Hello everyone,

I have been vegan for five years because I came to realise that animals who are exploited unnecessarily are subjected to invasive and abusive treatment, and are killed as soon as they are no longer profitable. I am also opposed to the excessive use of life through artificial breeding, separating offspring from their mothers, and so on. All of this seems deeply unhealthy to me. For these past five years, I have therefore avoided using products derived from animal exploitation as much as possible, with the exception of pharmaceutical and medical products and situations involving insect infestations.

My approach to veganism is not primarily based on personal feelings or sensitivity, but rather on a pragmatic desire to protect animals from an economy that mistreats them. For example, I slept on a leather sofa during the first year of my veganism, and I cooked meat for my parents.

My discomfort with meat actually came later. In fact, I became aware at a very young age that meat came from animals. I grew up in the countryside surrounded by animals, and no one ever lied to me about what was on my plate. What changed when I was 16 was that I discovered that all of this was happening without any necessity. That is why I stopped.

Now, to explain why I am here:

Last winter, I bought a second-hand wool beret on Vinted. Today, I donated it to a charity shop because I have ultimately become uncomfortable with owning it. I would like to know what you think about this situation, as this was not an easy question for me to resolve. I will explain my reasoning below.

➡️ I had considered this second-hand purchase not to be contrary to veganism, given that the reason we should not exploit animals or use them as resources is that doing so supports the production of these products, which causes animals to be mistreated and slaughtered unnecessarily.

I have come across discussions about second-hand wool, silk, leather and fur in vegan contexts, where many people argued that purchasing these items was not vegan because it meant continuing to regard animals as resources, even when doing so would have no impact on production.
However, veganism has the pragmatic goal of putting an end to this production. A particular mindset cannot be imposed on people. Anti-speciesism is a mindset, whereas veganism is a practice.
The reason we do not regard animals as resources is that, in our world, treating them as resources also means subjecting them to mistreatment, because the consideration they receive is conditional on their ability to produce resources. In the case of second-hand goods, however, the purchase does not finance production and therefore does not cause any additional animal suffering.
I have seen videos in which vegans argued that we should not wear second-hand leather because we would not wear dog leather or human leather, for example. Once again, this seems to me to be a matter of personal sensitivity and philosophy. It seems to me that veganism does not require us to believe that animals are equal to one another. In fact, this is not about what we think, but about our actions and their practical impact on animals.
I believe that, in an ideal world, veganism should be enshrined in law. However, we cannot enshrine a mindset or a worldview in law.
Indeed, I would not have bought second-hand leather or fur, but I recognise that this would have been due to my personal disgust, even if doing so had absolutely no impact on animals.

I believe that buying and using second-hand products, regardless of their material, is always the best choice for the world as a whole, whether we consider humans, the environment or the animals who depend on that environment. I am also aware of the STAGGERING amount of resources represented by the enormous quantities of clothing that go unworn. I have often read vegans saying that “veganism is an ethical position, not an environmental one”, but do you not think that animals’ well-being and lives depend entirely on their environment? Is it ethical to allow all these resources to accumulate in the world they inhabit?
I am not trying to lecture anyone about environmental issues, as I am far from perfect in this regard myself.

➡️ That said, as I mentioned at the beginning, I ended up donating the wool beret I had bought to a charity shop. I did this because I came across a pragmatic reason to deeply regret my purchase: I read an argument on this forum suggesting that when a vegan buys a second-hand wool, leather or fur product, they reduce its availability to non-vegans. If non-vegans cannot find what they are looking for on the second-hand market, they might end up buying the item new instead.
Indeed, this seems logical to me. I had effectively made that item unavailable to a non-vegan for several months. I therefore donated it so that a non-vegan could use it.

There was another reason, this time much more closely related to my personal feelings. In a video, a YouTuber drew a parallel between buying second-hand wool and eating meat from someone who no longer wanted it. Indeed, I would be unable to do that.

To conclude, I also regret my purchase because I barely wore the beret in the end, as I felt uncomfortable wearing it. I do not think I can quite put that feeling into words.
An important aspect of this post, alongside acknowledging my mistake, is the distinction between a form of veganism based on the practical consequences of our actions and one based more on ideology, which resonates much less with me.
I would really like to know what you think about all of this. Do you think I can still consider myself vegan after this?
You are free to express your opinions, provided the discussion remains civil. However, I would encourage you not to let your emotions dictate your responses. We can also discuss this privately if you prefer.

