If veganism is just a diet, then…

Gaspard

Forum Senior
Joined
Dec 2, 2019
Reaction score
170
Age
45
Location
Grenoble
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
If veganism is just a diet, then…


…vegans can enjoy watching dog fights, and bet on the winner, whilst eating a veggie burger.

…vegans can run a dairy factory farm as long as they don’t eat produces from their business.

…vegans can hunt to feed their dogs and cats.

…vegans can shoot videos of animal torture, like Ssoyoung (but no mukbang is allowed).


What else?
 
If veganism is just a diet, then…


…vegans can enjoy watching dog fights, and bet on the winner, whilst eating a veggie burger.

…vegans can run a dairy factory farm as long as they don’t eat produces from their business.

…vegans can hunt to feed their dogs and cats.

…vegans can shoot videos of animal torture, like Ssoyoung (but no mukbang is allowed).


What else?

I think that’s why we have differentiating terms like “ethical vegan” and “dietary vegan”.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vegan Dogs and Hog
As far as I know, only Nickelodian argues that Veganism is just a diet. Everyone else here sees it as a lifestyle - maybe even a philosophy.

However, portions of the media use Plant-based and vegan interchangeably. Some of that is understandable because a vegan diet is plant-based.

I actually like it when the word "vegan" pops up in the news. Even if it is used incorrectly and/or without the modifier "diet" attached to it. For a long time, the word "vegan" was like a bad word.

I have mixed feeling about the words "ethical vegan" and "dietary vegan". IMHO, all vegans are ethical vegans and if you say "dietary vegan" you should just say "plant-based". I would think that would be more clear and concise. We don't need new extra labels. The old ones work just fine.

Although I do like that some of the labels allow for a wider spectrum of vegans. Many people find being fully vegan to be too hard or something. So let them be veganish, or the new one I just heard, a cheagan. A vegan who cheats. Daisy Ridley used that self desciption in an interview.
 
Yea I know guys. But it was tempting to illustrate this with outragously absurd narratives.
Although I do like that some of the labels allow for a wider spectrum of vegans. Many people find being fully vegan to be too hard or something. So let them be veganish, or the new one I just heard, a cheagan. A vegan who cheats. Daisy Ridley used that self desciption in an interview.
I also think it is good to make the vegan label more mainstreeam. However cheagans doesn't mean much to me: flexitarian or hypocrite would work better.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Hog
Yea I know guys. But it was tempting to illustrate this with outragously absurd narratives.

I also think it is better to make the vegan label more mainstreeam. However cheagans doesn't mean much to me: flexitarian or hypocrite would work better.

I disagree with your last sentence. Flexitarian doesn't have a very specific definition. but i don't associate it with being vegan. Almost vegetarian seems to be a closer fit.
I would not call anyone who is partially vegan and claims to be partially vegan a hypocrite. More honest to be a self-described cheagan.
I also allow for some flexibility in using the word vegan. I don't believe a person has to be 100% vegan to describe themselves as vegan.
 
If veganism is just a diet, then…


…vegans can enjoy watching dog fights, and bet on the winner, whilst eating a veggie burger.

…vegans can run a dairy factory farm as long as they don’t eat produces from their business.

…vegans can hunt to feed their dogs and cats.

…vegans can shoot videos of animal torture, like Ssoyoung (but no mukbang is allowed).


What else?
Yes, that's right. Just like as a vegan a person can still lie, cheat
on their partner, steal, murder etc. Being a vegan doesn't make someone
a good person in all senses. If it's a personal choice it makes them
a good person in one sense.

Donald Watson described veganism as a diet. This makes it very simple
to determine. You either are or you aren't. There are no grey areas. If
a person goes for a year refraining from all animal products but purposely
and knowingly eats them 2 times, then they are vegan for a year minus
those 2 times, or a year minus 2 days if that happened on 2 separate days.

There are people here who, either for vanity/pride or guilty conscience
make a great big deal about non-dietary/purchase choices that are included
in their "veganism". Like what they study, what career they choose, how
they volunteer their time, even how and what they think about all kinds of
subjects and extending that judgement (as a part of their "veganism") to
others. Not only is it ridiculous it's also (to me) an indication that the
overcompensation means they aren't meeting the basic requirement to be called
vegan - ie: they are eating animal products.

