I am happy to support your vegan/vegetarian lifestyle, but please don’t condemn me for eating meat, it is my choice just as much as it is your choice to eat how and what you want.

It’s not just about food though, it’s about how you treat non-human animals. If someone can treat their lives as unimportant, and quickly dismiss their suffering for something like a temporary pleasure/want, why should that not be condemned?

It’s not about what you eat, it’s about who you’re harming. Not only for food but for pleasure, clothing, entertainment, sport, or even out of annoyance. This devaluing of non-human lives and experiences is harmful and wrong. It’s not as simple as a personal choice any more than it’s a personal choice (and therefore okay) to harm/kill a companion animal or human.

screamingoblivion:

Okay some vegans are completely annoying note that I said SOME.

Im sorry we were designed to eat meat but you think its wrong and want me to turn vegan too

I RESPECT your food choices now respect mine and stop making fun of us who still decide to eat plants and meat. Geez.

It’s ridiculously easy to respect someone who is simply trying not to hurt others, and to defend the rights of others. That person isn’t engaging in something harmful or oppressive, it’s the opposite. It’s easy for you to respect a vegan because veganism doesn’t involve someone doing anything immoral that you would disagree with.
However, as a vegan who knows that causing unnecessary suffering/exploitation is wrong, for you or others to engage in/support unnecessary suffering/exploitation and uphold oppressive values is blatantly wrong and harmful. It’s impossible to respect, just as you or most people wouldn’t respect someone’s decision to murder or otherwise harm other humans - or even companion animals.

It’s not about personal diet or personal choice, it’s about the way we treat and think of non-human animals - the victims.

your-tinyraindrop:

the-vegan-in-blue:

your-tinyraindrop:

the-vegan-in-blue:

your-tinyraindrop:

The most annoying excuse vegans use to go vegan, “I hate how they kill a cow so I am going to stop eating meat”, I just don’t underatand that excuse.

The word excuse in this context seems bizarre. People don’t just want to be vegan out of nowhere and then have to think…

I know vegans dont just eat plants, they eat grains, tofu, and other substitute meat products. I guess the word excuse wasn’t what I mean, you’re right. I just think that if you lived a life of eating meat before becoming vegan/vegetarian, but stopped to “protest” the way meat is processed, than why give up meat completely? Can’t you find a way to eat meat that doesnt come from places that cruelly slaughter the animals? Or do you protest it because killing any animal for food is considered cruelty to you?

Grains, tofu etc. are all from plants. What I meant about it not meaning a plant based diet is that it entails more aspects of your lifestyle, as well as a moral stance.
The reason to give up meat and other animal products (not just applying to food) completely is because:
a) if you can give them up, then all harm/exploitation they cause is unnecessary, and therefore wrong, if you agree causing unnecessary suffering/exploitation is wrong.
b) you acknowledge that non-human animals can suffer and have an interest in their own lives, therefore we should respect their interests and right to their own lives and bodies just as we would another human.

Certainly, killing or exploiting non-human animals does them harm whether or not it involves what people deem “excessive” cruelty. Humans’ standards of what is “humane” are definitely flawed when it comes to non-human animals, and inconsistent too.

I see, well I know everyone who chooses to become vegan, has their reasons. However the reason that most use does still annoy me, so I will always have this sort of negative feeling towards it, but I won’t criticize them for their choices. I also hope that my post doesn’t offend people because I only meant to state an opinion of mine from constantly getting the same response. (I am very bad a wording my thought, so I am sorry if it doesn’t make sense).

Well, veganism is by definition about ethics and the treatment of non-human animals, so those who don’t use that reasoning don’t really fit into that. They may well have a plant based diet though.
One reason you might constantly get the same response is if people feel like they don’t want to make a scene. It’s easier to say “I don’t like the way cows are killed” than “I morally object to causing unnecessary suffering and exploiting non-human animals”. The latter tends to provoke defensiveness which can be disappointing especially from friends, even if you want to have that conversation.
I’m disappointed if you still find the reasoning annoying though, for surely you must have things you justify in similar ways. For example, if you object to puppy mills, choke collars, sport/trophy hunting, violence/cruelty against companion animals, bestiality, marine parks, circuses that use animals, fur, zoos with terrible welfare, rodeos, dog fighting, cock fighting or bull fighting. These are all things that people, even if they aren’t vegan, will often object to, and it’s based on the same kind of logic as veganism, just inconsistently applied. It’s based on “not liking that the animal is unnecessarily hurt”. Not liking that non-human animals are harmed/exploited for food and other purposes is a logical extension of that dislike of unnecessary suffering.

