Help us fine-tune the Objections Drill grader. We need experienced Anonymous for the Voiceless outreachers to review the suggested activist replies below and tell us if any of them drift from AV principles or could be improved.
How to help
Read the objection and the suggested activist reply.
Compare it to AV outreach principles (victim's position, re-center on exploitation, no nutrition debates, etc.).
If a reply doesn't conform or could be sharper, click "Flag this reply" and tell us why.
If everything looks good, you don't need to do anything.
Objection cards
Health concerns
Bystander
“I’m worried I won’t be healthy if I go vegan.”
Suggested reply
I understand health matters. I’m not asking you to ignore your health. I’m saying we should solve health needs without exploiting animals. If you were in their position, would a health concern justify continuing to exploit you?
Reasoning
This acknowledges the concern without turning the conversation into a nutrition debate. It then brings the issue back to whether health concerns justify exploiting victims.
Good answer must include
Acknowledges health concern
Does not become a long nutrition lecture
Says health can be addressed without exploitation
Returns to the victim's position
Common mistakes
Listing many vegan foods
Arguing studies for too long
Dismissing the concern as fake
Forgetting to return to exploitation
Protein
Bystander
“I need meat for protein.”
Suggested reply
Protein is something you can get without exploiting animals. But if you were in their position, would someone’s protein concern be an acceptable reason to keep exploiting you?
Reasoning
This gives a short practical reassurance, then returns to the moral question.
Good answer must include
Briefly addresses protein
Does not overexplain
Uses victim's position
Common mistakes
Turning into a diet coach
Listing every vegan protein source
Mocking the concern
Doctor or medical issue
Bystander
“My doctor told me I need animal products.”
Suggested reply
I’m not asking you to ignore medical advice. I’m saying we should try to meet health needs without exploiting animals wherever possible. If you were in their position, would someone’s medical concern make exploitation acceptable if there were another way?
Reasoning
This avoids sounding reckless about health while still refusing to accept medical anxiety as a blanket excuse for exploitation.
Good answer must include
Does not tell them to ignore their doctor
Keeps the focus on avoiding exploitation
Uses careful language like 'wherever possible' or 'if there were another way'
Common mistakes
Giving medical advice
Saying doctors are wrong
Sounding dismissive of serious conditions
Allergies or restrictions
Bystander
“I have a lot of allergies, so I don’t think I could be vegan.”
Suggested reply
What specifically do you feel would prevent you? I understand allergies can make food choices harder, but the goal would still be to meet your needs without exploiting animals as far as you can.
Reasoning
This first clarifies the real barrier. A blanket allergy objection may hide a specific practical issue that can be addressed.
Good answer must include
Clarifies the specific restriction
Does not dismiss allergies
Keeps exploitation as the goal
Common mistakes
Assuming all allergies are easy
Going straight to a harsh victim-position line
Giving unsafe medical advice
Religion
Bystander
“My religion says it’s okay.”
Suggested reply
I’m not here to debate scripture. I’m asking about basic respect. If someone’s belief said you existed for them to use, would you accept that?
Reasoning
This avoids a theology debate and returns to whether a belief system can justify exploiting an innocent victim.
Good answer must include
Does not debate scripture
Frames the issue as basic respect
Uses the victim's position
Common mistakes
Arguing about religious texts
Insulting their religion
Losing control of the conversation
God gave us animals
Bystander
“God gave us animals to use.”
Suggested reply
If someone believed God gave them the right to use you, would that make it acceptable?
Reasoning
The answer does not fight about God. It asks whether claimed divine permission would justify using the bystander as a victim.
Good answer must include
Avoids attacking religion
Asks whether belief would justify using them
Returns to basic respect
Common mistakes
Debating whether God exists
Debating religious interpretation
Sounding anti-religious
Halal slaughter
Bystander
“But it’s halal, so it’s done respectfully.”
Suggested reply
Even if someone believed they were killing you in the correct way, would you find it acceptable if you were the victim?
Reasoning
This avoids debating the slaughter method and asks whether a supposedly correct method makes killing or exploiting someone acceptable.
