Responses to non-vegans

Share this page

"Vegans are extremists."

To answer that claim, here is the following quote:

"The position we hold is often said to be ‘extreme,’ and those of us who hold it are said to be ‘extremists.’ The unspoken suggestions are that extreme positions cannot be right, and that extremists must be wrong. But I am an extremist when it comes to rape—I am against it all the time. I am an extremist when it comes to child abuse—I am against it all the time. I am an extremist when it comes to sexual discrimination, racial discrimination—I am against it all the time. I am an extremist when it comes to abuse of the elderly—I am against it all the time. The plain fact is, moral truth often is extreme, and must be, for when the injustice is absolute, then one must oppose it—absolutely."

Tom Regan (philosopher, animal rights advocate)


"Veganism is a religion."

Not wanting to harm cows and pigs is no more a religion than not wanting to harm cats and dogs. Veganism is simply a moral obligation. Unlike "believers", vegans are based on knowledge and facts (studies, statistics, etc.). Their motivation is ethical.

A religion is a set of beliefs defining the relationship of man with the sacred marked by practices and rites, while a philosophy is a way of interpreting the world that guides our behavior. Animals are not considered "sacred" since they are not perceived as belonging to the separate, intangible, inviolable domain of the "religious" who inspires fear and commands respect, under penalty of reprisals or by the intention of obtaining privileges.

Religion is about getting people to believe in things they can't see. Veganism gets people to see things they don't want to believe.


"It is more urgent to care for humans."

One person told me that improving human conditions was HIS first concern, not animals. It is interesting to note that this person does nothing for "his" cause. Being vegan does not prevent you from having empathy, nor from campaigning for the many causes that deserve our attention and participation. Becoming vegan means quitting bonding and paying for exploitation, confinement, genetic engineering, mutilation, torture and the killing of animals.

Just because we would prioritize our species does not mean that it would be morally acceptable to be actively cruel to animals, paying to eat, dress, entertain and test products on them. The consequences of wars and famine are not mitigated by the funding of these abuses. In addition, as it requires more crops and resources in general for farm animals, it is more expensive, and therefore more damaging, for those who are starving to use the resources of the planet in this manner.

The living beings of this planet, humans, animals and nature, are all interconnected. Much human suffering is directly linked to the consumption of products derived from animals, such as cardiovascular diseases, certain cancers, pollution, the wasting of energy and natural resources such as water, cereals, deforestation, erosion of surface land, famine. We could properly feed all the hungry on our planet if we did not give so much space to the cattle.


"Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years."

Humans have always beat children, robbed, raped, killed, enslaved, tortured, etc. Our ancestors have done many things that we avoid, and we do many things that they never did. Times have changed, we can choose to live nonviolently and avoid harming those who do not threaten us.


"It is impossible to be 100% vegan, so why bother."

Someone, to whom I had said that paying to put meat on his plate (whether organic, local, supposedly happy, etc.) was paying for the torture and death of animals, replied that we were all guilty and that it was impossible not to harm anyone.

Although in our mind we are 100% vegan, it is indeed not possible to never cause harm. The fact that I inadvertently swallow a mosquito or that a food product that I bought conceals a non-vegan color that was not mentioned in the ingredients of a product is not an authorization for afford atrocities or even just exploit animals.

At present, animals and animal products are used in so many ways that it is almost impossible to actually live so as to avoid the use of objects, devices or vehicles that are linked with exploitation of animals. But this difficulty is not a reason to continue to deal with things that are easy to avoid and that constitute the bulk of the demand for animal husbandry.

Veganism does not consist in saying in a dogmatic and irrational way: "I am perfect, I do not hurt anyone". It is about recognizing the harm caused by our societies and trying to change things as much as possible. As more and more people become vegan, more and more alternatives will be developed, as research will be integrated into new technologies. Currently, we are a minority, which is why large companies do not feel the need to modify their practice to accommodate us. But, as the world changes, these things will follow and the use of animals will continue to decrease, so that it will be easier to avoid the use of animals in other areas of life.

Your phone parts were made with slave labor and the car tires contain parts of animals "As humans, we were born into a world where all consumer actions cause harm in a way or another. But to say that we shouldn't worry about minimizing our damage in one area just because we cause damage in other areas is a total loophole. To make an analogy: if you are a rescuer and you see many people drowning, shouldn't you refrain from intervening to save a few because you can't save them all?


"Veganism is a fashion."

Veganism is not a fashion, but an ethical imperative. Doing our best not to enslave, torture and kill animals is moral behavior, not group bonding because we value the type of music, the style of clothing, or a sense of belonging.

I do not see the advantage of being part of a group which is, even today, ostracized, ridiculed, by a number of people who have not yet been able or wanted to open their eyes to certain realities, simply to give yourself a style.


"It is legal to eat meat and animal products."

"Most people think it is normal to eat meat and animal products."

At one point, most westerners also agreed that the enslavement of black people was acceptable. At present, most people in some countries think it is acceptable to stone "apostates" to death. The popularity of an idea says nothing about its morality. Often, throughout history, the masses have accepted oppression and do the same now with the oppression of animals.


"They are just animals."

Whatever our calculation on the value of animals, there is no reason to enslave, torture or kill them.

I do not share the idea that animals are species to be considered less than humans and even less that they are just things.

It is currently impossible for us to know precisely how they feel and perceive things, but it cannot be denied that they are sentient and intelligent beings. Some of their senses like hearing, vision, odor, etc., are often superior to ours. We do not know the intensity of their emotions, but it is obvious that they have them.


"Animals don't suffer."

According to our current knowledge, to feel pain, you need a nervous system and a brain. Animals (unlike plants) have those. We know that the vast majority of animals, including fish, experience pain.

By wanting to cut her cat's claws, a neighbor had, unintentionally, cut more than one claw. It was painful to hear the cat "scream" and see him struggling to prevent it from happening again.

According to biologist Richard Dawkins, from an evolutionary point of view, one might even think that animals could feel pain more intensely than humans: "You could say that pain is there to warn the animal of do not start again ... an animal that learns slowly or is less intelligent may need more severe pain to deter it from trying again than a human who is intelligent enough to learn quickly. Hear Richard Dawkins speaking on the subject on Youtube..


"Animals do not understand the concept of good and evil."

It seems rather ironic to me to think that humans can judge animals on the concept of good and evil. But in any case, ethics is an evolved thing, and all species have at least a basic understanding of good and evil, because without it they cannot survive. Without altruism, a species fails and could not exist today. The reason why we, as humans, even understand the true and the false (or at least pretend to be) is because, biologically, we are animals.

As with any other animal, we have developed an understanding that good deeds towards others often meant a reward in return, thus helping us to survive. Either way, a being's level of understanding of right or wrong does not negate their ability to suffer. A baby has no notion of right or wrong, but we wouldn't use that rationale to do to babies what we do to pigs and cows.


"It doesn't hurt the animals to kill them."

There is no question that taking an individual's life harms him and his family. In addition, due to the system of profitability and profit, it is impossible to eliminate practices that frighten and also physically cause suffering to animals. The only solution to avoid these more than reprehensible practices is the abolition of animal exploitation.


"It does not harm the animals to take their eggs."

In the egg industry, only females are required because males do not lay eggs. The males, useless, are then crushed or gassed or put in plastic bags for them to suffocate. Subsequently, their sisters will remain in captivity until their egg production is no longer profitable. Hens are genetically modified to produce roughly 16 times the normal amount of eggs.

They will spend their lives locked in cages where the available space will sometimes be barely larger than a sheet of paper. The majority (even organic hens) will have the tip of the beak cut without anesthesia. Their body having difficulty supporting the egg-laying rhythm, will be exposed to several health problems (internal egg-laying, organ descent, calcium deficiencies). Around the age of 2 or 3, when their lifespan in the wild may exceed 10 years, they will be sent to slaughter.

Take the cages out of the equation and imagine a crowded warehouse sometimes having the luxury of a window, you have the hens "free range." If to get around the problem, you consider consuming eggs from urban hens, you will find that not everything is rosy for the health of the hens either.


"It does not harm the animals to take their milk."

To produce milk, cows, which have the ability to feel complex emotions, are raped (forcibly inseminated) annually and are always kept chained, even during gestation, which is why they are not formed and which is very painful to them, both physically and psychologically.

Very soon after the birth of their calf, mothers have their child stolen, which causes them, like to the calf, a very great psychological distress. Cows and their calves can moo for days or even weeks. Some cows even have depression, starve themselves to death, and stop mooing when they have no voice. If the calf is a male, it is most often intended for the production of calf meat while the female, (called heifer) will become a dairy cow.

Although these animals are social beings, the males are confined in individual cubicles barely larger than them, under the pretext of undesirable animal behavior, but we know that this is so that they do not move too much so that their flesh is tender. As confinement prevents calves from meeting their need to suckle, they can be expected to develop compensatory behaviors.

Milk-fed calves are slaughtered when they are between 18 and 20 weeks old, or even earlier than grain-fed calves, while a bovine can live between 20 and 25 years. He is fed with powdered milk and not with the milk which is biologically intended for him (which his mother produces for him, but which must be sold). His low iron diet keeps him on the verge of anemia, so his flesh is pale and lean.

When the cows are physically exhausted and less productive after four to five years, they are sent to the hamburger.



At a fraction of their potential life, before being transformed into belts and bags, many animals undergo all the possible horrors of factory farming (extreme confinement in filthy cages or enclosures, castration without painkillers, chronic infections, diseases caused by extreme crowding, terrifying journey to the sea. 'slaughterhouse). Many animals are skinned or boiled alive. For example, pregnant cows and ewes have to abort just to obtain high-end “luxury” leather.


