31 min read
Carnist reasoning refuted, speciesist excuses exposed, and common animal-rights misconceptions corrected.
Are you new to veganism and still not totally sold on the idea? Maybe you've heard some unusually solid points about veganism but you still have some lingering doubts? Or are you already vegan and you just don't know how to respond to your friends and family when they question your lifestyle yet?
Whatever your situation, the following exhaustive list of the most common questions and arguments against veganism and their most appropriate responses is I'm sure what you're here for.
There are countless excuses people use to continue participating in animal slaughter and exploitation, but I have limited this to the most commonly heard ones.
As you will notice, it is my style to answer as simply as possible and ask questions as much as I can. Asking questions gets people thinking more than just presenting them with facts, and it opens the conversation up for a more healthy, two-way discussion while rarely resulting in someone feeling “lectured,” which most people dislike.
What is probably more important than internalising the following list of factually accurate responses is to just remember one simple thing: every argument against veganism is an argument in favour of animal exploitation, abuse and slaughter. No matter how it’s worded, do you really think that is something acceptable?
While it is easy to brush off questions or comments about veganism, knowing how to handle veg-objections when they arise in the easiest fashion is a valuable skill to have, both for the animals and your own sanity.
I’m sure that some, if not most of the people who ask you questions like these will be people who are worth going into a little detail with. Just as I’m sure most people will be glad that you spent a minute describing these things to them, if for no other reason than it lets them understand your position a little more.
You will notice that underneath each anti-vegan argument there is usually some sort of logical fallacy in brackets. The best free online list of these and their explanations can be found at CarnismDebunked.com.
A quick search will reveal many websites like this that are usually built on those that came before them. Giving credit where credit is due, the following list expands upon the awesome work of The Vegan Speak's Complete Vegan Arguments Guide, Your Vegan Fallacy Is... and the legendary Vegan Sidekick's Debate Guide.
You can repeat the rest of this blog word for word if you like, or copy and paste it where necessary... I won't tell anyone.
(Appeal to Nature fallacy.)
“Lions and other animals need to kill for survival, without it they would die. Humans killing animals for food is cruel and unnecessary because we know that we can live long healthy lives without ever eating animals. In fact, the longest living people eat the least amount of meat.”
“Animals do a lot of things we don’t do, don’t you think it’s an unfair comparison to pick one thing wild animals do that you want to copy and disregard the rest? You wouldn’t defend that same line of logic if you heard a rapist trying to justify satisfying their sexual desires by saying, ‘yeah but animals do it in the wild’ would you? Do you really think you can use the same reasoning to explain satisfying your taste desires when you can just as easily eat plants?”
(Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness or Appeal to Nature or Force fallacy.)
“Do you think ‘might makes right’? Just because we CAN enslave other animals, does that make it a moral thing to do? What if I CAN steal money from the elderly, does that make it the right thing to do? Of course not. Because might does not automatically make right.”
“Did you ever notice how no-one ever says it’s just the ‘circle of life’ or it’s ‘survival of the fittest’ when an animal kills a human? Because it’s different when you’re the victim, isn’t it?”
(Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness or Appeal to Nature fallacy.)
“Can you define what a food chain actually is? [Probably not.] Let's look for a minute at what food chains exactly are and why they are so important. Food chains help maintain natural ecosystems and natural population sizes of wild animals. Food chains help maintain the natural ecology of areas of the world where they exist and they are fundamental to the survival of those ecosystems.”
“What we do to animals when we forcibly artificially breed them, enslave, mutilate and exploit them before slaughtering them for our unnecessary desires has nothing to do with a food chain. It resembles nothing like you would see in the wild. It has nothing to do with helping to maintain healthy population sizes or maintaining the ecology of environments. What we do to animals cannot be compared to a food chain because it could not be further detached from a food chain.”
(Appeal to Tradition fallacy.)
“Our ancestors did many things we have since stopped doing. They kept slaves, for instance. Why do you pick one thing they did that you want to emulate and forget the rest? It is illogical to conclude that because some of our ancestors ate meat, we should continue to do so in today's modern world when we have easy access to all the plants we need at very affordable prices. Especially now we know how unhealthy eating meat is.”
(This usually results from an Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Necessary for what? Survival? To be healthy? Athletic? No, it’s not. The largest organisation of nutrition and dietetic professionals in the world, The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, has categorically stated that vegan diets are healthful for all stages of life from birth to old age, and for athletes, and can prevent against disease.”