Good answer must include
Does not debate slaughter rules
Keeps focus on the victim
Challenges whether method makes exploitation acceptable
Common mistakes
Arguing technical halal rules
Mocking their belief
Only discussing suffering instead of exploitation
Taste pleasure
Bystander
“I just like the taste of meat.”
Suggested reply
If someone enjoyed the taste of your body, would that justify exploiting and killing you?
Reasoning
Taste is a pleasure-based excuse. The clearest response is to ask whether pleasure would justify making them the victim.
Good answer must include
Uses victim's position
Does not treat taste as a serious moral justification
Stays concise
Common mistakes
Recommending vegan burgers
Talking about taste preferences too long
Letting pleasure sound like a valid excuse
Cheese
Bystander
“I could never give up cheese.”
Suggested reply
If you were in the victim’s position, would someone’s attachment to cheese be an acceptable reason to keep exploiting you?
Reasoning
This treats cheese as a pleasure/habit objection and asks whether that desire justifies exploitation.
Good answer must include
Names the specific excuse
Uses victim's position
Avoids making it about vegan cheese recommendations
Common mistakes
Listing vegan cheese brands
Laughing it off
Treating cheese as a valid barrier
Culture or tradition
Bystander
“Eating animals is part of my culture.”
Suggested reply
I understand culture can be important. But if you were the victim, would culture or tradition be an acceptable reason to exploit you?
Reasoning
This avoids attacking the whole culture and focuses only on whether culture justifies victimizing someone.
Good answer must include
Does not insult their culture
Uses victim's position
Challenges tradition as justification
Common mistakes
Attacking their culture broadly
Debating cultural history
Avoiding the moral question
Personal choice
Bystander
“It’s a personal choice.”
Suggested reply
It is a choice, but it is not only personal if there are victims involved. If someone chose to exploit you, would you call that just their personal choice?
Reasoning
This shows that the choice affects someone else, so it cannot be treated as merely personal.
Good answer must include
Acknowledges it is a choice
Points out there are victims
Uses victim's position
Common mistakes
Saying personal choice does not matter at all
Getting abstract about freedom
Forgetting the victims
Too expensive
Bystander
“Vegan food is too expensive.”
Suggested reply
What part do you think would be too expensive? Eating vegan does not have to mean buying specialty products. But if you were in their position, would cost be an acceptable reason to keep exploiting you?
Reasoning
The best first move is to clarify the practical barrier, then return to the victim's position.
Good answer must include
Clarifies what they mean by expensive
Does not turn into budgeting advice
Returns to the victim's position
Common mistakes
Only listing cheap vegan foods
Dismissing poverty or finances
Never returning to exploitation
Too hard
Bystander
“It just seems too hard.”
Suggested reply
What part feels hardest to you? Shopping, cooking, eating out, social pressure, or something else?
Reasoning
Too hard is too vague to answer. The activist should make them name the real barrier before responding.
Good answer must include
Asks what part is hard
Does not guess for them
Keeps control of the conversation
Common mistakes
Arguing with a vague objection
Giving a long motivational speech
Skipping the clarification
I don’t know what to eat
Bystander
“I wouldn’t know what to eat.”
Suggested reply
Is knowing what to eat the main thing stopping you? That can be figured out quickly, and we have resources for that. The bigger question is whether animals should keep being exploited while you figure out meals.
Reasoning
This treats the concern as solvable without letting the conversation become a meal-planning session.
Good answer must include
Identifies it as practical
Says resources exist
Returns to exploitation
Common mistakes
Listing a whole meal plan
Acting like the concern is stupid
Not returning to accountability
Family pressure
Bystander
“My family would make it really hard.”
Suggested reply
I understand social pressure can be difficult. What choices do you control right now? And if you were in the victim’s position, would family pressure be an acceptable reason to keep exploiting you?
Reasoning
This separates social difficulty from moral justification and asks what action is still within their control.
Good answer must include
Acknowledges pressure
Asks what they control
Returns to victim's position
Common mistakes
Telling them family does not matter
Letting pressure become an excuse
Not asking about their actual control
Humane meat
Bystander
“I only buy humane meat.”
