What's wrong is that you act indignant about people's hyperbolic descriptions of vegans, but when your opinion of non-vegans is invited, you immediately trot ou

What's wrong is that you act indignant about people's hyperbolic descriptions of vegans, but when your opinion of non-vegans is invited, you immediately trot out the most hyperbolic, damning analogy (and a poor one at that) possible. Of course, your angle is that you're correct, and therefore the comparison of meat eaters and slave owners is simply a matter of fact, while calling vegans "proselytizers" is an unfounded and offensive opinion. As for the analogy itself, I'm not going to get into why it's absurd. I've had that conversation enough times to know that the correctness of the analogy is not what's important to you. All that matters is that it riles up those you see as morally inferior to yourself. You chose that analogy because you get off on the reaction it gets, plain and simple. Just know that when people portray vegans as rabid ideologues, they're talking specifically about vegans like you. You are the sort who gives vegans a bad name. If you think proselytizing is the right thing to do, then by all means, do it. But admit to yourself that that's what you're doing. You can't simultaneously proselytize and get offended by people pointing out that that's what you're doing. > to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means. See, the thing about words like "unreasonable" is that they're in the eye of the beholder. It's like the word "asshole"--you don't get to decide if you're an asshole. That's for others to decide. You get to hold whatever opinions you want about meat-eaters, and they get to decide if they think those opinions are unreasonable. Opinions are subject to critique. That's how this works.