I think my main issue with veganism is the fact that it's not consistent

~2/5 of the US population is B12 deficient. 0.5% of the US population is vegan. Your logic is faulty.

Nah, we do it to stop unnecessary cruelty to animals and help the environment. People talk about what they are passionate about. We are passionate about not destroying our finite resources and not causing harm to animals.
Some people talk about sports, some politics, some art, but vegans talk about veganism and it's "offensive" because it makes people realize they are culpable in many things they may be morally against due to their own choices.

Vegan reporting in. I posted about this a couple days ago but back in 2011 I legally shot and killed a man in self defense when I was living in Florida. To this day I feel numb about it but nothing makes me hurt more than seeing an animal of any kind in distress. The beef and poultry industries are especially vile and nothing is more sickening than industrial slaughter houses. I probably have mental issues because I hate humans and I also hate myself a bit but I would probably give up my life in order to save a cow, dog or horse. Dead serious too.

When vegans scream that animals lives matter, they all whisper that humans' lives don't. I've met sane and compassionate vegetarians of all kinds, but I've never met a single vegan that had not hated humankind.

You may find it shocking that people can care about two things simultaneously. I don't hate humans, and am quite vocal about social/economic reform for the betterment of humanity. Some people are scum though (pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, etc.)

I completely agree with you about how vile animal agriculture is. I cannot comprehend the level of cruelty present in a human being to allow themselves to participate in those industries. I spend most of my time trying to help hurt animals (pic related), but it never fails to shock me how horrendously callous most people are in regards to helping an innocent. I've never been hurt or traumatized by an animal, but the same cannot be said for humans. I don't hate them but I'd prefer to avoid them for numerous reasons.

You should try meditating btw. It seriously helped me get through a lot of mental issues, and it could help you too. There are short guided meditations on youtube if you're interested.

>dead serious
Kek

>It's a "vegan trying to imitate normal food in an attempt to self delude even harder" episode

what specific logical fallacies? you can't just say that without giving examples. I guarantee you that most vegans have spent more time thinking about the philosophy because, because it actually does have consequences for them. It's not easy at all to avoid animal products so vegans have to be confident in their decisions

is carrion vegan?
why/ why not?
is petroleum vegan?
why/ why not?
if carrion is vegan then vegans are not against eating meat

no you aren't. if you were, you would understand that the problem is not animal eating but people fucking. your conciet that you should deserve to procreate and that having children is a common right of humanity its itself the deathknell you fear, the strain of animals will do nothing but hasten our death a good 25 years, we need to downsize people, not animals.

>carrion
no lol, you don't want to put flesh into your body. it doesn't matter that the suffering of the animal may have been incidentally inflicted
>petroleum
lol yes, you aren't putting petroleum into your body and the animals died millions of years ago

>is carrion vegan? why/ why not?
No. It's an animal "food" so of course it's not vegan.

>is petroleum vegan? >why/ why not?
I don't think anyone considers petroleum to be a food, so I would say no because of that. But if we were assuming that petroleum is edible then sure, it's vegan. No animals involved. The decay of mostly plants and a small % of animal matter is so far removed from the final product that no sane person would consider it an "animal" product.

>if carrion is vegan then vegans are not against eating meat

is wearing wool clothing vegan?

>I don't think anyone considers petroleum to be a food, so I would say no because of that.
what are food colorings
what is petrochemical medication
what is acetic acid/vinegar from petroleum
>mostly
so if I eat mostly plants I'm vegan?
>it doesn't matter that the suffering of the animal may have been incidentally inflicted
>the animals died millions of years ago
?????????

>what specific logical fallacies? you can't just say that without giving examples.

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but the big logical fallacies that I see comes from the motivation behind Veganism.

Some people claim that being vegan is good for the environment. That's rarely true because a vegan diet is impossible without relying on highly polluting modern technology that enables foods to be grown with artificial means out-of-season, or to be shipped from halfway around the world on smoke-belching ships and trucks. I don't think many Vegans think about how much pollution is involved with them being able to buy a tomato in January.

The other one I see has to do with "animal rights". You don't have to give up meat or animal products entirely in order to do that, you simply have to avoid the problematic ones, like factory farming. Somehow vegans put on self-imposed blinders regarding things like hunting or heritage-style raising of animals.

And many vegans are highly vocal about these issues. Meanwhile they wear and use products made using highly polluting and enviornmentally damaging technology. A leather jacket creates far less environmental harm than a synthetic one when you consider its entire lifetime. Electronic devices like cell phones, tablets, etc, are also highly polluting. The mining industry for the metals used to make chips is very damaging. The batteries in portable/rechargeable devices are literal hazardous toxic waste.