your-tinyraindrop:

the-vegan-in-blue:

your-tinyraindrop:

The most annoying excuse vegans use to go vegan, “I hate how they kill a cow so I am going to stop eating meat”, I just don’t underatand that excuse.

The word excuse in this context seems bizarre. People don’t just want to be vegan out of nowhere and then have to think…

I know vegans dont just eat plants, they eat grains, tofu, and other substitute meat products. I guess the word excuse wasn’t what I mean, you’re right. I just think that if you lived a life of eating meat before becoming vegan/vegetarian, but stopped to “protest” the way meat is processed, than why give up meat completely? Can’t you find a way to eat meat that doesnt come from places that cruelly slaughter the animals? Or do you protest it because killing any animal for food is considered cruelty to you?

Grains, tofu etc. are all from plants. What I meant about it not meaning a plant based diet is that it entails more aspects of your lifestyle, as well as a moral stance.
The reason to give up meat and other animal products (not just applying to food) completely is because:
a) if you can give them up, then all harm/exploitation they cause is unnecessary, and therefore wrong, if you agree causing unnecessary suffering/exploitation is wrong.
b) you acknowledge that non-human animals can suffer and have an interest in their own lives, therefore we should respect their interests and right to their own lives and bodies just as we would another human.

Certainly, killing or exploiting non-human animals does them harm whether or not it involves what people deem “excessive” cruelty. Humans’ standards of what is “humane” are definitely flawed when it comes to non-human animals, and inconsistent too.

your-tinyraindrop:

The most annoying excuse vegans use to go vegan, “I hate how they kill a cow so I am going to stop eating meat”, I just don’t underatand that excuse.

The word excuse in this context seems bizarre. People don’t just want to be vegan out of nowhere and then have to think up some excuse to justify their decision. It is a reason, based on which someone then becomes vegan.
Yeah, that reason may be a more basic way of thinking about/explaining the moral basis of veganism than it could be. But it’s basically someone saying “this hurts someone, which is morally wrong, therefore I won’t engage in/support it”. It’s a perfectly logical thing to do. I don’t see what about it you don’t understand, but if you tell me I’ll try to explain.

I’m really not sure where you’re coming from with this post. But I do feel I have to clarify that veganism =/= plant based diet. A plant based diet is a large part of veganism, but veganism also includes a moral stance against speciesism/the harm and exploitation of non-human animals, based on which lifestyle changes (such as diet) are made.

edcynic:

So, I’m hoping you will read this with an open mind, because I would like your feedback. 

My significant other, after ten years of being together, has decided to resume hunting. He used to do it before we got together, and has recently picked up a hankering to start again. 

I never thought I would have a problem with hunting as long as one ate what they killed, but even though I know he would never hunt for “sport” and would eat what he brought home, I’m having a hard time “accepting” this. 

I’m not a vegetarian by any means, and most of my favorite foods include meat. I could never see myself ever giving it up, but I understand this type of thinking is hypocritical. 

So, I’m a little angry with myself because if I am against the idea of him hunting, I should be vehemently against eating meat of any kind, especially with how inhumane the meat industry can be. 

I feel like my thinking should be universal throughout — I either need to be against ALL killing of animals or essentially be okay with my significant other hunting if I am “okay” with eating meat of any kind.

If I’m being introspective about it — I’m sure I feel this way because hunting is more personal and will be done by someone I know. Therefore it will have much more of an impact on me than buying chicken from the store. At least I don’t have to “think” about how the animal I’m purchasing was killed. 

I don’t even know where I am going with this or what I’m asking for, but wondering if this is a sign I should even consider becoming a vegetarian or if this is normal thinking.

