Home / Weak arguments / Purity and invented rules
"Anyone who supports step-by-step change isn't really vegan."
They create demands veganism does not make and push away people who might join, without helping a single animal.
Why it is weak
Veganism is defined by refusing animal exploitation as far as is possible and practicable, not by a position on strategy. Someone can be vegan and support gradual reforms, or be vegan and reject them.
The debate between abolitionism and welfare reforms is legitimate, but it is an empirical question: what reduces the most suffering and brings the end of exploitation closer? That is answered with evidence, not by deciding who is really vegan.
Fights over who is "really vegan" push people away and use up energy that could go to the animals.
How to say it better
Discuss strategy with evidence: which approach saves the most animals and most changes how people consider them. The question is what works, not who deserves the label.
This doesn't mean every strategy, intervention and current is equally good for animals. There may well be a better path, and it should be sought in the evidence: what makes people consider animals, how to save more animals and which interventions work best. The evidence may favor one side. That doesn't stop people from different currents becoming vegan and then revising their moral and political views in other areas, seeking an even greater overall impact.