Veganism, although it may be mentioned by religion and has moral implications, isn't itself a religion. Yes, as a vegan one could do all the things you mentioned and even worse things. However, one might wonder *why* any of those
actions would be chosen if one also chooses to be vegan at least partly for
the sake of it being a way of excluding unnecessary harm.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: Mischief
When I do have the discussion with people about what I eat, I tell them I eat a vegan diet. The reason I say it that way is because many of the people I encounter equate plant based as having a bit of wiggle room , that one is 95% plants and will have some cheese or what ever. I then have to go on to explain that I don't consume any animal products. I find it is more accurate in my dealings with the general public.

I changed my lifestyle description to ''Strict Vegetarian" because my understanding is, that is a person who eschews animal products in their diet. I don't wish to unintentionally misrepresent myself. I also know that term-- if used in public would conjure up the image of someone who could consume dairy and /or eggs.
 
When I do have the discussion with people about what I eat, I tell them I eat a vegan diet. The reason I say it that way is because many of the people I encounter equate plant based as having a bit of wiggle room , that one is 95% plants and will have some cheese or what ever. I then have to go on to explain that I don't consume any animal products. I find it is more accurate in my dealings with the general public.

I changed my lifestyle description to ''Strict Vegetarian" because my understanding is, that is a person who eschews animal products in their diet. I don't wish to unintentionally misrepresent myself. I also know that term-- if used in public would conjure up the image of someone who could consume dairy and /or eggs.

Good points. I hadn't considered those before. Thanks.
I have also "equated plant-based diet as having some wiggle room". And I'm not the only one. Here is a quote from the Food Network.

As such, eating plant-based does not mean to go vegetarian or even vegan. Rather to eat a wide-variety of foods, including the often under-consumed plant-based foods.​

Not that I'm saying the Food Network is an authority on the subject. Just reinforcing your point on people's perception of Plant-Based.

I also get your point about strict vegetarian. I'm not even sure most people know what that means. I used to be a strict vegetarian - and I didn't even know "strict vegetarian" was what I was. I thought I was just a vegetarian.
 
I would not call anyone who is partially vegan and claims to be partially vegan a hypocrite. More honest to be a self-described cheagan.

What's a "partial" vegan? Does that mean eating chicken on Tuesdays, but refraining the rest of the week? Or maybe it means eating eggs and cheese whenever one goes out? Isn't everyone a "partial" vegan to a lesser or greater degree whenever they aren't eating animal products?

I also allow for some flexibility in using the word vegan. I don't believe a person has to be 100% vegan to describe themselves as vegan.

Yes, that should be clear by now to anyone who searches through your posts. The reason people usually want to change the definition of something (either by extending it to mean things it didn't before) or by "softening" what it prohibits to some degree (eating animal products in the case of veganism) is because that is the only way they can wear the label.
 
For me, a vegan should eat a 100% vegan diet (unintentional mistakes are tolerated). Also a vegan should reflect upon our relation to non-human animals and choose the vegan option as much as possible when purchasing other products surch as clothes, furniture, etc.
Just like as a vegan a person can still lie, cheat
on their partner, steal, murder etc. Being a vegan doesn't make someone
a good person in all senses.
Good point.
I also allow for some flexibility in using the word vegan. I don't believe a person has to be 100% vegan to describe themselves as vegan.
I 100% disagree with you. We shouldn't weaken the term Vegan.
I would not call anyone who is partially vegan and claims to be partially vegan a hypocrite. More honest to be a self-described cheagan.
Sorry but "cheagan" sounds naff to me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vegan Dogs
Yes, that's right. Just like as a vegan a person can still lie, cheat
on their partner, steal, murder etc. Being a vegan doesn't make someone
a good person in all senses. If it's a personal choice it makes them
a good person in one sense.

Donald Watson described veganism as a diet. This makes it very simple
to determine. You either are or you aren't. There are no grey areas. If
a person goes for a year refraining from all animal products but purposely
and knowingly eats them 2 times, then they are vegan for a year minus
those 2 times, or a year minus 2 days if that happened on 2 separate days.

There are people here who, either for vanity/pride or guilty conscience
make a great big deal about non-dietary/purchase choices that are included
in their "veganism". Like what they study, what career they choose, how
they volunteer their time, even how and what they think about all kinds of
subjects and extending that judgement (as a part of their "veganism") to
others. Not only is it ridiculous it's also (to me) an indication that the
overcompensation means they aren't meeting the basic requirement to be called
vegan - ie: they are eating animal products.

