I am sorry, I draw the line where there is violence

No, you think you draw the line where there is violence, but it’s an illusion. A very dangerous illusion that holds within it a very violent point of view.

First of all in this world there is no such thing as nonviolent approach. Nonviolent actions are maybe not violent towards animal abusers, but failing to stop the abusers the "nonviolent" approach is violent towards the abused animals.
If the only way to save someone from a life of constant misery and pain is to kill the one who is responsible for that misery, and you decide not to do it because you are against violence and murder, then you still just judged someone to a life full of violence and a murder.

We know it sounds a little corny and trite but hypothetically, if someday you incidentally see a well known serial killer trying to kill a little child (no one is innocent, but children are closer than most grownups) and you have with you a weapon (it is hypothetical remember), if you decide not to kill the serial killer – you are actually killing the child.
An average meat eater kills more animals during his life time, than any serial killer in history.
An American meat eater is responsible for the abuse and killing of nearly 3,400 animals within his/her lifetime, including 2,460 chickens, 800 fish, 96 turkeys, 32 pigs and sheep, and 12 calves. Refusing to kill him means he is worth the pain and suffering of all of them. Don’t fool yourselves. It’s simple math. If he stays alive – all these animals won't.
If you are not using violence to stop much more violence, you are actually supporting violence.

Like any other action, violence is a bad thing when it increases suffering and a good thing when it reduces suffering. When a meat eater vivisectionist dies it will probably reduce suffering, so it is a good thing. When a vegan animal rights activist dies it will probably increase suffering - therefore a bad thing.

Many activists' red line in their nonviolent approach is self defense. Isn’t that a little selfish to justify hurting someone in the name of self defense but not in the name of defending someone else?
Why a girl that hurts the one who is trying to rape her is doubtlessly right and will even be considered a hero but whom who will hurt poultry farmer or a milkman will be considered as felon? Without getting into the useless question of who suffers more, artificially inseminated cow or a raped woman, there is no doubt that someone who rapes a cow must be stopped.
The question of 'how' is important because the attacker’s suffering should be taken into consideration as well. He is also sensible and his suffering is bad as well. But still this question is secondary to the question - what is the fastest safest way to stop him.

The corny debates regarding the definition of violence arise all the time and the regular argument of the supporters is that harming exploitation equipment is not violence because equipment can’t feel pain and because it is justified since this equipment makes the harm possible. The first argument is of course very weak because the equipment is valuable to people who are hurt when it is damaged and what make this damage justified is the second argument. The fact that the damaged equipment is in fact tools of torture most certainly justifies the harm but it doesn’t make it a nonviolent action.
The thing is that violence is not an absolute bad. Only suffering is. If an action eventually reduces suffering, it is a moral action, regardless of the fact that violence occurred.
Activists call damaging something which is valuable to someone else nonviolent because of the unjustified good reputation nonviolence approach got among activists and also because of the fear of being caught as extreme and violent people. We hope we can change the wrongfully good reputation nonviolence has in this answer, but to the inner logic of the tactical argument we can relate. Our problem with this argument is its narrow scope which leads to inconsistency.

Destroyed equipment can be replaced relatively easy. It is effective because there is a price to the destroyed equipment but the real problem is in the mind of the abusers not in the tools they are using. Even if years of study are being destroyed it is more of a delay than a retraction.
Equipment is only equipment it is not the source of the problem. Most of the damage initiates in the minds of the abusers and still there is so little support in damaging the source of the problem. (Please notice that we don’t question the general effectiveness of breaking to animal exploitation facilities but just the equipment damaging, because it is in the center of the debate of what is violence and because there is no question regarding liberation operations and documenting actions effectiveness).
If the reasons for the denunciation are tactical than it is not relevant in the Only One Solution idea since there are no long range repercussions to consider. In the case of harming a vivisector there are repercussion on the movement and on public opinion so there is a reasonable reason to oppose such actions however in our option there won’t be any public so there are no long term effects, no tactics to consider. So how come the same argument that justifies harming something quit negligible as equipment is not valid in case of total annihilation which deals with the roots of the problem?

It is true that hurting someone by damaging things which are valuable to him can’t be compared with killing him, but mind that damaging some torture equipment can also not be compared with killing a vivisector in the sense of the chance to stop the relevant experiment.
And if you think that for every dead vivisector there will be another one ready to take his place we totally agree and that’s why we totally oppose killing individual animal abusers.