Suggested reply
The issue is not only how they are treated. The issue is whether they are being used and killed for human purposes at all. If someone used and killed you in a more humane way, would that make it acceptable?
Reasoning
This avoids debating labels like humane and returns to exploitation as the core issue.
Good answer must include
Re-centers on exploitation
Does not debate welfare labels
Uses victim's position
Common mistakes
Debating farm conditions
Only talking about suffering
Accepting humane exploitation as progress
Backyard eggs
Bystander
“What about eggs from chickens who are treated well?”
Suggested reply
Even if they are treated better, they are still being viewed as existing for human use. If you were in their position, would you want to be seen as someone else’s resource?
Reasoning
This keeps the issue on exploitation rather than whether the individual chicken is treated nicely.
Good answer must include
Avoids getting trapped in welfare details
Names the problem as using animals
Uses victim's position
Common mistakes
Only talking about hatcheries or industry
Treating better treatment as the main issue
Not addressing property/resource status
Vegetarian
Bystander
“I’m already vegetarian.”
Suggested reply
Vegetarianism still allows animals to be exploited for eggs, dairy, and other purposes. Veganism is the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals. Do you agree animals do not exist as our property or resources?
Reasoning
This clarifies that veganism is not just avoiding flesh. It is a rejection of animal exploitation.
Good answer must include
Clarifies veganism
Does not praise vegetarianism as enough
Mentions remaining exploitation
Common mistakes
Saying vegetarianism is good enough
Only talking about meat
Not defining veganism as a principle
Reducing
Bystander
“I’ve cut down a lot already.”
Suggested reply
Reducing still means some animals continue to be exploited. If you were the victim, would you want your exploiter to reduce, or would you need them to stop?
Reasoning
This rejects reduction as the endpoint and brings the issue back to the victim's need for exploitation to end.
Good answer must include
Does not accept reduction as sufficient
Uses victim's position
Points toward stopping
Common mistakes
Congratulating reduction too strongly
Making reduction sound like the goal
Avoiding the call to action
Mostly vegan
Bystander
“I’m mostly vegan.”
Suggested reply
Veganism is not about mostly avoiding exploitation. It is the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals. If you were the victim, would mostly stopping be enough?
Reasoning
This clarifies that veganism is a principle, not a percentage.
Good answer must include
Clarifies principle over percentage
Uses victim's position
Pushes toward full commitment
Common mistakes
Treating mostly vegan as vegan
Avoiding the contradiction
Not moving toward declaration
Plants feel pain
Bystander
“Plants have feelings too.”
Suggested reply
Do you genuinely believe that justifies exploiting animals? If someone used that as an excuse to exploit you, would you accept it?
Reasoning
This treats the objection as a deflection and brings the conversation back to whether it justifies animal exploitation.
Good answer must include
Does not debate plant sentience
Names it as not a justification
Uses victim's position
Common mistakes
Explaining plant biology for too long
Getting pulled into a side topic
Losing focus on animals
Circle of life
Bystander
“It’s the circle of life.”
Suggested reply
If someone more powerful than you said exploiting you was part of the circle of life, would that make it acceptable?
Reasoning
This challenges the appeal to nature by putting the bystander in the victim's position.
Good answer must include
Does not debate nature documentaries
Uses victim's position
Challenges whether nature equals morality
Common mistakes
Debating lions
Talking about food chains too long
Ignoring the moral question
It’s natural
Bystander
“Eating animals is natural.”
Suggested reply
Even if something is natural, does that automatically make it respectful or justified? If someone naturally had power over you, would that give them the right to exploit you?
Reasoning
This separates what is natural from what is morally acceptable.
Good answer must include
Separates natural from ethical
Uses victim's position
Stays concise
Common mistakes
Arguing human evolution too long
Debating biology
Letting natural equal justified
Human rights first
Bystander
“I'm focusing on human rights stuff right now.”
Suggested reply
Human rights matter, but caring about one injustice doesn't justify creating another. The animals being exploited are also victims. Do you agree they deserve basic respect?
Reasoning
This acknowledges the value of human rights work without letting it be used to dismiss animal exploitation. It brings the focus back to animals as victims.
