All injustice, oppression, domination, violence, hierarchy and inequality are connected. Intersectionalism 101. Whether we’re fighting against racism, xenophobia, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, classism, speciesism, or any other oppressive or unjust system and power imbalance or injustice, we’re opposing the same kyriarchy (master-rule).

Also, the word cattle comes from chattel as in chattel slavery. The enslavement of humans was literally based on the domestication and exploitation of non-human animals. Humans (particulary white European humans) thought they could tame and sophisticate other races of humans like they had done to non-human animals that they farmed - and they employed them both to pull ploughs on farm and do agricultural work. Slavery was always tied to food and agriculture. But no one wants to think about these things or see the connections and how you’ve been tricked into repeating history.

It’s true that humans who are intending to devalue or oppress other humans often compare them to, or model the treatment of them on, non-human animals. I’ve acknowledged this multiple times. But you need to understand that this is part of the oppressive culture and mindset of human supremacy and speciesism that we’re trying to dismantle. When we compare humans to other animals, we are trying to reclaim that comparison as something positive that allows us to see the similarities between each other rather than focusing on our differences. That reasons to care about humans extend to why we should care about other animals: they feel the same things as us, share very similar life experiences, relationships, etc. Of course we’re not trying to insult or devalue humans by comparing them to other animals, even if you have a socially programmed idea of what that comparison must inherently or always imply; offense, devaluation, demeaning language, etc. We’re trying to redefine what the human-[non-human] animal relationship can be, into something much more positive and respectful. No, I don’t support bestiality.

Furthermore, I said that what you said is the same thing that humans said about human slaves, which it more or less was. Acknowledging that fact isn’t something it’s rational to criticize or try to twist into misrepresenting me as comparing human slaves to exploited non-human animals (not that we shouldn’t make circumstantial analogies like that for the sake of compelling humans to wake up to the injustices committed on non-human animals), or even comparing humans to non-human animals, and especially to knowingly slander me as insinuating that human slaves are less valuable than other humans just because I talked about their treatment or rather the arguments used to justify it in the same context as the treatment of non-human animals and the arguments used to justify their exploitation/harm/killing/etc.

That said, there are very important and powerful comparisons to be made and several parallels you can’t ignore between the treatment of non-human animals (who many contend, are experiencing a form of slavery by humans) and the treatment of enslaved humans, as well as the overall cultural attitudes toward them and toward the people and movements seeking to oppose and abolish them.

https://www.amazon.com/Dreaded-Comparison-Human-Animal-Slavery/dp/0962449334

It’s understandable that people are so offended by this comparison at first glance because of all the deeply ingrained ideas about non-human animals being in a subservient position and how comparing how they’re treated to how human slaves were/are treated is somehow legitimizing the idea that those human slaves (or the usually racist assignment of purposes and discrimination of them) are somehow subservient by nature or something, which obviously isn’t the intention at all. I know it’s hard to believe, but there are actually people who don’t think of other animals as being offensive to be compared to or to have the treatment of humans and justification for human oppression be compared to that of non-human animal oppression. You can keep pretending to be offended or disingenuouslys strawmanning and depicting me as saying or implying something you know I’m not, but it’s clear you’re just being a troll at this point.

You literally said that the reason it’s okay to unnecessarily exploit and kill non-human animals/sentient beings and not humans is the fact that non-human animals aren’t human. This implies that you view non-human animals as holding lower moral value or deserving of lower moral standards of respect. Additionally, you acted offended at even the suggestion of humans (or the circumstances and treatment and attitudes toward discriminated, marginalized, oppressed, vulnerable etc groups of humans) or anything to do with humans being compared to non-human animals or anything to do with non-human animals - including the circumstances, treatment and attitudes toward oppressed, exploited & victimized non-human animals - which implies that you think that to compare a human to a non-human animal is to devalue them, demonstrating an internalized belief of non-human animals as holding lower value. And you also said that the reason the Holocaust was bad was because humans were treated the way that non-human animals are, but then were unable to acknowledge that the way non-humans are being treated was bad too, meaning you think something that’s extremely bad and an atrocity to do to humans is fine to do to non-human animals.

