Philosophical Vegan Forum

The following post is addressed to vegans, vegetarians and meateaters alike,

I will begin by saying that even though you're all equally irrational, and inconsistent in your ways of life, I do have to say that I like vegans and vegetarians more than meat eaters, if only because they have already shown they are actually willing to make a change in their lives for the benefit of animal welfare across the globe.
For that reason alone I am posting this here and not on some general forum frequented by the general public.

Ofcourse saying someone is irrational and inconsistent in their way of life and not providing any justification for that claim doesn't mean much. So let me elaborate on why I am of that opinion in a second, but first let me outline what Im gonna talk about.
Im gonna start by exposing the ONLY non-idiotic argument/belief used by vegans to advocate for veganism while being in no way consistent with (just) veganism. I have no time nor patience to explain to the less intelligent among you why arguments pointing out me not eating my dog are idiotic. Although Ill throw you a bone here (get it? throw you a bone... dog... anyway...) and say that this particular one is idiotic because its a false analogy because you have a pet dog for the sole purpose of having a meaningful relationship with it. I wouldnt kill and eat my perfectly healthy pet pig either.
Then Im gonna propose a better set of values to adopt and I shall conclude by proposing a better way of life that is consistent with those new set of values and highly likely to be more productive in eliminating the actual major crime going on today in the world, which is factory farming.

So lets get started...

Veganism or vegetarianism because of the moral belief that unnecessarily causing (or contributing to the) suffering of sentient beings for what is ultimately just for pleasure is wrong and thus striving to live a life trying to minimize suffering
I will start by saying this is a very admirable way to live, a bit supererogatory if you ask me, but admirable nonetheless. However, being a vegan does not imply you are a person that lives by this moral code.
100% of all of the children you have brought into this world, 99% of everything you have ever bought, 99% of every shower you have ever taken, 99% of every meal in which rice was your carb source instead of potatoes, 99% of times you went anywhere in a motorized vehicle, in doing all of these things you have unnecessarily contributed to the suffering of sentient beings for what is ultimately just for pleasure.
(Im assuming this audience is well educated enough to know that all these things indirectly contribute to the suffering of sentient beings by habitat destruction due to deforestation, pollution, fresh water shortages,... so Im not going to go further into detail on this subject)

So unless you are a person who is living in a self sustaining community that is dedicated to using only the bare minimum of resources and grows only the most water efficient foods (in which case you wouldn't be reading this post, because you would not be using electricity for no purpose other than for your pleasure and probably wouldnt even have a justifiable reason for owning a computer in the first place), you are NOT a person that does not unnecessarily contribute to the suffering of sentient beings for what is ultimately just for pleasure.
You are EXACTLY the same as a meat eater, you are just willing to forgo 1 more contribution to animal suffering than that meat eater, and that is eating meat.


So now that this element of unbelievable idiocy is eliminated from your consciousness, lets focus on what a more consistent set of moral values would look like.
I shall call it...

Try not to be a dick
Its very simple to adhere to this set of values. You just do what you want, but you try not to be a dick in life as best as you can, allthewhile realising that sometimes you are going to fail. Because you are not strictly a rational being. In the end you are just an animal with selfish desires that will sometimes be acted upon at the expense of other living beings, sentient or otherwise.


Now that I have proposed a set of moral values, lets propose a way of life that is consistent with this new set of values and might actually get us closer to eliminating the abomination that is factory farming from the face of this planet.
Intuitively the solution seems obvious. Everybody is against factory farming, so lets just all buy meat with a label that ensures animal welfare like the bio-label in Europe, or the AWA in the US. In reality however I'm quite sure this solution is not possible due to the enormous world population and accompanying demand for meat. You would require a shitton of land to have everyone be able to continue eating meat at their current consumption level. And then Im not even mentioning the problems in those labels themselves (like the refusal of using GMO's in products with the bio-label)
What I propose is just starting an anti-factory farming movement different from veganism and vegetarianism where everyone just eats the way they have always eaten 2 days a week, eat like a pescatarian 2 days a week, and eat like a vegan the remaining 3 days a week. If animal products you like have a version with an "animal-friendly" label on it, buy that one, if not, buy the normal one and wait for one with a label to come out.
That way people don't have to make that drastic a change and give up things they are not willing to give up and still work toward the common goal of reaching a world where only intelligent "animal-friendly" farming is allowed.


So that was pretty much it. This was my invitation to you all to stop your silly little fad (no offense) and join the notadickatarian movement. Or actually start it, not join it, because Im more of a thinker, less of a do'er...
Thanks for reading and Im looking forward to your comments.

IslandMorality wrote: I will begin by saying that even though you're all equally irrational, and inconsistent in your ways of life, I do have to say that I like vegans and vegetarians more than meat eaters, if only because they have already shown they are actually willing to make a change in their lives for the benefit of animal welfare across the globe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJoce-YTsU
Is that you at twenty-nine seconds?