You know, vegans hate meat because in their childhood, their moms sold their body while the little vegans was hiding in the closet, and all they could see all day was thick meat, sometimes black, sliding in and out of their mom's cunt.
I guess that's they can't swallow meat or milk to this day.

I laughed, but pls don't shitpost

>what are food colorings
>what is petrochemical medication
Trace additives that I doubt anyone actually considers "food".

>what is acetic acid/vinegar from petroleum
Never heard of that process. But you learn something new every day.

>>mostly
>so if I eat mostly plants I'm vegan?
You tell me. There's obviously a sliding scale here. I would think that most people would consider a 100-million-year-old black decay liquid to be so far removed that it's no longer "animal".

But if you want to be pedantic about arguments you could always say that nothing in this world is vegan. After all, plants grow from decaying matter in the ground, some of which is from animal origin.

>but pls don't shitpost
I'd say the same about your dumbass image

found the vegan

as said in the OP, it's not consistent
it cherry picks so hard that you could almost use it as slave labour

>Never heard of that process. But you learn something new every day.
In 1995, annual production of acetic acid by the petrochemical route in the United States was 4.68 billion pounds, ranking 35th among all chemicals produced.

>it cherry picks so hard that you could almost use it as slave labour

I'm not defending Veganism here, but I think that argument is silly. It doesn't "cherry pick hard" at all. It cherry-picks on an infinitesimal scale. Nobody other than most hardheaded autistic pedant could consider petroleum to be an "animal product".

There are tons of arguments why Veganism is silly. But this not one of them.

>Vegan Nachos

Nachos by sheer virtue of their composition are vegan you fucking knuckle-dragging, dog fucking, megatard. It only becomes not vegan when you add meat, which is how but should be eaten most of the time. I hate you shitshow clowns.

it may be pedantic, but dismissing it isn't logically consistent

>but dismissing it isn't logically consistent
Sure it is. It's such a fine deviation that if you consider that to be a valid argument then you open yourself up to just as silly/pedantic arguments in response.

When you do a line-drawing analysis of an ethical argument you consider how far away the case in point is from the paradigm cases at either end. In this case we are so close to the paradigm case that the whole point is meaningless. And you sure as fuck can't logically say "it cherry picks SO HARD". It barely cherry picks at all.

And in my opinion that is Veganism's greatest fallacy. It is so broad that it ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater: for example, one might argue against eating animals because they don't want to be part of the factory farming system. But how does that stop one from eating carrion? Or any other animal product that was produced without pain and suffering? That is a far bigger fallacy.

Holy shit I would never become a vegan or vegetarian but you have to be either severely retarded or overflowing with cognitive dissonance to be unable to see that its the rational and ethical best option. Or is there an argument against it being better for the environment and animal suffering that I am unaware of?

What's rational about avoiding ALL animal products when only some of them are the ones that result in pain and suffering? That's as about as irrational as it gets.

>>Ethical best
That's subjective. I don't believe there is anything wrong with a human being killing and eating an animal.

>>Better for the eviornment
The most enviornmentally friendly diet is a local one. Imagine old-fashioned peasant farming. You ate mostly vegetables which you either grew yourself or foraged locally. The parts of the plants you farm which you cannot eat in turn get fed to a small number of animals you keep. I.e. you grow beets. You eat the beet, the cows get the greens. You get milk from the cows. When the cows get old and cannot produce anymore then you slaughter and get meat. Your pigs get any and all kinds of waste. When they're fat for the winter that's a source of food for when you can't grow much due to the season. Your chickens eat the bugs in your garden, thereby preventing the use of pesticide. Their poop fertilizes your crops, and you get eggs every day. Same deal: when the chickens get old and don't lay anymore you eat them. No pesticides, no chemical fertilizer runoff, no poison. The animals eat the things that are byproducts of your farming and turn that waste into meat you can eat. That does far less environmental harm than making vegan-friendly processed foods, buying produce shipped in out-of-season, etc.

Actually many vegans are "child free" and we do consider the exponentially growing population a major issue in terms of sustainability, but since most people will continue breeding it's probably better to tackle the food/land/environment/water issues to ensure we can support such a massive population increase.

