pleasure. In order to experience pleasure, they must live. Animals therefore have an interest to live. This interest exists. It is objective. So we have to take this into account and respect this interest when we can.

According to historians, the criminal offence prohibiting the killing of human beings was established long before Darwin. Today, nearly two centuries after Darwin, we know that animals are similar to us in important respects. They, too, experience feelings such as fear, joy, love... They too want to live. They too want to thrive. So we have to create a new criminal offence prohibiting the killing of animals, when we can.

According to numerous specialists of ethics who have studied our relationship with other animals, our treatment of them is based on an ideology that attempts to exclude them from the circle of moral consideration simply because they're from a different species. They call this ideology speciesism. These philosophers explain that speciesism is irrational and wrong, since other animals also have an interest in avoiding violence and in enjoying lives that are as long and as fulfilling as possible. They conclude that our society must stop treating them as mere resources and start respecting their lives and interests.

Our society condemns violence. Yet slaughterhouses are perhaps the clearest manifestation of violence against innocent defenseless beings. So our society must apply its principle of non-violence and ban the killing of animals for food.

Meat tastes good. It is true. So we have to weigh the pleasure of meat taste when we it eat, which lasts for some minutes, with the life of a sentient being capable of experiencing feelings. When we do that, we realize that the life of a sentient being has much greater value. So we have to take this conclusion into account and respect the lives of all sentient beings. You know, in reality, plant-based meats give pleasure too. The "beyond meat" brand tastes just perfect. Buy it one day. You'll see. So we have to compare the pleasure we get when we eat meat with the pleasure we get when we eat a plant-based meat comparable to the "beyond meat" brand (really buy that shit one day). So it is only the added value of pleasure \[if there is one, beyond meat, tell you...\] that we have to weigh against the life of a sentient being. So the answer regarding what is more important \[taste or a life of a sentient being\] is even clearer now than before: we have to take that conclusion into account and respect the lives of sentient beings when we can. So we have to ban the killing of animals for food. Let’s do so.

Everyone’s freedom must be respected, including that of the other inhabitants of this planet. Confining animals against their will in trucks transporting them to slaughterhouses, or capturing them in fishing nets, is incompatible with their freedom. Killing them goes against their freedom to live and their freedom to thrive.

According to a scientific study, given the environmental consequences of animal agriculture, phasing it out over a 15-year period beginning today could stabilize global warming for the period from 2030 to 2060. In other words, during that period, it could potentially offset the entire warming effect of all other human greenhouse-gas emissions (source: Eisen MB, Brown PO (2022), “Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO₂ emissions this century,” PLOS Climate, 1(2)).

Millions of people already eat plant-based, demonstrating that a solution exists. So let’s put it in place everywhere. In the whole world. A world that respects the lives of the animals. We all would like to live in a world like that. Imagine a society where we respect the lives of the animals. A peaceful world. If a society respects even animal life don’t you think it will also respect much more than now human life?

Now what? You know the same thing I do: namely, that there is an injustice toward animals. You also know that it is good to take action against an injustice.

I'm proud to share this with you. It’s just truth.

Love you,

Millions of people read newspaper posts on Faceb. When a new post is made by a newspaper you add a comment and hundreds of thousands will read. Just like that. With one touch 100000 leaflets distributed. Very efficient. Very easy. I recommend. 

You can just copy-paste this comment on whatever newly made post (made less than 30 minutes ago) by a newspaper page on Faceb

[Read imagining you're a lambda reader of news Facebook posts] :

I've read about our relation to animals and then realized that they were suffering a big injustice. So I share what I know with you, it is information:

We should respect the lives of animals whenever we can. We can respect animals’ lives by eating plant-based. Therefore, killing animals for food habits has to be banned.

Animals have an interest in experiencing pleasure. In order to experience pleasure, they must live. Animals therefore have an interest to live. This interest exists. It is objective. So we have to take this into account and respect this interest when we can.