I didn’t want to split hairs any longer over what does and doesn’t constitute an ad hominem/attacking the arguer. It’s pointless

Well I don’t know what your point of saying this is, but I largely agree that most people are attached to the status quo and don’t want to change or even believe the reality as long as they get to keep doing what they want and bury their heads in the sand. But it’s also true that most of us are conditioned to make fallacies especially when we start to use the less rational parts of our minds that come up when we’re experiencing cognitive dissonance and feeling the need to defend things that we feel guilty about and know are wrong, but which we feel incapable of changing, causing us to lash out at the messengers who are trying to shed light on the truth and encourage positive evolution. Accusing us of hypocrisy, imperfection, somehow being worse than you in some way (wanting to deny that you’re doing anything wrong by painting the other “choice” to respect animals and reduce your harm to the environment (incl. plants) as being impractical, counterproductive, invalid, etc). For example thinking that we’re hypocrites even though we’re doing the best we can, to reduce harm to animals, plants and the environment and human society, and if the best solution isn’t perfect, there’s not really anything you can reasonably blame anyone for there - and even if we’re not doing the best we can on whatever you think we’re hypocritical for, and there’s something else we can do (let us know what), that fact that we’re hypocritical or imperfect on its own wouldn’t mean we’re wrong about the message that we should move away from animal exploitation and reduce harm to the environment etc as much as we can. And especially opposing that solution just because it isn’t perfect, which ignores that every life matters, every sentient being has a unique perception and experience of the world and they aren’t replacable, so reducing harm to them and not harming them unnecessarily means the world to them, as well as is critical for protecting natural plants and the environment.

How does it not render the point moot? If simply directly using plants/plant based foods & products harms fewer plants than “using” animals (& growing & feeding plants to those animals & clearing & maintaining land [including plants & forest] to grow plants to feed them & for pastures & farming infrastructure & factories to “farm” the animals) then plants being hypothetically sentient would be even more reason to be vegan, wouldn’t it?

Why is this being framed as an argument against veganism when veganism would be better on the issue of reducing harm to plants as much as possible compared to animal agriculture/exploitation etc?

And that’s all in addition to it being kinder to animals and less impactful on the environment as a whole.

So what exactly is the objection? Is it pointing out supposed hypocrisy (tu quoque), or criticizing veganism for being imperfect on the issue of plants (nirvana fallacy), or are you actually making an empirical claim that disputes the science and facts on how many plants are harmed by plant agriculture when it’s used directly for humans, vs animal agriculture and the plant agriculture used to sustain it (which is clear that much fewer plants are harmed by human-directed plant agriculture)?

Also just saying, if you think TST are cool based on these tenets (which I do too, I just wish they were more consistent in following them), then it makes little sense to not think veganism/animal rights/sentientism is cool too, since we literally share all the same values - hell, “Evidence, reason and compassion for sentient beings” is a definition of sentientism (which is basically the same or an extension of the philosophy of veganism/animal rights) that almost sounds like the first tenet of TST verbatim (“One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason”), which I find very interesting (regardless of differing interpretations of the word “creatures”). Reading the TST tenets as a vegan is a perfect fit. It almost sounds like it’s describing our entire worldview (though you can be a vegan who is also spiritual/religious, so not necessarily every vegan’s worldview [regarding the focus on science of Tenet V], but most vegans are secular/atheist and very pro-science, evidence, critical thinking, logic & reason etc - and compassion/empathy/respect/moral duty to treat others well (including non-human animals/sentient beings) - and all the other tenets I would say match every ethical vegan).

deleted by creator

I take it you’re not from TST. Try to keep an open mind about what veganism is because many people don’t understand the importance of it as a social justice movement. I think partly it’s because the name doesn’t reveal what it’s about immediately. It’s about animal rights - although humans moving towards plant-based living as a species is also extremely critical for the environment/climate/planet, human society and social justice in many forms, as well as enormously beneficial for our health when implemented effectively.

