"Vegans" aren't who really want burgers. Newbie vegans who have been indoctrinated by a lifetime burger culture.

Burgers aren't a huge deal in Asia, for example.

> Burgers aren't a huge deal in Asia, for example.

Asia is a big place, but for example in China pretty much everything has a small amount of pork as a minor ingredient/seasoning; "vegan" dishes are the pitiable food of the poor; and the word for household is literally a roof with a pig underneath it

Some vegans don't want burgers, but some vegans just want an animal-free version of food experiences already familiar to them.

Why? What you claim is familiar is "bad" right?

The only "bad" burger to the op is the traditional definition that includes meat. Burger as a concept of two-breads, some toppings, and a patty (arguibly a melt?) is fine.

Vegans object to eating animal products, not to eating things that happen to resemble animal products.

You just repeated yourself. So I ask again why when you claim that this is something you think is bad. By conception, you want something that is not what you claim to desire. It is engineered and the opposite of natural by design.

Where do they claim that they think it is bad?

First, I'm not a vegan. Second, vegans avoid animal products because they come from animals. Various imitation and substitute products do not come from animals and so are not avoided.

Or, tl;dr: You do realize soy milk is very popular among vegans, right?

Apologies, I failed to communicate my point correctly.

What I am trying to say is that vegans are trying to engineer a product. So this product the opposite of natural, so what is with the claims of health?

I don't know why I used the word "bad"

I find it frustrating as a person who only eats meat and vegetables to have to tolerate vegans who claim health benefits. Most vegans I've met are fat.

I'm no newbie vegan and I still looooove vegan burgers. I'm "indoctrinated" only insofar that everyone is "indoctrinated" by the gastronomic culture of their upbringing.

I think you just claimed that you are a follower and easier influenced.

What does this even mean? Because I like burgers? What?

I strongly suspect you have never been to Japan. Massive burger culture here.

There's a humburger culture but people isn't very depended so I think vegans would easily give up hamburgers.

What I want the most is a readily available vegan food on every corner. For instance, it is surprisingly difficult to buy anything vegan on a highway stop/petrol station where I am from. Vegan burger from MCD will mean a lot.

Hmm, then I guess that leads to my next question: what is a burger? Is a turkey burger a burger? Is a burger ground meat? Is it simply ground protein (making a vegan burger a burger)?

Got to love people who don't know how to communicate. I imagine these are the type of people getting jobs.

But they do want to kill plants, which can feel pain and hear themselves being eaten [1]

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group...

Well, meat requires more plants to “suffer” than eating the plants directly. So if this was your line if reasoning, you would be a staunch vegan. The majority of crops are grown to feed livestock.

People usually make your argument in bad faith because even when corrected you never had a moral interest in “minimizing plant suffering” to begin with. You just thought you had a good gotcha.

> So if this was your line if reasoning, you would be a staunch vegan.

Not really. A person who eats both doesn't typically agonize over the morality of eating animals or plants like many vegans do. It's pointing out the fallacy of advocating veganism on the basis of animal suffering.

That of course is only one argument for veganism among many much stronger ones, but it doesn't make it a bad argument to make.