"It could be done differently."

For economic reasons, industries cannot abandon certain practices. And even if, for some farms, we succeeded in changing these practices, the exploitation of these animals would remain demanding and would still put their health to the test, if not worse. And if, out of utopia, it was possible to get these "products" without causing suffering, that does not mean that we should legetimize these industries.


"I know one person who became ill with a vegan diet."

No matter what diet we choose, it is essential that it is balanced and rich in nutrients. According to the WHO (World Health Organization), cutting red meat and processed meat reduces the risk of certain diseases. According to the American Dietetic Association and dietitians of canada, a well-managed vegan diet supplemented with vitamin B12 can meet all of our needs regardless of our age.

In fact, deficiencies are easily avoided as soon as we adopt new healthy habits. Just learn where to get your essential vitamins and minerals and get enough calories. There is no reason why a balanced vegan diet is synonymous with malnutrition, but sometimes you have to give your body time to get used to a diet that is lower in fat. If you still have concerns, try veganism for a while and have blood tests to check for any deficiencies. If necessary, consult a nutritionist.


"Vegans are intolerant, extremists."

How can we qualify as intolerant those who struggle to free living beings who are oppressed, tortured and killed and who try to make people aware that the steak they eat comes from the corpse of an animal that has suffered greatly? ? Is it intolerant to try to stop someone from committing a crime? Was it intolerant to have fought for the abolition of slavery, to militate for women's rights, to be against pedophilia and child abuse? Not wanting to harm animals, when it is not necessary to do so, demonstrates consistency, not extremist. You can't kill just a little: it's all or nothing.


"Don't you have anything better to do?"

We try to inform people so that they realize that every living being, despite its differences, has the right to exist and to live as safely as possible. I think this is already something substantial. And you, what good are you doing right now?


"I have reduced my meat consumption."

It's a good start, but it must not be the end goal. By reducing our consumption, we reduce our ecological footprint and participate in the suffering of fewer living beings. However, we cannot justify the suffering our choices still cause by claiming that we cause less, if we are able to cause even less. Stopping consuming animal products is not a gift we give to animals, but a moral obligation.


"I am a vegetarian, so leave me alone."

Vegetarianism does not take into account the extreme cruelty that animals suffer from the dairy, egg, leather, wool, fur, honey, entertainment, tourism, etc. industry, nor of the horror of products or drugs tested on animals.


"It is possible to kill animals without causing them pain."

It is theoretically possible to kill an animal without terrorizing it or causing it to suffer, for example, by putting it to sleep. But this possibility is not physically usable because it would not be profitable because it would slow down the "production". Even if the measures in place in slaughterhouses aim to stun or make animals unconscious before killing them, several testimonies from workers show that these practices are often inefficient and that many animals are conscious when they are slaughtered and scalded.


"Breeders love their animals."

If you exclude intensive breeding, there are loving breeders who care about the welfare of their animals. Unfortunately, to maintain their profit margin, even the best-intentioned breeders are often forced to make choices at the expense of farm animal welfare: keep animals chained inside, mutilate them, or sign their shutdown. death as soon as they are less profitable, etc.


"We won't never can eliminate the consumption of meat."

Maybe, but going from billions of beings who suffer needlessly each year to a few thousand or a few hundred would be a big less weight for all the beings for whom this experience would be spared, even if it means that they will never be born. .

Also, we will possibly never eliminate the murder of humans, discrimination of all kinds, etc., and we agree that these behaviors are to be avoided.


"I only eat the meat of humanely killed animals."

a myth, and if there are rare farms in which animals can sometimes graze outside, are anesthetized during operations and are not the result of genetic selections made to the detriment of their health, is- this sensitive and benevolent to kill a being who fights for his survival when alternatives exist?


"I am a "welfariste". So I believe that the welfare of animals can be improved without terminating their exploitation."

Improving animal welfare is a good thing. However, it is impossible to eliminate all suffering in a system where animals are seen as products or tools (rapes, steals of their children, mutilations, etc.). From a welfarist perspective, every action taken to the detriment of their well-being must be justified and necessary. So, given the consumption of meat or animal products is not necessary, would it not be more logical to conclude that no practices detrimental to their well-being (such as their exploitation and their killing) are justifiable and opting for veganism?

The idea of ​​"improved conditions, organic, or free range, etc." often give a good conscience to people who do not, therefore, make the effort to reflect on the fact that it is ethically imoral to breed animals to force them, to live by our rules and to die as and when we want .menu

"I eat organic meat."

Biologique ne signifie pas éthique ou sans souffrance. Dans certains élevages bio, les règles régissent souvent le bien-être des animaux, plus souvent que dans l’élevage industriel, mais elles sont largement insuffisante. Tant que les animaux sont considérés comme des produits qui amènent un profit, il y aura toujours de l'abut et le manque de se conformer aux "normes".

Organic does not mean ethical or pain free. In some organic farms, the rules often govern animal welfare, more often than in factory farming, but they are largely insufficient. As long as animals are viewed as profit-making products, there will always be abuse and failure to conform to "standards".

In addition, for humans, the consumption of organic meat does not reduce certain health problems linked to the consumption of meat such as cardiovascular disease, certain cancers or cholesterol.


"It does not harm animals to take their wool."

Sheep are descended from mouflons. Animals that do not have wool. From repeated crosses and successive selections, humans have created the sheep which has gradually acquired its current qualities, lost its horns and developed its woolen coat.

As the wool fiber of the sheep never stops growing, they must be shorn. This is why they are sheared in vegan sanctuaries. But it is not the actual shearing for the benefit of sheep that is the reason why vegans refrain from buying wool.

The lambs are cut from the flesh, cut and cauterized the tail by fire or with a hot blade, all raw, without anesthesia. Tail mutilation is an extremely painful procedure: sheep experience the pain of having their spine, skin and flesh amputated. Rings are placed tightly around their scrotum, still without anesthesia, which is extremely painful, so that their testicles wilt and eventually fall out weeks later. When the testicles do not fall out fast enough, shearers cut them with their shears. They also cut off pieces of flesh from their rumps. The mother sheep witness the scene and frantically cry out as their twisting and screaming lambs in pain are mutilated.



"It does not harm the animals to take their honey."

To produce honey, male bees are usually crushed to extract the sperm which is forcibly inserted into queen bees which are stuck in a tube without being able to move. Later, queen bees are sold over the Internet which can, among other things, injure and / or kill them.

To prevent the queens from leaving the hives, their wings are cut off. Because if a queen leaves, the worker bees will follow her. In addition, queens are marked with a highly toxic paint (enamel) marker which causes dizziness, severe headaches, poor coordination, poor vision and brain damage.

READ MORE. or watch this Youtube video: Why don't vegans eat honey? - Earthling Ed.


"But I like the taste..."

Meat is often seen as just a type of food. But it's the corpse, of a once-living social and intelligent creature who had a family. To say "I just like the taste" is to say "Killing is justified if I like the flavor of the corpse". If we succeed, then someone would have the right to kill your animals if they liked the taste. Or even extend it to humans and say if someone likes the taste of human flesh, then it's okay to kill people.

How can we morally justify taking someone's life because we like the taste of it? We cannot justify harming others based on sensory pleasures. If we can, we can also justify the rape because the rapist feels good or the theft because the thief takes pleasure in taking your money or your property. To harm others for one's own pleasure is morally wrong.


"It's a personal choice."

How we style our hair and what kind of music we listen to are personal choices. But you can't call it a personal choice when it comes to enslaving, frightening, torturing or killing a third party for the sake of eating her or her secretions. Therefore, we cannot categorize animal agriculture in personal choice.

Is veganism a matter of opinion like any other? If someone takes into account the arguments and facts on which veganism is based and can explain why their point of view is different, then their opinion has the merit of not being gratuitous. But what about those who hold on to their "opinion" that animals don't suffer, without checking out what science says? Should we simply admit that their opinion is sacred and would have as much value as the scientific fact which contradicts it?

On the one hand, carnism leads us to believe that eating meat would be a trivial choice that only involves the one who does. On the other hand, the arguments on which veganism is based suggest that we should view the animal as an individual who suffers the consequences of this choice. From this point of view, animal life would have intrinsic value. Therefore, the ethical issues would be too high for a quick opinion or the personal choice argument to be considered acceptable.

Moreover, methane emissions, water pollution and the exacerbated risks of a new era of antibiotic resistance caused by the meat industry are not part of the living and "laissez-vivre" of which some use it for their egocentric "choice".


"Morality is subjective, you can't prove it's wrong for me."

I think the animal's interest in survival and not suffering outweighs the human discomfort in having to choose something else to eat. Between a life of suffering that ends in terror and certain moments of gustatory pleasure, there is a gigantic gap.

Even if you think morality is subjective, your ethics should still be supported by logic. Most people would say they care about animals, or at least don't want to harm them unnecessarily. Raising animals for our consumption is unnecessary, so any damage done to them, including their slaughter, is also unnecessary. If we were molested in the street, it would not occur to us to tell the abuser to continue on his way without problem because morality is subjective. Much like the "food chain" and "the circle of life", people who use this phrase always depart from this "rule" while expecting animals to fall victim to it.


"It's just a matter of opinion like religion."

