I don't think people hate vegans per say. They hate vegan evangelists. Vegans who do it because they think its the right thing to do, and don't believe it makes them better than other people, I think are respected like anyone else. But, these vegans don't make a display of it, they're just living their life. — Philosophim

I think this is the main point. It's the evangelist attitude, the "your are bad and I'm better" and I'll tell you that. People don't like evangelists, especially arrogant evangelists that are full of themselves and see them as being better, more enlightened, woke, contrary to others. This is a quite general issue with any kind of evangelist: a leftist progressive (looking down on those right-wing fascists), a conspiracy nut (looking at as others as the ignorant sheeple) or the classical right-wing evangelist (looking down at those hedonistic atheists).

Veganism is an ethical philosophy, not merely a diet. — Amalac

And thus you also have vegan evangelists.

And if your diet finances an industry which is cruel to animals, then you will have to admit that you care more about tasting some particular flavor than about the suffering of animals. — Amalac

Don't predators cause suffering to their prey? And humans have domesticated animals and farmed them from around 11 000 - 9 000 BC, only a thousand or two years after plants were "domesticated" in similar fashion by humans. That this has been a necessity for our present numbers of humans and our society and culture should be considered too.

In fact, the examples of other animals "farming" shows that this basically is a symbiotic relationship which humans as being smart animals have advanced.

And thus you also have vegan evangelists. — ssu

Only if you think adopting a philosophy which opposes to theft, torture, slavery, etc, is also to take an “evangelist” attitude.

I, for example, haven't said anything like “I'm better than you because I'm vegan!” to anybody here, what I'd say is rather more like this: I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, in a way similar to how a person who stopped murdering and stealing would be more moral than what he'd be if he chose to instead continue doing those things.

Don't predators cause suffering to their prey? — ssu

So now your argument is a fallacious appeal to nature? “predators do it too, therefore it's not bad if we do it”?

Or perhaps you are saying that they would suffer just as badly if left in the wild. But as I answered to another user, that's not the only alternative there is, we can try to fit as many animals as we can in shelters and sanctuaries.

And humans have domesticated animals and farmed them from around 11 000 - 9 000 BC — ssu

And? From the fact that animals have been domesticated for many years, it doesn't follow that they don't suffer horribly with the way they are treated. Anybody can realize this if they see videos of how horrendously animals such as pigs and cows are treated.

Or to use the example of hens, they have been artificially selected to lay a far greater amount of eggs, which causes great suffering to the hen just so they can sell more eggs, showing clearly that domestication doesn't imply that the domesticated animal won't suffer.

That this has been a necessity for our present numbers of humans and our society and culture should be considered too. — ssu

A necessity? The amount of food required for the survival and good health of our species can be supplied completely through adequately supplemented vegan diets.

What many people don't realize or seem to forget is that many of the plants given to animals so that they can grow to then be killed for food, could be eaten directly by us, thus preserving the energy that is lost when we eat the plant's nutrients through the animal. The reason for this is the 10% law of transfer of energy:

When organisms are consumed, approximately 10% of the energy in the food is fixed into their flesh and is available for next trophic level (carnivores or omnivores). When a carnivore or an omnivore in turn consumes that animal, only about 10% of energy is fixed in its flesh for the higher level.

For example, the Sun releases 10,000 J of energy, then plants take only 100 J of energy from sunlight (Only 1% of energy is taken up by plants from sun); thereafter, a deer would take 10 J (10% of energy) from the plant. A wolf eating the deer would only take 1 J (10% of energy from deer). A human eating the wolf would take 0.1J (10% of energy from wolf), etc.

I do not deny that there are some people (a small percentage) who at present need to consume animal products in order to stay healthy, and I don't object to them doing that, but those of us who can stay healthy without consuming them should simply stop purchasing them.

In fact, the examples of other animals "farming" shows that this basically is a symbiotic relationship which humans as being smart animals have advanced. — ssu

By all means, give those examples you have in mind. But keep in mind whatever examples you are thinking of, they don't justify the horrible things people do to other animals such as pigs and cows.

