Philosophical Vegan Forum

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/sh ... 64189.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 77491.html

Among the so called ultra ethical vegan community, which one would you consider worst, given that you consider animals and humans the same?

vegan81vzla wrote: Among the so called ultra ethical vegan community, which one would you consider worst, given that you consider animals and humans the same?

None of us consider all animals and humans the same. You can take your straw man and go home.

Be aware of the new/updated forum rules:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2115

Forum Rules wrote:1. This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.
Discussion is also founded upon correct usage of words. The forum language is English, and while it's fine to discuss definitions, assertively twisting words beyond their reasonable definition to troll, like saying "Saliva is an animal product, if you swallow your own saliva you're not vegan!" is not acceptable.

Insisting that by definition ethical vegans believe that all animals and humans are the same would be in violation of the rules, that makes up no part of the definition and is not what most vegans believe. You have been warned.

How is it that I am breaking any rule there? I just opening up a discussion on a topic most vegans could face a question from carnists? Why is it A bad thing if another vegan asks the question?

Because you're arbitrarily redefining words to suit your narrative, and most of us here don't agree with it. And I'm pretty sure brimstone explained to you why humans and animals are on different levels.

Tell me, what makes an animal equivalent to a human?

I am not the one that argues for equating humans to animals, so I am not the one up to defend equality between species.

I don't know any definition of "ethical veganism" if you could please refer me to it, that could be great, so we can discuss it. I do know, however, the definition of veganism, which I have opened a discussion on it and what it is and what it
means to be vegan

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1078

I think you guys overreacted a little here. I think most of us would agree that
a) murder is worse than rape in most cases
b) humans matter more than pregnant dogs because they are more sentient

Therefore, there's a legitimate moral question here (although in my opinion not very useful). Is it worse to commit the less wrong action to a more sentient being, or the more wrong action to a less sentient being?

You could see it like vegan trolley problems meant for weighing exactly how much animals matter compared to humans. Trolley approaches, hits either one human or ten dogs. 15 dogs? 20 dogs? etc. Again, I think this is a badly designed such problem at best.

Straw manner wrote:4 Year old atheist child kidnapped and buried alive, dies of starvation.
Pregnant atheist woman gang raped then stoned to death.

Among the so called Christians, which one would you consider worst, given that you consider atheists always deserve the most horrible things to happen to them possible no matter their age or innocence?

What do you think? Do you like that straw man?
Of course we all know that BY DEFINITION Christians want the most horrible things to happen to atheists as possible, no matter who they are, right? If you don't believe that then you are not a true Christian.

And if you disagree with my twisted definition of Christianity, then you're wrong, because it's an irrefutable postulate.

vegan81vzla wrote:I am not the one that argues for equating humans to animals, so I am not the one up to defend equality between species.

What do you mean, you're not the one who argues that, as if we are or something? Who here is arguing that humans are equally important as animals?

A few people already pointed out that that isn't our position, so I'm not really sure what you want us to say.

To be clear: Nobody on this topic believes humans and animals are equal. Ok?
The premise of your post is (accidentally) a straw man. Instead of assuming what a person believes, you should just ask, and then go from there.

We don't believe humans and animals are equal. Some ethical vegans do, but not all ethical vegans agree on everything, just like not all Christians agree on everything.

We believe that killing animals and harming them is wrong because we believe that unnecessary violence is wrong. That doesn't mean we believe violence towards animals is as bad as violence towards people.

vegan81vzla wrote:I am not the one that argues for equating humans to animals, so I am not the one up to defend equality between species.

You made the false suggestion that vegans believe this.

vegan81vzla wrote:I don't know any definition of "ethical veganism" if you could please refer me to it, that could be great, so we can discuss it.

The definition of vegan is here:

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

It is an ethical position by definition.
A "dietary vegan" is something different.
You are somebody who follows a plant based diet. You are also a pure vegetarian (excluding dairy and eggs). You may be a "dietary" vegan, but you're not simply "a vegan", and certainly not in a philosophical context, because you don't care about cruelty to animals, and have no interest in benefiting them. You just have the bizarre idea that humans living with animals or relying on them in any way will doom humanity. You don't care about non-human suffering.

Nothing in the definition of vegan suggests that humans and non-human animals are all equal, only that their suffering is of some moral relevance.

vegan81vzla wrote:I do know, however, the definition of veganism, which I have opened a discussion on it and what it is and what it
means to be vegan

As per the first forum rule, you will use the standard definitions on this forum if you want to participate in discussions. There is some discussion to be had over the definition, but you can not completely redefine it as you have been doing.

It might be ironical for this page to be labeled "philosophical vegan" when its members don't seem to practice philosophy or make threads to ban someone having different opinions / thought patterns. Definitely, open mindedness doesn't come from being vegan. And that is why, in the end, while one does practice veganism, one also loses ones fate on it being the solution to any human problem whatsoever. I guess vegan atheist was a better name for this.