Religion is based on ancient scriptures, tradition, dogma and superstition. Veganism is based on consideration of animals and the desire to avoid abusing them. Animal abuse is real. Animals are exploited and killed by the billions every year. It is a reality that cannot be denied. You could say it's a matter of opinion that we would like to prevent this from happening, but if you claim to have any consideration for animals then you will agree with us.


"These animals would eat you if they could.

Animals do not have a choice, nor the same ability as we do, to choose what is most ethical.


"I buy local."

This phrase is perhaps more used in the egological context, but no matter where we shop, makes no difference to the victims. Distance does not make it less of a crime. All farm animals suffer the same fate, no matter what term planting specialists have put on the label to create confusion or hide the truth.


"Vegans are hypocrites because they eat fake meat."

False meat is not meat. Vegans don't mind eating something that tastes like meat. It would be hypocrisy if vegans pretended to oppose the consumption of meat but ate it anyway.

Some people do not buy diamonds because of the working conditions of diamond miners. It is not hypocritical to use cubic zirconia instead of diamond. Zirconia is clear and shiny like a diamond, just like fake meat tastes or is supposed to taste like meat. People who avoid buying diamonds are not against the rocks shining, they are against the working conditions in the diamond mines. Likewise, vegans object not to the taste of meat, but to the fact that animals are exploited, mistreated and / or killed for it.


"I make sure I use every part of the animal so it doesn't go to waste."

By this logic, we should also have given Jeffrey Dahmer, an American serial killer, a less severe sentence, given that he made sure to use almost every part of his victims's body, to eat their various parts and even turn some parts of their body into household items such as bowls.


"The animals we buy at the store are already dead anyway."

Buying an animal product is not a bad thing for an animal that is already dead. It’s a bad thing for the animal that is now going to be killed because of the money you have paid this industry to replace this product on the shelf. Every time we pay for an animal product, we are paying for another animal to be mistreated and murdered. Again, this is the reality of supply and demand. We vote, with our wallet, every time we buy an animal product and say, "I support exploitation and cruelty to animals."


"It's just a question of culture and social norms."

Cultures and social norms develop over time. Whether it is slavery, the vote for women or whatever, the fact that it has always been the norm, or part of the culture, does not justify it. If we think culture is a justification, we have to stand up for each of their practices, regardless of how clearly it is unethical.

It is not a rational point of view. We need to be able to get a feel for the practice no matter where it's happening. If we say killing dogs is unacceptable because our culture says so, but we think it's okay if other cultures do, we can tell someone, who is about to kill a dog, to cross the border to this other culture, where this sort of thing is the norm, and not worry about this dog anymore. We have to take into account the victim, wherever it happens.

On the one hand, we have the culture, a concept, on the other, real beings who suffer and die needlessly. The culture will not suffer if we stop worshiping roast pork. On the other hand, the pig will suffer all its life for the idea that we have of culture. When culture also means suffering, it is gravely inadequate.


"We have canines."

Even if we had huge fangs, it wouldn't justify killing animals for the pleasure of eating their corpses. It has been proven time and time again that we can live with a healthy plant based diet. The shape of our teeth therefore does not force us to kill.

Let us examine this argument. First, there are animals with much larger canines than us, which eat plant-based foods, such as primates and rhinos, etc. Second, our own canines are only named this way because of their position and biological classification in our jawbone. They bear no resemblance to the real canines that today's carnivores have (like lions). They are of no use for biting through raw animal skin, especially not that of a living being.

Also, having body parts that are just capable of doing something doesn't mean we should. Yes, humans can digest animal products, but why does that mean we should? Vegans are living proof that humans can live long, healthy lives without eating animal products. It is therefore not necessary to harm animals when there are alternatives. When it comes to teeth, it turns out that our teeth are by no means carnivorous or omnivorous. Humans have flat, blunt teeth, with a jaw capable of moving side to side, like any herbivore.

Regarding our two small, sharp teeth in particular, they are common in various herbivorous species, such as bats, rhinos, hippos, gorillas, and musk deer (also called saber-toothed deer), which all have much bigger and sharper canines than our two pathetic little apple-eaters who are completely unable to tear anyone's flesh and bones.

When we see images of massacres, we are repelled by them. It seems to me that a true omnivore or carnivore would salivate.


"The animals eat each other."

Wild animals kill to survive. They have to kill to eat, otherwise they will suffer and die. It doesn't matter whether they are instinctively killed or aware of their situation, we are not in their situation. If we live in modern society and have access to crops, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., we do not have to, nor do we need animal products.

In addition, lions display all kinds of behaviors that we avoid, for example, violent land disputes, male lions killing the young of a female he wishes to mate with, because she does not mate as long as she is 'she has no babies. Lions are not good ethical role models for humans.

While it is true that animals eat other animals in nature, building our own ethics can lead to all kinds of problems. If we can justify something just on the basis that animals do it, we can justify the following: penetrating women sexually without their consent (lions do it); suffocate our babies to death (lions do this too); vomit on people's food (flies do it); etc. People only seem interested in justifying human behavior over a choice animals make, eat animals.


"It is the circle of life. The survival."

If the idea is that "we live, we die, therefore killing is good", that would justify killing pets and also humans. If the idea is that we kill animals in order to be able to live, then this is wrong. Animals are killed by humans for the pleasure of eating their corpses. It's not about survival, as the millions of vegans around the world prove. This is a complete lie. People eat meat, cheese, milk, eggs and fish because they like the taste and texture.

Milk chocolate bars, fried breaded chicken, ice cream, maple glazed bacon, donuts, and cheese puffs are not survival foods and never have been. We can survive and thrive without all of these foods (all of which, by the way, there are vegan versions), and so we are morally obligated to do so.

You will have to tell me where the "circle of life" is in all these slaughterhouse videos, because we only see torture, abuse and misery, with the sole purpose of allowing people to enjoy a snac for their own personal pleasure.


"It is natural to eat animals."

We use modern technology (exemple : Internet) and perform various other tasks which cannot be called natural. Likewise, there are other natural things that we avoid. Nature is cruel and we actually live in modern society trying to avoid the dangers of nature. We could argue that whatever man is capable of is natural. But in this case, the rationale "it's natural" would literally apply to all human behavior, and as such it would be ridiculous, since you wouldn't say that all human behavior is justified just because a human did it.

As with the "animals eat other animals" rationale, people seem to care nothing more than justifying that something is "natural" when it comes to killing animals. No one seems to think of giving up their smartphone, crouching over a hole in the floor to go to the bathroom, instead of using man-made sewage systems, allowing their partner to abstain from showering and brushing teeth, etc. Most of the time, we have an attraction for what is not natural.

Since the animals we eat are bred with force, and both domestic and non-wild animals (and therefore are essentially a human creation) are regularly fed antibiotics and other completely unnatural things, it would make no sense to say that eating meat or animal products is natural.


"God put the animals here for us to kill them, the bible says so."

What kind of god would hold us rigour having empathy and taking into account animal suffering? If a deity asks us to sacrifice a living being, we would do better to question its existence or, at the very least, its morality. Can those who believe in paradise imagine that there are slaughterhouses?


"Farm animals have a good life."

Animals intended for consumption are almost all the result of genetic selections made to the detriment of their health. they are not free to live according to their nature and they almost all end up in the same slaughterhouses. Some are killed at birth or after a fraction of their potential life. In Quebec, 92% of dairy cows spend their days tied to a pole without being able to move. Can you call it "a good life"?

Also, is it okay to kill an animal because it has had a good life? Where does the idea come from that certain behaviors are serious when they affect humans, but commonplace when they affect animals if they are grass-fed, organic, outdoors, etc.?

Animals are killed as soon as their goal is reached or as soon as they reach profitable size, which is a fraction of their potential lifespan. The very definition of grass-fed, organic, free-range animals is actually very loose and can vary wildly. This does not necessarily mean that animals have any quality of life. It just means that the farm has to meet some arbitrary requirements to get that title. This does not mean that all farmers treat their animals in a terrible way during their lifetime. Some actually give their animals a decent standard of living before sending them to have their throats slit in fear, but this is the exception.


"We have to eat animal products to survive."

This is wrong, as the millions of vegans around the world prove.

As dietitians of canada mention : " A well-planned vegan eating pattern is healthy : Anyone can follow a vegan diet – from children to teens to older adults. It’s even healthy for pregnant or nursing mothers. A well-planned vegan diet is high in fibre, vitamins and antioxidants. Plus, it’s low in saturated fat and cholesterol. This healthy combination helps protect against chronic diseases. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer than non-vegans. Vegans also have lower blood pressure levels than both meat-eaters and vegetarians and are less likely to be overweight."


"They are raised to be killed so it's okay."

Following this logic, if someone has a dog living with her and she is pregnant, then just stand there and say, "When these puppies are born, I will kill them all" and that would be sufficient justification for do it. This is of course absurd. Basically you are not able to determine the fate of an animal. If the argument is that some animals have been selectively bred for consumption, then again, this is not a justification. Creating a person for the sole purpose of harming him cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Additionally, no one applies this argument to animals we don't eat (eg dogs bred for dog fighting). Whether an animal is raised for food or not, it is not in its best interests to slit its throat and eat it.

So this argument, like all arguments used to exploit animals, does not approach things from the victim's perspective. An animal doesn't care what it is raised for, it just wants to live and do it according to its nature. And it's not our right to dictate a purpose for someone else's life.


"They wouldn't be born without farmers. We are doing them a service."

Bringing a life into the world doesn't justify taking it. And think about it : in the egg industry, as soon as the males are hatched, they are killed immediately. Have you really done these chickens a favor by bringing them into the world? No one can seriously say yes to this question, but this is precisely what happens every day and we fund that, if we buy eggs.