There are two important points that we feel it is crucial to explain. One is that on a practical level in the conventional movement, violence toward abusers isn’t necessarily effective in preventing suffering (probably the other way around). And two we are not suggesting killing non-vegan humans sporadically as part of our solution in no way.
That won't help. There are too many of them and too little of us.
And if we are on the matter and although in this point it's supposed to be pointing the obvious, we are not after revenge either. The idea is to find the fastest, easiest, simplest and with as little suffering as possible method to annihilate the human race and all the other sentient creatures. It is not anger. Not rage. But a rational solution to a very sad world.

Anyway the serial killer, the average American meat eater and the vivisector are extremely narrow examples, the reality goes much further than this and it is much more complicated.
The nonviolent approach is basically oxymoronic.
How can a nonviolent approach exist in a world based on violence? And we are not talking about news violence and not even about industrial exploitation of animals but about the inherent violence derivative from consuming energy.
How the nonviolent advocators are planning to absorb energy? Out of the nothing?
It is not possible for any creature to live on this planet without hurting someone else and this ambition is particularly absurd when it comes to humans who their footprint is with no comparison to any other creature, even vegans with very high environmental awareness.

It starts with land clearing which vegan credulously relate to cattle grazing only but deforestation is in fact also widely and massively done for many crops that most vegans consume on a daily basis like cotton and sugar (most of the vegan cloths are made of cotton and most of the processed food contains sugar), soy oil which is the most widely produced edible oil and palm oil which is the second most widely produced edible oil and is very important component in soaps and washing powders.
And that’s a very partial list. Avoiding any product that got any connection to deforestation is almost impossible.

Like deforestation, water use is also treated as another harm only non-vegans are responsible for, as if crops don't put a huge strain on water resources as well.
When you show the famous tables that compare the water use of producing one kilo of rice, soy and potatoes with chickens, pigs and cows meat, you show how more harmful they are not that vegan food is waterless. The fact that animal products consume much more water than vegan products makes them more violent than vegan products but it doesn’t make the vegan ones cruelty free.
And it is not only the measure it is the concept, the obvious control over the reasonably accessible fresh water, while other creatures are dried. It also deprives nonhumans of food and cover as vegetation is also severely affected by the water scarcity.

The "no chemicals used" label on some food packages means (if it is not a lie) no spraying of chemicals on the crops but it doesn’t mean no Herbicides, no Fungicides, no Pesticides and no Insecticides were sprayed on the land that those crops grew on before they were seeded, to make sure nothing besides the specific desirable crop grows on that land.
Isn’t destroying other creatures' food source considered as violent?
When humans do it to each other as a tactic of enfeebling the home front during armed conflicts it is considered a war crime but when the victims are nonhumans it is a moral way to consume energy?!

Although intangible the violence in fertilizers use is unquestionable.
The leakage of fertilizers into the environment results in a nutrient overload of ecosystems. Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is a widespread problem in rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal oceans all over the world. It allows the algae population to increase, as a consequence of their bloom oxygen levels decline and eventually it leads to the suffocation of marine animals.

In the hopeless search for the oxymoronic sufferingless consumption, vegans tend to cling on to organic agriculture, disregarding (or prefer not to find out) the fact that chemicals as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are used for organic products as well, as long as they are natural degradable poisons (called Biopesticides). Do you think the poisoned animals are consoled by the fact that at least their poison will dismantle after it kills them?

So "No pesticides" doesn't mean no disinfestation and it definitely doesn’t mean no violence. Extremely violent pest control methods are commonly used by farmers protecting your crops and they include biological extermination, a violent repertory of traps, gassing, smoke bombing, fumigating and foaming burrows which are the farmers’ main target. Even flammable gases such as propane and oxygen are injected with a hose into the burrows and then ignited.
Flooding or burning fields after harvest are also common "pest control" methods. Many animals, mostly snakes and baby rodents, are simply drowned or burned alive.
Food items that their production includes these methods are marked with the label "no pesticides".