I do not deny that there are some people (a small percentage) who at present need to consume animal products in order to stay healthy, and I don't object to them doing that, but those of us who can stay healthy without consuming them should simply stop purchasing them. — Amalac

I think it's the part where you tell other adults what they should and shouldn't eat that gives veganism a cringe twitch. The constant equivocation between minimal pain and outright cruelty. Which is wrapped in this subtext of all or nothing when it comes to the subject matter. I do make moral assessments when deciding what's acceptable and I do acknowledge veganism as legit moral stance. I question whether it's modified form of OCD; in the way it's practiced.

Or put another way for illustration. Do people constantly hound you for moral guidance in general? Aside from sandwich construction? If they don't need your assistance in making moral decisions most of the time, then why suppose it's appropriate or invited in this regard.

I think it's the part where you tell other adults what they should and shouldn't eat that gives veganism a cringe twitch. — Cheshire

To be precise it’s not eating meat which I think is wrong, it’s purchasing meat, because when many people purchase animal products, they cause more animals to be treated cruelly. I have no problem if someone wants to eat some dead animal struck by lightning which they found on the street, since that doesn’t increase the demand nor cause any cruelty.

As for what I mean when I say they should do so and so, I already clarified that here:

what I'd say is rather more like this: I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, in a way similar to how a person who stopped murdering and stealing would be more moral than what he'd be if he chose to instead continue doing those things. — Amalac

Also, notice how ridiculous someone who hired a hitman to torture and murder humans for food would sound if someone criticized him and told him he should stop doing that, and he replied: «It gives me a cringe twitch when you tell me what I should and shouldn’t eat»
I don’t see why we should see hiring someone to torture and murder animals as in any relevant way different from that.

The constant equivocation between minimal pain and outright cruelty. — Cheshire

Whose equivocation? I already told someone else that the amount of suffering should be significant, which is obviously true in the case of cows, pigs and the like.

Or put another way for illustration. Do people constantly hound you for moral guidance in general? Aside from sandwich construction? If they don't need your assistance in making moral decisions most of the time, then why suppose it's appropriate or invited in this regard. — Cheshire

I only express my view and give advice so that people can think and decide on their own. They can accept my advice or reject it, it's up to them to judge whether they are acting badly or not when they purchase animal products.

As for how “appropriate” it is, tell me: is it appropriate to tell a murderer that they should stop murdering other people? Is it appropriate to tell a slave owner that you think what they are doing is wrong and that they should stop doing it? They may not feel like it is, but I think you'll agree with me that that is irrelevant in those cases. So why should it be any different in the case of cruelty to animals?

As for how “appropriate” it is, tell me: is it appropriate to tell a murderer that they should stop murdering other people? Is it appropriate to tell a slave owner that you think what they are doing is wrong and that they should stop doing it? They may not feel like it is, but I think you'll agree with me that that is irrelevant in those cases. So why should it be any different in the case of cruelty to animals? — Amalac

It's dishonest to label every pain felt by animal for the production of food as "cruelty". It merely serves as shock value to gain a false moral position. People have balanced the notion of using animals and respecting their lifeforce for 10s of thousands of years. It wasn't discovered by vegans.

To be precise it’s not eating meat which I think is wrong, it’s purchasing meat, because when many people purchase animal products, they cause more animals to be treated cruelly. I have no problem if someone wants to eat some dead animal struck by lightning which they found on the street, since that doesn’t increase the demand nor cause any cruelty. — Amalac

In our natural state we hunted animals. Pretty sure that process wasn't very pleasant. I do agree that consumer activism has a part to play in society and that part is growing. Do you ensure the fair pay and working conditions of the people picking your vegetables?

Whose equivocation? I already told some other user that the amount of suffering should be significant, which is obviously true in the case of cows, pigs and the like. — Amalac

Right, you have yet to differentiate between pain, significant pain, and animal cruelty. We can't eat them alive and according to you eating them isn't wrong. So, a minimal amount of pain is inflicted. Calling this cruelty ignores the horror that is true animal cruelty. Putting a lobster in the freezer till it falls asleep is not the same as beating an animal for fun. Confusing the two is dishonest and that should be troubling if veganism is truly morally transcendent.