Animals raised for meat are killed as soon as they reach profitable size, usually after a few months, or about a year. You have done this animal no favor. Finally, let's extend this to animals other than cattle. You have a bitch who is pregnant. Does that mean you can slit puppies' throats because you are the one who organized your pet's pregnancy? Of course not.

Either we admit that some experiences are not worth living and that we should not force the conception of a being if we know that his lot will not be enviable, or even worse, or we admit that all life is worth worth living. So, we should conclude that an animal's life has value and that we should not deprive it or make it miserable if we do not have to.


"What about the tribes who have to hunt to survive."

If someone has to kill to survive, that's their only option. Anyone who is not in this situation should not talk about it, it has nothing to do with them.


"What if you were on a desert island."

If you are in a situation where you will starve unless you consume animal products, this is your only option. Fortunately, you are not in this situation and therefore it has nothing to do with it. Our choices must take into account our daily reality and not hypothetical extreme situations.


"Animals aren't as intelligent as we are, so it's okay to slit their throats."

Intelligence is not a valid justification for taking life. Simply put, cats, dogs, and hamsters aren't as smart as we are. But most people would be appalled to think of this as a reason to kill or hurt them. It has never been morally justifiable to discriminate against people on the basis of their intelligence.

Take the example of the Nazi Holocaust, where thousands of people with intellectual disabilities were murdered for this reason. Was it morally justifiable? And before saying it's different : a lot of animals actually have a higher IQ than humans with mental disabilities. The pig, for example, has the IQ of a 3 year old human, which makes them smarter than those with a mental age of 2 who were murdered in the Holocaust.

Many animals are as intelligent or smarter than many humans in many ways. Man is perhaps the only species on earth whose total elimination would benefit everything (air, oceans, animals, forests, soil, etc.). It is therefore absurd to think that a species whose very existence is detrimental to everything is greater than the existence of those species which really play a role in the ecosystem.

The idea that one's own gender is superior to other's gender is at the root of all oppressions in history. As for being the dominant species and justifying our exploitation of animals on that basis, that is yet another possible mistake. And if we are in a dominant position, why would we even want to rule with violence and cruelty? Why rule with an iron fist when you can rule with love and compassion? Our role as the most powerful species on this earth should be to protect its creatures, not to enslave them.


"You humanize the animals, they are not the same as us."

Choosing not to harm animals is not to say they are human or to treat them as such. All animals are different and require different treatment from us. In practice, it makes no sense to treat an animal like a human being or to treat an animal like any other type of animal. But that's no reason to hurt them, just because they're not human. Cats and dogs aren't human, but that doesn't mean you "humanized" them just because you didn't slit their throats.


"Milk est is good for health."

Milk contains a sugar, lactose, which many humans cannot tolerate because most of them have a deficiency in the lactase enzyme necessary for the digestion of lactose. This natural deficiency, if you drink milk, can lead to diarrhea, gas, abdominal pain, intestinal disturbances, diabetes. Milk intolerance is the most common food allergy. In addition, dairy products are half of saturated fat, which is a high risk factor in heart disease.


"Some animals have to be killed, some don't."

What is the basis for saying that some animals should be killed and others not? Almost any animal could be your companion if you gave them the opportunity.

There are people who keep pigs as companions and bond with them as hard as others with a dog. It even turns out that pigs are in many ways smarter than dogs, able to bond and solve more advanced problems than anything dogs can do. They can interact on a higher level with video games, they can recognize human faces, understand mirror reflections, respond to commands, etc.

In some cultures dogs are eaten.


"Humane slaughter."

Humane Slaughter "The words" human "and" slaughter "together are what we call in English oxymoron, that is, two words that contradict each other when put together. Using the term" human slaughter "is as absurd as saying "human rape", "human slavery" or "human holocaust".

Is there a good way to kill someone who doesn't want to die? Since animals want to live, we cannot kill them. No matter what methods we use to kill farm animals, it is not "humane". Whether the animal is knocked out with a bolt gun or gas chamber, or if they are killed by the Halal method, these are not exactly the methods we would use to euthanize someone.

The legal form of slaughtering animals is to "knock them out" and then slaughter them. For chickens and pigs, stunning is usually done with an electric shock, while for other animals, an air gun projects a metal rod into their forehead. It is claimed that this renders the animal 100% unconscious, but there is no way to verify that this is the case for every animal. Labor is not monitored regularly, and indeed, "stunning" regularly disappears before the animal is killed.

Whatever the mode of execution, nothing justifies taking the life. If someone killed your pet, I doubt you would say "it's okay, because you did it humanely".


"Killing animals for no reason is bad, but if you have a reason, it's okay."

In modern society, killing animals means eating their corpses. Surely that is not a justification for taking life. If someone kills your pet, I doubt you would say, "It's okay as long as you eat it."


"The whole world will never be 100% vegan."

The whole world is unlikely to ever be free from racism, homophobia or sexism and there is still slavery, but that is no reason for you to personally practice it. All anyone can do is take responsibility. Just because other people are doing something that you think is unethical is not a reason to copy them.


"One person cannot make a difference."

Everyone is responsible for what they do personally. For the numbers to grow, individuals must take responsibility one by one. If you want there to be several vegans to make a difference, become one. There are hundreds of millions of plant based or vegans in the world, so we are not one person and we have an effect on industries.

Going vegan really make a difference. An enormous. Example : Major restaurant chains are changing their menus to meet demand.

Also, just because a majority is playing a torturing role does not mean that we cannot do otherwise. Should we not declare a active pedophile because that won't stop them all from committing their crimes?

The less people buy, the less demand there is. Animals are not raised and killed regardless of demand. Shops sell animal products and then restock appropriately. If something doesn't sell as well, they'll order less. As such, the warehouses they store will then receive appropriately sized orders in those stores, and stock less ingredients to make those products, which means less animal products in slaughterhouses and farms, which means less demand for animals to be raised on farms.


"If everyone went vegan, the cattle would overcrowd."

Animals are raised by humans for consumption. As more and more people become vegans, fewer animals are raised for consumption. As such, if everyone ended up going vegan (which would presumably happen gradually over several years), the animals would no longer be raised. So their population would not be a problem. The idea of ​​the world magically going vegan overnight and letting all farm animals free to roam free is a crazy scenario.

The world going vegan is a gradual process whereby the number of people boycotting animal products would slowly increase over time, meaning farm animals would be kept lower and lower to meet demand. The number of farm animals that roam this planet is currently directly related to the number of people who buy animal products. The more people eat meat and dairy products, the more farm animals there are. The more vegans there are, the fewer farm animals there are. This is just supply and demand! So don't worry : cows aren't going to take over the world.


"If everyone went vegan, the cattle would be gone."

Farm animals have been selectively bred by humans to benefit us. They suffer from all kinds of health problems because they are raised to be taller than their natural ancestors. If everyone were vegan, it would be illogical to continue raising them knowing that they will suffer from health issues because of the way they have been bred.

But even if you don't agree with that, and if you really think that there should be these selectively bred species for whatever reason, that's no reason to slash their throats. There are currently endangered species like pandas, tigers, rhinos, etc. Slitting their throats is not part of their conservation and it would be ridiculous to do so.

Also, let's take the example of a child abused by his parents would not exist if it weren't for their parents, but does that mean we should forgive what their parents do to that child and say : “Well, it wouldn't have existed without you, so you didn't do anything wrong”? Of course not.

Regarding extinction : there would be nothing immoral about a human-made species that would no longer be raised as a slave. Either way, in a vegan world, it's likely that the few thousand remaining domesticated farm animals would live in sanctuaries rather than being wiped out entirely. Usually when people use the “extinction” argument it is because they worry about the extinction of burgers, pizza and ice cream, rather than the extinction of cows.

It is true that in North America, farm animals would not have much natural space available to live in if they were released into the wild tomorrow. But we all know it won't happen overnight. Even if there are ways to ensure that those who are saved are protected, the fact remains that 60 billion animals condemned each year to a short life which does not belong to them, it can hardly be considered as a wealth in matter. of biodiversity. Do we really have to continue to inseminate genetically selected chickens to become too heavy for their legs to take after a few months? The best we could do would be to stop forcing their reproduction for consumption.


"These animals would simply be killed in the wild and suffer more."

Farm animals suffer from all kinds of health problems because of the way they have been reproduced and the way they are treated : genetic manipulation, restricted space, promiscuity, exploitation, confinement, insalubrity (living in their excrement), neglect, illnesses due to overpopulation, mutilations without anesthesia, electrocution, put in boile water, seeing their fellows have their throats slit, etc. You, what environment would you choose?


"You are putting people out of work because of the impact on the industry."

Just because a product is available for purchase doesn't mean everyone has to buy it. This argument clearly becomes absurd when you apply it to something else. If you quit smoking, you cut jobs in the cigarette industry. So everyone has to smoke? Or, if you stop drinking alcohol, you're going to put people out of work in the alcohol industry. So you have to drink? It does not make any sens. Industries exist to meet demand and make money with people. If people don't want these products, it's not their fault, consumers don't have to buy everything and fund every industry. If consumers money is not spent on one item, it is used on another item, which means that demand will be higher elsewhere, so industries change over time to meet consumers desires. It doesn't mean job loss in the first place.

As usual, this argument only concerns the exploitation of the animal. Either way, with the cogs of supply and demand, changing the demand for a product can cause an industry to “change course”, so to speak, so that any breeder of animals genuinely interested in staying in business would be encouraged to turn to agriculture, and so on.