“There is nothing necessary about eating animals. It is a cruel and inhuman tradition that can no longer be justified—so should no longer be practised. Did you know that the World Health Organisation has classified processed meat as a class 1A carcinogen? Meaning we know it causes cancer in humans with the same certainty that tobacco and asbestos do?”
(Appeal to Nature fallacy.)
“Does that make it the right thing to do, though? It’s also ‘natural’ to kill and eat your own babies, as other animals do that in the wild... but that doesn’t make it okay for us to do it too, does it?”
“Lots of things happen in nature that we collectively consider morally wrong, like killing your children because they are weak, for example. Just because something is "natural" doesn’t mean it’s right.”
(Appeal to Nature fallacy.)
“So? We can be completely healthy, and decrease our chances of all chronic diseases by being vegan. Eating meat, dairy and eggs is always less healthy than eating whole plant alternatives, and it causes incredible harm to the animals we exploit to make these products. We shouldn’t do it because we don’t need to do it.”
“The largest organisation of nutrition and dietetic professionals in the world, The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, has categorically stated that vegan diets are healthful for all stages of life from birth to old age, and for athletes, and can prevent against disease. This is why the longest living populations on Earth all eat the most plants. Did you know that the World Health Organisation has classified processed meat as a class 1A carcinogen? Meaning we know it causes cancer with the same certainty that tobacco and asbestos do?”
(This usually results from an Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Even if that were true, it doesn’t make it moral. Animals lives are still being taken against their will. And eating meat is healthier than eating nothing, but animal foods are NOT healthy compared to plant foods. There is no essential nutrient that naturally exists in animals that can not be found in greater quality in plants, and without the nutritionally deadly baggage of saturated fat, hormones and cholesterol.”
“The largest organisation of nutrition and dietetic professionals in the world, The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, has categorically stated that vegan diets are healthful for all stages of life from birth to old age, and for athletes, and can prevent against disease. This is why the longest living populations on Earth all eat the most plants. Did you know what the World Health Organisation has classified processed meat as a class 1A carcinogen? Meaning we know it causes cancer with the same certainty that tobacco and asbestos do?”
(Just plain wrong.)
“It’s not really a personal choice when there is an innocent victim though, is it? And what about the animals personal choice not to be treated as property and have their life taken against their will? It is never a personal choice to harm animals for your trivial and unnecessary pleasures, which is exactly what eating and wearing them is.”
(Appeal to Popularity fallacy.)
“So what? Morality is not based on mass appeal. Most people used to think slavery was acceptable and that women shouldn’t vote. Most people usually agree with a certain oppression so long as it isn’t happening to them, until a small group of people fight to make them see things from the victims perspective.”
(Appeal to Tradition fallacy or results from an Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Even if it did, it doesn’t make the choice to eat animals TODAY a morally sound decision. We live in a very different world today than hundreds of thousands of years ago. Early homo sapiens probably used rape as a strategy for gene-promotion when they could not get access to consensual sex. This helped us to evolve to where we are today. Would you justify rape today because it might have helped us evolve?”
“In addition, most scientists agree that it wasn’t meat, but cooking foods, that made our brains evolve. This would explain why we’re the smartest animals and the only animals that cook, while other entirely carnivorous animals like lions are less intelligent than us but eat way more meat. The hypothesis is that cooking allowed humans to get more energy from the same amount of food, such as root vegetables like potatoes, and to spend less time chewing, which meant this extra energy helped fuel brain growth.”
(Appeal to Legality fallacy.)
“Less than 200 years ago in the US it was legal to own human slaves, and there were welfare laws to protect them too. Just because it’s legal, does not make it moral. In a lot of places today it is still illegal for gay people to get married. Laws like this always change in response to moral realisation and public pressure, not the other way around.”
(This usually results from an Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“No, they don’t. Plants show signs of intelligence, not sentience. Plants can respond to stimulus, such as moving towards the sunlight, they do not have a personal, subjective experience of the world. They also have no evolutionary purpose for feeling pain and have no brain or central nervous system to process the sensations. I doubt you would avoid walking on grass the same way you avoid stepping on a dog.”
“I think you know this is not true anyway… how would you feel if I accidentally cut your hedges while cutting mine? Contrast that with how you would feel if I accidentally slit your dog's throat while cutting my hedges.”
(Red Herring fallacy.)
“You’re right, and I’m glad you brought this up because it is actually an argument FOR veganism, not against it… Yes, some animals do die in crop harvesting, but do you realise that about ten times more crops are harvested to feed the 50+ billion land animals we raise for food every year than if we were just harvesting food for the 7 billion humans?”