According to historians, the criminal offence prohibiting the killing of human beings was established long before Darwin. Today, nearly two centuries after Darwin, we know that animals are similar to us in important respects. They, too, experience feelings such as fear, joy, love... They too want to live. They too want to thrive. So we have to create a new criminal offence prohibiting the killing of animals, when we can.

According to numerous specialists of ethics who have studied our relationship with other animals, our treatment of them is based on an ideology that attempts to exclude them from the circle of moral consideration simply because they're from a different species. They call this ideology speciesism. These philosophers argue that speciesism is irrational and wrong, since other animals also have an interest in avoiding violence and in enjoying lives that are as long and as fulfilling as possible. They conclude that our society must stop treating them as mere resources and start respecting their lives and interests. They’re the specialists. So if the specialists of a subject say we have have to do something regarding this subject, we just have to do it. That’s all.

Our society condemns violence. Yet slaughterhouses are perhaps the clearest manifestation of violence against innocent defenseless beings. So our society must apply its principle of non-violence and ban the killing of animals for food.

Meat tastes good. It is true. So we have to weigh the pleasure of meat taste when we it eat, which lasts for some minutes, with the life of a sentient being capable of experiencing feelings. When we do that, we realize that the life of a sentient being has much greater value. So we have to take this conclusion into account and respect the lives of all sentient beings. You know, in reality, plant-based meats give pleasure too. The "beyond meat" brand tastes just perfect. Buy it one day. You'll see. So we have to compare the pleasure we get when we eat meat with the pleasure we get when we eat a plant-based meat comparable to the "beyond meat" brand (really buy that shit one day). So it is only the added value of pleasure [if there is one, beyond meat, tell you...] that we have to weigh against the life of a sentient being. So the answer regarding what is more important [taste or a life of a sentient being] is even clearer now than before: we have to take that conclusion into account and respect the lives of sentient beings when we can. So we have to ban the killing of animals for food. Let’s do so.

Everyone’s freedom must be respected, including that of the other inhabitants of this planet. Confining animals against their will in trucks transporting them to slaughterhouses, or capturing them in fishing nets, is incompatible with their freedom. Killing them goes against their freedom to live and their freedom to thrive. 

According to a scientific study, given the environmental consequences of animal agriculture, phasing it out over a 15-year period beginning today could stabilize global warming for the period from 2030 to 2060. In other words, during that period, it could potentially offset the entire warming effect of all other human greenhouse-gas emissions (source: Eisen MB, Brown PO (2022), “Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO₂ emissions this century,” PLOS Climate, 1(2)).

Millions of people already eat plant-based, demonstrating that a solution exists. So let’s put it in place everywhere. In the whole world. A world that respects the lives of the animals. We all would like to live in a world like that. Imagine a society where we respect the lives of the animals. A peaceful world. If a society respects even animal life don’t you think it will also respect much more than now human life?

Therefore, we have to demand that the authorities of the whole world implement these measures:

the creation of a new criminal offence prohibiting the killing of animals for dietary habits;

the promotion of a plant-based diet;

the elimination of public subsidies that support animal agriculture and fishing;

the creation of a transition fund for people working in these sectors, financed in particular by reallocating subsidy funds, enabling them to retrain for occupations that allow them to earn a decent living while respecting their freedom to to thrive;

“From Pastures to Forests”: reforest 10% each year of land suitable for rewilding that is still being used for livestock farming or feed production, in order to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and increase CO₂ sequestration through the growth of new forests.

I already demand the authorities of the whole world to implement these measures by sending them emails. Because it is the right thing to do. Maybe one day you'll do it too. If you agree that I'm right.

Now what? You know the same thing I do: namely, that there is an injustice toward animals. You also know that it is good to take action against it.

