Don’t forget the wildlife issue is multifactorial. You have the impact of animal agriculture on the climate & Earth’s natural ecosystems, ghgs, pollution, land/water/crop/resource use, deforestation, habitat destruction, species extinction, etc (all of which harms and threatens most life on Earth including humans)… but more directly not only do humans wipe out wild animal populations in order to protect “livestock” farming operations (that disturbing irony of “farmers heroically saving the animals from danger so that they can kill them later”…) but then also use that to vindicate the killing of the other animals that become more densely populated as a result of humans’ prior disruption to the balance of the various species within the ecosystem. So it’s literally… killing animals to kill animals to kill animals. E.g. killing the deers in order to kill the foxes/bears in order to kill the cows/pigs/chickens …violence begets violence

Excellent. https://tv.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c003c5c2-db6f-457b-90a5-7ee499cb17fb/gif

I like that. “Accustomed to a taste” is so true as well and hits the nail on the head. Rather than “because it’s tasty to eat animal products” it’s more acknowledging that it’s just a habit they’re used to and they could just as easily develop a taste for many plant-based foods.

Someone who worked at a sanctuary: “Animals are so much cooler when they’re alive and chilling, you should see them.” 😭

Pretty much entirely my intuitions and limited anecdotal experience with testing out these responses lol. I should clarify I’m definitely not suggesting I know for certain which ways to answer the question would cause less abrasive reactions on average; that’s what I’m trying to find out. Usually I just say something vague like “It’s something… that I kind of fell into over a period of time.” which I feel disappointed in myself about and like I’m letting the animals down for not saying how I really feel or my true reasoning (in an as polite and nonconfrontational way as possible).

This is a good one. I’ve heard also “Vegan because I’m trying to reduce the disutility I cause” or “harm reduction” etc. I think it can be effective because it doesn’t specify anything and lets them interpret it for themselves so they can’t really blame you for what comes to mind for them. If you want to be more specific you can say toward animals & the environment etc. The only problem is that I’m not really a utilitarian (lean more toward deontology) and my reasons for being vegan are less to do with that and more about an intention of respect for animals to not participate in actions or systems which I deem to be unethical/in disagreement with my values, rather than necessarily the benefit it causes or harm it reduces - so for me to say this is kind of dishonest as to my real values in relation to veganism, even if it can be a convincing argument for it. And while most probably won’t, some could take advantage of this and make an attempt at a counter-argument against veganism using a utilitarian calculus at some kind (which is probably misguided, but then prompts you to defend your stance anyway - and can get very protracted). Or they can make the causal inefficacy claim, which is pretty much an argument that being vegan doesn’t actually make a difference or reduce disutility/lower the amount of animal agriculture/exploitation & slaughter that happens because of nebulous market forces (or because they don’t understand supply & demand). Again one can argue against this but that’s not what I want to do if I’m just trying to enjoy the social setting peacefully. I really like this response though and maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by it, either way the unprompted acknowledgment that you’re not perfect like everyone (far from it) but you just want to be less shitty in this one way or you’re trying to be more principled or whatever, could be very successful at disarming them/lowering their guard down by making them feel less personally attacked or inadequate by comparison or whatever they’re feeling that makes them so hostile sometimes.

Thank god for TV Tropes. The “subtitle” meaning “closed captions” or “sub-name” thing still bugs me. Am I the only one bugged by one name being used for multiple things confusingly? Like how “chips” is often used to mean either potato crisps (packet chips) or potato fries (hot chips). Why not just use different names, you know?