I’d say it’s a fairly normal reaction, since most of the time people distance themselves from the fact of where animal products come from. Imagining the reality of it, even within a slightly different context (hunting), challenges the distance you put between the harm done and the product of it. It makes it harder to see it as just a peice of meat/milk/egg/leather. I’m sure a lot of the people I know would feel similarly, preferably ignoring the victims where possible, but finding it more uncomfortable when they have to think about it.
It’s an important connection to make and keep, and it’s better to face up to the reality and do as morality dictates, rather than create that distance again and pretend it is just a product/object. It’s what I went through and I have been ever more certain in my moral stance, although there’s been a lot of growth in the way I think too. It’s definitely better to keep the connection rather than remain willfully ignorant.
If you recognise those lives as having value, and don’t need to cause harm to them, then it’s logical to avoid doing so, just as you would in other contexts. Certainly you should take into account the experience of those harmed by the hunting and farming too - they deserve consideration, though they are widely ignored and forgotten.
I’d be happy to talk with you about any aspect of veganism you’re interested in.

sleeper-ag3nt:

vegans are so selfish theyre going to eat all the plants and kill the planet that way what a bunch of assholes


Anonymous Asked
QuestionI just came across thw answer you got from Daysoft 1) the materials are not of animal origin, 2) the safety profile of the materials was already well established and no further testing of the FINALproduct (lenses, not tested on animal) were conducted. It is not clearly said if materials were based on previous data or if they tested the materials on animals. Am I right? Answer

Yeah, from what I could gather it was likely that the material had previously been tested on animals, but they didn’t have to do it themselves. I assumed since they said the materials were already well established that neither they nor the end product needed to be tested again. But looking at it, it is worded kind of vaguely, and only confirms the end product wasn’t tested. I would say that it is implied that they didn’t need to test the materials, but it’d be worth shooting them an email for clarification on that.
In the end I opted against getting contact lenses for a few reasons anyway, so didn’t have a need to follow up myself.

agent-carolina-church:

the-vegan-in-blue:

agent-carolina-church:

the-vegan-in-blue:

agent-carolina-church:

Someone once told me that since I eat meat I obviously love some animals more than others and that’s not true. I love all animals equally but for different reasons. I love dogs because they are great companions, and can be amazing members if society. I love cows and other livestock because their meat can be used to provide sustenance for humans (because that IS our NATURAL DIET). So, I love all animals the exact same.

Except cats.
I hate cats

I wonder if you’d accept that someone loved humans if they happily killed and ate them? I love fruit, but I’d hardly go ahead and say it’s the same love I have for human or non-human animals. When you’re talking about sentient beings it would be logical to expect any love for them to include caring for their wellbeing, and the desire to not exploit or harm them.

But, of course, it seems that the kind of love that most people extend to non-human animals is more like the love one feels for an inanimate object or possession. Not for someone with their own life and interests. Many people seem to love what non-human animals can (be made to) do for them, as posessions, not the animals themselves. It’s probably a bad idea to talk about the love people have for companion animals as one that should be extended to all species, since it is also often exploitative.

I would urge you to rethink how you consider non-human animals, and whether that could be called love in a way that could not be equally applied to an inanimate object. I would also urge you to consider that, whatever your opinions on what is “natural” are, we do not have to harm non-human animals. Please extend them respect and don’t support their harm or suffering, they have interests of their own that deserve protecting.

I love animals more than I love people. If you gave me a dog I would immediately start petting it and hugging it. If you gave me a cow I would do the same thing, no matter it’s fate. On the flip side if you gave me a tiger I wouldn’t do that because that would be stupid but I would still admire the animal from a distance and wish with all my heart that I could pet and cuddle it. So I do love all animals the same, and far more than people (some exceptions of course apply.) To me, all is food depending on the situation. Of course I would initially be unsettled by human cannibalism, it’s ingrained into our nature and our society. But if it had to happen, then fine. We do what we must to survive, plain and simple.

You have basically provided a good example of what I was talking about. Love isn’t just wanting to pet/cuddle someone, it’s wanting them to live a life that is as free and comfortable as it can be, and appreciating their existance. Would you want to pet and cuddle a fish? Or a snake? Or how about an insect or spider? Do they then not fall under your idea of love if not?