Since us vegans are particularly selective with what we consume, we are highly depended on world trade and global transportation. We won’t buy food from a company that involves with animal experiments, we won’t buy from huge corporations, we check whether the lecithin is animal derived, if the food coloring is not cochineal bugs or any other animal derived additives that some manufacture might use and of course no tinge with some egg, no gelatin to firm, no albumin to stick, no butter to "enrich" and etc. So in many cases vegans ought to buy from a very distant producer.
It is hard as it is even on a personal scale and for omnivores who don’t mind what’s in their food or what is it made of, to rely on local food only. On a general scale and for vegans particularly it is almost impossible. Of course some vegans make many of their food by themselves but can they be sure where the ingredients are from?

There is practically no food product, not even vegan, organic and not genetically modified that doesn’t go through at least two industrial stages, at least two packing stages, at least two transportation stages and much more cultivation stages. All that is without mentioning how much garbage humans throw into other creatures’ habitats, how they systematically pollute the whole planet and how both consistently intensify.
All that is without mentioning the inseparable connection between bees' exploitation and plant based diet and many other violent actions against other creatures which are inevitable while humans absorb energy. Please read vegan suffering for a complete picture.

Everything in life is on the expense of someone else. There is no way to avoid suffering causing. No matter how little we consume, we will cause suffering. There is no sufferingless consumption. By participating in this cruel system, we are simply letting someone else do the violent part for us.

Just as rights are not only totally non-realistic (and such a frail concept in a society where they are seemingly exist for decades and as a firm and significant feature of society but are systematically violated every second everywhere) but also theoretically not relevant, since there is a constant struggle between the world’s creatures over the same resources and the collisions of interests are on an every single second basis, so is the nonviolent approach and for the same reasons.
The constant struggle over the same resources and the fact that for many animals other animals are the resources themselves, is what makes violence inherent and inevitable. As long as there are sentient creatures on this planet, there will be violence, exploitation and suffering.

Don’t think classic predators only, think bottom of the ocean, think about the undergrowth, the underground, think of all the chemical wars between insects which are usually disregarded, think about every battle over every single crevice in our violent world.
Some creatures are based on violence and the rest are based on exploitation or at least indirect harm, but that’s pretty rare. If you think about herbivores consider that many of the species that probably come up to your mind endure the most violent inner-species battles for the right to mate, from beetles to turtles to musk and moose. The male Topis even use paint wars to intimidate their competitors covering their horns and faces with mud.

How do nonviolence advocators plan on convincing the male angonoka tortoises who flip one another over their backs when fighting over mating rights, leaving the loser to be boiled alive in the sun? Using Gandhi’s slogans?
We wouldn’t build on spiders knowing who Martin Luther King is so they probably indifferently continue to trap the nearby insects, butterflies, bees, and whoever is caught in their web, paralyze their muscles and liquefy them while they are still conscious and feel how they slowly melt.

Most rodents don’t eat other animals but do fight each other violently over territories all the time. Adult female marmots for example severely beat their daughters if they got pregnant to cause them a miscarriage if the provisions are not sufficient.
We don’t think you can accept it because it is natural anyway, but if you see it in your own eyes and hear the young female’s screams you won’t be able to say "well, if there is not enough food around what can she do? It is a natural maternal defense…" You will say that this world is a giant hell.

Even what seems as a peaceful sunbathing of lizards is misleading.
Lizards' choice of the pile of boulders they sit on is not random but involves with their rank, as the most dominant male gets the best pile of boulders after fighting over it as the rest are doing to get better piles.

In some cases it is habitat destruction that changes behavior patterns into extremely violent ones like in the case of baboons who were mostly vegetarians and since the forests they lived in were destroyed, have began to develop hunting techniques. They used to eat flowers and berries only but since most of them were gone with the forests which became grassland the baboons started to jump to the water in small groups and hunt flamingos with their hands and teeth.

With toque macaques for example lack of resources is not at all the case.
They maintain very stressful social lives with extremely harsh hierarchy and very prevalence violence outbreaks. Just one customary everyday example, when berries are stashed in the chick bags of a low rank macaque, a higher rank monkey can forcefully open the low rank's mouth and take what she/he wants from there. The low rank try to keep their mouth close but that's as far as their resistance goes because they know if they'll do more than that they will be beaten by the whole group. So they just sit downcastly waiting for the humiliation to end. Think how they feel, the conflict between their desire to keep their food and the fear of the consequence of challenging the strict hierarchy.
And the same goes for mating. Only the alpha male is allowed to mate so he intimidates everyone else and acquire some allies who keep the order. Secret love affairs by young males and females occur anyway because the alpha male some day will be replaced so the females mate with whom they think will be the next alpha male in order to grant their future young with higher rank. These meeting are held under severe intimidation and secrecy.
Like baboons (as can be seen in the article Non-speciesist suffering) all the toque macaques live in constant fear and severe stress. The alpha male fears to lose his mastery, his allies fear him as well as seeking the opportunity to replace him, the females fear for their young looking for the next alpha male while fearing the current one, low ranks fear high ranks and the other way around since things can one day reverse. These are lives under constant terror.

