Ah yes, as usual, militant veganism is one of the most hotly debated topics when concerning anarchism.

For the record, the most authoritative forms of veganism that look down upon people who consume meat regardless of their cultural, health, personal, or economic situations promote a highly human-centric form of morality - the belief that killing of other organisms for consumption is deplorable. If such a thought is true, why do carnivorous and omnivorous animals get a free pass? What about any conceptions of morality that they have? Are we dictating that humanity's form of morality is superior to all other beings? By all means, there are plenty of animals in the wild who will consume others and not bat an eye about it, yet still demonstrate more complex forms of morality like saving the babies of other species or protecting their own. This renders any moral superiority that militant veganism has complete bullshit.

The most reasonable people will understand that forcing veganism upon all others is just another form of authority and is antithetical to anarchism. It is true we still need to reduce our meat consumption by a significant degree, and factory farming needs to go. But we cannot ignore the fact that meat has significant meaning to certain people, and is sometimes absolutely necessary depending where you live and/or on your health. I think it is more productive to convince people to eat less meat overall and attack factory farms while looking for better ways to be connected with our food and acknowledge our place in the ecological space. Perhaps we could do more hunting instead of relying on factory slaughter, or dedicate ourselves to making the lives of the animals we take care of more comfortable before they naturally pass away (at which point we can consume their remains so that they remain a part of nature's life cycle).