It's dishonest to label every pain felt by animal for the production of food as "cruelty". It merely serves as shock value to gain a false moral position. People have balanced the notion of using animals and respecting their lifeforce for 10s of thousands of years. It wasn't discovered by vegans. — Cheshire

What would you call what is done to pigs and cows in that industry then? Call it whatever you want, I don't care for debates about semantics. I can just call it suffering if you want.

My points are simply these:

1. I think the things done to many of the animals for the production of meat and other products are wrong because many of those animals undoubtedly suffer a lot.

2. If people keep on increasing the demand for the products of their exploitation, more animals will suffer to a clearly significant degree, so those who value diminishing the total amount of suffering in the world should ponder that and consider changing their actions.

Do you ensure the fair pay and working conditions of the people picking your vegetables? — Cheshire

No, and? I hope you are not just trying to repeat the same Tu quoque fallacy that I already addressed in this thread. Plus I do think they should have good working conditions, so I'm not sure what your point is.

So, a minimal amount of pain is inflicted. — Cheshire

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Watch videos showing what they do to pigs and cows, and you'll see that their pain is by no means minimal.

Again, if a vast amount of people continue to demand the products of their exploitation, then obviously more animals will continue to suffer to a very significant degree, and one simple way to diminish that suffering is for many people to stop demanding those products.

Putting a lobster in the freezer till it falls asleep is not the same as beating an animal for fun. — Cheshire

Regardless if it is done for fun, as it's done with bullfighting in some countries, or for food as it's done to cows, pigs, chickens,etc. the amount of suffering caused to animals in both cases is comparable. Those people in the meat industry who don't cause suffering to animals for fun, but rather because they think there's no other way to kill them, and think they have to do it for whatever reason, are causing the same amount of suffering as those who feel a morbid pleasure or amusement out of doing the same thing.

Of course doing something bad for fun is worse than doing something wrong because one isn't aware that it is wrong, or because one thinks it's a necessary evil, but in the latter cases you just need to investigate and be more constantly self-critical of your actions and moral principles to realize your mistake.

Once the person becomes aware that what they are doing is wrong according to their own moral compass, then they have no excuse to continue doing something that they know is wrong, and those who continue doing it despite knowing that it's wrong do so only due to cognitive dissonance.

Maybe it's just unreasonable to take an absolutist position and then hold everyone else to it. The idea of not using animal products is fine with me. I don't think it is morally necessary, so I reject your judgement of my lack of participation in a largely ceremonial act of not buying meat. If it were a more reasonable position there wouldn't be a need to emotionalize it with "cruelty" and compare the general public to thieves and murders. People can simply understand rational arguments. I wouldn't trust me if I were trying to add shock value.

If it were a more reasonable position there wouldn't be a need to emotionalize it with "cruelty" — Cheshire

Here are some possible definitions of the word “cruelty”:

A) “Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering”.

B) “Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal”.

C) “Behavior which causes physical or mental harm to another, especially a spouse, whether intentionally or not”. (a legal definition)

It is definition B which I had in mind, which only implies that the collective behavior of purchasing animal products causes more suffering to them, which is an observation of fact, with no emotional element mixed in at all.

The only emotional element that I see in what I said is whether one cares about the suffering of animals more than about tasting some particular flavor or not. If you care more about the latter, nothing that I say about this subject will persuade you.

and compare the general public to thieves and murders. — Cheshire

Seems to me like you didn't understand what I said, I'm not saying that purchasing animal products is just as bad as murdering or stealing, I'm saying that many of the arguments used to justify purchasing animal products are such as we would never admit as a justification of other acts which also cause a significant amount of suffering, such as murdering and stealing. And if those arguments were valid as a justification for causing suffering to animals, then necessarily they would also justify those other actions.

If we determined in an ethical debate that the collective purchasing of animals is morally reprehensible, then to argue that everybody is free to choose whether to do that or not, is as bad to argue that everybody can just choose whether or not they want to murder, steal or have slaves. And that doesn't imply that stealing, murdering and having slaves are all equally bad actions.

Maybe it's just unreasonable to take an absolutist position and then hold everyone else to it — Cheshire

To oppose to all torture is also to take an absolutist position. Does that imply it's unreasonable to oppose to all torture? Of course not.