The livelihoods of those on the oppressor's side are no more worth the lives of those who are oppressed. Since it would be unethical to continue human slavery on the grounds that plantation owners would be made unemployed, it is also unethical to continue animal slavery lest farm owners and slaughterers do so. be made unemployed.

You have to take the opportunity to change or convert your profession so that it is ethical and useful.


"It's not sustainable."

60 billion animals are raised for slaughter each year. To feed them, they need a lot more land, water and crops than to feed 7 billion humans with plants. In fact, the number of animals raised is not sustainable, because it generates all kinds of pollution because of their manure and the greenhouse gases released, which is more harmful than all traffic nuisances combined.


"Organic meat is better for your health."

All meat, organic or not, can be host to bacteria, parasites, radiation or pollution residues. At the slaughterhouse, the distress, suffering and fear of animals release hormones like adrenaline into their flesh. Their skeleton releases elements from pollution such as lead. The flesh very quickly enters the putrefaction phase.

Vegetables, fruits, cereals contain as many contaminating substances as meat. Due to accumulation or bioconcentration, a phenomenon that affects the food chain, a substance is transmitted by increasing more and more from one living organism to another (from plants to animals, and from animals to humans). Animal flesh therefore contains more contaminating substances than vegetables, fruits or cereals. Chicken and fish have 13 times more pesticide residues than vegetables and grains. Dairy products, fish and animal fat easily accumulate organochlorines (PCBs) because they preferentially clump to fats. The contamination of meat is also caused by bacteria, viruses, various infections, even cancers, from which animals can suffer. Hormones, tranquilizers, vaccines, pollution residues and pesticides are also found in animal flesh. On the other hand, the meat begins to rot when the animal is slaughtered, which is not the case with vegetables or fruits, which are live foods.


"Vegans should be careful of nutritional deficiencies."

Veganism is neither complicated nor dangerous. It is absolutely easy to eat a balanced, meatless diet. No need for a college degree in nutrition. It is the meat-based diet that carries serious nutritional risks with its excessive doses of fat, cholesterol, pesticide residues, hormones, antibiotics, contamination by bacteria and viruses.

Populations that eat a lot of meat and dairy products like Canada, United States, Argentina, New Zealand, have high rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, anemia, diabetes, obesity, arthritis and osteoporosis.


"There wouldn't be enough food without the animals."

A considerable percentage of the land is used to feed livestock. If we produce so much food today, it is to meet the needs of millions of people. If a 200 kg beef gives 1,500 meals, all the grains it will eat in its short life would give 18,000 meals.


"It's unhealthy."

You can meet all your plant-based diet requirements, nothing to worry about. Indeed, many athletes adopt a plant-based diet specifically because of their benefits.


"The animals are going to die anyway."

It's the same with humans, but it doesn't give any excuse to kill someone.


"Eating meat is necessary."

Leading health organizations agree that a vegan diet is healthy at any age. What our body needs are not specific foods, but nutrients, and all essential nutrients for the human body (including protein) are found in plants.

Failures are usually due to a lack of balance in eating, or difficulty dealing with food intolerances and pre-existing health issues. Many studies even tend to show that vegans live longer on average than those who consume meat.

As dietitians of canada mention : " A well-planned vegan eating pattern is healthy : Anyone can follow a vegan diet – from children to teens to older adults. It’s even healthy for pregnant or nursing mothers. A well-planned vegan diet is high in fibre, vitamins and antioxidants. Plus, it’s low in saturated fat and cholesterol. This healthy combination helps protect against chronic diseases. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer than non-vegans. Vegans also have lower blood pressure levels than both meat-eaters and vegetarians and are less likely to be overweight."


"The proteins."

This nutrient is extremely easy to find. If you eat the right calorie intake in total calories each day, it's next to impossible to run out of protein. Protein deficiency is extremely rare in modern society, and basically only affects people who are starving for some reason. This is not a concern for those who eat a normal amount.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that 5-10% of your daily calories come from protein. Many common plant-based foods exceed this number, many fall within this range, and only a few items, like fruit, fall slightly below. It is not really a concern to anyone. It’s true that animal protein sources have an advantage. They usually contain all of the amino acids that the body needs to get from food. However the consumption of meat can lead to certain health problems linked to the consumption of meat such as cardiovascular disease, certain cancers or cholesterol.

For vegetable protein sources, this is not always the case, with the exception of a few foods like soy (tofu, tempeh, edamame) or quinoa. But the important thing is to get all the essential amino acids from your daily diet (and not from just one meal). Just eating a varied vegan diet ensures that we are getting all of the essential amino acids from sources we don't even suspect when it comes to protein. Even wholemeal bread with peanut butter or hummus gives us all of these amino acids. The protein a vegan finds in soy, legumes, nuts, grains, and even vegetables is more than enough.

As dietitians of canada mention : " A well-planned vegan eating pattern is healthy : Anyone can follow a vegan diet – from children to teens to older adults. It’s even healthy for pregnant or nursing mothers. A well-planned vegan diet is high in fibre, vitamins and antioxidants. Plus, it’s low in saturated fat and cholesterol. This healthy combination helps protect against chronic diseases. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer than non-vegans. Vegans also have lower blood pressure levels than both meat-eaters and vegetarians and are less likely to be overweight."


"The iron."

You can get iron from a plant-based diet, it is by no means exclusive to animal products.

As dietitians of canada mention : " A well-planned vegan eating pattern is healthy : Anyone can follow a vegan diet – from children to teens to older adults. It’s even healthy for pregnant or nursing mothers. A well-planned vegan diet is high in fibre, vitamins and antioxidants. Plus, it’s low in saturated fat and cholesterol. This healthy combination helps protect against chronic diseases. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer than non-vegans. Vegans also have lower blood pressure levels than both meat-eaters and vegetarians and are less likely to be overweight."



You can get calcium from a plant-based diet, it is by no means exclusive to animal products. Indeed, there are cultures that have never had cow's milk and there is no wave of osteoporosis. Taking cow's milk requires the domestication of animals. By definition, therefore, this has only been achieved relatively recently in human history.

Milk is intended for infants, it is consumed by mammals during infancy, then there is a process of weaning, and in adulthood mammals do not need milk, especially not another. species.

As dietitians of canada mention : " A well-planned vegan eating pattern is healthy : Anyone can follow a vegan diet – from children to teens to older adults. It’s even healthy for pregnant or nursing mothers. A well-planned vegan diet is high in fibre, vitamins and antioxidants. Plus, it’s low in saturated fat and cholesterol. This healthy combination helps protect against chronic diseases. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer than non-vegans. Vegans also have lower blood pressure levels than both meat-eaters and vegetarians and are less likely to be overweight."


"The B12."

Are we going to extract the B12 from the bacteria in isolation or are we going to exploit, torture and kill billions of animals just to catch the B12 from the bacteria in their bodies?

In addition, a vitamin B12 supplement is injected into cattle to maintain their level due to too intensive use of the soil and the lack of certain nutrients.

So the choice becomes even more absurd : take a vitamin B12 supplement or give an exploited and tortured animal a vitamin B12 supplement and then kill it. Why take the second option?

As dietitians of canada mention : " A well-planned vegan eating pattern is healthy : Anyone can follow a vegan diet – from children to teens to older adults. It’s even healthy for pregnant or nursing mothers. A well-planned vegan diet is high in fibre, vitamins and antioxidants. Plus, it’s low in saturated fat and cholesterol. This healthy combination helps protect against chronic diseases. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer than non-vegans. Vegans also have lower blood pressure levels than both meat-eaters and vegetarians and are less likely to be overweight."


"It's expensive ."

A plant-based diet can be as affordable as it takes.

Basic items like bread, rice, pasta, beans, oats, and vegetables are affordable. Some might argue that vegan substitute meats are expensive. While this can sometimes be true, they are completely unnecessary for a healthy diet. The less a product is transformed (except by yourself) the more it is doubtful or expensive.

In most countries, meat and animal products are a luxury item. In addition, the quality is not there.

Important : it's worth the cost, to avoid causing suffering and / or killing animals.


"Vegan food is disgusting."

The point is, a high percentage of the foods everyone eats on a regular basis is vegan. Bread, pasta, rice, cereals, soups, many brands of cookies, chips, fries, spaghetti, roasted vegetables, baked potatoes, curries, stir-fries, many pastries , donuts, etc., can all be vegan without you realizing it.

Discrediting all foods that do not contain animal products is ridiculous. But on top of that, with a little research, you can find simple alternatives to whatever you want, or just swap out a single ingredient in a recipe and you can continue to eat whatever or pretty much you were already eating. You may have tried and disliked a brand of non-dairy milk. There are several brands of milk made from different things : almonds, rice, oats, etc. Some are sweet, some are unsweetened, but try them in different settings. Whether in your cereal or in your coffee. You will find that any difference is negligible.

Likewise with any other substitute you may have tried : cheese, meat, or others. There are so many brands, don't overlook them because you had a bad experience. Some people complain about tofu saying it's bland. If this has been your experience, it was not prepared properly. If you take a handful of regular flour from the bag and eat it, you shouldn't be surprised that it looks disgusting. Does this mean that you are not going to eat bread, bagels, pasta, cakes or noodles anymore because you don't like plain flour? Of course not. Learn about tofu recipes, or even don't even eat tofu if you really don't want it. You don't need it. Find the foods you love.


"Animals are being killed in harvest, so vegans are killing more animals."