>durr since most people will continue to eat meat we shouldn't fight eating meat
this is your logic unravelled you fucking fag

the pollution thing is true. but you are holding vegans to a higher standard wrt them than you would a normal person. everyone else still creates the same pollution, but vegans still create less. this is more of a problem of large scale agriculture; it's not really possibly to live a life off only seasonally grown foods in today's world. but we can work towards that. again most vegans are more conscious of this than most others and I don't think you can criticize them for trying when they can't be perfect in it.

the "cruelty-free meat" is a meme though. do some research into what those places are actually like. they are still extremely cruel. even milk production is extremely painfully for a cow

>being this angry about nachos
>not knowing cheese isn't vegan

People changing dietary choices is much more viable and easier than getting someone to stop producing or wanting spawn. Even people who are fucking infertile pay ridiculous amounts of money for the CHANCE of reproducing. Most people want kids and they won't ever change their minds about it. However, many of those same people will change their dietary choices if given the proper information or motivation to do so.

>but you are holding vegans to a higher standard wrt them than you would a normal person.
The context was when some Vegans cite environmentalism as the motivation for their diet. I normally wouldn't bring it up otherwise.

>>this is more of a problem of large scale agriculture
Sort of. If you are Vegan then you need to eat vegetables year round. That becomes difficult when you're out of your local growing season. So the diet is either impossible, or it is necessarily dependent on modern farming and shipping technology.

>>I don't think you can criticize them for trying when they can't be perfect in it.
Generally, I don't. But if a specific Vegan happens to mention that environmentalism is the motivation for their diet you can point out that a "locavore" diet, which does involve meat, is even better.

>>the "cruelty-free meat" is a meme though. do some research into what those places are actually like
Incorrect. I hunt often. Where is the "curelty" there? I also shop at a few different small farms. I visit them often (to pick up my pigs) and I know the owners personally. They really do look like your sterotypical "story book" farmhouse. The livestock gets treated like pets, and truly get to free-range on massive amounts of land. They want for nothing. Yes, this is more costly than factory-farmed meat but it tastes so much better I'd gladly pay the price. I raise my own chickens. I do give them feed just to make sure they do not go hungry, but they also "free range". The area where my chickens are measures just under an acre, and there are only about 8 of them. Every once in a while I kill one. Those chickens do not suffer, believe me.

Because it is impossible to justify a mental illness other than calling it what it is, an illness.

>implying the majority of people's diets aren't completely dependent on modern farming and shipping technology...

You're wrong. Nachos are intrinsically vegetarian. Meat is optional but cheese is not.

Of course most people's are. But Vegans moreso than most because their diet focuses on seasonal foods whereas most "omnivores" diets do not.

Also, an Omnivore always has the option of purchasing only local products if they so choose. A Vegan has no choice in the matter; they are utterly dependent on polluting technology during the non-growing-season.

Vegans can also purchase locally grown goods, and greenhouses do exist.

Most omnivores consume the same types of vegetation that vegans do, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second half of your statement. I've never met someone who only eats meat, and hunting season isn't year round...

>Vegans can also purchase locally grown goods
Yes, but not when it's winter.

>Greenhouses do exist
Doesn't solve the photoperiod problem. Many plants won't grow at all, or won't yield fruit, during the shorter days of winter. You can get around that by using artificial lighting, but that's another source of pollution--the energy required to operate the lights.

>>so I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second half of your statement....
A vegan eats more produce than an omnivore. Therefore, during the winter season the vegan is necessarily purchasing more pollution-based product in order to survive.

Let's do an example. Vegan and Omnivore walk into the supermarket during December and buy food. The vegan buys 100% vegetables. All of it is dependent on extra pollution (either shipping or artificial growth methods). The Omnivore buys 50% meat and 50% veggies. That is half the extra impact of the Vegan.

if nachos include cheese why is it called nacho cheese??????!?!?!?!?

"Nacho cheese" is basically short for "the type of cheese sauce that is commonly used for nachos"

Nachos = tortilla chips with cheese and possibly other toppings on them

Nacho cheese = cheese sauce product used to make nachos. Normally you only see this on shitty nachos, like those from a concession stand. Well made nachos will use grated or crumbled cheese rather than a sauce.

This is assuming most people are living in the north where it snows and gets dark most of the day, like Montana. Many people live in a more moderate climate and aren't as affected by lack of light during the winter months. Animal flesh must also be shipped in, and those animals must also be fed (typically a diet high in corn for cows). Animal agriculture also contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than all forms of transportation combined so it's pretty safe to say shipping vegetables would have less of an environmental impact.

The commenter I was responding to seemed to disregard the fact nachos are most commonly topped with dairy cheese and harped on the idea that nachos are only considered nachos when topped with animal flesh. Nacho cheese can be vegan, which is why the vegan nachos pictured are covered with nacho cheese.