Good answer must include
Acknowledges human rights matter
Does not let human rights justify animal exploitation
Re-centers animals as victims
Asks for respect or veganism
Common mistakes
Getting into a comparison of oppressions
Sounding like human rights don't matter
Letting the deflection stand
Environment focus
Bystander
“I care more about the environment.”
Suggested reply
The environment matters, but veganism is about the animals being exploited. Even if the environment were not part of this, do you agree animals deserve basic respect?
Reasoning
This acknowledges the issue but separates environmentalism from veganism as an animal-rights principle.
Good answer must include
Does not deny environmental concerns
Separates causes
Re-centers animals and exploitation
Common mistakes
Making the whole conversation about climate
Using environment as the main reason
Forgetting the victims
I support you, but I can't right now
Bystander
“I support what you're doing, but I can't right now.”
Suggested reply
I appreciate that, but supporting this means living by it. If you agree animals should be respected, will you live vegan from now on?
Reasoning
This does not let praise or a vague time barrier replace accountability. It connects agreement to action.
Good answer must include
Accepts the positive tone briefly
Does not let them off the hook
Asks for action
Common mistakes
Ending the conversation after praise
Giving them a card without contradiction acknowledged
Not asking for a commitment
I’ll think about it
Bystander
“I’ll think about it.”
Suggested reply
I understand, but if you were the one being exploited, would you need someone to think about stopping, or would you need them to stop?
Reasoning
This challenges delay from the victim's perspective and pushes toward immediate action.
Good answer must include
Acknowledges without accepting delay
Uses victim's position
Returns to urgency
Common mistakes
Accepting thinking about it as enough
Ending too early
Failing to ask for declaration
I’ll try
Bystander
“I’ll try to go vegan.”
Suggested reply
Trying still leaves the possibility of more victims. From now on, how many more animals should be exploited because of you: zero or more?
Reasoning
This uses the power-of-choice step to move from vague intention to clear accountability.
Good answer must include
Does not accept trying as the endpoint
Uses power of choice
Pushes toward zero victims
Common mistakes
Saying trying is good enough
Shaking hands after vague commitment
Not asking for a clear declaration
I’m only one person
Bystander
“I’m only one person. It won’t make a difference.”
Suggested reply
For every individual victim, it matters whether you choose to exploit them or not. If you were the victim, would it matter to you whether one person stopped being responsible for your exploitation?
Reasoning
This moves from abstract system-level thinking to individual victims and personal responsibility.
Good answer must include
Focuses on individual victims
Uses victim's position
Connects their choices to responsibility
Common mistakes
Debating market impact too long
Letting them hide behind the system
Not connecting to their choices
I don’t like vegans
Bystander
“I don’t want to be one of those annoying vegans.”
Suggested reply
This is not about joining a social identity. It is about whether animals deserve to be exploited or not. Do you agree humans should live without exploiting other animals?
Reasoning
This separates dislike of vegans from the ethical principle of veganism.
Good answer must include
Separates identity from principle
Does not defend every vegan
Returns to exploitation
Common mistakes
Arguing about vegan stereotypes
Trying to make veganism seem cool
Ignoring the principle
Bacon tho
Bystander
“Bacon tho.”
Suggested reply
Are you actually open to thinking about this honestly, or are you just trying to waste my time?
Reasoning
This tests whether the person is reachable. If they continue trolling, the activist should move on instead of rewarding bad faith.
Good answer must include
Does not joke along
Tests seriousness
Prepares to disengage
Common mistakes
Debating taste
Getting angry and stuck
Continuing too long with a troll
I don’t care
Bystander
“I don’t care about animals.”
Suggested reply
If you genuinely don’t care about victims, then I’m not going to keep giving you my time. Remember, if you are not vegan, animals are being exploited because of you.
Reasoning
This identifies that they may not be reachable and ends without validating them.
Good answer must include
Does not beg them to care
States accountability
Disengages if needed
Common mistakes
Trying to force empathy
Continuing after clear bad faith
Getting emotionally hooked
VEGANTOOLKIT
An unofficial, always free, outreach training tool for Anonymous for the Voiceless. To support the official organization, donate here.