To feed the animals until the age of slaughter, we must multiply by more plants than if we had just eaten them ourselves. You could perhaps argue that we could just eat only grass-fed animals that don't need grain, but that's totally unrealistic. First, most “grass-fed” animals are not 100% grass-fed anyway. There is no space available for such a thing.

While there are casualties in the harvest, and vegans would rather not, it is the least damaging thing most people can do. Obviously, it would be even less harmful to grow your own crops on your own property and harvest them by hand, without spraying and using machines that can slaughter animals. But most people don't have the space available to eat, let alone all year round. So, of all the practical options available, veganism is the least damaging. Hopefully, in the future, as people start to respect animals better and be more responsible for how we treat them, the harvest will be more advanced so as to minimize losses.

Unless they are deluded, no vegan claims to be perfect. Veganism is about massively minimizing its impact on animals wherever it is honestly possible.


"Plants have feelings and they suffer."

Let's say you are serious about it and that no scientific evidence will influence you. If a blade of grass is as important to you as a dog, it doesn't make sense to feed the cattle millions and millions of plants and then kill the animals to eat them. It would kill many more plants. Better to minimize this loss of plants by simply feeding on them, right?

Scientifically speaking, neuroscientists teach us that plants cannot feel pain because they do not have a brain or nervous system. Some studies show that plants have in and out reactions to certain stimuli, but no study suggests sensitivity or the ability to "feel emotions".

Again, in a long list of things non-vegans never say when it comes to exploiting animals, we have the plants argument. If fire were to ravage your home, would you ask the firefighter not to forget your carrots?

It actually takes 10 times fewer plants to feed a vegan than it does to feed a non-vegan, due to the amount of crops used to raise livestock (large amounts of crops are used to raise the 60 billion land animals and many of the 100 billion marine animals slaughtered each year). Veganism minimizes the use of land and crops and dramatically decreases the degree of deforestation.


"Don't force your opinions on others."

For vegans, veganism is a moral imperative. We believe it is cruel to torture and kill animals unnecessarily. It is therefore our duty to ask non-vegans to consider not torturing and stabbing animals for your food, leisure, clothing, etc.

No one is able to force anyone to do anything. If you want to continue torturing and stabbing animals, I can't help you. We would appreciate, however, that you take the time to reflect on why you think animals should be tortured and stabbed to death and to reassess your position.

Those who eat meat, cheese and eggs, who wear leather, wool, etc., impose their beliefs to such a degree that others die for their beliefs (by the hundreds of billions a year). The carnism ideology is very powerful.

If you were the person waiting in line to have your throat slit, or having your baby stolen, or going to be skinned alive, you would beg, cry, beg people like us (vegans) to speak up for you and save you. You would probably wonder why vegans are not more insistent, more present, more direct in their convictions.

How come you non-vegans don't seem to look at the facts from the victim's point of view by any means and continue to pay people to torture and kill animals, especially that it's not necessary?


"Vegans feel superior and they are so critical. Stop judging me."

We are all individuals who learn every day and whose worldview changes throughout our lives. Offering an alternative to animal abuse and killing doesn't mean judging yourself. Indeed, if someone talks to you about this subject, they may think you care about animals. His judgment on you is therefore positive. He thinks you surely wouldn't want to be involved in this. If he had a negative judgment on you, he wouldn't even care about you and would assume that you have no compassion for animals.

Maybe you spend your life trying to do good around you and you feel like a minority group is trying to tell you that you do bad things every day. And all for something that feels normal to you. It is normal that you are a little shaken up. But the desire to raise awareness within the vegan movement is not an attempt to put you in the dock and question your values.

The purpose of the exercise is not to demonize anyone, but to get people to question carnism (the ideology that eating meat is normal, natural and necessary) which is deeply rooted in our societies. Veganism seeks to highlight its flaws and its consequences. He wants to convince more people that eating meat is an ethical issue rather than a simple personal choice. It’s just that. There are not on the one hand the carnists and on the other the vegans who would fight to defend their honor.

Veganism is about treating others as equals, not being superior. They are non-vegans who believe their taste buds are superior to all life on earth. As vegans say : "I don't feel superior because I'm vegan, I'm vegan because I don't feel superior." It is non-vegans who tend to judge that all other species do not even deserve basic rights, such as the right to be free from harm and to be exploited.


"A vegan was rude to me once."

Sometimes people are rude. It has nothing to do with veganism, If a man is rude to you, do you have a problem with all men? If someone from a particular ethnic group is rude to you, do you have a problem with everyone from that ethnic group? It shouldn't be. The actions or behavior of a single vegan should not encourage you to reject veganism. Veganism just wants to avoid hurting animals. Why would you want to harm animals just because someone has been rude to you?

Vegans shouldn't be rude to you, as the vast majority of us were also non-vegans at one point in time, but that's not an acceptable excuse to harm animals. If you don't like vegans, that's fine, but why go after animals to punish them or get revenge? So what's the point of this argument? Using this logic, one could also avoid consuming animal products, knowing that non-vegans are often rude on various things, including food-related matters. So why not say, "A non-vegan was rude to me once, so I'm never going to eat animal products again"? Veganism is an ideology aimed at reducing animal suffering as much as possible. I advise you to get an idea of ​​veganism, not on its followers, but on the facts.


"Vegans are closed minded."

Most people are not born vegan. We are raised in ignorance of what is really going on in animal farming and in the production of eggs and milk. When I learned more, I was open-minded and took responsibility. And I continue to do so today. Veganism is really about being open to new information, rather than ignoring it and trying to feel faultless.

We believe that torturing and killing animals is immoral. How would you like us to be open? As we are against sexism, racism, ageism, etc., we are against speciesism. There is no in between. There is no question here of negotiating an acceptable amount of torture and murder.


"A vegan couple killed their baby."

The reason this baby died is hunger. Veganism is not about starvation or malnutrition. There are non-vegans whose children are starving to death. In a story where non-vegans starve their child, we do not say in the media : "The meat eaters starve their child!" But if a vegan does, we talk about it, even if it has nothing to do with veganism.


"Vegans should let their pets run free. This is also exploitation."

The breeding of pets for commercial purposes and the sale of animals in pet shops raise ethical issues that many vegans denounce. However, considering the environment we live in (especially in large metropolises and in the Nordic countries), the adoption of a dog or a cat by people who look after their needs and their health is what these animals can hope for better. Can the same be said of a farm animal that will be exploited to exhaustion before being sent to slaughter?


"So go tell the natives, Inuits, etc. that it is wrong to eat meat. Also, the people of the poorest countries could not survive without meat."

Veganism does not seek to impose a vegan diet on populations who have access only to meat to survive. He wants to educate those who have the necessary alternatives to the problems that meat consumption raises. Eliminating all animal suffering in the world is impossible, but reducing it as much as possible to everyone's possibilities does not mean encouraging someone who has no alternative to meat to risk their life. Still, the arguments in favor of veganism make sense no matter what culture they are heard in. It is only necessary that the alternatives to meat are accessible and in sufficient quantity.


"There are other issues going on.."

Quite often, the person using this "argument" is probably not doing anything (or is quite unable to do anything) about these "other issues". None of these other issues keep them from going vegan. Being vegan doesn't take longer than being non-vegan, so it is possible to be vegan and focus on these "other issues".

In addition, supporting animal agriculture is at the root of many of these "other problems". It seems that animal farming itself has a direct link with violence against humans. A joint study by the University of Windsor and Michigan State University concludes that when a slaughterhouse opens in a given area, the rates of violent crime, theft and rape in the area show a significant increase as a direct cause of employment in slaughterhouses.

As Pythagoras once said : "As long as humans continue to be the ruthless destroyer of other beings, we will never experience health or peace." As long as people slaughter animals, they will kill themselves. Indeed, those who sow the seeds of murder and pain will never reap joy or love. And as Leo Tolstoy said : "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."

Most people don't even realize that animal agriculture is actually the most destructive entity on the planet. In other words, without veganism, none of these “other issues” would even have a planet they could exist on. The zoolocaust (holocaust of non-human animals) and the resulting destruction of our planet is quite simply the most important problem of our time.


"Not everyone can go vegan."

Anyone reading this has no excuse not to be vegan, unless you are sitting on a sand dune in the middle of the Sahara Desert or in an igloo somewhere in the North Pole. Think about what you are using this "argument" for. Then take responsibility for your own actions.


"I don't have time to be vegan."

If you have time to buy animal products, you have time to buy fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, lentils, seeds, and grains. Being vegan doesn't take any longer than being non-vegan. In fact, the foods that take the longest to cook are often products of animal origin.

It will of course take some time to learn a new way of doing things. There is a good chance that you, too, will save the time for routine visits to hospitals and pharmacies, which are an integral part of many people who consume animal products due to worsening more common diseases.


"Hitler was a vegetarian."

There is some evidence to suggest it was not. But let's just skip all of that and assume he was a vegetarian for the sake of your argument. Presumably, the point is that whatever Hitler did, we should all do the opposite, obviously makes no sense, for, hideous as Hitler was and what he did to Jews and other minorities, this does not mean that each of its actions can be compared to it or even be linked to it.

Moreover, why do we choose Hitler? If you look at all of the dictators, serial killers, rapists, and tyrants throughout history, you can be sure that the vast majority of them were actually meat eaters. So if the behavior of heinous criminals forces us to do the opposite, then why are you ignoring them all and just talking about Hitler?


"You have your pets euthanized it's the same."