What's more, I'm not an absolutist since, as I said before, I think purchasing animal products can be justified in some cases for health reasons, when the person has no other choice if they want to stay healthy.

To oppose to all torture — Amalac

Is "torture" a less loaded word or do you have a novel definition of this as well. Best I can tell is you don't believe you.

or do you have a novel definition of this as well — Cheshire

I took those definitions from a dictionary, I didn't make them up. Anyhow, think specifically about physically torturing humans for amusement. I don't think it's unreasonable to be opposed to that in all circumstances. That's an absolutist position, and also a perfectly reasonable one.

But like I said, I think purchasing animal products is not bad in all circumstances, so I don't take an absolutist view there.

I'd say is rather more like this: I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, in a way similar to how a person who stopped murdering and stealing would be more moral than what he'd be if he chose to instead continue doing those things. — Amalac

You definitely are of the evangelist sort, just looking at the loaded terms you use and from the debate with others. I have no desire to debate an issue of faith. It goes absolutely nowhere.

Freedom of religion, I guess.

I took those definitions from a dictionary, I didn't make them up. Anyhow, think specifically about physically torturing humans for amusement. I don't think it's unreasonable to be opposed to that in all circumstances. That's an absolutist position, and also a perfectly reasonable one.

But like I said, I think purchasing animal products is not bad in all circumstances, so I don't take an absolutist view there. — Amalac

I commend the reasonableness of your discourse. Some people choose to "double down" on an emotional argument and I can see you're willing to consider both sides, so you have my respect in that regard.

The above represents a couple different directions. To be vegan is to reject animal products as an ideal or a reality. If we're honoring the ideal, then yes you will need prove it's as bad as torturing people for fun. But, that seems untenable. So, the alternative you have presented is the realistic belief that it's 'not bad' in all circumstances. I'd suggest a duality where the ideal moral life is one where nothing is harmed, but understand the reality is one of varying levels of immoral but yet permissible actions. The question remains whether you have the right to judge another person's actions. I think that's the core issue at hand; when a vegan imposes their judgement on others knowing full well they did (and probably still do on occasion) use animals as means to an end.

then yes you will need prove it's as bad as torturing people for fun. — Cheshire

Why? I think all I'd have to prove is that it's bad, even if it's not as bad as torturing people. I gave examples of other actions that I consider bad, not to imply that they are all equally bad, but only to imply that I consider them all to be bad to certain different degrees.

when a vegan imposes their judgement on others knowing full well they did (and probably still do on occasion) use animals as means to an end. — Cheshire

What do you take “imposing” to mean? As I understand the term, I'm not imposing anything, unless you think that stating one's view on a subject and suggesting to others what one thinks they should do is to impose my views on them. They are free to accept or reject my advice. If I tell a thief that I think he should stop stealing, am I “imposing” my life style or ethical philosophy to him? (And no, I'm not saying that one person buying a burger is just as bad as one person stealing someone's car, I just want to understand what you mean by “imposing”).

I've already said that I only want to express my view on the matter so that people can think about the matter for themselves, and according to their own ethical principles. If someone disagrees with my view, then there's nothing else I can do besides asking them for the reason of their rejection (if they want to give it), and if I think their arguments for rejecting my views are fallacious, shouldn't I point out where I think their errors are?

So, the alternative you have presented is the realistic belief that it's 'not bad' in all circumstances. — Cheshire

That's right, for example: I don't think someone who buys animal products because they would have health problems if they didn't, or because they don't have access to the necessary kinds of food to maintain a healthy diet as well as B12 supplements; is doing something bad.

But such cases are not very common, it seems to me that a great number of people don't have such impediments (and many mistakenly think they do, because, it seems to me, they haven't done enough research). So how do those who don't have those problems justify to themselves doing something which collectively causes animals to suffer (supposing they are aware of it)? Besides meat tasting good and the like, I mean.

Honestly, I need to give the matter more thought, but I have a few first impressions.