And with regards to “all is food depending on the situation”, the situation in this case is that you are supporting harming them where it is avoidable. Nor are you taking an active stance against others who do that also. If you’re happy to do that to non-human animals unnecessarily, but are unsettled by doing the same to humans, and would only do so if absolutely necessary, it doesn’t support your claim of favouring non-humans. Nor does it suggest that you respect non-human animals any more than for what they can do for you.

If you truly have to use some products of non-human exploitation for your basic survival needs, and outside of that use no products of their exploitation, nor harm them in everyday life, and are anti-speciesist, then that might be understandable. But as it is it seems like you really don’t know how to be respectful towards them.

And, hell, you don’t even need to love non-human animals to respect their basic desires to survive and be free from confinement, exploitation and cruelty. You just need to understand that they are sentient beings who experience the world and can suffer. It’s not right to exploit/harm them unnecessarily simply on the basis that they aren’t human.

I’m also going to end this by clarifying something. I used to think in similar terms to you, when I was young. My love for non-human animals used to be motivated by both fascination, and a desire to interact with them personally. That was not love, and even at that time I didn’t eat meat and avoided harming them to the greatest degree possible (to my limited understanding). I wasn’t fully understanding that they experience the world in their own way, and it’s not right to dictate/force how they interact with me.

Consider the following though:

I don’t care

I love animals

Meat is delicious

Although I do appreciate that you haven’t spent your entire argument actively telling me that I’m a worthless pig and should convert to veganism. I must tell you though that I tagged it for the sake of my followers who do not wish to see arguments such as these or anything related to the subject.

I’d hope you care about the wellbeing of others, and don’t just find it something you can dismiss if you can gain something by it. Perhaps consider, if you would be unable to justify harming humans similarly, why there is that difference.
Would you suggest it’s logical for someone who loves foxes to wear a fox fur coat “because it looks good”? Is “because it looks good” an adequate justification for unnecessary harm?  Is “because it’s fun” an adequate justification of killing or otherwise harming non-human animals? Where do you draw the line between an adequate and inadequate justification of unnecessary harm against the non-human animals whom you love, and why?

I wish I knew the right words to say to break through the societally constructed devaluing and commodification of non-human animals (and humans). But all I can do is fumble around and try to make a difference where I can.

I think that everyone should afford both human and non-human animals freedom from harm and exploitation as far as possible. It should be accepted that it’s morally wrong to inflict, or support, unnecessary harm against others. It should be basic decency and logic. I will not pretend that I can support any decision to go against all of that and cause/support harm.

But all I can ask of people is that they think about it, and try to make the connection meaningfully and non-abstractly between their own choices and ideas, and the harm inherent to, and implicitly supported by, them. Maybe read my blog, or those of other vegans, and try to understand a bit more. Or look at their own thoughts and justifications and see if there are any inconsistencies.

agent-carolina-church:

the-vegan-in-blue:

agent-carolina-church:

Someone once told me that since I eat meat I obviously love some animals more than others and that’s not true. I love all animals equally but for different reasons. I love dogs because they are great companions, and can be amazing members if society. I love cows and other livestock because their meat can be used to provide sustenance for humans (because that IS our NATURAL DIET). So, I love all animals the exact same.

Except cats.
I hate cats

I wonder if you’d accept that someone loved humans if they happily killed and ate them? I love fruit, but I’d hardly go ahead and say it’s the same love I have for human or non-human animals. When you’re talking about sentient beings it would be logical to expect any love for them to include caring for their wellbeing, and the desire to not exploit or harm them.

But, of course, it seems that the kind of love that most people extend to non-human animals is more like the love one feels for an inanimate object or possession. Not for someone with their own life and interests. Many people seem to love what non-human animals can (be made to) do for them, as posessions, not the animals themselves. It’s probably a bad idea to talk about the love people have for companion animals as one that should be extended to all species, since it is also often exploitative.

I would urge you to rethink how you consider non-human animals, and whether that could be called love in a way that could not be equally applied to an inanimate object. I would also urge you to consider that, whatever your opinions on what is “natural” are, we do not have to harm non-human animals. Please extend them respect and don’t support their harm or suffering, they have interests of their own that deserve protecting.

