An Aim Of An Argument Should Be

I Certainly Believe That We Have A Moral Obligation To Care For The Dogs, Cats, And Other Nonhumans Whose Existence We Have Caused Or Facilitated As Part Of The Institution Of 'pet' Ownership. But I Maintain That We Ought To Abolish The Institution And Stop Causing Or Facilitating The Existence Of More 'companion' Animals.

If You Think That Being Vegan Is Difficult, Imagine How Difficult It Is For Animals That You Are Not Vegan.

You Cannot Live A Nonviolent Life As Long As You Are Consuming Violence. Please Consider Going Vegan.

They Are Nonhuman Persons. They Are Not Food. If Animals Matter Morally At All, There Is One And Only One Rational Response: Go Vegan. Everything Else Is Just Participation In Animal Exploitation.

I Find It Very Annoying That So Many Animal Advocates Talk About The Difficulty Of Being Vegan. Many Animal Advocates Are Inclined To Make The Issue Their Suffering And Not The Animals' Suffering, And I Suppose That Accounts For Part Of The Reason That Veganism Is Portrayed As Such A "sacrifice." And Many Animal Advocates Are Not Vegans, Or Are "flexible Vegans," Which Means That They Do Not Observe Veganism At All Or Not Consistently, And Emphasizing The Supposed Difficulty Of Veganism Is Part Of Justifying Their Own Behavior.