All crops have growing seasons, even in equatorial regions. Have you ever grown your own vegetables user?

>>Animal flesh must also be shipped in
Indeed it must. But animals tend to be farmed locally--specifically to avoid that shipping cost. You don't have that option with vegetables. For example, I live in Texas. When I buy tomatoes in the winter they are imported from halfway around the world. When I buy chickens in winter they come from the same place they do in the summer--about 8 miles away from the supermarket.

>>Animal agriculture also contributes more greenhouse gases...
I agree that factory agriculture causes a lot of problems. But we're not comparing against that. We're comparing against local. In other words:
>Vegan: I'm Vegan because I want to reduce my environmental impact.
Me: Why not do instead? That's even lower environmental impact.

Can you imagine the difference in pollution between these options:
1)Go shoot a wild, local deer and put 75 lbs of meat in your freezer for no impact at all
2)buy 75 lbs of produce & enjoy all the pollution from the fertilizer, shipping, pesticides, and refrigeration expenses while they're sitting there in the market

>All crops have growing seasons, even in equatorial regions. Have you ever grown your own vegetables user?

this
and you also have to figure you need a complete diet. there are some crops you can grow in the winter but that doesnt mean those few are enough to give all the nutrition you need

its not easy to get all the nutrients you need for a balanced vegan diet. even during the summer you might have to ship in some different veg to make up for what you arent getting from those in your area

I'm aware all vegetables have growing seasons, but this doesn't mean people cannot buy in-season vegetables. Unfortunately, people will likely buy out of season produce whether vegan or omnivore just because they are used to the convenience but that is neither here nor there. I just moved from the US to another country and we are only able to purchase locally grown, in-season produce and most people here are primarily vegetarian, so it is definitely not impossible.

I'm not vegan solely due to environmental reasons though, and animal welfare is the main reason I'm vegan, so I wouldn't consider farming animals for flesh or byproducts. My SO and I are working on creating an animal sanctuary where we will be growing our own food, so we are trying to walk the walk as much as we are able. The problem in the US and other western countries is the expense of land, and low wages (primarily US), which makes growing your own food quite impractical or even impossible for the vast majority.

In your hypothetical scenario you are using faulty logic because a deer cannot be your sole source of nutrients. People can also freeze/can seasonal local produce if you're using the same logic, so why would that be considered negative?

Everyone ITT is buttblasted, especially me
Who gives a fuck what people eat god damn

It's pretty simple. I'm currently living in a country where most people don't consume meat and only eat seasonal local produce. We also have freezers and the ability to can goods, thus we are able to enjoy those products year round if you're worried about lack of seasonally available nutrients.

The fact that more people then vegans are deficient doesn't refute his shitty post.

Nachos without cheese are just chips. And salsa.

The irony is most vegans supplement B12 and probably have a lower rate of B12 deficiency than the general population. Shitty poster himself may very well be B12 deficient and thus by his own logic "irrational".

>and animal welfare is the main reason I'm vegan, so I wouldn't consider farming animals for flesh
That confuses me. If you knew the animal was not treated cruelly--which is easy because you would be the one responsible--then why would you be opposed to eating that animal?

>>expense of land
There is an amazing amount of land in the US that is very inexpensive. I mean just a couple hundred bucks for an acre. However, those will be rural areas so you would indeed need to "walk the walk".

>>you are using faulty logic because a deer cannot be your sole source of nutrients.
It doesn't have to be a sole source of nutrients. It just has to be PART of it. For every pound of meat you hunt (or get "free" from your farm-scrap raised animals) that's one less pound of food that you have to buy. Even though it is a fraction of your diet that's still an improvement compared to the alternative.

Set it up synergistically. That's the whole point of small farms. You mainly eat vegetables, but instead of wasting the parts of them which you cannot eat you turn those into meat which you can eat. Not to mention that the animals provide you with manure for your fertilizer, and in some cases have other benefits, like pest control. It's mutually beneficial.

>>People can also freeze/can seasonal local produce if you're using the same logic, so why would that be considered negative?
Freezing and canning requires energy, which requires pollution to generate.

My point is simply that the lowest-possible environmental impact you can have is small-scale farming which includes animals, supplemented with small scale hunting. In many locations hunting is actually an environmental benefit rather than being "neutral". Where I live there is a huge problem with feral hogs. They cause massive amounts of agricultural damage every year. Killing one not only puts food on your table but removes an invasive species from the enviornment & reduces damage.

