Why Calling Vegans Smug Isn't An Argument

Why Calling Vegans Smug Isn't An Argument

December 13, 2017 1 Comment

You’ve heard it all before; 

“Vegans are smug.  Vegans are annoying.  Vegans are hippies.  Vegans are militant.  Vegans are xyz.”  

While these assertions may or may not be true, depending on the individual, do they hold up as an argument?


In most cases, no. 


It may seem obvious that name-calling is one way to avoid the argument presented, but as such, many continue to do it.   These assertions are known as Ad Hominem attacks, a form of logical fallacy.  An Ad Hominem attack is defined as: Trying to refute an argument by attacking the character of the person making it, rather than the logic or premise of the argument itself.  You have probably heard these everywhere.  

Ad Hominem attacks are only valid if the character of the person making the argument is directly related to that argument.  So if someone says, "I learned in medical school that xyz is healthy," pointing out that said person did not actually go to medical school is a valid Ad Hominem.  

In the vegans' case, most Ad Hominem attacks do not follow an invalid argument.  We often hear:

"Vegans are pushy, just respect others' choices."  

Well what does that have to do with the argument of ethical veganism?  Being pushy doesn't undermine the point that animal exploitation and cruelty is unnecessary, immensely harmful, not excessively difficult/inconvenient to avoid, and is therefore unethical to actively partake in.   

Ad Hominem attacks come in a few different forms;

Ad Hominem (Abusive) - The format provided in the definition above

Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) - The premise that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a stance, and therefore, their stance/argument is invariably incorrect.  

For example, someone may say to me: 

"Of course you would say animal exploitation is unethical, you own a vegan business.  It's in your monetary interest to say so." 

Just because I have a vested interest in Veganism does not mean that my support of the vegan argument is necessarily incorrect.  It's irrelevant to the actual argument presented.  

Ad Hominem (Guilt By Association) - When one person is viewed negatively because of their association with another person/group that is viewed negatively.  

For example: someone may draw the conclusion that because Hitler was a vegetarian, and also a very bad person, that all other vegetarians are also very bad people.  This would be a fallacious conclusion and fall under Guilt By Association.  (The conclusion doesn't need debunking, but as a side note, there is plenty of evidence to support the position that Hitler's strict Vegetariansm is a myth.

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) - Claiming that a person's argument is flawed because their actions are not consistent with said argument.

For example:  Someone who claims that animal agriculture is tremendously harmful to the environment, but still consumes animals, is not wrong because of their inconsistency.  In this case, their actions are irrelevant to whether or not animal agriculture is actually harming the environment.  


And that about does it for Ad Hominems.  In conclusion:

It's irrelevant.

Next time someone tells you to get off your high horse and stop being so mean, just politely remind them that they are avoiding the argument, acting fallaciously, and that your character doesn't determine the validity of Veganism as a moral philosophy.  

1 Response


December 15, 2017

Great post! It was very helpful in explaining the different types of Ad Hominem attacks we all get in one way or another. And now I will be able to identify and refute them in a much better way. Thanks

Leave a comment

Also in News

Lion In The Forest
Animals Eat Other Animals . . . Why Can't I?

May 06, 2018

One of the first things people think of when approached about Veganism is the fact that animals eat other animals.  This case is often used in support of the concept that eating animals is a moral act that humans partake in, but does this hold up as morally and logically consistent?  Let’s take a look -

Read More

Drake Performing Live
Drake Ditches Meat . . . Could he be vegan?

March 17, 2018

Canadian rapper Drake confirmed that he is at least vegetarian on live gaming platform Twitch this week.  He got together with Twitch personality Tyler 'Ninja' Belvins to competitively game in one of the platform's most-watched livestreams.  He and Tyler were discussing food when the controversial questions was asked, "Does pineapple belong on pizza?"

Read More

Donatella Says Versace is Going Fur-Free
Donatella Says Versace is Going Fur-Free

March 14, 2018

Donatella Versace has followed in the footsteps of other fashion giants such as Gucci and Furla by announcing that Versace will be going fur-free.  The fashion magnate expressed her concern regarding fur in an interview with Luke Leitch of The Economist's 1843 Magazine, stating "Fur? I am out of that. I don’t want to kill animals to make fashion. It doesn’t feel right."

Read More