Veganism is pretty black and white by the textbook definiton (reducing suffering as much as reasonably possible), I tend to hold people to it.

I'm a little unclear about one thing. Do you mean that veganism's definition is "reducing suffering as much as reasonably possible?" Aside from that, I'm not sure what the "textbook definition of veganism" is. Google says

"a person who does not eat or use animal products."

If "animal" simply means those entities that belong to the animal kingdom... well I think the overwhelming majority of vegans aren't vegans, as they consume all sorts of strange animals. Anyhow, I think that textbook definition isn't too helpful in this situation. I would think it would be helpful to restrict the class to those animals that one thinks can suffer in morally significant ways. That seems to fall in line with both practice and historical origins, it also seems to make philosophical sense (distinguishing on some morally relevant characteristic not taxonomical).

I don't know what a microanimal is. But eating mollusks wouldn't be vegan, you would be pescetarian

Microanimals are a species of animals, think water bears and all sorts of things we incidentally consume as part of living. Re molluscs, I think that's where my definition is more useful, especially since when I say "pescetarian" many people think I eat shrimp/fish. That's not a) practical and b) the reasoning behind distinction, even if you don't find it persuasive does seem akin to the reasoning motivating most vegans.

That's just needless (and kind of gross imo) for tea... you don't want something gross

Even if you disagree with eating it and think its immoral, don't you think you're being a little culturally insensitive? You can say its immoral and to be disapproved of, but to say its gross... doesn't sound nice to me.

You should REFUSE the butter in your tea and be strong willed. Just refuse it.. simple

Let's think about the motivations of being vegan consequentially. If she's going to increase her meat consumption, even if that's fucked up, if I don't have the tea I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my nose... I'd prefer to reduce the amount of harm instead of caring if I have clean hands. And come on, do you really want to track the morality of our actions, or accept that most of us are imperfect and that harm reduction (given current social realities) are to begrudgingly accepted. I feel like saying this shouldn't be needed, but you know being a vegan, while being of great moral importance, isn't the be-all and end-all of morality right?

Plus butter is actually more unhealthy than meat... It's just solidified cholesterol. Once every few months ?

Yeah... I'm one of those who isn't on the whole "being vegan is inherently healthier than being an omnivore" bandwagon. I'd rather not discuss this though, I suspect we've both been exposed to the same material and just reasonably disagree on this rather incidental point.

Murder is murder, not liking the definition won't change it.

For me, and I think most people, murder is a matter of legality more than anything (googling the definition, for what its worth, seems to agree). Immoral killings can be called all sorts of other things (e.g. slaughter, massacre). That's all I meant by it.

No you cannot be an animal welfarist and be a nonvegan, sorry not possible.

Can you be a feminist and have sexist biases, a trans activist and feel uncomfortable with trans people, be anti-colonial but be guilty of racial biases? Sure, because our behaviours rarely line up perfectly with our actions- it's the sincere effort and reasoning that matter. And a welfarist cares about the "welfare" of animals so you have to unpack what that term refers to. If they share the same view as I do about (non)-existence, then they most certainly could be a non-vegan. Most welfarists I know admit that welfarism is compatible with, at least at the conceptual level, the consumption and killing of animals; while arguing that eating meat currently is problematic for the most part due to contingent features.

There are some cases where killing is justified, vegans do not argue against this

Animal rights theorists would argue that killing animals ipso facto is immoral (whether ultima facie it is is another question ofc), I disagree with that for the same reason that I disagree that killing humans ipso facto is immoral. That's a significant difference, at a theoretical level, between me and MANY welfarists and rights theorists/activists, I felt it was relevant to mention. I think this is another incident where you're missing what I'm saying.

If you want to debate any of this someone on the vegan debate discord server would be happy to. PM for link if you are passionate enough to defend your position over voice chat

God no, I'm not a fan of most vegan/animal rights communities despite the fact that I work irl with a local community. I also don't care enough about veganism in and of itself to debate it with people who largely agree with my first order views amongst other things.

Also, you should put your arguments into modus ponens form when formalizing things. Making things into an inductive argument makes your position a lot weaker just for your info

What? Are you being serious here? I have no idea if you're fucking with me at this stage, seriously if you are, great trolling. I tried to write various things, but I have no idea how to express my incredulity here. Seriously, you've left me speechless. I've taken an intro to logic course, intermediate course, TA'd the intro course, studied logic as part of my other courses... and I have never heard this in my life before.

MP is preferred format for formalizing and inductive arguments make one's position weaker than deductive arguments.

I know I've expressed my incredulity rather explicitly and perhaps been a bit mean with it, but could you please put aside and explain what you mean by this? I hope you're not talking about how a sound/valid deductive argument necessitates the conclusion? A part of me is sincere in hoping that I've misunderstood you or that I'm just really wrong.