“Do you actually care about animals lives or are you just trying to justify your current lifestyle? While there will be casualties in crop harvesting, and of course we would all prefer there were not, going vegan is still the least harmful thing we can do.”
(This usually results from an Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“That doesn’t make it a moral thing to do though, does it? Would you use the same reasoning to justify a human born into a life of sex slavery? Bringing any animal into existence for the purpose of abusing them is not ethical under any circumstance. The animals do not care about why they were bred, they just want to live and avoid suffering like we do. It is not our right to go against their interests just because we brought them into existence.”
(This usually results from an Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Livestock animals around today have been selectively bred and modified by humans to be much bigger than normal because it’s more profitable. They suffer all kinds of health problems because of this, including not being able to stand on their own body weight. If everybody was vegan there would be no reason to keep breeding these animals at all, it would just be knowingly bringing them into a life of suffering.”
“So with the unhealthily genetically modified versions of the animals that are already alive, we could conserve them in the many animal sanctuaries that exist today where farmed animals are rescued and live out the remainder of their lives in peace. The rest of the animals in the wild would actually flourish because animal agriculture would cease, and it is the major destructive force on all of Earth’s ecosystems today.”
(Straw Man argument or False Dilemma fallacy.))
“No one is suggesting everyone is going to go vegan overnight, as nice as that would be, it is an unrealistic expectation. It will happen gradually over time and during that time the demand for animal products would decrease, so naturally, the supply would too. Which means breeding fewer animals into existence for the sole purpose of killing them, which is why it happens now, to meet demand.”
(Red Herring or False Dilemma fallacy.)
“These animals are domesticated, and are not natural breeds, they were selectively bred for the purpose of profiting off them. Nobody wants to release loads of these animals into the wild, that would not be best for the animals and would cause so many additional problems. What vegans want is for animals to stop being bred in the first place. It isn’t a question of either they get eaten by wild animals, or by us; we don’t need to be breeding them into existence at all.”
(Descriptive Argument, Red Herring or an Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Animals aren’t morally valuable because of their ability to understand morality, they’re valuable because of their sentience— their subjective experience of reality—and their ability to feel pain, pleasure, joy and fear. Some humans, like babies and mentally disabled adults, sometimes cannot discern right from wrong, would you suggest that it’s okay to abuse them like we do some animals?”
“Anyway, most animals do have at least a basic understanding of right and wrong, because it’s an evolutionary advantage. You can watch videos on YouTube of wild animals showing compassion for babies they were about to kill before they realised how young they were. Altruism often results in something positive in return, and bad actions usually result in the opposite, in all animals.”
(Hypothetical scenario.)
“Actually, most of the animals that are regularly bred for food, like cows, sheep and goats, are herbivorous animals. So no, they wouldn’t even want to eat me. But even the ones that might, like wild pigs and lions… so what? Are you seriously suggesting we base our morality on the base desires of animals less intelligent than us who lack our ability to logically rationalise?”
(Appeal to Force fallacy.)
“Superior how? In intelligence, yes. But can you swim like a fish or run like a cheetah? Can you sense things in the water like sharks can? No. And remember that some humans are superior to other humans… they are smarter, faster, stronger or better looking. By this logic, the ‘superior’ humans could abuse and kill the inferior humans. Would you accept that?”
“Clearly, superiority doesn’t grant you the right to abuse other sentient beings. In fact, this line of thinking is what justified many atrocities in the past, like The Holocaust in Europe, black segregation and disenfranchisement of women. Of course, nobody wants animals to have the same rights as humans, like the right to vote, because it doesn’t make sense. What does make sense though, is to grant them the right to life, because their sentience means they have a preference to live, just like we do.”
(Straw Man argument.)
“Of course, but why are they already dead? They've already been slaughtered because there is demand for that product. Veganism is about decreasing the demand for animal products, so the supply decreases and fewer animals are killed in the future. Arguably the most power we have as consumers is to vote with our money, and every time you pay for an animal product you’re indicating you want more of that product. Each time you buy an already dead animal, you're paying for more slaughter.”
(Red Herring fallacy.)
“The animals do not care what you do with their bodies after their life is taken. Once you’ve already committed the immoral, unnecessary action of killing an animal for food, what you do after doesn’t make it any better. By this logic, you should argue for a shorter sentence for American cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer because he used nearly every part of his victims’ bodies. He ate various parts of them and even turned some body parts into household items. You can see how this makes no sense, right?”
(Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Yes, it does. Where does milk come from? (Cows.) What type of cows? (Lactating cows.) And how do dairy cows get pregnant in the first place? (They are routinely forcibly artificially inseminated by the farmer.) The calf, the cow’s baby, is taken from her mother within 48 hours of birth, leaving the mother crying in psychological pain sometimes for days. Why? So YOU can have that calf’s milk. Every drop of milk you drink, some baby calf is not drinking.”
“If the calf is male, it is of no use to the dairy industry so is killed and discarded. Or sometimes he will be sold to the veal industry and fed a malnutritions diet and slaughtered within months. If the calf is female, she will be raised to have the same horrific cycle of abuse inflicted upon her. This cycle, which repeats about two or three times, until the cow is not profitable anymore, is arguably more torturous than just raising the cow to be slaughtered for food—which all dairy cows end up becoming at the end of their miserable lives anyway. So when you look at it like this, the dairy industry is actually much more harmful than the meat industry.”
(Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Yes, it does. Only females are valuable to the egg industry since only they lay eggs, so millions of male chicks are killed every year, either by being ground alive, gassed, drowned, or suffocated in a sack. The females are painfully de-beaked, without anaesthesia, and sent off to the farm where, due to genetic manipulation, they will lay a painful 300 plus eggs per year. Wild chickens will only lay 20 or so per year. This process happens in any farm, regardless of it being free-range, organic or any other misleading marketing term.”
“After the hens stop producing a profitable amount of eggs, they are sent to slaughter. This involves being thrown into an electric bath to be stunned, then hoisted up upside down and put on a conveyor belt to have her throat slit. Due to the sheer quantity of chickens, many of them will remain fully conscious after they are both improperly stunned, and improperly cut in the throat, and so will be boiled alive in the de-feathering tank. Their slaughter happens at around two years of age, but the natural lifespan of a chicken is eight years. The egg industry is extremely harmful, and only exists because people want to eat eggs.”
(Red Herring or Irrelevant Conclusion fallacy.)
“Aside from those terms being welfarist and having little to no tangible meaning to the victims - these marketing terms just try to make us feel better about our choices - it doesn’t matter how or where they were raised, it is still morally unjustifiable and completely unnecessary take the life of any animal who has a preference to live, when we can easily get all our nutrients from plants.”
“It’s interesting how when westerners protest things like the dog meat festival in Yulin, China, they never say the dogs should be given bigger cages or treated better before they are killed—we are just morally opposed to eating dogs no matter how it is done, because it always involves taking the life of an animal unnecessarily. No matter what happened during the animals' life, it is the act itself of taking the life that is inherently immoral.”
(Irrelevant Conclusion or Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“How do you humanely kill an animal that has a preference to live? [Let them answer.] Would you still call it humane if a dog or a cat were the victims? What about a human? If not, what is it about the animals you eat that makes it humane for them, but not other animals? Can you name a specific quality that if present in other animals, or in humans, that would justify treating them the same way?”
OR…
“No, they are not. Humane means to have or show compassion or benevolence. Humane slaughter is an oxymoronic marketing term designed to make people feel good about supporting something that is inherently immoral—taking the life of an innocent, sentient being for an unnecessary purpose. In theory, it is possible to slaughter quickly and without pain, yes, but not in practice, not when most of the world wants to eat animals every day. And even if it was painless and quick, that's not the point.”
“I’m interested, if you really think there is such a thing as humane slaughter, do you also believe in humane rape? Humane child molestation and humane slavery? How about a humane holocaust?”
“It’s interesting how when westerners protest things like the dog meat festival in Yulin, China, they never say the dogs should be killed more humanely, be given bigger cages or treated better before they are killed—we are just morally opposed to eating dogs no matter how it is done, because it always involves taking the life of an animal unnecessarily. It is the act itself of taking their life that is inherently immoral. It’s largely irrelevant how it’s performed.”
(Red Herring fallacy.)
“Would you say this when someone quits smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol? The truth is industries change all the time, and companies come and go.”
“While it is true that animal farmers will have to readjust, it is also true that there is a growing demand for other crops like rice, soy and oats which is putting more people into jobs in those industries, which are more moral and better for the environment anyway. More and more farmers are also switching to plant-based milks instead of exploiting cows, and there are resources from vegans to help them achieve this.”