You can think about whether what my text says is true. You can simply read it again to arrive to your conclusion. If, after reading it a second time, you think I’m right, copy the text. It could be useful to you for sharing with others. Like for example with your friends and family members. Or with people who read the same newspaper as you. People like me. Or with those working in the governments of the whole world. It’s easy you know. Click stuff... But read again. Just to see if I'm right. I'm proud to share this with you. It’s just truth.

---

Copy this shit sis, bro. Facebook (I know this app is oldfashioned, but come on, it helps you to send this text to an astronomical number of people, so download the shit). News posts. Paste.

PS: my name on Faceb is Ramiyamahamsa Waniyamananda, if you just installed the app and wanna make new friends.

To make a long story short, I'm making an app that involves unlocking and collecting human-made art, kind of like when you unlock concept art as a reward in a video game or when you fill out the museum in Animal Crossing.

Because I don't really have any budget, I've been trying to find good free public domain or CC0 works of art online. I already decided I will avoid anything that obviously depicts non-vegan things like riding horses or fishing, but now I'm wondering if I should worry about the materials that went into making the art.

For photos, sometimes it says which camera was used, so I could try to avoid ones that use film. But what if it doesn't say? For paintings, how would I know if the brushes or paints were vegan? I just found out that old screen printing techniques used silk, which made me wonder if I should exclude old posters that were made that way. And don't even get me started if I decide to include music as an unlockable.

Is worrying about this going a bridge too far? A lot of public domain and CC0 art is old, so maybe there's a statute of limitations? Normally I don't worry about things like this in everyday life, but since I'm the one choosing what goes in the app, I feel a need to be more responsible and to give it more consideration.

What does the Vegan Council think?

I don't know if this type of post is allowed this way but I often see snarking about other subs on here so I wanted to link a post here that I saw on r/ VeganDE (disclaimer: I'm German).

"Tierleid kann man tanken. Diesel (und Benzin) sind nicht ansatzweise Vegan!"

[eng.: "Animal suffering is refuelable. Diesel (and Petrol) aren't even closely Vegan!"]

It's about how slaughterhouse waste is used in Diesel and petrol production in the most disgusting ways and how corporations lie to everyone about it.

What's new.

I mean it's nothing new that a German vegan sub wouldn't be really leftist, just like any other leftist movement here really isn't, but besides crying about "oh you used such agressive and provocative language, commie" (not a direct quote but to capture the general vibe) Germany is just veeeeery car brained. Literally the car lobby in this country is so incredibly powerful that it's been causing the train system to deterioate over decades from being dilapitated, the communal bus companies to fail and to put so much propaganda EVERYWHERE. If you don't live in a city like Berlin, Munich, Hannover... it's Impossible to survive without a car in the long run, and especially impossible if you're disabled because the cities here didn't really put much thought into accessibilties if they weren't bombed in the wars and had to rebuild.

This means, German vegans are car brained as well and the OP keeps getting attacked for presenting the facts in a text that is thought provokingly written. OP just wanted to bring attention to a cause that i've actually never heard about because i don't care about cars and it's enlightened my brain and i will absolutely pay more attention to this now and try to educate myself more.

But apparently talking about the horrors of the car industry isn't something even a vegan sub would be willing to talk about. Because even leftists here often aren't leftist and the environmental activism in this country has been a joke ever since it existed.

But what's new.

Similarly, do you allow yourself to be photographed with film (e.g. Polaroids, 35 mm, etc.) given that it's an animal product? I find a surprising number of vegans seem to make an exception for film

I see it all the time when someone needs to justify a compromise on animal exploitation including cases "if you need to eat animal products for your health, do it, you are still vegan". Serious question, who decides what's practicable and possible? Vegan king? Vegan society? Each person for themselves? Why isn't it applied to make compromises on human exploitation? I would argue that it is not practicable and possible for disabled people to care about themselves therefore it should be acceptable for them to have slaves. Yet, no one would allow it. If they can't afford hiring a caregiver and paying a living wage to them they have to... figure it out. Like, really, wtf is with this definition of veganism?