If I tell a thief that I think he should stop stealing, am I “imposing” my life style or ethical philosophy to him? (And no, I'm not saying that one person buying a burger is just as bad as one person stealing someone's car, I just want to understand what you mean by “imposing”). — Amalac

Imposing or labeling other people's moral choices with your judgement. A person buying a burger has zero effect on your life and the choices you make. You wouldn't want someone telling you right and wrong would you? I agree, bringing up different examples of moral and immoral actions isn't helpful.

It's taking the position of a false authority over when animal pain is permissible that seems so vexing. It creates of subtext of needing to guilt trip people as if they can't make a decision without your approval. Then, assuming they owe you justification for how they live; it's an unpleasant implicit superiority or simply lacking the willingness to respect others right to make their own mistakes. Oddly, none of my objections are about the idea of being vegan; like others have said it's the attitude; like a dietary fascism where there's an ingroup and outgroup. What if I decide to eat simply less meat? Am I good or bad or a torturing-murderous-guiltless thief. Most people don't want to hurt animals. Not a novel idea.

labeling other people's moral choices with your judgement. — Cheshire

Doesn't free speech allow me to say if I consider someone's actions right or wrong according to my moral compass and giving reasons for my judgement? Am I not even allowed to say that?

A person buying a burger has zero effect on your life — Cheshire

If it was only one person, sure, but when speaking publicly one tries to reach as many people as one can. If many people buy burgers, that will have a direct effect on sentient beings, which will also have an effect on me, when I contemplate the suffering caused by those actions.

You wouldn't want someone telling you right and wrong would you? — Cheshire

I honestly don't mind people judging my beliefs and actions and telling me what they think is right and wrong, they are free to do it. If I felt mad or annoyed by that, I'd think that's my problem, for why would I feel shaken by their words if I was sure that I'm not doing anything bad?

I agree, bringing up different examples of moral and immoral actions isn't helpful. — Cheshire

You didn't answer my question though, if by telling a thief that I think he should stop stealing, give reasons for making that judgement and criticize the arguments he invokes to justify his actions, I'm “imposing” my worldview on them, then under that interpretation I don't think adopting an “imposing” attitude is necessarily a bad thing to do.

It creates of subtext of needing to guilt trip people as if they can't make a decision without your approval. — Cheshire

Some people may infer that, but only because they are putting words in my mouth, since I have never claimed, either explicitly or implicitly, that they must consult me before making moral choices. They don't even have to read my posts if they don't want to.

On the contrary, I've emphatically stated that people should judge the morality of their actions according to their own moral/ethical principles, for like the third time now.

Then, assuming they owe you justification for how they live — Cheshire

They don't “owe” me a justification, if they don't want to answer my questions they can simply ignore me and stay silent.

I'm merely suggesting that they should ponder how they justify those actions to themselves, according to their own moral principles. If some people don't want to even think about it, then I can't do anything else besides asking them why they don't want to do it, if they are willing to tell me.

it's an unpleasant implicit superiority or simply lacking the willingness to respect others right to make their own mistakes. — Cheshire

Again, it seems to me that accusations of “implicit superiority” are often just a way to add claims which the other party has never made, to create a straw man. Not once have I implied that someone who is vegan is a better person than someone who isn't, just because of being vegan, nor have I claimed that purchasing animal products turns someone into a bad person.

For example, I wouldn't think Hitler was a good person just because I found out that he was vegan, because the atrocities that he did far outweigh that. And I know people who are not vegan, but greatly help to diminish the amount of suffering in the world a lot with donations to charity and the like, and I don't think they are morally worse than many vegans. What I do think is that they would be even more morally good, as well as more consistent with their principles of decreasing the suffering in the world, if they stopped buying animal products.

Of course, a single person's abstention probably won't, if at all, make a significant difference to the total amount of suffering, but many people's abstention certainly would, something which can't be achieved if everyone thinks that their individual abstention doesn't change anything, which would have the consequence that animals would continue to suffer.

What if I decide to eat simply less meat? — Cheshire

To my eyes that would be an advance. I do think it's better to, for example, eat a burger per month instead of eating a burger per day, and that not eating any burgers is even better.

If some people don't want to stop buying animal products completely right away, that's fine, they can go at their own pace and start by buying less meat.

