Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Vegans are annoying and think they are better."
it's an attack on the person, not the argument. Even if some vegans are annoying, that doesn't change the validity of what they say about animals. Psychology even has a name for the reaction: do-gooder derogation. In 2012, researchers showed that meat eaters tend to rate vegetarians worse precisely when they imagine being judged by them. The irritation often comes from discomfort, not from the vegan's behavior.
Short answer
Some vegans may be annoying, like people in any group. But that changes nothing about the animals. Psychology shows that part of the irritation comes from feeling judged: in a 2012 study, meat eaters rated vegetarians worse precisely after imagining that vegetarians judged them. Often, a vegan only has to say they don't eat meat to be seen as "superior". The question remains: do the animals deserve to be spared?
For children
Sometimes someone speaks in an annoying way, even when they're right. Imagine a classmate tells you, in an irritating way, that you're standing on someone's foot. The way they said it might be annoying, but it's still good to move your foot. What matters is whether the person is right, not whether they're nice.
"If the nicest vegan in the world made the same argument, would they be wrong?"
Como pode aparecer
"How do you know someone's vegan? They'll tell you."
"You think you're better than everyone."
"Here comes the vegan again."
"Annoying vegan is a tautology."
"Vegan moralism provokes rejection."
"Radical veganism pushes people away." (which is K6)
The strongest version
"How do you know someone's vegan? They'll tell you. You think you're better than everyone."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Some vegans are pushy, moralistic or arrogant.
- P2That behavior is unpleasant and harms dialogue.
- P3A movement that behaves like that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
- CSo veganism can be ignored.
P1 and P2 may be true in some cases. The problem lies in P3: the behavior of some people says nothing about whether the idea they defend is true.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, which is an ad hominem.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument swaps assessing the idea for assessing the people:
What the argument assesses What it should assess The tone of some vegans Whether animals feel and whether it's right to kill them The supposed superiority The reasons given - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's ad hominem.
The behavior of those defending an idea doesn't make it true or false.
2. The irritation often comes from discomfort.
Minson and Monin showed in 2012 that meat eaters tend to disparage vegetarians, especially when they imagine being morally judged by them. The authors called this do-gooder derogation.
3. Merely mentioning it already bothers people.
Often, a vegan is seen as annoying just for turning down a dish or answering a question.
4. Stereotypes generalize.
Vegans are diverse, and many avoid talking about the subject precisely so as not to be seen this way.
5. We wouldn't accept the argument for other causes.
That some supporters of a cause are inconvenient is no reason to dismiss it; the question about the cause remains.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Minson and Monin, 2012, *Social Psychological and Personality Science* Meat eaters disparage vegetarians, especially when they anticipate being morally judged by them A preprint of the article - d
The strongest counter-reply: moralism hurts the cause
The most serious version says some vegans' moralistic behavior harms their own cause, and that they should change how they communicate.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It's a legitimate criticism of form.
And animal advocates should take it seriously.
It doesn't change the content.
The message is still the same.
It's no excuse for the listener.
The question about the animals is for each person.
- f
Back to the moral question
The argument is about vegans, not animals. But the animals didn't choose their advocates. The moral question doesn't depend on anyone's charm: is it fair to make them suffer and die when we don't need to?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Ad hominem
Hasty generalization
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Evading the question
Biases
Psychological reactance
Feeling judged provokes rejection
General literature on reactance
Messenger effect
The message is judged by dislike of whoever delivers it
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if whoever defends an idea is unpleasant, the idea can be ignored".
If it applied to…Anti-smoking activistsTap to see
The warning about cigarettes could be ignored
No sensible person concludes this
If it applied to…Persistent abolitionistsTap to see
Slavery wouldn't need questioning
Absurd
If it applied to…VegansTap to see
The question of animals could be ignored
The same error
Contradictions
When they agree with them.
But finds it annoying when a vegan does.
Like anyone.
What the argument gets right
What is true
There are vegans who communicate badly, judge others and push people away, and the movement should listen to that criticism. No one likes to feel judged, and dialogue works better with respect.
But
But the quality of an idea doesn't depend on the charm of whoever defends it. The question about the animals is still waiting for an answer, whoever asks it.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after