When an animal is in terrible pain, and you can see their quality of life is reduced to zero, and a medical professional tells you that there is no hope of a cure and every moment is misery, then it makes perfect sense to put this animal to death under anesthesia and with a lethal injection. In comparison, taking a completely healthy animal a few months old and killing it because you want to eat its dead body doesn't make sense if you claim to have consideration for animals. There is no comparison to be made here.


"We need to do animal testing to make sure cosmetics are safe."

At this point, we have a pretty solid grasp of a lot of chemistry knowledge. Most research is in fact redundant and only continues in the same way because of outdated laws that make it necessary. It is an essentially ridiculous bureaucracy that perpetuates what is clearly unethical today. Many products are no longer tested on animals, some countries have banned it completely for cosmetics, and that's not a problem. There are alternatives to animal testing.


"What about yeasts and bacteria?"

Just like the 'plants live too' argument, comparing animals to non-sentient life forms such as yeasts and bacteria is a huge trivialization of sentient animal life. When you make such an argument, you're essentially comparing animal life (and even human life, because humans are biologically animals) to a slice of toast.

Suppose, however, that bacteria are genuinely sensitive, which would raise the question of whether it would be ethical to use antibiotics in sickness : and the answer is absolutely yes. Why? Because there is nothing ethical wrong with someone using the necessary force to defend themselves. So just as you would have the right to kill a crocodile by shooting yourself underwater to be saved from death between their fearsome jaws, or a police sniper should have the right to pull the trigger if a terrorist has a knife under the throat of a hostage, so you should also be able to use antibiotics or soap to protect your body from attacks.

There is a huge moral distinction between defending yourself from an attack and unnecessarily attacking others.


"You have never set foot on a farm."

You don't need to have visited a place to conclude that what is happening there is unethical. Imagine if someone were to say that your opinion of the Nazi concentration camps was invalid because you had never visited one. Clearly this argument is foolish, especially since veganism has nothing to do with welfare (i.e. how 'humanly' animals are enslaved and murdered) , but rather to the basic premise that it is not morally acceptable to use animals no matter how it is done.

It turns out that many vegans are vegans, either because they grew up on farms, worked there, or visited them, and have witnessed many horrible practices that was made.


"Veganism is only possible with modern technology."



"It's a human instinct to eat meat."

For something to be a human instinct, it has to be programmed into the genetic code of all humans, which each of us makes naturally and is beyond our control. Examples of human instincts : breathing without even thinking about it, jumping, twitching if something surprises you, laughing if you find something funny or tickled, shaking with fear, being anxious, shaking with cold, sweating when it's done hot, etc. So the idea that we instinctively eat meat or hunt and kill animals is wrong.

It's not something your body does that you have no control over. Not once has a human being ever eaten meat or killed an animal out of instinct. If it's an instinct, why don't I and millions of other people do it? Why do we find it so easy not to do this? Why does an animal rights movement exist in the first place? Why don't we all salivate when we see an animal? Why most people don't even want to watch slaughter footage? Why do we disdain the idea of ​​eating certain parts of an animal's corpse?

We systematically slaughter animals for profit, just like any other business. Killing animals is no more an instinct than making smart phones. And we eat animals and their secretions because of apathy, that is, we don't care, conditioning (we are taught that this is okay, when we would naturally be inclined to not to do it if no one else was doing it), and because everyone does it normally, therefore, "we can't go wrong doing it, right?"


"We need to do animal testing to make medical progress."

A lot of people like to argue that a lot of people will die if we don’t experiment on animals. So that it would be justified, because human life is more important, and if you ban animal testing, then you kill a lot of people. It is not that simple, because in reality animal testing offers alternatives.

Companies such as Animal Free Research UK strive to continue medical research without having to torture, exploit and kill animals. There is another question : Is animal testing even useful to us, because we are very different from animals? Read Why Animal Experimentation Doesn’t Work to learn more.


"Mais utiliseriez-vous des médicaments pour vous sauver votre vie?"

But, if we look at the issue in terms of the ongoing research on these animals, if you have a disease and there is no cure at that time, would you want your pets to be tortured and then killed as part of the research? Or would you say that they have nothing to do with it and that you would rather come to terms with your situation rather than put them through hell so that you can potentially find a cure?

There are alternatives to animal testing which is pretty pointless anyway.

If your choice is to die horribly or to be cured, it's totally understandable to take it. Consuming animal products for nothing other than to enjoy them cannot be compared to something that will save your life.

We live in non-vegan societies. It is therefore still difficult to find vegan remedies.


"I am a nihilist. Nothing matters outside of me."

But even if this is true, a plant-based diet has many health benefits, and animal products are linked to all kinds of health issues. In addition, animal husbandry is not sustainable and will have to cease as the human population increases. It is simply illogical to feed billions of animals as well as ourselves. We don't have the space to do it. The vast overpopulation of these animals also harms the environment, poisons the water with manure, and releases tons and tons of greenhouse gases. So this will directly affect you, however selfish you claim to be, it makes sense to take care of yourself, doesn't it?


"We put more importance on animals."

Currently, there is no human exploitation system in which individuals are brought into the world for the purpose of being fattened and then killed after a few months. And all of this in general indifference. Exploitation, misery, and slavery exist in humans, and we must combat them, but by no means can we claim to have reached a level where cattle are generally treated better than humans. We are talking about a trivialized systemic practice. Search the Internet for "gestation cage", "factory farm", "calf hutches", check out the investigative videos from Mercy For Animals and, if you have the courage, take a look at some videos from. slaughterhouses. I doubt you still think it's better to be a laying hen than an old character in residence.


"We are at the top of the food chain."

What does this argument mean? That our privileged position saves us from having to worry about those who are lower than us in the "hierarchy"? The problem with this argument is that it says nothing about the real suffering it endorse. Besides, why would the food chain be so sacred if it is not an absolute necessity for us? We did not earn our position because of a particularly strong carnivorous instinct or our predatory nature, but because of our ability to use tools.


"The Chinese eat dog. Tthat’s in their culture. We don’t have to judge them."

The famous argument of cultural relativism. The idea is that if a practice seems immoral to one culture and moral to another, it is not a question of morality, but of cultural norms. Yet, we admit that this argument is not enough when it comes to human rights : slavery, cannibalism, the rights of women, minorities or LGBTQ communities, etc. Why? Because we take into account the victims and not just the social practices in place. If we accept that animals have an interest in living and in not suffering, we must recognize that these interests conflict with cultural practices and codes and question their legitimacy. Is it a question of survival? Are there any alternatives ?. This applies as much to dogs in China as it does to cattle in Europe and America.


"Animals have no value outside of what we do with them."

We tend to think that humans would have absolute or intrinsic value, while animals would only have value based on their usefulness. But why this distinction? Because we believe that we are the only ones to have an individuality marked by a unique personality, our ability to feel things, to internalize our experiences and to maintain a non-mechanical relationship with our environment. Yet contemporary science and neurobiology show that we are far from unique in the animal kingdom. Bees and fish, which seem too different to us to arouse our empathy, are among the species that have made it possible to gain a greater understanding of this reality. If we admit that animals have individuality, we must admit that they also have intrinsic value, independent of how we use them. So there is no longer any reason not to add them to our circle of moral consideration. For the first time in history, science is giving us the opportunity to see beyond the differences and appreciate what we have in common with animals. Why not let our vision evolve with it?


"Yes, but the killings and slavery?"

Funding for animal abuse does not help those stuck in forced labor or sweat shops. That's a separate issue, and just because someone is funding slavery or sweat shops doesn't mean you have to fund animal abuse as well. But, if you are against slavery and forced labor, it also makes sense to avoid funding them when possible.

A lot of people seem to have the attitude of "all kinds of bad things are going on in the world, so I give up." This attitude does not help anyone. Take responsibility for what you do and find alternatives where you can, if these matters are important to you. Buy second-hand clothing and second-hand technology where you can so as not to fund these practices. Buy items made in your country where forced labor is illegal. Look for companies that work in other countries to help those who are exploited, by providing them with fair employment.


"Vegans are destroying the Amazon rainforest for their soybeans."

80% of the soy produced there (often GMOs) is said to be used to feed farm animals all over the world. The forest is destroyed for soybeans, soybeans are eaten by cattle, cattle are not eaten by vegans.


"Apparently veganism is not so good for the planet."


Lorsqu’on compare une alimentation végétalienne et une alimentation omnivore standard, on se rend compte qu’un régime carné : exigerait 10 fois plus d’énergie; utiliserait 6 à 10 fois plus de terres; émettrait 10 fois plus de gaz à effet de serre; gaspillerait 5 à 25 fois plus d’eau (vérifiez si eau de pluit ou pas); causerait 5 à 17 fois plus de pollution des eaux. On sait qu’un kilo de viande équivaut à faire 250 kilomètres en voiture. On sait aussi que la quantité de céréales données au bétail (seulement aux États-Unis) pourrait nourrir 840 millions de personnes. En fait, en considérant l’alimentation du bétail, un régime carné exigerait 930 kilos de céréales par personne contre 180 kilos pour une personne végétarienne. Quant à l’empreinte écologique de l’alimentation d’un Américain moyen, elle est estimée à 9,6 hectares (7,6 hectares pour les Canadiens). Une empreinte écologique soutenable devrait être de 2,1 hectares, voire moins. Et c’est sans parler des réserves de poissons qui pourraient pratiquement disparaître d’ici 2050, de la dégradation des sols et de la déforestation causés par une alimentation dite standard. (liens à venir)


"It was eating meat that allowed the brains of early humans to develop."