>We also have freezers and the ability to can goods, thus we are able to enjoy those products year round if you're worried about lack of seasonally available nutrients.

Sure, I get that. But you could get your same nurition, without the costs of freezing, by adding a little animal protein to your diet.

Nobody is saying it's impossible to do what you describe. We're saying it's cheaper and less polluting to choose an omnivorous diet rather than a strictly vegan one.

>We are passionate about not destroying our finite resources and not causing harm to animals.
So why aren't you being just as passionate about throwing away your electronic devices? You know how much environmental harm comes from making computer chips and rechargeable batteries?

I would consider killing someone who doesn't want to die inherently cruel.

Thanks for discussing with me. I'd like to talk further but I'm headed to bed. Goodnight/good day user.

>I cannot comprehend the level of cruelty present in a human being to allow themselves to participate in those industries.

Agreed 100%, user. I just don't see why anyone thinks you have to go vegan to do that. Don't vegans understand that not all animal products are derived from horrible factory farming?

I can deap with vegans, I have several friends that are and even try to learn some vegan recipies. They are also anal about onion and garlic.

But what I can't stand is this childish behavior about caring more for animals than humans. I would kill a 1000 dogs if that ment to save a human child.

>cite environmentalist as part of their diet
of course they should be allowed to cite environmentalism if that's a valid reason for their decision. they are still reducing their impact. every environmentalist could just kill themselves to maximally reduce their destructive impact on the world but that wouldn't solve anything

>diet is impossible
do you not realize that the standard american diet of high meats + processed foods is also impossible without even further abuse of the environment?

>"locavore" meme
this is still higher in carbon emissions and other environmental metrics than veganism. meat is really inefficient per calorie

>roam free as pets meme
you can't ethically kill something that wants to live

>i'd kill 1000 dogs to save a human
cool, me too and I'm vegan. fortunately, I don't have to make that decision every day (or any day). but the decision I do have to make every day is whether or not I will kill an animal to eat as my meal or whether I will have plants instead

>I don't have to do it therefore it doesn't exist
you literally just defeated yourself

"nacho" = colloquial slang for "not your"

just like the famous movie with Jack black "nacho libre" means "not your liberty" because it's a commentary on the life jack black's character wants to lead vs. the one he can never escape.

???
what is your point
I'm saying you are making your decision to not be vegan based on an imaginary scenario. My decision to be vegan is based on a choice that I have to make every day

aren't the animals still getting killed regardless of your decision? how does that rationalise being vegan? why can't you just admit you watched a slaughterhouse peta propaganda video and were turned into a pussy?

And thats cool with me, but I cant tolerate people that go "fuck humans, aw poor dog :("

>of course they should be allowed to cite environmentalism....
I never said they shouldn't be allowed to cite it user. You asked me why I was "holding vegans to a higher standard". My reply is that I don't. But once the subject of environmental protection is broached--by them--then I don't see the problem with pointing out an even better approach.

>>do you not realize that the standard american diet of high meats + processed foods is also impossible without even further abuse of the environment?
I absolutely agree. It's horrible for the environment. My point is that:
Local > Vegan. Now it's also true that Vegan >>> Average American. But we weren't talking about that in that point in the conversation. The horrific nature of the average western diet has nothing to do with a comparison of local vs. vegan.

>this is still higher in carbon emissions and other environmental metrics than veganism
I probably should have used a different word than just plain "local". I'm not talking about hipster locavore restaurants.

>>meat is really inefficient per calorie
If you're deliberately doing nothing but raising animals, yes. If you are raising a limited number of animals based on what surplus you have from farming (etc) then raising them can be *free*.

>you can't ethically kill something that wants to live
I can, and do. It doesn't bother me one bit. Every living thing on this planet is only alive because of the deaths of other living things. I am not above that. I do what I can to minimize it. Do you worry about the animals which are displaced and killed to make farm land? What about those which die due to fertilizer runoff? Pesticides? Do you have any idea how many small animals die when a field is plowed or a harvester goes through a field? Going vegan does not stop anyone from being involved in killing living things.

that's only cause humans are more hateable than animals. when it comes down to it everyone is slightly religious with the idea of "but those animals are innocent" as if they're more or less innocent than us in the grand scheme of things

veganism isn't an atomized decision. the meat industry doesn't make meat for every vegan that they then have to throw away because the vegans don't eat it. they make enough meat to meet demand

that's fine I guess but it's not at all an argument against veganism

man you love the word pedantic. did you just learn it?

and you think the small population of vegans that buy groceries affect how much meat is available? if that were the case I would say you all should buy out the market as a protest.... since there's so many of you that you think you'd dictate the livestock industry. i mean come on. you make it seem like you saved a life because you chose not to eat meat that's already been butchered. and what's the line? how do you feel about insects?

