There’s no gotchas, and it is in good faith.

This post is about how vegans engage with non-vegans.

I noted that often many vegans who are arguing on online forums (this is something I also specified in both comments, because I acknowledge and respect the fact that small online communities don’t necessarily represent everyone, or even most people) are often very dogmatic. This can be seen from them getting very upset when they can’t answer certain rhetoric.

Case in point; you deleting a reply you found hard to answer and then pretending I’m arguing in bad faith.

You clearly say that you think vegans don’t have an issue with “scavanged” meat. (“Scavenged”, btw.) This implies that you think vegans would agree that hunting and eating game meat is acceptable and even necessary. Do you think that? (Note, I’m not assuming you do. I’m asking, in good faith.)

The second question is about sheep, since you clearly say that stopping their breeding is the answer. Stopping breeding will lead to the extinction of a species, this is a rather clear consequence. Again, I’m asking this in good faith, exactly because it’s a hard question to answer. Asking the hard questions is often when the dogmatic attitudes are revealed.

But it is in the interest veganism to try to satisfactorily answer these questions to develop as an ideology. If it can’t do that, then it has to change. If it can’t answer, but won’t change either, then it is dogmatic.