It’s a common response to veganism/animal rights to say it’s a cult, which is not very nice to us or to the non-human animals. Imagine if you and your kind were being victimized and oppressed unnecessarily and wantonly, and someone arbitrarily told you that they were labeling the movement that sought to represent your interests and advocate for your rights/protection/respect/ethical treatment/liberation/freedom, as a “cult”, and dismissed it on that basis. But this fails to consider that it’s simply a movement advocating for the rights of non-human sentient beings, in very similar ways to movements advocating for the rights of LGBT people or women, or the historical movement to boycott and abolish human slavery. We want people to boycott, not contribute to, and eventually help to end/abolish animal exploitation by humans and move toward more ethical, sustainable (and healthier) ways of living for all sentient beings and the environment. It’s trying to make the world a better place and reduce harm and suffering and injustice in critical ways. And it’s not about woo-woo claims. It’s a secular movement based on hard evidence about the sentience of animals and the impact of animal agriculture on their lives and experiences, on the planet/environment/climate/food security/zoonotic diseases/potential pandemics/antibiotic resistance/etc, and human society (including not exploiting humans for dangerous & traumatic slaughterhouse work leading to high rates of domestic violence, drug abuse, PTSD, suicide, etc) and human health. It affects a lot of very important functions in the world and impacts all of us.

So if you think animal rights is a cult (despite having no leader, us all often disagreeing with each other about various things related to animal rights philosophy, and comprising a grassroots movement around the world to try to liberate animals from human oppression, much like other social justice movements), but presumably you don’t think human rights movements are cults (or do you? and remember, humans are animals), then what exactly is the difference that makes veganism/animal rights a cult but not human rights movements (such as feminism/women’s rights)?

No, the reason why the Holocaust was wrong was because it treated individuals (sentient beings) like they didn’t matter, discriminated them based on arbitary traits/criteria, segregated, imprisoned, oppressed, enslaved, tortured and systematically exterminated them, and attempted to erase their very existence, culture and identity. The reason why the Holocaust was wrong is obviously not “because humans are superior to other animals and the humans were treated the way other animals should be”. That’s an incredibly speciesist and unfortunate reading of the tragedy which doesn’t learn any lessons from it.

The reason why treating humans the way that non-human animals were being and have historically been and still are treated by humans, was and is wrong, is simply because the way that non-human animals have been treated by humans is wrong and is clearly bad and cruel and harmful and inconsiderate toward them. If those oppressed and victimized humans were treated the way that non-human animals are, then you’ve just admitted that non-human animals are typically oppressed and victimized in the same way as those humans. It’s just that it’s such a culturally ingrained, accepted, traditional, long-running and perpetual practice that most humans are removed from the process of and disconnected from and/or sesensitized to the violence and cruelty it involves, that we tend to accept the way non-human animals are treated by humans as an inherent nature of their existence, rather than a choice we are making to inflict on them every day that we could change if we wanted to, and right the relationship between humans and other animals into one of respect and coexistence rather than one-sided domination and exploitation.

And it really should be stressed that Hitler did base the treatment of humans on how non-human animals were already being treated in the assembly line slaughterhouses in the United States - it’s very well documented if you research about it. And tons of Holocaust survivors - many of whom are now vegan or vegetarian - have spoken about the connection between the events and how eerily similar they are. The Nazis even used the same infrastructure that was being used to kill non-human animals at the time. They used cattle cars to transport them, the concentration camps were eerily similar to CAFOs, and he used gas chambers to kill them. Yes, they used Zyklon B instead of CO2 for the gas chambers, while the majority of farmed pigs are killed with CO2 (though sometimes the Nazis did use CO2 as well), but CO2 gassing by all accounts causes even more extreme and prolonged suffering than Zyklon B. So if we did the same actions that we enact on a mass scale to non-human animals today but to humans instead, it would instantly be considered as bad as many historical tragedies.

