Is there a way to introduce vegan anarchism without "bias" or "sectarianism"?
So I started the New Anarchist FAQ and wrote the vegan anarchy section it has, which is one of the big things that sets it apart from the old FAQ which fails to cover veganism and other modern currents. When people talk about the new FAQ, non-vegans intervene to criticise the FAQ for its vegan arguments and accuse them of being biased or sectarian.
Example 1:
>The section on veganism is the funniest and most indicative of the authors' ideological blinkers – you can tell they just wanted to write "anarchism necessitates veganism"
Example 2:
>Why does the veganism section begin with such a declaration that "herefore, it is logical for anarchists to adopt diets that do not rely on the exploitation and suffering of other beings." I know you then say that some anarchists still eat meat, but then you rationalize this with they're just not connecting the correct ideas together, they're apathetic or gluttons. You have the section, but your writing is biased; including statements of the opposition doesn't mean the section gives appropriate weight to these conflicting ideas.
Is there a way to present vegan anarchy without "bias" or "sectarianism"? Is something "not written well" if it doesn't present a progressive idea and then add "balance" or "weight" by also presenting a regressive (i.e. carnist) counterpoint?
I ask because we're considering adding an anti-vegan counterpoint to blunt the accusations of sectarianism:
https://raddle.me/f/Anarchy/216177/have-any-thoughts-on-the-new-anarchist-faq/comment/443511