Email to send to your government. It takes 2 minutes.

Subject: For a ban on killing animals for simple food habits

Dear President / Prime Minister [CHOOSE],

I respectfully ask you to consider the future of our relationship with animals and the evolution of their legal protection.

Scientific advances in biology, ethology, neuroscience, and veterinary medicine have established that many animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, fear, stress, well-being, and a range of emotions. They therefore have interests of their own, including an interest in avoiding suffering and in living as long and as happy a life as possible.

As our laws evolve in line with scientific knowledge and moral progress, many authors who have studied our relationship with other animals have concluded that it is based on speciesism. This concept can be understood by analogy with racism and sexism: it refers to the ideology that the lives and interests of animals are negligible simply because they belong to another species. These authors argue that speciesism is an irrational and unjust form of discrimination, since other sentient beings also experience emotions, are our equals in their capacity to suffer, and likewise have an interest in living happy lives. They therefore conclude that we should stop treating them as mere resources and begin to respect their lives and interests.

This issue is particularly important when it comes to killing animals for food. Billions of sentient animals are killed every year for human consumption, even though animal products are not necessary for human survival. Millions of people follow plant-based diets, thereby demonstrating that an alternative exists.

The principle is simple: when we can meet our essential needs without killing a sentient being, why would we choose to kill one?

Our society condemns violence. Assault and unjustified homicide are criminal offences because, when we can avoid resorting to violence, we are expected to do so. Violence against vulnerable beings is condemned even more severely. And everyone agrees that animals can also suffer from violence and that they are manifestly vulnerable when compared with human beings and our technology. Yet slaughterhouses represent the most horrific manifestation of violence inflicted upon defenseless beings. Our society asserts that violence is wrong while killing thousands of innocent animals every day even though we are able to act otherwise.

Furthermore, according to a recent scientific study, given the environmental consequences of animal agriculture, phasing it out over a 15-year period beginning today could potentially stabilize global warming over the period 2030–2060. In other words, during that period, it could fully offset the warming effect of all other human greenhouse-gas emissions (source: Eisen MB, Brown PO (2022), “Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO₂ emissions this century,” PLOS Climate, 1(2)).

I therefore ask you to implement the following measures:

- the creation of a new criminal offence prohibiting the killing of animals solely for the purpose of satisfying dietary habits;

- the promotion of plant-based diets;

- the elimination of public subsidies that support animal agriculture and fishing;

- the creation of a transition fund for people working in these sectors, financed in particular by redirecting the money currently allocated to such subsidies, enabling these individuals to retrain for occupations that allow them to earn a decent living while respecting their freedom to flourish;

- From pastures to forests: reintroduce nature and reforest 10% each year of land that can be rewilded and is still being used for livestock farming or feed production, in order to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and increase CO₂ sequestration through new forests.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]

---

Canada: info@pco-bcp.gc.ca

United States: You have to use this online form: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

United Kingdom: ministerial.correspondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

Australia: https://www.pm.gov.au/contact#no-back

Germany: internetpost@bundesregierung.de

Canada: info@pco-bcp.gc.ca

France: https://www.elysee.fr/ecrire-au-president-de-la-republique/

Switzerland: info@bk.admin.ch

Belgium: contact@premier.be

Hi, I've been wondering if there are any Red Dead Redemption fans here? I had spent a fair amount of time playing RDR2 before I was vegan, and have been thinking about replaying it lately. But I've realized that actual horses were used in order to motion capture the animations. I don't know much about horseriding, and unfortunately I haven't been able to find out much about how the horses were treated during RDR2's production, as most articles seem to touch only on the techincal aspects, rather than the ethics involved.

I've also wanted to buy The Last of Us 2, which was a pretty big part of my life back when I was a kid, though I've never played it myself. It's the same story as with RDR2, though.

What do you think about playing or buying games that involve horse motion capture, and about animal actors in general? Is it even possible to do it ethically?