When we have a group of beings treated as badly by humans as non-human animals are, it’s always going to inevitably be used as inspiration, training and condition for treating humans badly too.

Saying “get help” over and over is an ad hominem attack and an attempt to gaslight me by strawmanning and denying and opposing everything I say, even when it’s factually proven. (Though this is also partly a moral view, in this case).

We use it on non-human animals. It’s misleading at best to frame that as us using it. Sure, indirectly. Not directly. We consume about 4-7% directly as food, and most of that is consumed by non-vegans. Most people think of us using something like crops as consuming/using them directly because many people aren’t aware how much of global cropland (and pastureland) is used feed non-human animals that we breed to exploit and kill. So you’re drawing on this misconception to perpetuate harmful myths. The fact we use it on non-human animals is why it’s so inefficient.

Just because you’ve dictated a purpose for someone’s existence, that doesn’t mean that’s the only way they’re capable of living or the best outcome for them. They are capable of being free and happy and respected and we are capable of giving that to them. And they already are part of our society. Dogs have relationships with humans. Pigs and cows do too. They don’t have to talk or be the same species to be part of our society. There are humans who can’t talk and humans who have different shapes and sizes to us too, those who rely on us to support them, etc. There’s no reason we can’t apply the same mentalities of care and protection to other sentient beings.

Gross view. The same was said of human slaves.

You didn’t read what I said. I didn’t say you said that. I was talking about people who do say that, and was using it as another example of whataboutism in the vein of “all lives matter” or “plant lives matter too” as an attempt to distract from the animal rights arguments - which would anyway entail better treatment of plants and the environment and better situations for humans to be in as a consequence.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to insinuate that I’m saying we have a higher view of non-human animals than we do of humans? I didn’t say that. I said we have a higher view of non-human animals than most humans have of non-human animals. The thing that is being compared is our view of non-human animals vs most humans’ view of non-human animals, not our view of non-human animals vs our view of humans. Reading comprehension 0 (or you’re just being a troll).

The point is you’re incorrectly assuming that just because you (and indeed, most humans) view non-human animals as being inferior to humans and find it insulting to compare humans to them (which I didn’t even do in what you were replying to, I compared their situations and certain actions we might take to either hurt [which I’m opposed to] or help [which I’m in favor of] them), that must mean we also view them as inferior like you do, and that we’re intending to insult or devalue humans by making any comparisons that involve both of them. Obviously the opposite is true if you understand that we’re viewing non-human animals in a different way where we don’t see them as inferior, and we see the similarities between humans and other animals as reasons to extend compassion and care to non-human sentient beings (as they’re the same reasons we care about humans, as can be pretty easily established), and trying to inspire others to view–and treat–them with more respect too.

No, because that’s question begging/circular reasoning (and also your phrasing is subjective - of course there are arguments for the personhood of non-human animals [and some, like cetaceans and great apes, even have it legally in some countries], and of course humans are animals so therefore at least some animals are people, but let’s assume you mean that non-human animals are not humans - a biological fact that the premise of the question already acknowledges and establishes). It’s just repeating the premises of the question and not going further beyond them, so it doesn’t provide any new information or justification.

That said, even though it’s already a weak justification if you can only question beg and can’t name any underlying trait difference or reasoning/criteria that justifies the differential treatment of the species, there are still reductios to trying to use “human vs non-human” as a trait that most humans would find to be quite absurd and objectionable. But again, we don’t have to even entertain you by accepting this arbitrary speciesist argument, since it makes no attempt to justify or explain itself.

It’s about Naming The Trait that is different between non-human animals and humans that makes it okay to do to them what you don’t think is okay to do to humans. That’s it. You don’t have to invent some alternative interpretation of the question, you can just admit you can’t answer it. Which again, doesn’t mean there’s no consistent justification, but it means you haven’t provided one, and that’s a shaky basis for committing such harmful and cruel actions to sentient beings. And because that same reasoning can be used to arbitrarily justify any other form of discrimination/oppression/harm that you can’t explain.

