Home / N. Ex-vegans: why I gave up / Part IND
"Being vegan limited me when eating at my relatives' homes"
the discomfort of eating at family homes is one of the most real costs of veganism, because it touches on affection, tradition and belonging. But it has well-known solutions: bringing a dish to share, talking beforehand, eating whatever on the table is vegan. In the Faunalytics survey, 13% of former vegetarians and vegans cited social issues as a reason for giving up, and 63% didn't like standing out. Awkwardness at the table, however real, doesn't outweigh an animal's life.
Short answer
This is one of the most real costs, because it involves affection, not just food. But there are ways out: letting people know beforehand, bringing a dish for everyone and eating what's already vegan on the table, like rice, beans and salad. Many families adapt over time, especially when they realize the person isn't rejecting anyone. The discomfort of a few meals doesn't outweigh the lives of animals.
For children
At grandma's house, food is a way of showing love. Someone who doesn't eat meat can bring a tasty dish for everyone to try, and explain kindly that they don't eat animals because animals feel pain. That way, the family stays together, and no one has to hurt an animal.
"If you brought a dish to share, would your family turn it down?"
Como pode aparecer
"At my grandma's, there was nothing to eat."
"My mom got hurt when I turned down her food."
"At Christmas, I was the family's problem."
"Veganism pushed me away from my family."
"Barbecues bring the family together." (which is D8)
"Eating out, traveling and parties become impossible." (which is J13)
The strongest version
"Being vegan limited me. Every time I went to my mom's or my grandma's, it was a problem. They got upset, and I ate almost nothing."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Shared food is an important part of family bonds.
- P2Refusing the family's food causes hurt and distance.
- P3Family bonds are an important good, worth protecting.
- CSo it's reasonable to leave veganism to preserve family life.
P1, P2 and P3 are largely true. The problem lies in the conclusion: it assumes there are only two ways out, refusing everything or eating everything, and that the good of family bonds outweighs the lives of the animals served.
The argument is valid, but not sound: there are other ways to preserve family life, and the cost to the animals is left out of the account.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument imagines only two paths, when there are several:
Path Effect on the family Effect on the animals Refusing everything, without talking Hurt Spares animals Eating everything so as not to hurt anyone No conflict Doesn't spare them Talking beforehand and bringing a dish Little or no conflict Spares animals Eating whatever on the table is vegan Little conflict Spares animals - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's the food being refused, not the person.
Much of the hurt comes from the family feeling that their affection was rejected. Explaining calmly, praising what you do eat and thanking them for the invitation changes the conversation a lot.
2. Bringing a dish changes the dynamic.
Instead of arriving with a restriction, the person arrives with a contribution. Many families end up trying it and even asking for the recipe.
3. Many family tables already have plenty that's vegan.
Rice, beans cooked without meat, side dishes, salad, vegetables, fruit. In many cases, it's enough to ask for some of the beans to be set aside before the bacon goes in.
4. Other restrictions are already respected.
Families adapt to relatives with diabetes, allergies, celiac disease or religious restrictions. Adapting to veganism is the same kind of thing.
5. The social cost is real, but it usually shrinks.
Over time, the family gets used to it, and the person also learns what to do. In the Faunalytics survey, 34% of former vegetarians and vegans gave up in the first three months, precisely when these situations are still new.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Faunalytics, 2014 Social issues were the reason for giving up for 13%; 63% didn't like standing out; 34% gave up within three months Survey conducted in 2014 in the United States MacInnis and Hodson, 2017 Omnivores rated vegetarians and vegans as negatively as, or more negatively than, several groups that are common targets of prejudice Helps explain why the pressure is strong - d
The strongest counter-reply: family matters more than a food choice
The most serious version says: family bonds are one of the most important goods in life. A food choice shouldn't cost someone their relationship with their mother or grandmother.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
You rarely have to choose.
There's almost always a way to keep family life going without eating animals. The choice between family and veganism is usually a false one.
It isn't just a food choice.
There are others affected: the animals. The fair comparison isn't between family and a taste, but between the comfort of a few meals and the lives of animals.
Giving in on everything doesn't protect the family.
Strong relationships can handle differences. Hiding your own convictions to avoid conflict also has a cost.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if eating at family homes became harder, the question would remain the same: is it just to make animals suffer and die to avoid discomfort at the table? The family's affection is real, and it can be kept without that.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dichotomy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Forgetting the one affected
Confusing affection with food
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "to preserve family life, it's worth giving up a moral conviction".
If it applied to…A family that tells racist jokesTap to see
You'd have to laugh along to avoid conflict
Unacceptable
If it applied to…A family that drinks and drivesTap to see
You'd have to get in the car
Unacceptable
If it applied to…Religious restrictionTap to see
The person should eat what their religion forbids
No one asks for this
Contradictions
Diabetes, allergies, religion.
So much that they became vegan.
But accepts the idea that the family wouldn't tolerate a difference.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that food is part of affection, that refusing it can hurt and that family bonds matter a great deal. It's also right that many vegans don't know how to handle these situations and end up creating unnecessary conflicts.
But
But the problem has a solution: talking, a dish to share and patience. The good answer to someone who went through this is to share strategies, not to judge.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after