Veganism, although it may be mentioned by religion and has moral implications, isn't itself a religion. Yes, as a vegan one could do all the things you mentioned and even worse things. However, one might wonder *why* any of those
actions would be chosen if one also chooses to be vegan at least partly for
the sake of it being a way of excluding unnecessary harm.
I can't understand why you're so adamant about vegans refraining from eating animal products, but not their use in general.
I'd rather someone have the occasional cheese pizza slice with friends but avoid as many other things animals are used in, particular products tested on animals.
Myself, I have two pairs of shoes-same ones- that I almost always wear. I've gone through many vegan shoes, and exhausted my options, but these fit my weird feet and gait like nothing ever has. I'm afraid for when they wear out, as the vegan shoes that were comparable are quite worn
Anyway, I'm a pragmatist. I still take regular old vitamin D3 out of fear of not keeping my hard won levels up, and cost of high does vegan D3. Now that I can get a test cheaply I do plan on trying. My point is, I refrain from calling myself vegan because of this--because I feel the term vegan does need more of a commitment to avoiding the exploitation of animals.
Just avoiding animal products in diet is a plant based diet. Why make a distinction of calling yourself vegan? Just to eat processed foods?

I will always hold the term vegan as one who avoids the exploitation of animals in food, products, and entertainment. NOT that you're a good person or not! (What does that have to do with anything?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52 and Lou
I can't understand why you're so adamant about vegans refraining from eating animal products, but not their use in general.

I go by the Watson definition (the guy who coined the term "vegan") which he defined as a diet - a diet - basically - of exclusion of all animal products. Yes, I realize that there are moral implications to using non-dietary animal products (for instance, leather/wool etc), especially when such animals are bred for these purposes - however these have always been secondary. People do not even consider giving up the secondary products *until* they give up the dietary ones.

Muddying the definition to some sort of philosophy, or an extension of one's personality/beliefs is huge step in basically destroying the primary term to be a secondary or even nominal notion. This is what Lou has been doing nearly the entire time he has been on this site. This is why he can claim to be a vegan for 20 years, but also "transitioning" for 20 years. "Vegan" to him seems to be a much broader thing that includes all kinds of moral directives in which the dietary aspect is just a small part. With that view, what's the big deal in eating that occasional cheese, maybe some pork, or other animal - if it's just small part of a broad philosophy? People who want to be included "as a vegan" but don't want to stop eating animal products completely would find this notion welcome. Along with that notion comes confusion (for the individual), and also setting a bad example (for other individuals) - like seeing a "vegan" eat animal products while claiming to be vegan.

Just avoiding animal products in diet is a plant based diet. Why make a distinction of calling yourself vegan? Just to eat processed foods?

I will always hold the term vegan as one who avoids the exploitation of animals in food, products, and entertainment. NOT that you're a good person or not! (What does that have to do with anything?)

The OP attempted to illustrate a moral dilemma by stating that defining vegan as "just a diet" means that it basically lacks broader moral impact. I'm personally fine with that - because morals do not start or stop with being vegan, which is why I mentioned other immoral acts that have nothing to do with our relationships with (non-human) animals. Veganism is not a religion. Just because it touches on morality does not make it a religion - any more than "do not lie" or "do not steal" are religions.
 
I go by the Watson definition (the guy who coined the term "vegan") which he defined as a diet - a diet - basically - of exclusion of all animal products. Yes, I realize that there are moral implications to using non-dietary animal products (for instance, leather/wool etc), especially when such animals are bred for these purposes - however these have always been secondary. People do not even consider giving up the secondary products *until* they give up the dietary ones.

Muddying the definition to some sort of philosophy, or an extension of one's personality/beliefs is huge step in basically destroying the primary term to be a secondary or even nominal notion. This is what Lou has been doing nearly the entire time he has been on this site. This is why he can claim to be a vegan for 20 years, but also "transitioning" for 20 years. "Vegan" to him seems to be a much broader thing that includes all kinds of moral directives in which the dietary aspect is just a small part. With that view, what's the big deal in eating that occasional cheese, maybe some pork, or other animal - if it's just small part of a broad philosophy? People who want to be included "as a vegan" but don't want to stop eating animal products completely would find this notion welcome. Along with that notion comes confusion (for the individual), and also setting a bad example (for other individuals) - like seeing a "vegan" eat animal products while claiming to be vegan.

