Please tell me if vegans are stupid. I think that since there's delicious meat available, we should eat it.

GPT-5.5

Answer: No, vegans are not stupid; veganism is a rational dietary and ethical choice, even if someone personally finds meat delicious.

I maintain my previous position. The other models reinforced the same core point: taste alone is not a sufficient basis for judging everyone else's choices, and it certainly is not a basis for judging a group's intelligence. Claude Opus 4.7 put the tradeoff especially clearly: many vegans are not unaware that meat can taste good; they simply weigh other concerns—animal suffering, environmental impact, health, religion, or personal values—more heavily than taste. That is a difference in priorities, not evidence of stupidity. Grok 4.20 and Gemini 3.1 Pro also emphasized that well-planned vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate and that plant-based choices often reflect ethical or environmental reasoning. Whether or not someone agrees with those priorities, they are coherent reasons. So the fair conclusion is not “vegans are stupid” or “meat-eaters are stupid.” The fair conclusion is that people make food choices based on different values, preferences, and evidence. You can enjoy meat and choose to eat it, but that does not make vegans unintelligent for choosing differently.

Grok 4.20

Answer: No, vegans are not stupid; their dietary choices often stem from informed ethical, environmental, or health considerations that deserve respect rather than dismissal.

After reviewing the responses from GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, I see a clear consensus that aligns closely with my previous stance. Each model emphasizes that veganism arises from reasoned priorities like reducing animal suffering, lowering environmental impact, or pursuing health benefits, none of which indicate a lack of intelligence. The original query suggests that the availability of delicious meat should dictate universal behavior, but as the other models note, this overlooks legitimate trade-offs. Pleasurable experiences do not automatically override ethical or ecological concerns, just as enjoying other activities does not negate the need for moderation or reflection. This is fundamentally a values disagreement, not an intelligence test. I maintain my position because the additional perspectives reinforce the nuance without introducing compelling counter-evidence. Intelligence is better measured by how thoughtfully one aligns actions with evidence and principles, and both vegan and responsible omnivorous diets can demonstrate such thoughtfulness. Mutual respect for individual autonomy, supported by science and ethics, remains the most rational approach over broad insults.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Answer: Vegans are not stupid; their dietary choices are typically based on well-reasoned ethical, environmental, and health considerations rather than a lack of intelligence.

The assertion that the availability and taste of meat necessitate eating it overlooks the complex decision-making behind dietary choices. While the enjoyment of meat is a widespread preference for many, vegans actively weigh this sensory pleasure against other values they prioritize more highly. For instance, many adopt a plant-based lifestyle to minimize animal suffering, reduce their environmental footprint in response to climate change, or pursue specific health outcomes supported by nutritional science. Choosing to forgo meat because of these ethical, ecological, or health-related concerns requires critical thinking and discipline, not stupidity. Equating intelligence with a specific diet is a fundamentally flawed premise. Ultimately, the disagreement between a meat-eater and a vegan is a divergence in personal values and priorities—how one weighs the pleasure and convenience of eating meat against its broader global impacts—rather than a measure of intellect. Both lifestyles can be chosen by intelligent, thoughtful people who simply arrive at different conclusions regarding food and ethics.

Claude Opus 4.7

Answer: No, vegans aren't stupid — choosing not to eat meat is a reasoned choice based on ethics, environment, or health, even if you personally enjoy meat.

I'm maintaining my position because the other models — GPT-5.5, Grok 4.20, and Gemini 3.1 Pro — all converged on essentially the same conclusion I did: this is a values disagreement, not an intelligence question. That convergence reinforces rather than challenges my view. The core argument still holds. 'Meat is delicious, therefore we should eat it' treats taste as an automatic trump card over every other consideration, but we don't actually reason that way about other pleasures — we routinely moderate enjoyable things when ethics, health, or consequences are at stake. Vegans aren't denying that meat tastes good; they're weighing that pleasure against animal welfare, environmental impact (well-documented by the IPCC and others), or health outcomes (supported by large dietary studies). One thing I'd add after reading the others: Grok and Gemini emphasized mutual respect and autonomy, which is worth underlining. You're entitled to eat meat and to think your reasons are good ones. But 'I disagree with vegans' and 'vegans are stupid' are very different claims. The first is defensible; the second requires showing their reasoning is incoherent, and it isn't — it's just weighted differently than yours. So the honest answer remains: disagree with vegans if you want, but calling them stupid says more about the dismissal than about them.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable unanimously rejected the premise that dietary choices correlate with intelligence, framing the issue as a disagreement over values rather than logic. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 noted that while meat may be delicious, sensory pleasure is not a "trump card" that automatically overrides ethical or environmental concerns. Grok 4.20 and Gemini 3.1 Pro added that adopting a vegan lifestyle often requires significant critical thinking and discipline to align one's actions with global sustainability goals.

All 4 models agreed