Las llamadas gallinas “libres o felices” **no son libres**.
Son animales cuyo cuerpo y reproducción están al servicio de la industria. Aunque no estén en jaulas individuales, **la mayoría vive hacinada en galpones**, con acceso limitado o inexistente al exterior

Cuando ya no producen lo suficiente, **dejan de servir**.
Y cuando dejan de servir, las asesinan para consumo humano

Además hay que tener en cuenta que fueron modificadas genéticamente por décadas para que produzcan la mayor cantidad de huevos posibles …. y a los pollitos los asesinan porque no otorgan ningún beneficio para el humano

Mientras su existencia esté condicionada al beneficio humano, no hay libertad posible.
Mientras su valor dependa de lo que producen, la ley de bienestar animal es solo una estrategia de marketing

Llamar “bienestar animal” a un sistema que permite usar, explotar y descartar vidas sintientes no es respeto ni ética: **es especismo institucionalizado**.
Las llamadas gallinas “libres o felices” **no son libres**.
Son animales cuyo cuerpo y reproducción están al servicio de la industria. Aunque no estén en jaulas individuales, **la mayoría vive hacinada en galpones**, con acceso limitado o inexistente al exterior

Cuando ya no producen lo suficiente, **dejan de servir**.
Y cuando dejan de servir, las asesinan para consumo humano

Además hay que tener en cuenta que fueron modificadas genéticamente por décadas para que produzcan la mayor cantidad de huevos posibles …. y a los pollitos los asesinan porque no otorgan ningún beneficio para el humano

Mientras su existencia esté condicionada al beneficio humano, no hay libertad posible.
Mientras su valor dependa de lo que producen, la ley de bienestar animal es solo una estrategia de marketing

Llamar “bienestar animal” a un sistema que permite usar, explotar y descartar vidas sintientes no es respeto ni ética: **es especismo institucionalizado**.

Genuine question!

How is wool not vegan? I mean in most areas its a waste product and sheep need to be shorn anyways since we bred them this way. Literally not cutting their wool makes them suffer a lot and is abusive. Isn't it better to buy real wool clothes and blankets instead or buying plastic alternatives that can harm wildlife for example more when it is discarded compared to wool that can still be used for compost?

​

I think the concept of "property" is often used far too loosely in discussions of animal ethics. People say that honey is the property of bees and that humans are therefore stealing it from them, but what does "property" actually mean in this context?

If "property" is understood as a relationship established by a particular legal or social framework between a subject and an object, then it makes no sense to attribute property in this sense to bees. We are projecting a human institution onto a relationship that exists independently of any such institution.

And if we abandon this institutional understanding in favour of a broader, more intuitive definition, the problem does not disappear. What meaningful and reasonably coherent criterion would allow us to say that honey is the property of bees, but that vegetables are not the property of the soil, rainwater is not the property of a cloud or fallen leaves are not the property of the tree they came from? The mere fact that something is produced by, originates from or is biologically associated with an organism does not, by itself, establish that it is its property. We would need some additional criterion to distinguish these cases, and it is far from obvious what that criterion could be.

Of course, this does not mean that animals cannot have interests, that their interests can be disregarded, or that taking something from them cannot be morally objectionable. Those are separate questions. An animal might have a strong interest in a resource without that resource being its property, just as something being someone's property does not automatically settle whether taking it is morally wrong.

My point is that property is a human social and institutional concept, and applying it to nonhuman animals requires a more careful justification than simply asserting that something is their property because they produce it or use it. There may be good reasons to extend certain property-like concepts to some highly social and cognitively sophisticated animals, but that would require identifying the relevant characteristics and explaining why they matter. Such animals, however, represent a small minority of the animal kingdom.

I am fine with using expressions such as “the bees' honey” in ordinary conversation. The problem arises when such expressions are treated as if they established a substantive claim about property, rights or exploitation, and when terms like these are incorporated into a political, historical, economic or moral theory without being given any concrete meaning.

I am a vegan, and I was wondering what other vegans views are on hunting. I personalty think that hunting is way better than factory farming. but weirdly enough it seems that (maybe im wrong) people who do eat meat is more against hunting, like they see it as worse then factory farming.

maybe im wrong, but it just seem really interesting why the is

Let me preface this by saying that I am not proposing to cull carnivorous animals from the world right now. There are an enormous amount of reasons for why this isn't good.

But at the end of the day, the very existence of carnivorous animals requires the loss of an innocent being. I've talked about this with multiple vegans before and it seems like my position is in the minority.

As is often said, it is unethical for humans to eat eggs. The alternative option is to give the chicken invasive surgery to prevent egg-laying, or to feed the eggs back to the chicken.

Let's say we have an animal sanctuary and have chickens at our sanctuary. We give them food, water, shelter, and also give them the surgery to prevent them laying eggs. When a chicken dies at this sanctuary, is it ethical to feed their bodies to other chickens? If not, why not, and how is it different from feeding them their own eggs/children?

**Two hours later and still waiting moderator approval. Will have to respond to comments after work tomorrow.

Or in other words, are the arguments in favor of vegetarianism contigent upon humans being omnivores instead of say obligated carnivores?

Let me be clear, I get the whole non animals thing, but if they reason you do that is because animals with a nervous system are theoretically sentient, why not eat the countless animals that don’t have them? Gets you proper dietary needs without having to medicate yourself, still doesn’t harm a creature with a nervous system.

i know the main point of veganism is to not eat or buy products from animals & animal exploitation ect but if the eggs are from free range healthy taken care of chickens then wouldn’t that be fine? since it’s not taking any life’s of any animals or hurting them and it’s giving the egg some sort of purpose? if not then why? gen curious

I’m thinking about going totally vegan (95%, still need to totally cut out cheese though)
I’m getting prepared for the full interrogation mode of people around me as to how things would work in an ideal vegan world bla bla bla

One of the questions I cannot find an answer to is: How would we still produce our pets’ food as they are carnivores?
Would we breed stock animals, give them a good life outside and let them die of old age?

Open to any possible answer!
As well as tips to cut out cheese 😂

EDIT: I meant if the whole world went vegan in the future
And OMG I can’t imagine a world without pets because dogs and cats (at least mine!) wouldn’t survive in the wild 😂

Would it not be better to gradually reduce consumption and in the process numbers of domesticated livestock, while implementing 'conservation' schemes aimed at 'rewilding' remaining domestic livestock over time?...

Also if bees populations are declining does it not make sense to have sustainable honey farms which fund conservation of the keystone species needed to pollinate Vegan food?

The animal rights movement was poisoned from the start.

We're past the point of giving benefit of the doubt to welfarist. Animal consumption per capita has only increased since Peter Singer began his work.

His work along with all the other welfarist group resemble non profit industrial complex methodology that may be a good idea in a perfect world, but in a capitalist society it has only been corrupted and manipulated to the point that it's results are trivial and have zero impact.

Here are the logistical impacts of their work.

They achieved a ban on battery cages, so they did away with the smaller cage and shove them into a larger cage with more hens giving each hens about the size of a piece of printer paper to move around next to hundreds of other hens in the same cage leading to infections resulting in up to 12% of them being culled or killed before harvesting.

It's the same thing with gestation crates for pigs, they banned one cage only to put them in a other cage where they're just as miserable. And because they're now in bigger cages, they place more pigs in them leading to 30-35% of the pigs being killed or culled from cross contamination.

With veal they did accomplish banning veal crates and tethering, but then they moved the calves to housing units with concrete floors and other calves that compromise their immune systems leaving up to 15% of them to be killed and discarded. Same as above examples.

There are more examples which I can pull up and explain why they fail to increase life quality but i'm not trying to write a novel.

Now for the philosophical and ethical implications.

The welfarist paradox, by achieving the previously mentioned policies it now gives animal consumers the idea that the animal which they're eating was raised and slaughtered in a humane manner leading them to consume them more frequently and with zero ethical discomfort.

Not only is does this give people a license to eat as many animals as they want, but it also reinforces the status of the animal as a commodity. So long as economic interest are at play, their true welfarism will always be denied and manipulated to suite the sale.

Welfare reforms are turning animal advocacy groups into partners of the animal industry by accepting small short sighted victories in exchange for humane certification seals which stabilize the industries long term goal of profit while convincing the public of their legitimacy. The R.S.P.C.A. being a prime example sense they are the oldest and largest animal welfare charity.

Not only do these welfarist groups take in billions of dollars, but by pretending to be in the animals best interest they're removing the sense of urgency that's required for a plant based world while simultaniously pacifying the public into complacency accepting animal abuse.

I can't think of any social justice movement that's ever placed utilitarian calculations over the rights of the individual they're advocating for. Because history has shown us that regulation validates the moral legitimacy of slavery of both human and non human animals. All the welfare changes prior to abolition did virtually nothing to improve the lives of slaves prior to complete abolition due to society itself embracing the idea of abolition.

The welfarist will say they've cost these industries financial damage, meanwhile the government is handing out 80+billion a year in subsidies due to these losses.

The welfarist say that if everyone reduced their meat consumption 1 day a week, it's better than turning a few people vegan. Meanwhile 84% of vegetarians relapse to eating meat. 34% I. The first 3 months, and 53% within the first year.

And as I stated earlier, meat consumption has increased 300-500% per capita over the last 50 years.

In the U.S. alone welfarist groups have taken in over 200 billion dollars, can you imagine how many vegans could have been created had they spent it on street level activist? So to sum it all up, welfarist are just co opting with meat and dairy as professional animal rights grifters and are hindering the actual abolition of animals.

I'm not vegan myself (yet), but I've been thinking about veganism and I haven't found a compelling reason for me, or that would justify it for people in developed countries, to continue eating animal products beyond pleasure or convenience.

There are some edge cases where I can understand why someone wouldn't be vegan, such as someone who genuinely doesn't have reasonable access to plant foods or is living in the wilderness, but those obviously aren't very relevant to most people, especially those living in developed countries.

I'm aware of some of the common arguments against veganism, but I'm not sure whether I should include my responses to them in the post or just let people bring them up themselves.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm primarily interested in consistency with the stated beliefs of most people. The reason consistency matters to me is that simply asking for arguments in favor of consuming animal products is somewhat irrelevant.

If someone holds fundamentally different values, such as believing that killing animals for consumption is morally acceptable, then their position could be morally justified within their own framework.

Without some shared moral principles, there's little room for meaningful disagreement. I'm more interested in whether people's views on consuming animal products are consistent with the moral principles they already hold.

The title is inaccurate, but I wasn't sure how else to ask my question.

I suppose animal testing is cruel and outdated. First of all, millions of animals suffer and die unnecessarily annualy in laboratories. Another plus side is that modern technology allows us to use alternative methods, such as lab-grown human cells and computer simulations. For instance, many cosmetics companies already test their products without using animals at all. These are like Nyx, Lush and Pixi. However, some scientists argue that animal testing is still needed for medical research and more efficient findings. In my opinion, we should heavily invest in cruelty-free alternatives and ban harmful tests. Therefore, ending testing on animals is a significant step towards a more ethical society.

The vegan accusations aimed at James Talarico got me wondering: why do some people have such a visceral reaction to vegans and vegetarians? Why is someone’s decision not to eat meat treated as an insult or a reason to think less of them?

If someone wants to reduce their carbon footprint or avoid supporting factory farming, what’s objectionable about that? Plant-based diets generally have a lower environmental footprint, and intensive animal farming can contribute to water contamination from manure runoff, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and harm to surrounding ecosystems. Those seem like legitimate concerns, whether or not you personally choose to stop eating meat.

I understand that meat is tied to business interests and cultural traditions in Texas. But should those interests automatically outweigh preserving the environment and limiting pollution? You don’t have to agree with someone’s priorities to respect their choice. I also don’t buy the argument that individual choices don’t matter because corporations cause far more harm. Holding corporations accountable and taking responsibility for our own choices aren’t mutually exclusive.

One person isn’t going to solve the whole problem, but why should that make trying pointless or something to ridicule? What happened to “be the change you want to see in the world”?

What I especially don’t understand is the hostility toward people making that choice only for themselves, not lecturing anyone, trying to convert anyone, or telling others what they can eat. Is it about cultural identity, feeling judged even when nobody is judging you, or something else? Why does someone else’s personal food choice provoke such a strong reaction?

From a vegan point of view, are wild plants and mushrooms okay for humans to take, or do they belong to the wild animals living in the forest?

Do only cultivated plants belong to humans, or are all plants fair game for the taking?

Yes I know this will not happen as instantaneously. I pose this hypothetical so breathing imagin ed ways to deal with factory farming.

This is something I actually find super duper interesting about if the world was slowly being vegan over the course of let's say 100 or 200 years.

As this is happening what are some ways in which we can deal with animals that have been victims to factory farming and conditional breeding.

What would we do with certain breeds of cows and sheep. This hypothetical assumes government would eventually become vegan and care about animal suffering.

Consuming whey or gelatin doesn't contribute to animal suffering because if they weren't sold, they would be treated like waste products and thrown out. In fact, I speculate that purchasing the alternatives in our current reality actually contributes to animal suffering more by contributing to crop-deaths.

If you purposefully purchase a soy, hemp, or pea product when the whey option is available, you are causing increase harm to the environmental as that had to be built from scratch, which also means increase in crop-deaths.

Let's imagine that tomorrow farming animals is banned and all farms, factory and free range, are permanently shut down.

What should happen to the animals that are already there and alive?

Should they simply be released into the wild where most of them will surely die, and many will cause environmental harm? Should they be kept in enclosed areas and taken care of until they die, and be prevented from reproducing?

EDIT: I am not using this as a way to argue that we should continue farming, by the way. I'm just legitimately curious what the vegan solution to this problem would be.

I'm not totally sure if this is the right place but I'm posting here because I imagine there might be a bit of a debate in the comments but I am purely asking for personal advice and I can't think of anywhere else to post. I also am conscious that a lot of the things Im about to say might make you think that I'm here just for the sake of being a contrarian or to karmafarm but idk what to say except that I genuinely hold all of these positions and that I'm here in good faith to defend them. If you don't want to read a highly specific and VERY long post about me pls skip this one.

Ok so first of all I'm a hedonist - I believe in doing whatever I want as long as I don't substantially harm other people (I'm conscious that every choice I make has effects on the people close to me). I drink (quite a lot, you might call me a functional alcoholic), I smoke, I don't partake in drugs but that's only because I can't get ahold of the stuff reliably where I live but I remain very open to them. I believe in short term gratification even it leads to long term detriment. I'm 23 rn and if my lifestyle means I'm dead by 30/40, that's something I'm comfortable with. The reason I make this point is only to say that I don't care about the long term consequences of my health of whatever diet I follow as long as I enjoy life today.

But it's not like I don't have any principles or beliefs apart from my hedonism. I'm very left leaning and strongly believe in a massive massive redistribution of wealth, kinda woke, hate bigotry, strongly reject nationalism, etc. I'm also sometimes happy not doing things that go against my morals even if it's not something I'd personally gain anything from - for example I have no interest in travelling to countries that have an abhorrent record on human rights, especially queer rights even though I'm not queer myself. Although with that said I don't believe in boycotts doing anything except bringing the boycotter gratification for sticking to their morals, unless they're local and targeted at a specific business (especially if it's smaller). I also think I made a post about how I view veganism as a boycott on a vegan sub a few months back, I'm not sure if it was this.

I say all of this purely to add some background to where I'm approaching veganism from. I've been vegan for 3 ish months now but I've believed that veganism is the only ethical philosophy for years. There are parts I enjoy about being vegan: I like the sense of solidarity and community I feel walking into a vegan restaurant knowing I share the same philosophy as everyone else there, you might say I'm crazy but I do also lowkey prefer the taste of vegan food over non-vegan food especially if it's at a restaurant that knows how to cook (I can cook but only to save my life) and even if I choose to no longer follow a vegan lifestyle I will probably keep buying things like vegan cheese over dairy cheese. I also don't really care for food I should say, I only eat for the nutrients to survive and maintain my lifestyle and taste is something I barely even consider really.

I also spend as little money on food as possible which is one thing making keeping a vegan lifestyle hard. In the place where I live, I could survive off a diet of pasta and a type of sausage and spend something below the equivalent of $10 on groceries per week. But what's been fucking me over the most is the energy levels. I don't live a very active lifestyle really but the thing that I enjoy the most in life is going to metal concerts (I go to over 30 a year and often travel long distances for them) and they're quite physical in terms of moshing, crowdsurfing, etc. and ever since I went vegan I've been struggling to keep my energy levels up which I know feels insane to say because I know there are vegan bodybuilders and stuff. I also constantly find myself waking up feeling really tired and with pain in my knees, I have a fairly weak knee anyway. I think my body is taking a lot of time to adapt because I grew up eating a lot of meat - I don't think I ever had a fully plant based meal as a child.

I would maybe suck it up at the end of the day if I actually believed that me being vegan actually made a difference to the lives of animals but where I'm at now is that it animals are being massacred horrifically anyways what's the point in me being vegan if it affects my ability to enjoy the things I enjoy. At the end of the day if I could press a button tomorrow and ban the killing of animals, I would, and I know there's the whole thing about how you should practicing what you preach but I guess this might be an exception for me. I could also go on about the speciesism I practice that I know I'm morally fucked for practicing because I wouldn't eat a dog, cat, rabbit, horse, kangaroo, seal even if my survival depended on it but as a society we've normalized eating meat so much that we don't really flinch about what we do to farm animals. But at the same time I know I could never stop being speciesist to some degree. For example, my friend gifted a leather jacket to me a few months back which I intend to wear when it's colder but if I think of a jacket being made with the skin of a dog I get sick at the thought of wearing it.