I dont agree with that. Some humans are scum, but that does not put any animal life over a random human one.

Why must inocents pay the crimes of the ones you hate? just because some humans are terrible people should we be all grouped together? Are you really rationalising your believes or are you just letting your instintive and sentimental get the hold of yourself?

Because to me someone that cant value human life is thinking purely with theur feelings, up to the "thing is cute therfore he should not die" way we are wired with fron birth.

i only see it once
what are you goin on about

yes, the small population of vegans does effect how much meat is available. and even if it didn't, you have to take small steps now so more people are able to be vegan in the future. it sounds cliche but it really is drops of water coming together to form a lake

that's what I'm saying. I'm guessing people feel that way because of some misguided empathy. like "awe that little thing never hurt anyone" but then a human who lives a different life they'd likely not have much if any empathy for them, like if someone on the other side of the planet was tortured and murdered vs an animal. it's a rambling thought but my point is the thought of "animals are innocent and humans are all scum" seems to come from a place of immaturity. immaturity in the ability to not have true empathy, instead of just "awe they caged the poor kitty"

>you have to take small steps now so more people are able to be vegan in the future

No, you don't. Another option would be drop your silly religion, period. That tends to happen anyway; very very few people are vegan long-term.

then there's other posters using it coincidentally and i lost track of who's who

still waiting for a reply to this one bros
the hypocrisy sure is strong here

i've been vegetarian my entire life and been vegan for six months. plenty of people go vegan and don't change

...

>i've been vegetarian my entire life and been vegan for six months.
That's nice. It doesn't change the fact that you don't *have* to take steps now. You have the option of ditching the plan entirely.

>plenty of people go vegan and don't change
Indeed. But statistically, over 80% of Vegetarians and Vegans grow out of those phases at some point.

Fascinating stuff, really:
psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why

> statistically, over 80% of Vegetarians and Vegans grow out of those phases at some point.

That's true of any and all diets. That's why the world has a growing burden of obesity and chronic diseases.

>That's true of any and all diets
Agreed, most diets are pretty silly. I don't see the problem with eating less and exercising more.

>>That's why the world has a growing burden of obesity and chronic diseases.
Nobody should ever need to be on a "diet" except perhaps in rare medical situations. Eat all things in moderation. Get exercise. It's not hard.

And there are other major factors in the growth of obesity:
1) A trend to more sedentary lifestyles
2) Increased accessibility of convenience food
3) Improvements in modern medicine

I do have the option but honestly I feel so much better with the switch from vegetarianism to veganism that I'm confident in my decisions. People are allowed to fall out of a diet and it's possible that they got into it for the wrong reasons. They don't have to impact my choices

A diet is simply whatever a person eats. People should of course eat a healthy diet but those have a notoriously bad track record. It's just dumb to try to make a point out of "people who try vegetarian diets at some point stop eating one." You could say the same about practically anything. Most people who start exercising tend to stop.

>You could say the same about practically anything.

I disagree. I think veganism is special because it's a moral or ethical stance. Many, if not most, of its practitioners preach that it's the only "ethical" way to live. So when they stop following the diet then that is much more telling.

Sure, people take up a sport and quit. They promise themselves to go to the gym but give up after 8 months. People try to eat healthy then go back to McDonald's and frozen pizza. But none of those things involve preachy ethical issues.

So you're just a little triggered bitch as opposed to having any actual qualms?

I actually just bought a raw vegan cookbook that was on sale, not to go full vegan but because there's no harm in introducing new ways of having a veggie-rich diet that isn't just rice and beans.

>I think veganism is special because it's a moral or ethical stance

To some people. It's also a health stance and seen as a way to lose weight and eat better. It's more likely that people dropping vegetarian/veganism are the ones who did it to lose weight or because they heard it was healthy, not people who mainly saw it as a moral issue.

I hate Vegans because, unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of vegans are those same whiny faggot busybody cunts that thinks everyone lives in a rich coastal state and should abide by their neo-liberal mindset or else youre the scum of the earth.

I can see why somebody might want to be Vegan, but you make your whole life revolve upon it. Stop it. You're just as annoying as some faggot who is obsessed with bacon and buys bacon-related shirts and bumper stickers. Fuck off.