I think the false dilemma of people being either completely good or completely bad, with no degrees of goodness in between, should be avoided.

I think the false dilemma of people being either completely good or completely bad, with no degrees of goodness in between, should be avoided. — Amalac

I agree, but does "mainstream" vegan doctrine?

I think of vegans as people who really don't like food very much. They gain significant nourishment from their membership in a club of people who prefer to eat dreary feed. Then there is self-righteousness--the vegan frosting on the cake (which is gluten free, fat free, egg free, and sugar-free).

I agree, but does "mainstream" vegan doctrine? — Cheshire

I'm aware that there are many vegans, in Central and South America for instance, who espouse different, more radical views than mine. Those who, for instance, seem to think eating a burger per month is just as bad as eating a burger per day, or that it's bad even to eat some dead animal struck by lightning you find on the street.

I think those kinds of tenets are absurd and dogmatic, and if I'm not considered a vegan for not adhering to them, then I don't mind giving up that label. The same applies to someone who fancied himself morally superior to others who buy animal products, merely because they don't.

I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, ... — Amalac

One person chooses to go vegan, another may visit lonely elders in nursing homes, and yet another donates money to the homeless, etc. What makes one better than the other?

Should people who visit lonely elders in nursing homes go around telling other people that they would live more moral lives if they too visited lonely elders in nursing homes?

One person chooses to go vegan, another may visit lonely elders in nursing homes, and yet another donates money to the homeless, etc. What makes one better than the other? — Tzeentch

My criteria for measuring moral goodness would be how much that person's actions decrease the total amount of suffering of sentient beings, as well as how much they contribute to increase the total amount of joy, pleasure and peace in the world.

Should people who visit lonely elders in nursing homes go around telling other people that they would live more moral lives if they too visited lonely elders in nursing homes? — Tzeentch

They could suggest it as one way to be a more moral person, sure, but I think one should ask oneself if visiting lonely elders is truly the best thing one can do, in terms of reducing suffering and increasing happiness in the world, with one's available time and resources. That's one of the main ideas behind effective altruism, as is advocated by Peter Singer among other philosophers.

Singer gave an example to illustrate this: with the same amount of money, you can either train a guide dog to give to a blind man, or you can cure between 400 - 2000 people of blindness by donating to the right charities. It's obvious that although the former is a good action, the latter is a far better one, so that it's better to help those charities instead.

In the case of veganism, once I researched into how to have a healthy vegan diet, and as to the cost of maintaining it, I determined that the better course of action in my circumstances would be to stop purchasing animal products. Notice that unlike the case of giving a guide dog to a blind man, there is no opportunity cost problem here, because I only have to abstain from certain actions.

The question I ask myself to determine the most moral choice or course of action I have at my disposal is the following: which of my choices and actions are more likely to lead to a better total balance of positive mental states (pleasure, happiness, joy, peace of mind, ...) and negative mental states (pain, sadness, boredom, despair, ...) in the world?

Does anyone in this thread actually “hate vegans”?

They could suggest it as one way to be a more moral person, sure, but I think one should ask oneself if visiting lonely elders is truly the best thing one can do, ... — Amalac

Juck.

You have animal cruelty but statics show agricultural kill about 1.5 million native animals like gophers, foxes and other small creatures by agricultural machinery alone. Meaning if you order a salads you still indirectly contribute to a animals death in some way. — TheQuestion

This argument is weak because livestock feed off agriculture. IOW we grow stuff and thus kill animals in the process of that wing of agriculture to feed livestock who are then eaten. Livestock require more land per ounce of nutritive whatever than an ounce of non-meat foods. So, yes, they contribute, but vegans would contribute less to even agricultural plant deaths and attendant animals deaths.

For what it's worth I think there are several reasons why people hate vegans:
1) some vegans are pedantic smug moralists.
2) many people don't want to think about the effects of their eating and wrestle with any issues there.

Juck. — Tzeentch

What a persuasive argument, you just don't like what I said there. Maybe you could say why that is? Why you dislike effective altruism, I mean.

