@AAQjr: I agree that using the most cruelty-free ingredients is best. However, if anything that involves harm to other sentient creatures is considered non-vegan (instead of a strictly ingredient based definition), then veganism is unattainable since every ingredient and lifestyle involves some amount of harm to sentient creatures. In other words, if you define veganism as harming other sentient creatures, then it becomes a complex spectrum where no one is truly vegan and no one is truly non-vegan. However, this way of looking at it is more logical.
@misssomer: So are you saying that we should let others continue committing atrocities just because we don't want to make them feel unpleasant? This position of isolationism only works if everyone were ethical, because as soon as people become unethical, isolationism allows them to continue. Slavery would not have been abolished if abolitionists decided not to make it “everyone else's problem”, nor would the Holocaust have ended if people weren't willing to intervene in other people's unethical behavior. I understand how righteous, confrontational vegans can be annoying, but since intervention is necessary to stop injustice, consider how you can use your criticism to offer an alternative way to intervene.