Lives under constant terror are also the fate of one of the most favorite animals - the meerkats. Like the dolphins the meerkats’ adorable appearance disguises extremely violent creatures who live in extremely violent societies.
Besides tearing apart dozens of scorpions a day (they can’t gain extra body fat so they eat very frequently), they are also very territorial and so will savagely fight other groups.
Usually only the alpha pair reserves the right to mate and "normally" they kill any young not their own, to ensure that their offspring has the best chance of survival. When they don’t kill them they violently evict their mothers out of the group. Subordinate meerkats have been seen killing the offspring of more senior members in order to improve their own offspring's position.
In some social structures, usually when the alpha females dies, pregnant females tend to kill and eat any pups born to other females to inherit her position.

The meerkats are not unique, in many species there is lot of violence involving ancestry and in some species the violence begins in the womb. Some types of sharks perform embryonic cannibalism as the first embryo to grow teeth eats his sisters and brothers inside the womb. This brutal violent behavior is subsequent to another brutal violent behavior –rape. The male shark chases a female beating and biting her until he manages to turn her over and penetrate one of his two claspers under his belly and shut a ball of sperm into her. This will happen several times with several different males.

In many bird species violent nesting is awfully common.
Black-headed gulls nest in large colonies when the nests are only a few feet apart. When the chicks first hatch, they are small and defenseless and easy to swallow. It is quite common for a Black-headed gull to wait until neighbor gulls leave their nest to search for food and then pounce on one of the neighbor’s chicks and eat him, obtaining food without having to go to the trouble of catching a fish, and without having to leave his own nest unprotected.

So many species have an awfully violent courtship behavior, many have an awfully violent mating behavior, many have an awfully violent nesting behavior and sharks have an awfully violent pregnancy. Besides awfully violent pregnancy, wasps also have an awfully violent "birth".
There are many types of parasitic wasps that inject their eggs inside other creatures’ bodies that are then used as surrogate wombs for the wasp’s descendants. Common victims are spiders, aphides, moth and caterpillars which their case is probably the worst as they are fully conscious while 20 wasp larvas are slowly slicing their skin from the inside out when they are ready to transform to their next phase. Their mother also injects a virus she produce in her ovaries that destroys the caterpillars’ immune system to protect her eggs and a certain chemical that cause the caterpillar to protect the larvas while they cocoon themselves and while they are in their cocoons and until he dies of hunger or disease since his immune system is destroyed.

Life is full of violence. Nonviolent life is an oxymoron.
When it comes to violence among nonhumans, activists tend to choose the passiveness approach even though it doesn’t exist. Passiveness against violence is just as much of a decision as activeness. Just as much it curries consequences. Passiveness is tolerance toward violence and suffering. It is actually and actively approving the current state of affairs. So there is no passive state. Passivism is actively deciding not to interfere.
The "passivists" know what is going on and decide not to stop it. They choose just as much.

Rights are a fictive concept and so is the nonviolent approach. It’s barley relevant when the victimizers and the victims are humans so it is defiantly not relevant when the victims are nonhumans. And it is absolutely not relevant when the victimizers and the victims are nonhumans.
Life is full of pain, fear and suffering for each living creature without even the theoretical possibility to avoid it. You know that as well as we do. If you don’t stop it you support it. If you choose to let this world continue, you knowingly choose not to stop all the violence that happens in it. It’s choosing to be violent, not nonviolent.
Nonviolent approach doesn’t exist. If you keep that dogma, you do it for yourself, not for the animals.
Since violence is an inherent part of life, you actually can’t simultaneously be nonviolent and annihilation opposer. It is an oxymoron. If you support the inherently violent life, in spite of your pseudo nonviolent approach you inherently support violence even if it is against your will.

When you know violence is integral part of life, when violence is inevitable to life, the only way to be nonviolent is to stop life.