I do agree with your points above


The OP attempted to illustrate a moral dilemma by stating that defining vegan as "just a diet" means that it basically lacks broader moral impact. I'm personally fine with that - because morals do not start or stop with being vegan, which is why I mentioned other immoral acts that have nothing to do with our relationships with (non-human) animals. Veganism is not a religion. Just because it touches on morality does not make it a religion - any more than "do not lie" or "do not steal" are religions.

I cannot agree with the OPs assertion!
I see more benefit to be mostly vegan in beliefs even if faulty, than to disavow other ways animals are exploited. My neighborhood for instance, is very animal and environmentally friendly but certainly few are fully vegan. ..........
Maybe I'm disillusioned by how many plant based health eaters I've run across that are total a--holes to anything AR or welfare.
Yes--- the plant based health group that hates vegans! They would fit the OP's group!
 
@ Nekodaiden - Some of your posts deeply disturb me. But, that is my problem and not your problem.

I suspect that you are an abstract thinker. (That is a compliment.) I also believe that you dispassionately contemplate ideas in a search for truth. (I deeply respect that.)

You remind me of Ludwig Wichenstein. Wichenstein was a brilliant and famous logician. Bertrand Russell said that Wichenstein was the greatest genius he ever met. Wichenstein made fun of himself because he knew that much of his research was only a demonstration of the power of deductive logic.

I frequently looked back at my previous posts and ask, "What in the world were you thinking?" I hope I did not p!ss off somebody. I get lost in the philosophical sauce of my own deductive logic. In the end, I just look like an a$$hole. I am acting like Rainman in the 1988 movie.

Susanne Langer said that individuals construct meaning from the predictive affective emotional response to an experience. Langer would argue that all animals and humans construct meaning through inductive logic based on the experience. Thus, the experience comes before the language. Language and deductive thought is an afterthought of the experience.

I have strong autistic perception. In other words, I am strong in deductive logic but struggle with inductive social thought.

I am not capable of perceiving the world in the same way that you perceive the world. Thus, I find your thoughts disturbing. But, as I said, that is my problem and not your problem. I should respect that you think differently than me.

Nekodaiden, please remember that I can not perceive the world like you do. If I offend you, please remember that I am just a simple guy. I am hog. I am vegan.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nekodaiden
If veganism is just a diet, then…


…vegans can enjoy watching dog fights, and bet on the winner, whilst eating a veggie burger.

…vegans can run a dairy factory farm as long as they don’t eat produces from their business.

…vegans can hunt to feed their dogs and cats.

…vegans can shoot videos of animal torture, like Ssoyoung (but no mukbang is allowed).


What else?


aha well not only hunt to feed their pet dogs and cats but breed animals and kill them too...

Wear fur coats...

Go to zoos...

Eat eggs

Ride Horses

Eat Honey and keep bees
 
I go by the founder of the Abolitionist Vegan 6 Principles definition of Veganism...who is that ? Gary L Francione the USA law professor.

The 1st principle is ?

actually i can only remember this one...but it is the most important principle...



Principle One

Abolitionists maintain that all sentient beings, human or nonhuman, have one right—the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.

Now PETA the most famous Animal Rights charity sums this up in the simpler term of

"animals are not ours to use"

now ...if anyone can be bothered to read and repeat the other 5 principles fine...but i think most people get stuck on not understanding the 1st principle

"animals are not ours" to use as "property" meaning "things" to just kill and feed to pets or wear or whatever...is how I understand veganism...it is NOT simply a DIET...that is imho what people term "plant based"

Now...i seriously suggest...if people are unaware of the "property" status of animals and that being the root of all the problems to do with animals...the PETA 1 shorter liner is useful...

"animals are not ours to use"

Now what are we doing...if we make animals perform in zoos and circuses ? we are "using" them for our entertainment of course.

Now what are we doing...if we breed and kill animals to feed the preferred captive PET animals we keep ? we are "using" them...taking their lives. What are PET animals if not unnatural prisoners of humans ? forced into unnatural lives genitals cut off collars and leads etc...forced to vets...just things we use to own for our entertainment.

