L. Attacks on veganism and vegans

13 arguments in Part IND.

Underlying question: Can the people saying this be trusted?
Dominant error: Logical (ad hominem, tu quoque)

Family of indirect arguments

This argument is about who defends veganism, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If the question depended on who defends animals, vegans being pleasant and consistent would make the argument valid, and being annoying and inconsistent would make it invalid. But the animals suffer just the same, whoever the messenger is.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

L. Attacks on veganism and vegans

Vegans are annoying and think they are better.

Veganism is a cult, a religion.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite.

Veganism isn't 100% cruelty-free.

Vegans care more about animals than people.

Comparing animal farming to slavery or the Holocaust is offensive.

If vegans eat fake meat, they want meat.

I'll eat double to make up for you.

Most vegans give up.

Vegan activists are radicals and extremists.

Meat is for real men.

Veganism is just a fad diet