The problem is this: One doesn't achieve virtue by following a particular menu. An affluent vegan's footprint will be larger than a poor carnivore's. Pillsbury's frosting may be vegan but it is still industrial in every sense of the word. — Bitter Crank

Veganism is not a diet, but a lifestyle informed by a relatively simple ethic: “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man." Although the discussion frequently gets caught up in suffering, pain, rights theory, etc., that isn't what veganism is about. Discussions of specieism is closer to the mark. To the extent that people think of veganism as being about food primarily, it is because eating is the most frequent forum in which people encounter animal exploitation. Vegans are not anti-industry. They are not anti-science. They are not concerned with "vitalism" or any particular take on nutrition and what is "most" healthy for humans.

Don't exploit animals - all the rest is commentary.

If it is an consolation "I'm sorry for the thread" it was intended as a random thought that was provoked by this article.

https://theveganreview.com/why-people-get-angry-vegan-hate-discrimination/
"Why do people get angry towards vegans?" - Lisa Gawthorne

The problem with vegans is that these annoying people have the gall to point out that one of our great pleasures is in fact morally unsupportable. Worse, the arguments are inescapable: we have no chance of heading of climate collapse without drastically reducing our meat consumption, and our culinary delight comes at the expense of billions of sentient beings living entire lives of unimaginable suffering. The fact that our enjoyment is a supreme act of selfishness shall be thoroughly repressed. Any boorish nuisance who makes this repression more difficult becomes the rightful target of our scorn.

Don't exploit animals — Ennui Elucidator

That's why I am not a vegan. The exploitation of animals is an essential human trait that extends back into era of Homo erectus and earlier. We evolved as an exploiter of the available resources. Some animals were bred into beasts of burden and traction. Others for fiber, meat, milk, and eggs. Without resource exploitation, we ourselves would have died out long ago. We learned how to exploit plants (and minerals).

Does the horse and the ox dislike pulling plows, wagons, and chariots? Probably no more than people dislike a lot of the jobs they have to do. Does a sheep mourn the loss of its wool? Probably not. It might feel good, like getting an overdue haircut.

We may well be exceeding the tolerable level of exploitation of our planet. We should have been more careful, and we had best get more careful pretty damn quickly if we want a future. We should eat less meat and milk because of its burden on resources, even as we continue to exploit cattle. Wool? Perhaps more sustainable than polyester. They fertilize the soil on which their grass grows. Same for cattle, if grass fed.

I like meat. Converting a pig into a pork chop does not have to be a horrifying process. Profits and cheap meat pretty much require it. Same for any other animal product.

I am not sure whether people "hate vegans" as much as find them annoying. I think it rude to show up at carnivore social event and demand animal-free food. It would be equally rude for a carnivore to show up at a vegan social event and demand meat.

Vegans count as "picky eaters" because they exclude everyday foods that cost people eat. I understand how people with celeriac disease really have to exclude gluten from their diet, but then there are people who don't have any degree of celeriac disease but think gluten free is cool, and expect others to accommodate them. Same for people who insist on organic foods.

When I prepare a meal for a local homeless shelter, I am happy to make vegan food that is attractive, flavorful, and nutritious. I exclude pork (usually) because there are sometimes homeless Moslems there. If someone just happens to not like pork, well... tough. Just eat what's on your plate. [I'll eat cilantro / coriander without making an issue of it, even though I think it is disgusting.]

A good principle is to return meat to the status it occupied for many centuries in western culture: Meat was 'feast food'. One ate it on celebratory occasions. Feasting wasn't frequent because it was expensive. On ordinary days one ate bread, vegetables, maybe fish, maybe clams. At $25 a pound this year, oysters are clearly a feast food. Ground up cow at McDonalds may be cheap but it is still a feast food.

Granted, learning to replace daily meat servings with vegetables, beans, and grains takes learning, technique, and practice.

Another approach to reduced meat consumption is to use meat as an ingredient rather than the main course. That's what pizza or spaghetti does.

The exploitation of animals is an essential human trait that extends back into era of Homo erectus and earlier. — Bitter Crank

So because we were horrible before we should go on being horrible forever? Expanding our scope of moral regard is generally thought to be a sign of progress, not of justifying the status quo. Sure, once upon a time our survival was enhanced by the things we did. Were they necessary? Who knows. History would have gone differently had they done otherwise, but counterfactuals aren't very useful. What we can say is that we did what we did.

