They didn’t accuse anyone of anything.

Judgment for personal choices that harm no one is shitty.

You consider a nebulous uncertain statement (“think”) about a hypothetical sub-group of vegans (“many vegans”) to be a problem?! I mean... if you have reason to believe the motives are bad I can totally see the problem... but, if motives don’t matter, then who is being harmed here?! If no one is being harmed…

So... opinion noted.

I would never use the word “lyching” in that context. I suspect that most of the people in the south in the 1920's were just unpleasant by contemporary standards (on specific topics).... they were also, however, products of their environment. If they had a little more focus on motive and intent... the underlying reason…

All any of this is, is just looking for an excuse to look down on someone. That’s ALL the OP was doing. He was looking for an excuse to be critical, and he assigned a motive that he thought validated that judgment.

The motive that he discussed that he wanted to be critical of was that they were doing it to “fit in”. Why the fuck does that matter if that is there motive? Why does that impact you in any fashion that requires judgment?

Sure, you can create some hypothetical psychopath who wants to maximize world suffering, but if that’s the case I’m sure they’re taking actions far more worthy of criticism than...being vegan.

Yes, motive in general matters. But if you’re presented with a good or neutral act (veganism is at worst neutral and at best good) and the person doing the act has not explicitly expressed a negative motive, then there is no reason to jump to them having a bad one.

I think it’s always reasonable to be concerned with motives. If a person has a bad motive for being vegan then that matters. Simple. It may matter less, by degree, than a variety of other scenarios we can dream up (load this deck however you like)... but it does still matter.

Because that’s nonsense and you know it. Sure, in a hypothetical scenario where a psychopath with a bad understanding of biology wanted plants to suffer, I’d be a bit disturbed, sure. But that is just such an out there idea that it doesn’t really deserve discussing.

Yeah, but you didn’t think of a real motive that anyone has, or that even makes sense.

Does anyone, anyone at all, have that motive?

If a person was vegan because they believed plants were capable of suffering more than animals then I would be extremely critical of any person that chose to be vegan in that context.

I don’t know, it would (as is usually the case) depend on the motive. In the most obvious case, if someone was vegan because they sincerely believe plants suffer more than animals I think it would matter very much.

There are generalizing (tepidly) about “many vegans” (a nebulous sub-group of all vegans). Again. I think many vegans are left handed. This is probably a totally reasonable generalization to make.

I’m not making a weak left-field pedantic argument here. I’m taking the most straightforward interpretation of the language…

Yeah, sorry... my first comment was probably a little unfair to you.

I’m just saying... you don’t even need small talk to make the scenario plausible. If I’m going for a diploma in *insert subject of your choosing* a loan officer, actually doing their job, is likely to ask some questions about how that diploma will…

It is certainly amusing to imagine someone calling up a bank simply for the opportunity to tell one person that they are vegan, and it’s possible (in the sense that you are implying), but it seems vastly more plausible that she asked for money to get a diploma and the loan officer asked some pretty obvious directed…

Really?!

No, just basic reading comprehension. Their comment literally means, “I’m guessing that a lot of vegans are vegan for superficial reasons”.

It’s important to note that “many” is a relative term that does not necessarily mean “most” and that “think” denotes a lack of certainty. There are enough vegans in the world that…