I love animals more than I love people. If you gave me a dog I would immediately start petting it and hugging it. If you gave me a cow I would do the same thing, no matter it’s fate. On the flip side if you gave me a tiger I wouldn’t do that because that would be stupid but I would still admire the animal from a distance and wish with all my heart that I could pet and cuddle it. So I do love all animals the same, and far more than people (some exceptions of course apply.) To me, all is food depending on the situation. Of course I would initially be unsettled by human cannibalism, it’s ingrained into our nature and our society. But if it had to happen, then fine. We do what we must to survive, plain and simple.

You have basically provided a good example of what I was talking about. Love isn’t just wanting to pet/cuddle someone, it’s wanting them to live a life that is as free and comfortable as it can be, and appreciating their existance. Would you want to pet and cuddle a fish? Or a snake? Or how about an insect or spider? Do they then not fall under your idea of love if not?

And with regards to “all is food depending on the situation”, the situation in this case is that you are supporting harming them where it is avoidable. Nor are you taking an active stance against others who do that also. If you’re happy to do that to non-human animals unnecessarily, but are unsettled by doing the same to humans, and would only do so if absolutely necessary, it doesn’t support your claim of favouring non-humans. Nor does it suggest that you respect non-human animals any more than for what they can do for you.

If you truly have to use some products of non-human exploitation for your basic survival needs, and outside of that use no products of their exploitation, nor harm them in everyday life, and are anti-speciesist, then that might be understandable. But as it is it seems like you really don’t know how to be respectful towards them.

And, hell, you don’t even need to love non-human animals to respect their basic desires to survive and be free from confinement, exploitation and cruelty. You just need to understand that they are sentient beings who experience the world and can suffer. It’s not right to exploit/harm them unnecessarily simply on the basis that they aren’t human.

I’m also going to end this by clarifying something. I used to think in similar terms to you, when I was young. My love for non-human animals used to be motivated by both fascination, and a desire to interact with them personally. That was not love, and even at that time I didn’t eat meat and avoided harming them to the greatest degree possible (to my limited understanding). I wasn’t fully understanding that they experience the world in their own way, and it’s not right to dictate/force how they interact with me.

professor-zun:

A non-vegan’s “love” for animals reminds me of that selfish kind of “love” that often happens between humans too.

It’s when all you care about is what the other person can do for you, how they can make you feel, and you depend on them for your own happiness. You—perhaps subconsciously—believe they exist for you.

It’s the self-centred inability to view others within a context that does not involve you. 

This is the stuff so many abusive relationships are made of, and it is also the rotten core of the supposed love a speciesist feels for non-human animals.

I see so many picture posts of baby animals with the comment, “I want one!”

"I want to possess this cuteness, because it makes me feel good. I will also eat its mother, because eating bacon also makes me feel good." "You’re so pretty and you make me laugh. I will continue to abuse you, because it makes me feel better about myself."

That is not love.

Loving someone means not wanting to possess them. It means loving them despite the possible absence of you in their life.

Love is allowing someone else to exist for themselves.

Ah, I just responded to a post with something similar to this. People shouldn’t idealise the “love” that many people have for companion animals (or, to them, “pets”). You aren’t going to get rid of exploitation by getting everyone to think of all non-human animals as they do their “pets”.
Many people have a love for non-human animals that may as well be for an inanimate object.

agent-carolina-church:

Someone once told me that since I eat meat I obviously love some animals more than others and that’s not true. I love all animals equally but for different reasons. I love dogs because they are great companions, and can be amazing members if society. I love cows and other livestock because their meat can be used to provide sustenance for humans (because that IS our NATURAL DIET). So, I love all animals the exact same.

Except cats.
I hate cats

I wonder if you’d accept that someone loved humans if they happily killed and ate them? I love fruit, but I’d hardly go ahead and say it’s the same love I have for human or non-human animals. When you’re talking about sentient beings it would be logical to expect any love for them to include caring for their wellbeing, and the desire to not exploit or harm them.

But, of course, it seems that the kind of love that most people extend to non-human animals is more like the love one feels for an inanimate object or possession. Not for someone with their own life and interests. Many people seem to love what non-human animals can (be made to) do for them, as posessions, not the animals themselves. It’s probably a bad idea to talk about the love people have for companion animals as one that should be extended to all species, since it is also often exploitative.