Without a doubt, people that have limited diets for ethical reasons make communal eating events harder, but then so did serving people who refused to eat sugar. Ending exploitation by way of consumption choices is not the invention of vegans. You can, however, just not invite the vegans or fail to accommodate them. It isn't like vegans don't expect to get the short end of the food stick.

It isn't like vegans don't expect to get the short end of the food stick. — Ennui Elucidator

OK, then. Just take that delicious vegan risotto back to the kitchen. We'll have it tomorrow.

expanding our scope of moral regard is generally thought to be a sign of progress — Ennui Elucidator

Sure. But as you know, morality and ethics are not simple issues. Does having the same moral regard for an elegant horse and a shrimp make sense? Does an ox pulling a plow deserve the same regard that the man pushing and guiding the plow deserves? I don't think so.

The connection between the cow and the Big Mac has been made very tenuous through the mechanisms of commerce. Is it moral to demand that a person eating at McDonalds feel guilt for exploiting an animal so far removed from his or her existence? No.

I believe that eating meat is in and of itself a moral act. Can bad practices on farms and in slaughter-houses rise to the level of immorality? They can. They have. I have chopped off the heads of chickens and I did not feel guilty. It was a quick death--"a quick chippy choppy on a big black block". These chickens were genuine free-range birds.

I recognize a continuum between the man and worms. We share in "life" but we are not equal. As an animal's complexity of existence rises, we grow closer. A chicken and a parrot probably don't have to much in common either. So a chicken and a man have much, much less in common than a dog and a man have in common. Pigs and man have all too much in common.

I am not sure whether people "hate vegans" as much as find them annoying. I think it rude to show up at carnivore social event and demand animal-free food. It would be equally rude for a carnivore to show up at a vegan social event and demand meat.

Vegans count as "picky eaters" because they exclude everyday foods that cost people eat. I understand how people with celeriac disease really have to exclude gluten from their diet, but then there are people who don't have any degree of celeriac disease but think gluten free is cool, and expect others to accommodate them. Same for people who insist on organic foods.

When I prepare a meal for a local homeless shelter, I am happy to make vegan food that is attractive, flavorful, and nutritious. I exclude pork (usually) because there are sometimes homeless Moslems there. If someone just happens to not like pork, well... tough. Just eat what's on your plate. [I'll eat cilantro / coriander without making an issue of it, even though I think it is disgusting.] — Bitter Crank

I like your answer.

It makes sense to me and I admire your generosity to volunteer for the homeless. And utilizing your cooking skills to spread joy to the less fortunate.

As a passionate Chef and Food critic I do acknowledge Veganism as a challenge to me since cooking is like art to me. I do find it disturbing something as simple as eating a ham sandwich can be politicalized in such extreme way.

A good principle is to return meat to the status it occupied for many centuries in western culture — Bitter Crank

A nice principle, achievable only by ending the practice of factory farming. Otherwise there will always be $1/lb wholesale slop.

Don't know what the retail price is, but it is hard, these days, to find slop for less than $5.99 a lb.

But you are absolutely right -- they weren't eating factory raised meat 100 years ago and more. Food was pretty much all organic, range or grass fed, and fairly lean up until the 20th century. Range fed beef has a distinct flavor that is noticeably different than feed-lot fed. I'm not sure whether free range chicken tastes better than shed raised birds. One can only free-range a small number of chickens; spreading 30,000 chickens out on the ground is possible, of course, but chickens like to roost indoors at night. I suppose border collies could be raised to manage the flocks and keep foxes and coyotes away. Not much one can do about hawks and eagles.

I do find it disturbing something as simple as eating a ham sandwich can be politicalized in such extreme way. — TheQuestion

Food has been politicized for an awfully long time - be it in the context of class or nation (religion, if you must).

One day two cannibals are eating a clown. After a little while, the first cannibal turns to the second and says, "Hey, does this guy taste funny to you?"

What passes for acceptable food choices around the world is not nearly as uniform as a secular-Christian nation might suggest.