L’effet bénéfique de la cuisson de la viande sur le développement du cerveau de nos ancêtres est une théorie largement répandue. Cependant, ce serait aussi vrai pour la cuisson des végétaux : En faisant cuire les légumes, les racines, nos ancêtres auraient permis au cerveau d’accéder plus facilement et de manière plus importante à des molécules importantes pour son développement. Mais ce qui est important, c’est de comprendre pourquoi la consommation de viande aurait permis au cerveau de nos ancêtres de se développer. L’hypothèse de la charge métabolique. Première hypothèse : la digestion de la viande (cuite) étant plus aisée que celle des végétaux crus, "la charge métabolique qui pesait sur l’intestin a pu être dédiée au développement d’un gros cerveau." Très bien, mais est-ce encore pertinent aujourd’hui?

Des études ont montré que les végétariens/végétaliens avaient de plus hauts niveaux d’énergie et un métabolisme plus rapide que les omnivores. Il semble donc qu’aujourd’hui, un régime omnivore soit plus exigeant pour le métabolisme que le végétalisme. Donc, si vous vous préoccupez de l’énergie qui reste pour votre cerveau après la digestion, optez pour le végétalisme.

L’hypothèse des nutriments et minéraux. Une autre hypothèse est l’accès aux acides gras de type DHA, à l’iode, au fer, au zinc, au cuivre et au sélénium dans le poisson. Par contre, on sait qu’avec les ressources que nous avons aujourd’hui et une alimentation équilibrée, ces nutriments sont accessibles pour un végétalien. Même le DHA peut être converti à partir d’acides gras d’origine végétale (ALA) si nos apports en oméga-3 et en oméga-6 sont équilibrés. (Une supplémentation végane en DHA est aussi possible, voire souhaitable pour les enfants, les femmes qui allaitent et les personnes âgées.) Donc, même si on admet que la viande a joué un rôle dans le développement du cerveau de nos ancêtres, admettons aussi que nos conditions et nos moyens de subsistance ont évolué.


"The first humans were hunter-gatherers, so we are designed to eat meat."

We know that our primate ancestors were very probably frugivorous, like the majority of great apes. And we know that the teeth of Australopithecus were adapted to the chewing of plants and the consumption of fruits. So when did meat consumption take off and why?

According to historian Peter N. Stearn, it is likely that adopting a nomadic lifestyle exposed our ancestors to unknown and potentially poisonous plants. The consumption of meat then became less perilous than that of vegetables. So we wouldn't eat animals by nature, but for historical and practical reasons.

We now know that humans do not have the canines, digestive system, intestinal length of carnivores, or even the ability to consume raw meat safely. That doesn't mean that an omnivorous diet would be misfit for humans, but that our biology doesn't make us meat eaters.


"There are no health benefits to adopt a vegan diet and no studies supporting veganism."


Various studies (links to come) have suggested that consumption of meat, dairy products and eggs increase the risk of suffering from certain diseases or health problems such as : high cholesterol; cardiovascular illnesses; certain cancers (breast, prostate, colon, ovaries, etc.) : one study (links to come) even suggested that eliminating cancer cells would be more effective for a vegan who exercises than for an omnivore who does does as much; type 2 diabetes; Alzheimer's; liver problems and liver disease; Parkinson's (for milk); high blood pressure; arthritis; allergies (for milk); asthma.

On the contrary, a vegan diet would be associated with : a faster metabolism; a longer life expectancy; reduced risk of erectile dysfunction. It is also important not to abuse vegetable oils and processed products. Veganism may not be an easy or challenging miracle cure (You need to learn more about nutrition and supplement yourself with vitamin B12.), But the benefits are also staggering.


"My doctor told me I needed to eat meat."

It is not in all countries that doctors receive training in nutrition. A doctor can explain what foods to avoid in relation to a particular condition. However, they do not always have the knowledge to explain how humans' nutritional needs are met. To do this, get more information from nutritionists.


"Soy is bad for health."

Soybean fear campaigns are said to be unfounded. No, soy would not increase the risk of breast cancer or recurrence, it would not decrease testosterone, it would not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (but reduce them), etc.

Even for people with hyperthyroidism, soy would only be a problem if iodine deficient or in the hours surrounding taking medication. In fact, the Dietitians of Canada position (The Scoop on Soy) only talks about the health benefits of soy. As for the famous phytoestrogens found in tofu, they are not estrogen. They are molecules chemically similar to estrogen which would rather have beneficial effects on health and no "feminizing" effect.

We now know that beer also contains phytoestrogens and that cow's milk contains estrogen ... but we don't talk about that.


"I'm of the O blood type, so I need the meat."

The theory of nutritional requirements based on our blood type is not based on scientific evidence. It has not been supported by any studies since its invention.


"Okay for the meat, but the fishes, is okay."

Fish are not plants. We now know that they can use tools (water, soil, aquarium), recognize their peers, adjust their behavior in the face of different individuals (humans or other fishes), they have distinct personalities and emotions. Their ability to suffer is no longer in doubt. Fish kept in captivity are susceptible to depressions.


"There is a difference between between domestic animals and farm animals."

The distinctions created by humans to classify animals according to their use say nothing about the true nature of these species. This argument should, on the contrary, lead us to realize that these classifications are only cultural constructions. In fact, there is no difference in value between a dog and a turkey, except in the way we look at them. Some farm animals can become as loving, and sometimes smarter pets than dogs.


"Better not to think about it."

Turning a blind eye to the consequences of one's choices cannot be an acceptable position. Atrocities are perpetrated every day in the name of fashion or culture. The minimum we must do is simply change our consumption habits and thus no longer participate in the aniamal torture.


"Veganism requires too much sacrifice."

When you think about it, changing your lifestyle can be seen as a tiny or inordinate sacrifice. Tiny because our choice seems like a drop in the ocean of indifference. Inordinate because we dissociate ourselves from certain daily consumption habits. Yet I still believe that in a capitalist system, sacrifice is not the duty of superheroes who risk their lives, but the business of any individual who opposes standard practice. I consider that sacrificing a taste that you liked in order to adopt new ones is a tiny sacrifice, but the effect (even on the scale of a single animal spared) is considerable. Thinking about what the victims (animals) go through makes it easy to change our way of life.


"I am grateful to the animals for giving their lives so that I can feed myself."

Animals do not give their lives. It is taken from them in an experience that causes terror, distress and enormous suffering that your gratitude does not alleviate in the least.


"Tofu is full of OGM. Vegans eat lots of processed foods, products that contain palm oil which is destructive to the environment."

GM soybeans are generally intended for livestock, and the tofu found on grocery store shelves in Canada does not. It is also possible to adopt a vegan diet without soy. We can eat fake meats and processed products or cook from the healthiest foods there is. It is rare for vegan foods to contain palm oil : Companies know that many vegans boycott palm oil because they consider it non-vegan due to its consequences on orangutans populations.


"Vegans talk about empathy. So veganism is about feelings not logic."

Empathy is not the propensity to be moved without thinking about the fate of all that lives. It is the ability to understand that certain realities that are unpleasant or horrible for me are also unpleasant for other living beings with whom I share certain relevant characteristics.

To put empathy in opposition to logic is absurd. Logic allows us to understand that our interest in not suffering (or dying) is equal to that of all sentient living beings.


"It's too hard to be vegan. You can't eat anything anymore."

We're used to standard recipes with milk and eggs, but there's a vegan version of just about everything. Add the "plant based" or "vegan" when looking for a recipe on the Internet and you're done!

Also, if we put ourselves at the place of the victims (the animals), it is very easy to be vegan and very difficult not to be.


"Vegans are weak and sickly."

Many Olympic level athletes are vegan. In Quebec, we even have Georges Laraque, a former hockey player, now owner of a raw food restaurant, and to say the least, he doesn't look weak or sickly.


"If vegans are against killing predators, then they are complicit in the suffering these predators cause for their prey. If they are for killing predators, then they have nothing against animal suffering. Either way, veganism is inconsistent."

Veganism does not seek to eliminate all suffering in the world, but those which depends on us and which we can avoid causing.

If we decided to eliminate all predatory species to save all prey by keeping only those that are exclusively herbivorous or frugivorous, the balance of nature would be out of balance. The prey would become too numerous for the available resources and they would starve. So we wouldn't settle anything. On the other hand, we know that carnivorous animals, unlike us, cannot survive without meat and that their death too would be a source of suffering.

There is no simple answer to this problem or how to choose the solution that would most reduce suffering in the animal world. On the other hand, refusing to participate in the suffering of a hundred million animals that die for humans each year, that is within our reach, and now. No need to try to change reality. Just say no to meat and animal products.

If we wait until we see a world free from suffering before we act, nothing will ever change.


"I know producer breeders and they are loving and caring people."

Unfortunately, their proximity to their cattle does not mean that they are aware that animals really suffer and that they have an interest in not suffering. Nothing forces a producer to question what speciesism is or the reasons for considering the animal's interests not to suffer.

Someone who works in the industry, already conditioned to the idea that it is okay to eat meat, can easily see all that he does that is good for the cattle as a sign of his affection and their setting to dead as evidence he was prepared for. Unfortunately, that leaves less room for empathy. At least, genuine, selfless empathy.


If you don't eat animals, they will still end up in the slaughterhouse, they will be wasted and they will be dead for nothing."

Producers take the demand into account, and when it drops, they have no choice but to slow down the reproduction of farm animals. As a result, fewer animals are born, already doomed to a brief existence and needless suffering.