No, because that’s question begging/circular reasoning (and also your phrasing is subjective - of course there are arguments for the personhood of non-human animals [and some, like cetaceans and great apes, even have it legally in some countries], but let’s assume you mean that non-human animals are not humans - a biological fact that the premise of the question already acknowledges and establishes). It’s just repeating the premises of the question and not going further beyond them, so it doesn’t provide any new information or justification.

That said, even though it’s already a weak justification if you can only question beg and can’t name any underlying trait difference or reasoning/criteria that justifies the differential treatment of the species, there are still reductios to trying to use “human vs non-human” as a trait that most humans would find to be quite absurd and objectionable. But again, we don’t have to even entertain you by accepting this arbitrary speciesist argument, since it makes no attempt to justify or explain itself.

It doesn’t have to, in order to establish that you lack the ability to name a clear justification, be about the delineation point where you would suddenly find a being acceptable to exploit and kill and put into CO2 gas chambers (like most farmed pigs in the world) in a series of possible worlds progressing from a human into a non-human animal in which each subsequent human-like being was less and less human and less and less removed from a non-human animal. This is actually a completely separate thought experiment from Name the Trait. I think it has value, because it does demonstrate that if you can’t identify a delineation point, then it doesn’t mean there necessarily isn’t one, but it does mean you don’t have a coherent enough justification that you can actually provide and articulate and explain for why you are arbitrarily sentencing some sentient beings to die and not others, so therefore you shouldn’t.

It is what it is. You’ve misconstrued and interpreted it as being about some spectrum of beings incrementally altered to progress from a human animal into a non human animal, I don’t know why - well I do know why, it’s because you’ve gotten this argument from other people who also completely misunderstood Name The Trait or strawmanned it in order to attempt to “debunk” it without actually engaging with it (I won’t name them because I don’t want to promote them, but people whose content is based around anti-vegan/anti-animal rights rhetoric).

It’s about Naming The Trait that is different between non-human animals and humans that makes it okay to do to them what you don’t think is okay to do to humans. That’s it. You don’t have to invent some alternative interpretation of the question, you can just admit you can’t answer it. Which again, doesn’t mean there’s no consistent justification, but it means you haven’t provided one, and that’s a shaky basis for committing such harmful and cruel actions to sentient beings. And because that same reasoning can be used to arbitrarily justify any other form of discrimination that you can’t explain.

Just because you feel insulted doesn’t make something ad hominem. Calling your argument a “cope”, or a deflective coping mechanism often used by carnists, might not mean much on its own, but combined with my other points and reasoning hopefully it’s clear why I made that assessment.

No, you clearly didn’t read anything I said and are just dismissing everything by assuming it uses Poore and Nemecek (which did not misuse LCA data and is widely accepted by the larger scientific community, but even if it did, very similar findings are being echoed by many independent studies and reviews like this one), even though many of them don’t at all, and the ones that do also draw on other studies and their own findings too.

This PNAS study does not cite Poore & Nemecek (2018), nor does it depend on Poore & Nemecek’s data or methodology.

It’s an independent analysis, grounded in land-use and nutritional efficiency through linear programming, not life-cycle assessment (LCA) meta-analysis.

No, you clearly didn’t read anything I said and are just dismissing everything by assuming it uses Poore and Nemecek (which did not misuse LCA data and is widely accepted by the larger scientific community, but even if it did, very similar findings are being echoed by many independent studies and reviews like this one), even though many of them don’t at all, and the ones that do also draw on other studies and their own findings too.

This PNAS study does not cite Poore & Nemecek (2018), nor does it depend on Poore & Nemecek’s data or methodology.

It’s an independent analysis, grounded in land-use and nutritional efficiency through linear programming, not life-cycle assessment (LCA) meta-analysis.