I would urge you to rethink how you consider non-human animals, and whether that could be called love in a way that could not be equally applied to an inanimate object. I would also urge you to consider that, whatever your opinions on what is “natural” are, we do not have to harm non-human animals. Please extend them respect and don’t support their harm or suffering, they have interests of their own that deserve protecting.

Anonymous Asked
QuestionAre there any vegan methods of keeping fleas away that are actually effective? I have dogs and I flea/tick treat them. Answer

Organic neem is the only one I know of that’s supposed to be effective. Ideally it would be used as a preventative, rather than needing to get rid of fleas already on the dogs, it certainly looks like it could do the job. I think using neem leaf tea is recommended for cats, and might be an alternative to bathing the dogs or rubbing them with oils - which could be stressful (if unused to baths) and messy respectively - if you’d prefer.
I definitely think preventative measures would be ideal, if they work, rather than having to treat them with insecticidal chemicals and kill off the fleas at intervals.

I’d love to hear if anyone else has other suggestions for anon.

Anonymous Asked
QuestionThis is NOT a hate message, I'm just a kind observer who wants to make a note. I'm on anon because I feel more comfortable like this. Also, I am not a vegan. Your comment on that vegan post makes it seem like you're saying if you can't be perfect, then don't even try. As if you're saying "You can't stop all suffering, so don't stop any." Care to elaborate? Answer

unforgedsignature:

Guess what

I’m a vegan

I think veganism is a good thing, for those who have the means to do it—but many people do NOT. 

I do not like vegans thinking they are higher than other people because they “cause less suffering”. yes, vegans cause less suffering to meat animals—but they are still blindly (or not so blindly..) supporting industries that literally torture children and if they were asked why they do that, do you know what their (and my!) responses would be?

-it is financially/logically impossible to eat all locally grown food year round

-it is EXTREMELY hard to eat all true organic food all year round

-“but it says it’s organic so it can’t be bad”

-“those people aren’t being slaughtered”

-it would be too time consuming

which are some of the basic arguments of those who are unable to go vegan or don’t want to. veganism can be GREAT, but it’s absolute bullshit when all it does it put someone on a pedestal from which they can look down and insult others who can’t be vegans.

ideally, yes, people would mostly eat vegetarian/vegan, but also ideally, people would have enough money to sustain themselves, racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, etc, would not exist, and ideally vegetables would not be grown through what is basically slave labor.

I would argue that every person with the ability to aquire information on veganism/animal rights can be vegan.
Now, hear me out, because I know you’re probably planning to explain why some people can’t eat a plant based diet. I say that because I think veganism is best described as anti-speciesism. It is a moral stance against a prevalent logic of domination against non-human animals. From that, the logical step is to avoid, as far as possible, benefitting from and contributing to speciesism. Aka: lifestyle changes, including dietary ones. The important part is “as far as possible”. If someone has very real difficulties with the lifestyle changes associated with veganism, you could hardly say they’re less of an anti-speciesist because capitalism has forced them into a position where they can’t completely boycott the products of non-human exploitation. Veganism shouldn’t be seen as a purist consumer action against industrialised cruelty, but as a protest against speciesism itself. In that way, whether or not a boycott would reform capitalism to be a little nicer is practically irrelevant, for it’s a refusal to take part in an industry which is inherently exploitative.

With regards to human exploitation under capitalism, it’s slightly more complex in that it isn’t inherently tied to any particular industry, and people interact with capitalism more complexly. You cannot say, for example, that chocolate should not exist in an ideal world because it cannot exist without exploitation. However that is the case with all industries based around non-human animal exploitation - they cannot exist in a form that is non-exploitative, so in a sense we are living the kind of world we want to see.
In order to challenge human exploitation, or other more insidious forms of non-human exploitation (eg. killing “pests”), you must challenge capitalism itself, for it’s to capitalism that these things are inherent, not any one industry. But you cannot boycott capitalism unless you are privaliged enough under it that you can be self-sustainable. Of course, though, lack of inherent exploitation doesn’t mean lack of exploitation, which is where discussing speciesism is important.