This argument is weak because livestock feed off agriculture. — Bylaw

Is not based on facts is based on cultural perspective. You can tell truth and statistics till " Your blue in the face" you aren't providing enough motivating reason to change societies perspective and life style.

Hence why I said "Meat is an addiction"

Facts and data will not change societies sentiment.

Then there is self-righteousness--the vegan frosting on the cake (which is gluten free, fat free, egg free, and sugar-free). — Bitter Crank

Typical BC crankiness. Veganism has NOTHING to do with flavor profiles or ingredient choice outside of not deliberately contributing to animal suffering by the methods/products used in making the food item.

See this, for instance (though I won't claim that any of these are the best frosting you'll ever eat, just that LOTS of people eat them happily).

Vegan Frosting Brands

Pillsbury – All 13 Flavors of Creamy Supreme Pillsbury Frosting, the Pastry Bag Pillsbury Frosting, and the Funfetti Pillsbury frostings are vegan– even the cream cheese, buttercream, and milk chocolate flavors! This is a little weird to be but all of the Pillsbury frostings use sugar, palm oil, and corn syrup as the base with various additives to still be vegan. Granted, some vegans option to avoid palm oil as it may not be sustainably sourced and may be reducing the rain forests but in terms of straight vegan and if you’re wondering if Pillsbury frostings are vegan, they are indeed vegan and do not contain any animal product. ...
— Random Website

I agree, but does "mainstream" vegan doctrine? — Cheshire

What "mainstream" veganism is I couldn't tell you, but you might be interested to know that vegans are keenly aware of the symbolic nature of their veganism and how there are far more impactful ways to reduce animal suffering. Further, vegans are also aware that the increased public food choice that they enjoy comes not from the demand of vegans, but from the push to reduce meat/animal product consumption for health/environmental reasons. Stupidity/ignorance is not a problem of vegans.

Where there is tension around reduced animal suffering for non "vegan" reasons is the extent to which vegans should advocate for or economically support non-vegan solutions/enterprises. Encouraging meat reduction on "meatless Mondays" or going to Burger King to buy an Impossible Whopper are debated, but my suspicion is that a significant percentage (if not majority) of self-identified vegans are glad to have more choice and less animal suffering. Any reduction in animal suffering is better than non and veganism is not about self-denial or "purity."

From inception, veganism has recognized that eliminating animal suffering is aspirational and not possible to do completely. Veganism is, therefore, inherently pragmatic and non-absolutist. The same way that most people suck at knowing things about the doctrine of their groups, most vegans suck at it. Having an encounter with a misinformed evangelizing vegan is no different than having an encounter with a misinformed evangelizing Western secular liberal (especially those that hold the US up as being the best form of government ever).

My guess is some people hate vegans for the same reason some people hate Jews. A claim to moral superiority and rejection of normal customs can come back as rejection.

Typical BC crankiness. — Ennui Elucidator

It's my specialty.

Veganism has NOTHING to do with flavor profiles or ingredient choice outside of not deliberately contributing to animal suffering by the methods/products used in making the food item. — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, true. However...

Deviant food choices have been a vehicle for personal expression, personal exceptionalism, and personal validation for centuries, but I've only been annoyed by it since the 1970s. 50 years ago there were 'whole foods' (not the Amazon-owned stores). Think dense, heavy bread); think the early food coops, which being amateur operations at the time, had the sorriest looking produce in town. And bins of beans, unmilled wheat, none of it very sanitary. I shopped at them when I was out slumming and as a way of virtue signaling (which wasn't a thing yet).

There are a lot of food fetishes around. Vegetarianism/veganism has a sound pedigree, even if it is fetishistic.

Cruelty to animals. Yes: industrial agriculture results in domestic food animal cruelty. I get that. Our global, industrial, technological, mass culture also results in extensive animal cruelty, visited upon food animals and the much larger population of wild creatures, great and small. Plants too. I don't like it, but there is no real "opt out" other than one's personal demise,

A lot of the food fetishes are inadvertently on the right track: eat less meat and less fat; eat more unprocessed or minimally processed fruits, vegetables, and grains--for whatever reason. Got it.

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.

I don't have a solution to the problem of global, industrial, technological, mass culture. Nobody else does either, as far as I know.