Now what are we doing...if we steal the honey from bees and kill many of them in doing so that is their food ? we are "using" them and killing them.

etc

I find i understand the PETA 1 liner easier to understand than the "animals are property" is wrong principle that is the law....that will only change...when people change their attitudes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
oh go on...i admitted that i was unable to recall the 5 out of 6 vegan principles...i can only ever recall the 1st principle of..."animals are not ours to use" that i use PETA simpler non legalistic jargon about animals not being "property" of humans better understood by me.

but here is the list...of the 6 vegan principles...repeating i add...that most people do not even understand the 1st principle of "animals are not ours to use"



Principle One

Abolitionists maintain that all sentient beings, human or nonhuman, have one right—the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.



Principle Two

Abolitionists maintain that our recognition of this one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation, and that abolitionists should not support welfare reform campaigns or single-issue campaigns.


Principle Three

Abolitionists maintain that veganism is a moral baseline and that creative, nonviolent vegan education must be the cornerstone of rational animal rights advocacy.


Principle Four

The Abolitionist Approach links the moral status of nonhumans with sentience alone and not with any other cognitive characteristic; all sentient beings are equal for the purpose of not being used exclusively as a resource.



Principle Five

Abolitionists reject all forms of human discrimination, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, and classism—just as they reject speciesism.



Principle Six

Abolitionists recognize the principle of nonviolence as a core principle of the animal rights movement.



**********

A Note: In order to embrace the abolitionist approach to animal rights, it is not necessary to be spiritual or religious, or to be an atheist. You can be a spiritual or religious person, or you can be an atheist, or anything in between. It does not matter.

What does matter is:

(1) that you have moral concern about animals and that you want to do right by animals. That moral concern/moral impulse can come from any source, spiritual or non-spiritual; and

(2) that you regard as valid the logical arguments that our moral concern should not be limited to some nonhumans but should extend to all sentient beings and that we should abolish, and not regulate, animal exploitation.

Gary L. Francione
Anna Charlton
 
Last edited:
oh go on...i admitted that i was unable to recall the 5 out of 6 vegan principles...i can only ever recall the 1st principle of..."animals are not ours to use" that i use PETA simpler non legalistic jargon about animals not being "property" of humans better understood by me.

but here is the list...of the 6 vegan principles...repeating i add...that most people do not even understand the 1st principle of "animals are not ours to use"



Principle One

Abolitionists maintain that all sentient beings, human or nonhuman, have one right—the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.

Summary

Animals are classified as property and are used exclusively as resources for humans. Although we claim to regard animals as having moral value and to not be just things, their status as property means that they have no moral value; they have only economic value. We recognize that treating humans as property is inconsistent with recognizing humans as members of the moral community. We accept as a fundamental moral principle that all humans, irrespective of their particular characteristics, must be accorded the basic moral right not to be property. On this principle rests the universal condemnation of human slavery. The property status of animals means that animals are considered to be things, irrespective of what we say to the contrary. There is no way to distinguish humans from nonhumans that can justify withholding from all sentient nonhumans the same right that we accord to all humans. We need to recognize that all sentient beings are equal for the purpose of not being used exclusively as human resources. The Abolitionist Approach maintains that all animal use—however supposedly “humane”—is morally unjustified.

Principle Two

Abolitionists maintain that our recognition of this one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation, and that abolitionists should not support welfare reform campaigns or single-issue campaigns.

Summary

Recognizing the right of animals not to be used as property requires that we abolish the institutionalized exploitation of nonhuman animals, and not just regulate it to make it more “humane.” Abolitionists reject animal welfare campaigns. They also reject single-issue campaigns, a particular sort of regulatory campaign that characterizes certain forms of animal exploitation as different from, and worse than, other forms of exploitation and which suggests, by implication, that other forms of exploitation are acceptable. Both welfare campaigns and single-issue campaigns actually promote animal exploitation and result in partnerships between supposed animal advocates and institutionalized exploiters.

Principle Three

Abolitionists maintain that veganism is a moral baseline and that creative, nonviolent vegan education must be the cornerstone of rational animal rights advocacy.

Summary

Abolitionists embrace the idea that there is veganism and there is animal exploitation: there is no third choice. To not be a vegan is to participate directly in animal exploitation. Abolitionists promote veganism as a moral baseline or a moral imperative and as the only rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value. If animals matter morally, then we cannot treat them as commodities and eat, wear, or use them. Just as someone who promoted the abolition of slavery could not own slaves, an abolitionist with respect to animal slavery cannot consume animal products. For an abolitionist, veganism is a fundamental matter of justice. As the Abolitionist Approach is a grassroots movement, advocating veganism as a fundamental principle of justice is not something that requires large, wealthy charities and “leaders.” It is something that we all can do and must do as a grassroots movement. Each of us must be a leader.