Ultimately, I do think I could maybe continue being vegan if I thought I was making a difference or if it didn't affect my energy levels, cost, planning/time but it seems like it does neither so I'm considering giving it up.

Edit: Gang you've convinced me to stay vegan, thank you so much. I'm gonna stay vegan because it's the right thing to do regardless of whatever other people do and hope we live in a world where everyone's as kind as you all seem to be, especially knowing my individual choice is saving a few lives atleast, as small as that number might be. On my way to another metal gig now where I plan on getting very drunk so I probably won't engage with any more comments.

I saw a post on instagram today where a girl said as a vegan she could never feed her cat a vegan diet, and for me as a person who fostered a lot of cats and is in close contact with veterinarians it was logical. There are proof cats can't thrive on a vegan diet, even if supplemented worh taurine they are far more likely to develop a lot of health problems. But other vegans bashed her in the comments about how she is a bad person for feeding her cat meat.

Ive been doing a lot of research on the vegan lifestyle and let me start by saying that I come to you in a spirit of genuine curiosity, I dont come here to challenge your position I think some of the points are quite good and ive really learned a lot.

My concern is the sustainability of vegan B-12 supplementation.

The current method of production is unsustainable and china controls the lions share of it,

So its subject to supplies being disrupted over trade disputes, war,

Etc.

Each country would have to have a secure sustainable supply or one country could literally make the world malnourished should they decide to cut off supply.

Also the current supply is being used by a very small fraction of people worldwide.

Those following a vegan or plant based diet make up less than 1%.

I do of course realize that many people supplement b12 but the vast majority do not.

Lets just say the whole world goes vegan,

Then the demand increases to support every person on the planet.

Could production of b12 keep up or even be possible?

Ive read some articles that a more sustainable b-12 has recently been made in a laboratory,

So maybe that will be the answer.

Edit:

I feel i need to clarify that i did not come here to challenge your beliefs, Im genuinely curious.

I feel like a bit of an idiot that I didnt do more research on b12 before posting this because some of your points seem so obvious.

I actually think all of society should move closer towards veganism, Im not a hater. I see now that nearly every point that you guys make about animal exploitation is correct.

When I started studying veganism I was completely on the other side and never expected to challenge my own beliefs so much but how can I learn these things and not make some changes to my life?

Thank you all for your replies

There are many different opinions about whether animals should be in the zoo or not. Some people think having animals in the zoo is a good idea because they are able to have access to being treated, protected from the wild, as well as having food and water. Animals being in the zoo also help humans with discovering things we didn't know about them like when you see a black bear you should make noise to scare it away or if there was a brown bear you would stay quiet and calm. Other people think having animals in the zoo is harmful because they aren't living in their natural habitats as well as being mistreated. People also think they're just there for entertainment and it can cause stress for the animals. Would do you think?

Given the option to save a human life over a chicken or cow's life, I'd argue almost all humans would choose the human life. What about a human getting raped over saving a chickens life? Or what about 100 chicken lives? I'd still argue most (even vegans) would choose to save the human from getting raped knowing the psychological trauma it can leave on person. So I'm interested in how vegans value human suffering in relation to farm animal suffering. In my case, I have been vegan in the past but after being culturally, socially, and possibly biologically conditioned my entire life to derive enjoyment from the consumption of animal products, the mental anguish had grown too severe to be able to continue being vegan. So ending the suffering I was experiencing through mental anguish by being vegan, was of greater value than the farm animal's lives and suffering in my experience. Before you ask, I had a properly planned vegan diet, I took all the supplements necessary as well.

Edit: Switching to a vegan diet caused me prolonged gastrointestinal distress, which then affected my mental well being severely. Look up the gut-brain connection. I know this is common when first starting, but it persisted for 3 years. I never had a single solid poop when vegan. I tried eating more fats, more plant based protein, probiotics, etc. but nothing helped. I did do my research and ate what would be considered a very balanced, healthy vegan diet. If you consider this to be a "minor inconvenience" then kudos to you, you are a stronger person than I am.