“So really, jobs aren’t lost, only displaced. If you’re not buying cows milk and funding the dairy industry, you’re buying plant milk and creating jobs in that industry.”
(False Dilemma or Appeal to Other Problems fallacy.)
“Important to who? You? Or the animals? All veganism means is non-involvement with animal exploitation. It requires no extra time or money than meat eating, so it leaves you with exactly the same means to fight for whatever other causes are close to your heart.”
“If you want to talk about effective altruism though, let's do the mathematics. Let’s be ridiculously conservative and say that animal suffering is only worth 10% of that of humans—which is grossly underestimating it because we both have pretty much the same capacity to suffer, but let’s be super conservative. 10% of the 56 billion land animals slaughtered for food every year is 5.6 billion “pain units”, which is still a lot more suffering than 100% of the more than 3 billion humans living below the poverty line. And this isn’t even including fish, which is at least double that number again. As is obvious when you look at the numbers, in terms of the sheer scale, animal suffering is actually much, much greater. Simply not giving any money to the industries that are causing this suffering is something we can all do today that will have a direct, measurable impact on it—how many other causes can you name that we can have that kind of an effect on every day of our lives?”
“Also, animal abuse is interlinked with human suffering. Did you know that about 80% of grain is grown in countries where people starve to death and don’t have access to that food because it is fed to animals that we then go on to eat in the West? Did you know that high meat and dairy diets are responsible for some of the first worlds leading killers, like heart disease, cancers and strokes? Did you know that in areas where slaughterhouses are set up, the rates of domestic violence and crime go up? Are you aware of the many human rights violations that occur in factory farms because of the high production rate required to meet the demand for meat? Some American factory farm workers wear nappies to work because of the lack of bathroom breaks… Don’t you think animal rights issues are at least as important as human rights issues, if there is even a difference at all?”
(Appeal to Hypocrisy or Appeal to Other Problems fallacy.)
“Don’t you? Aren’t you against human slavery and exploitation just like I am? You buying animal products is not helping the sweatshop workers in these unfair conditions… So, me being vegan and buying from sweatshops is still better overall than you not being vegan and buying from sweatshops.”
“If I say it is wrong to kill animals for food, but I cause harm elsewhere by buying other products of human exploitation, that doesn’t make killing animals right, does it? It is impossible to cause zero harm, and no vegan claims perfection, we’re just trying to reduce our impact as far as practicable and possible. Completely avoiding technology is not practical for most people today, is it?”
(Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy.)
“I also use cash that has animal fat in it. [True for at least Canada, UK and Australia.] The definition of veganism is to reduce animal exploitation as much as is possible and practicable. It is the law in the US, UK, Europe and Australia that all medicine must be tested on animals before being released to the market, so as vegans we cannot practically avoid this since there aren’t any non-tested medicines. Of course, we could not use the medicine at all, and some vegans choose to do that, but this is entirely different to choosing to eat meat, dairy and eggs for pleasure and convenience when there are countless other options available right there in the same supermarket.”
“It is also worth mentioning that buying medicine is not actually increasing the demand for animal testing since the medicine was required to be tested before entering the market and never again, whereas animal products require death and exploitation every time.”
(Appeal to Futility or Nirvana fallacy.)
“Yes, there is. You would agree that being 99% cruelty-free is better than 10%, right? The truth is that the vast majority of animal suffering can be sourced back to the meat, dairy, egg, honey, wool, silk, fur and leather industries, so boycotting them, as well as circuses, rodeos and zoo’s, is the fastest and most practical solution to get straight to the source of animal exploitation. Once these industries die, the ones that feed off them will starve out or readjust to using plant sources. That’s the point.”
(Appeal to Futility fallacy.)
“Everyone is personally responsible for what they do. If you’re against unnecessary slaughter of the innocent, then you shouldn’t pay others to torture and kill animals for you, regardless of whether you think you will actually change anything. It’s called living in alignment with your values.”
“If you want there to be more vegans to make more of a difference, then become one, and convince others to do the same. There are currently millions of vegans all over the world who, due to supply and demand, are making a measurable difference to the problem simply by not buying any animal products. Why do you think there are so many plant-based milks and meat replacements in supermarkets these days? Because people are buying less animal products!”
(Appeal to Futility or Nirvana fallacy.)
“Is there anything the whole world can agree on? There are still racists, sexists, homophobes, murderers and rapists, and there will still be speciesist for a long time after the majority of people wake up to that as well. But that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate these things, does it? And it’s certainly not a justification to continue participating in unnecessary slaughter. It's like saying the whole world will never want women to have equal rights, so they don’t deserve them. Doesn’t make sense, does it?”
