The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws.

In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right about the definition but fore sure that was correlated: my garden _is_ a (big) cage/prison/limit. However the way he said it triggered my defence mode[0] and it took me months to process the message.

Consider also cobalt associated with slavery. From the view of biologist and most vegans, humans are animals and then cobalt consumption problematic (it’s used in many tech, not just smartphones).

I also occasionally wash my hand in public places with probably animal sourced soap and yes it’s for convenience as for cobalt and my pets.

_Anyone_ allow themselves to slightly bend their ethics to not becoming mad. From the "only-good-meat" eater that don’t restrain for the (probably industrial) delicatessen slice during a wedding cocktail. To the vegan that use electronic devices or feed his cat with animal products.

I’m a rational guy and hate seing those irrational behaviors everywhere including myself, but pointing others wrongness is often inefficient to pass a message, if not counter productive.

[0] Here’s a masterpiece if you don’t know it yet: https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive...

All those assertions said lol, I’m quite bad at communicating and the best behavior I found is to never ever engage myself a conversation about veganism or ethics, I just wait for questions and respond with neutral and concise terms. Often the interlocutor gets curious and ask more details and I believe there’s more chance he update his opinion by himself than me teaching him.