I SWEAR, all carnists go through the same argument structure. First they insult vegans in the name of "personal choice." Vegan points out the benefits of veganism. Carnist responds with some statistic about quinoa fields, insults the person. Vegan debunks the argument, adds other sources. Carnists mentions a random person with an illness that can't go vegan. Vegan points out not everyone has to go full vegan. Carnist ignores this, repeats step 1 and blocks the vegan. (My experience every time).
I honestly think there are only about twelve anti-vegan arguments, and they all fall into more or less the same structure, with a step added or taken away here and there. I find that 90% of the time it goes something like this:
1) Try to establish that animal products are necessary.
2) When shown data demonstrating that animal products aren’t necessary for most people, use anecdotes of people who can’t go vegan or did and got sick.
3) Admit it’s a choice for most then try to justify that choice (canines, protein, nature, land/water use, ancestors, humane animal products etc.)
4) When justifications fail, try to show that vegans are also bad (plants feel pain, soy, quinoa, crop pickers, no ethical consumption under capitalism etc.)
5) When this is shown to be hypocritical or irrelevant, return to earlier point, sidetrack, claim the vegan isn’t listening/isn’t answering their points, call vegan “problematic,” block, delete post or declare it’s “pointless” and stop replying.
It gets unbelievably boring dealing with the same lines day in and day out running a blog like this, but at the same time, you at least know you’ll always be able to shut it down, because you’ll have dealt with the exact same argument in some form dozens of times. You may be interested in my masterpost on the most common variations of them.