(Descriptive argument.)
“It’s true there are rare medical conditions and life circumstances that prevent someone going vegan… but they don’t apply to you or me, do they? And if you have the means to create less cruelty, don’t you think you should?”
(Ad hominem argument.)
“Some are, but so are some meat eaters. Focus on the message, not the messenger. If you’re against unnecessary animal exploitation, don’t participate in it. If you don’t like judgemental vegans, then be the change you want to see in the world and become a kind, caring and compassionate vegan.”
(Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Actually, in practice, it’s more of the exact opposite. Before I was vegan, I only drank one type of milk: cows milk. Now I have soy milk, almond milk, hazelnut milk, cashew milk, hemp milk, and many more varieties of plant milks. Before I was vegan, every meal was predominated by one of four things: either dead cow, dead chicken, dead pig or dead fish, and everything else was a side. Now those sides, which number in the thousands, make up every meal I eat. All the different varieties of fruits, berries, vegetables, potatoes, salads, nuts, seeds, grains, breads, spreads, beans and lentils combine in every meal to make a much more nutritionally dense and varied diet. Veganism is far from restrictive, the only restrictive thing is your imagination.”
(Appeal to False Authority fallacy?)
“So by that logic, if I wanted to kill you because my subjective morality allowed it, you would be okay with that? Isn’t it funny how different things look when you’re the victim? Our morality must be based on some sort of logical argument, or else anything we want to do to anyone can be justified.”
“Do you agree that it is wrong to cause unnecessary harm to animals? Well considering it is unnecessary to eat them, and eating them does cause them harm, you agree then that everyone should go vegan, right?”
(Association fallacy.)
“Historians aren’t so sure about that. It’s probable that his vegetarianism was just Nazi propaganda to try to make him seem more likeable to the public, to make Hitler appear more similar to a popular peaceful, vegetarian figure at the time, Gandhi.”
“But let's assume that he was… so what? Nothing he did was based on the vegetarian or vegan principles or kindness and compassion, was it? But you can be sure that the vast majority of criminals and heinous dictators throughout history definitely were meat eaters, so why do you forget about them and just focus on Hitler? And if you’re trying to not be like Hitler, why do you take showers, eat cooked food and own a house? Why pick just one thing he did and forget the rest?”
(Appeal to Pleasure fallacy.)
“I agree. No one goes vegan because animal foods taste bad. But are you trying to use your own pleasure to justify taking the life of an animal that did not want to die? I don’t think you wouldn’t tolerate this kind of logic if a rapist said they got sexual pleasure out of raping people, would you? Of course not. Obviously, these acts are different, but you can’t use that logic to justify killing animals for your own desires and then deny the same logic in another circumstance. That’s not how logic works. Do you seriously think that your taste pleasure is more important than the life of an animal?”
(Appeal to Pleasure fallacy.)
“There is no such thing as bad food… only bad cooks. But seriously, most food is already vegan: all fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, seeds, beans, lentils, and all herbs and spices. Many cultures have been using these ingredients for centuries to make amazing meals. You can find the vegan version of anything online these days. There are dozens of plant-based milks, and you’re bound to like at least one.”
“And even if vegan food was boring and tasteless, morality trumps your personal pleasure. Do you honestly think that your taste pleasure is more important than the life of an animal?”
(Appeal to Wealth fallacy.)
“No, it’s not. The cheapest foods I can think of are vegan foods: potatoes, rice, bread, beans, lentils, bananas, and some other fruits and vegetables. These are staples among some of the poorest places on earth for a reason. It is processed vegan alternatives to animal products, like mock-meats, that can be expensive. The nuts and bolts of veganism, whole plant foods, are very cheap.”
(Appeal to False Authority fallacy.)
“Quite the opposite actually. Over 50 billion land animals are raised for food each year. This phenomenal quantity of animals uses far more land, water and crops to house and feed them than it would to just feed us 7 billion humans directly from the same crops. Animal agriculture is what is unsustainable, and it’s causing all kinds of pollution as a result of the manure and the greenhouse gases released, which is more harmful than all transport pollution combined.”
(Appeal to Authority fallacy.)
“No religion mandates meat-eating. Nowhere does it say you HAVE to eat animals or you will go to hell, does it? Don’t you think God would approve of you being vegan and causing the least amount of harm possible to animals and the environment, both of which are His creations?”