I do what I can to minimise my impact on humans though, I buy second hand where available, grow my own food where I can, will not use chocolate/cocoa from unethical sources (I don’t use coffee), and try to make the most ethical choices reasonable to me. But it is not the same as refusing to accept an inherently exploitative, and ideally non-existant, industry, just as boycotting non-organic produce is not the same although that hurts non-human animals too. In those areas I try to do what I can, but as the harm is not inherent it is more difficult.

smedgee:

Was thinking about becoming a vegan AGAIN then something questionable to debate cropped up. If extreme vegans find it barbarous to take any form of animal produce, dairy or meat to the point were they may look down at others, then why do they find it okay to harvest and eat plants and vegetables. Yep they don’t have brains and they can’t feel (questionable) but they are still living organisms that provide for the earth. I’d love to hear views on this y’know. If they are vegan purely for the non-cruelty side of things wouldn’t they practically have to walk round naked also as nearly every material is made from some form of animal produce. silk = silk worms, cashmere = goats, wool = sheep, leather = cows. Pretty sure most things that are created in the world would trace back down to some form of animal produce as well, bloody hell sure most lip glosses and hair products have whale sperm in them. I HAVE TOO MUCH THINKING TIME ON MY HANDS

Okay, I’m going to clear some things up for you.

Firstly about plants: They cannot feel, at least, they cannot feel pain. Because the function of pain is to enable an animal to avoid harmful situations, and so they learn the best survival tools. Plants stay in one place, and cannot immediately move away from harmful situations. There would be no need for the immediate experience of pain.
Furthermore, many plants have parts of themselves designed for eating (fruits), parts that drop off (nuts, seeds, legumes), and parts that can be taken without killing them (leaves). Additionally, you can cut off a part of a plant and grow another plant from that cutting. The top of a carrot/potato/onion can continue growing after you’ve eaten the rest. If they’re so able to survive such contexts, would pain make sense? It’s not that it just doesn’t make sense now, but it’d have never made sense, they couldn’t even have reminants of the ability from early ancestors.
Even if you do believe plants can feel pain, you can use only fruit/nuts/seeds/legumes, although I can’t advise you on how healthy that might be. In any case, it would make less sense to use animal products as all the exploited non-human animals must eat masses of plants in order to grow.

With regard to clothing: There exist natural fibres from plants, such as cotton, as well as synthetic materials, or even hemp. I would be absolutely surprised if every garment you own is made from wool, silk, leather or fur.

With regard to “most things”: Most things actually have options that are free from products of non-human exploitation. Those that are unavoidable contain miniscule amounts which could easily be replaced if we were in a context where non-human animals were not used in such a way. From what I can gather about “whale sperm” is that it is actually an oil, named “spermaceti” because people used to think it was whale sperm. Hunting sperm whales is now illegal in most countries, so the use of spermaceti isn’t exactly widespread as far as I can gather. Of course, a lot of cosmetics do use animal products in general, but it isn’t impossible to avoid. The idea is that we avoid products of animal exploitation where possible.

Now I want to explain what veganism is, since you’re purely talking about the avoidance of animal products. Veganism is a way of thinking which rejects speciesism. A lot of people treat the avoidance of animal products as a consumer boycott, seeking to reform capitalist industries so that they don’t use the products of inherent non-human exploitation. But speciesism is more than that, just as other forms of exploitation/oppression can exist outside of the confines of industry, so too does harm based on species. Avoiding benefitting from inherently exploitative industries is a form of individual protest, as well as a means of drawing people’s attentions to the choices they make in supporting such harmful industries/lines of thought. It may, in the here and now, also increase the number of things that are created without that inherent exploitation too.
If you believe it is wrong for us to force our will and desires upon non-human animals, causing them suffering and harm, then it would be nonsensical for you to support doing just that where it is avoidable. If you are upset by someone kicking a puppy because they are subjecting a sentient being to their will, then you must be against all forms of that. It would be ridiculous to be against one form of exploitation/oppression but support others, either by your acceptance and approval of them, or your monetary support. I certainly dislike your use of the word “extreme”, it’s hardly “extreme” to fight against, and refuse to contribute to, a form of injustice.