Principle Four

The Abolitionist Approach links the moral status of nonhumans with sentience alone and not with any other cognitive characteristic; all sentient beings are equal for the purpose of not being used exclusively as a resource.

Summary

Sentience is subjective awareness; there is someone who perceives and experiences the world. A sentient being has interests; that is, preferences, wants, or desires. If a being is sentient, then that is necessary and sufficient for the being to have the right not to be used as a means to human ends. The recognition of this right imposes on humans the moral obligation not to use that being as a resource. It is not necessary for a sentient being to have humanlike cognitive characteristics in order to be accorded the right not to be used as property.

Principle Five

Abolitionists reject all forms of human discrimination, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, and classism—just as they reject speciesism.

Summary

The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights rejects speciesism because, like racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of human discrimination, it uses a morally irrelevant criterion (species) to discount and devalue the interests of sentient beings. But any opposition to speciesism makes sense only as part of a general opposition to all forms of discrimination. That is, we cannot oppose speciesism but claim that, as animal advocates, we do not have a position on these other forms of discrimination. We cannot say that we reject species as a morally objectionable criterion to discount or devalue the interests of nonhumans but that we do not have a position on whether race, sex, or sexual orientation/preference are morally objectionable criteria when used to discount or devalue human interests. Our opposition to speciesism requires that we oppose all discrimination.

Principle Six

Abolitionists recognize the principle of nonviolence as a core principle of the animal rights movement.

Summary

The Abolitionist Approach promotes nonviolence because it sees the animal rights movement as an extension of the peace movement to include concerns about nonhuman animals. Moreover, given that most people engage in animal exploitation, there is no principled way to distinguish exploiters for the purpose of justifying violence. Finally, because there is pervasive exploitation, violence cannot be understood as anything but a pathological reaction to what is regarded as normal. The only real option is, on the individual level, to embrace veganism as a moral baseline and, on the social level, to engage in creative, nonviolent vegan education from an abolitionist perspective.

**********

A Note: In order to embrace the abolitionist approach to animal rights, it is not necessary to be spiritual or religious, or to be an atheist. You can be a spiritual or religious person, or you can be an atheist, or anything in between. It does not matter.

What does matter is:

(1) that you have moral concern about animals and that you want to do right by animals. That moral concern/moral impulse can come from any source, spiritual or non-spiritual; and

(2) that you regard as valid the logical arguments that our moral concern should not be limited to some nonhumans but should extend to all sentient beings and that we should abolish, and not regulate, animal exploitation.

Gary L. Francione
Anna Charlton


ok...now i only got to principle number 2....to mention my views on
"
Principle Two

Abolitionists maintain that our recognition of this one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation, and that abolitionists should not support welfare reform campaigns or single-issue campaigns. "

the way i understand this is ?

"animals are not ours to use" meaning "not property" of humans to use...so ? principle 2 is logical to me ...part and parcel of principle number 1...because if we agree..."animals are not ours to use" then all this talk of "humane slaughter" and "cage free eggs" is irrelevant...missing the point...keeping animals prisoners and taking things from them like their lives or eggs is treating them as "things" ..."property" to "use.
 
Last edited:
ok principle 3...i do not really undeerstand or it bores me...


Principle Four

The Abolitionist Approach links the moral status of nonhumans with sentience alone and not with any other cognitive characteristic; all sentient beings are equal for the purpose of not being used exclusively as a resource.

aha...i understand the word SENTIENCE means FEELS...yes animals have feelings...emotions physical and mental...and want to live.

So that makes sense.


Principle Five

Abolitionists reject all forms of human discrimination, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, and classism—just as they reject speciesism.

oh boring...i fail to agree with this one...what has sex of humans to do with rights of non humans ? a minefield of areas to disagree on views about this one.


Principle Six

Abolitionists recognize the principle of nonviolence as a core principle of the animal rights movement.

oh this is ok...but...would you kill to protect a life ? or hit someone about to take a life ? well if legal i would of course but being a wimpy coward am not about to get jailed for defending anyone...human or non human...from death if my freedom is at stake.
 
Last edited: