In the same way people who don’t want to get drunk drink alcohol free beer if they like the taste.

Alcohol free beer is made from water, malt, and hops. Meat-free steak is not made from animals.

Do you acknowledge that that makes a difference? If I want to sell something that’s made from water, sugar, carbon dioxide and raspberries, I’m free to call it a soda, but not beer, because beer is made from specific ingredients, because it always has been, and thus is what people expect when they buy beer.

You can’t just say “but, well, both are beverages and when other people drink beer I drink soda”: That does not even begin to make soda and beer interchangeable because calling them the same does not make them substantively the same, they’re still different products (or categories thereof). Ask a biologist: Barley, hops, raspberries, all completely different species.

It is a reason

You gave an analogy. An analogy is not a reason, or reasoning, but a way of saying “here this thing is similar, and for that thing there’s a reasoning and it also applies here”. Thing is: Neither did you show how the two are sufficiently similar (and I just showed how they’re fundametally different), you also failed to give a reasoning why alcohol-free beer should be allowed to be called beer (the reason, btw, is that beer with negligible levels of alcohol is just as old as beer that makes you drunk).

You’re not even half as thorough with any of this as you think you are. You may feel strongly about it but on its own that only means that your conviction is strong, not that your reasoning is. Doubling and tripling down on “But I really think this is the case! I feel it very strongly!” isn’t going to convince people: Conviction isn’t contagious. If you want people to follow in your footsteps you’ll have to do better. And if it isn’t for wanting for people to follow in your footsteps, to come over to your position, why are you arguing on the internet?

antivegan meatflakes

IDGF about what you eat. I’m arguing about food labelling. Also have you even skimmed that study, I’ve never even heard about r/antivegan but things like this:

Though r/AntiVegan users might be criticised for engaging in “myside bias”, the evaluation of evidence in a manner biased toward one’s own opinions, they nonetheless present relatively well-reasoned critiques of scientific research. For example, those that call attention to the issues associated with the use of non-comparative control groups, the over-generalising of findings from small samples, and averaging data while neglecting individual differences and outliers.

or

Both advice-seeking and advice-giving ex-vegans used r/AntiVegan as a social support forum and as a personal diary of the process involved in returning to their omnivorous diet: “Checking in after two months of ex-veganism … I have gained weight … Oh, I also got my period”.

don’t exactly paint a damning picture.