IslandMorality wrote:Im gonna start by exposing the ONLY non-idiotic argument/belief used by vegans to advocate for veganism while being in no way consistent with (just) veganism. I have no time nor patience to explain to the less intelligent among you why arguments like me not eating my dog is idiotic. Although Ill throw you a bone here (get it? throw you a bone... dog... anyway...) and say that this particular one is idiotic because its a false analogy because you have a pet dog for the sole purpose of having a meaningful relationship with it. I wouldnt kill and eat my perfectly healthy pet pig either.

You don't seem to understand that argument.

The argument isn't like, "Wow, huh, I just don't understand why meat-eaters won't eat dogs! It's so confusing. Checkmate meat-eaters!"

The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing a dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). People arbitrarily make dogs pets and pigs food because of their culture, but dogs and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.

IslandMorality wrote:100% of all of the children you have brought into this world, 99% of everything you have ever bought, 99% of every shower you have ever taken, 99% of every meal in which rice was your carb source instead of potatoes, 99% of times you went anywhere in a motorized vehicle, in doing all of these things you have unnecessarily contributed to the suffering of sentient beings for what is ultimately just for pleasure.
(Im assuming this audience is well educated enough to know that all these things indirectly contribute to the suffering of sentient beings by habitat destruction due to deforestation, pollution, fresh water shortages,... so Im not going to go further into detail on this subject)

Not necessarily with all of these things, but I see your general point.

It's the whole 'nobody is perfect so to hell with it' mentality, right?

IslandMorality wrote:So unless you are a person who is living in a self sustaining community that is dedicated to using only the bare minimum of resources and grows only the most water efficient foods (in which case you wouldn't be reading this post, because you would not be using electricity for no purpose other than for your pleasure and probably wouldnt even have a justifiable reason for owning a computer in the first place), you are NOT a person that does not unnecessarily contribute to the suffering of sentient beings for what is ultimately just for pleasure.
You are EXACTLY the same as a meat eater, you are just willing to forgo 1 more contribution to animal suffering than that meat eater, and that is eating meat.

That's absurd. Exactly the same?

All harmful things are not equally harmful. The harm done from taking showers and eating rice or whatever doesn't even come close to the harm produced from factory farms in the production of meat and animal products.

IslandMorality wrote:Its very simple to adhere to this set of values. You just do what you want, but you try not to be a dick in life as best as you can, allthewhile realising that sometimes you are going to fail. Because you are not strictly a rational being. In the end you are just an animal with selfish desires that will sometimes be acted upon at the expense of other living beings, sentient or otherwise.

What?
Your idea is to be less good, because we can't be completely perfect?

IslandMorality wrote: What I propose is just starting an anti-factory farming movement different from veganism and vegetarianism where everyone just eats the way they have always eaten 2 days a week, eat like a pescatarian 2 days a week, and eat like a vegan the remaining 3 days a week. If animal products you like have a version with an "animal-friendly" label on it, buy that one, if not, buy the normal one and wait for one with a label to come out.
That way people don't have to make that drastic a change and give up things they are not willing to give up and still work toward the common goal of reaching a world where only intelligent "animal-friendly" farming is allowed.

I agree that we shouldn't necessarily advocate for veganism specifically, because that seems pretty hard for people and might not work as well as advocating for something less 'drastic', but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't practice it ourselves.
There's a difference between what is actually best and what is best for activism.

EquALLity wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJoce-YTsU
Is that you at twenty-nine seconds?

ad hominem, not gonna reply

You don't seem to understand that argument.

The argument isn't like, "Wow, huh, I just don't understand why meat-eaters won't eat dogs! It's so confusing. Checkmate meat-eaters!"

The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing a dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). People arbitrarily make dogs pets and pigs food because of their culture, but dogs and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.

No my friend, you just seem not to be able to read. I am strictly adressing the idiots who literally use "you wouldnt eat YOUR dog would you?" as an argument. Not the ones who present your current argument. I have literally had that happen on repeated occasions in debating vegans and vegetarians.
I began by taking it the way you are describing it now, which is also stupid by the way, because thats easily refuted with the simple fact that I would have no problem eating dog meat if it was available relatively cheaply, it tasted good, and had one of those labels on it that ensures those dogs had a good life until they got a hammer to the face and their throats cut.
Those people then literally started making it about my dog in specific.

And this is the last time Im addressing this level of argument again in this topic, just so you know

Ps: one of the reasons why I said meat eaters are equally irrational and inconsistent as vegans and vegetarians is because it is unfortunately true that a lot of people that eat meat don't share my attitude and would never consume dog meat under any circumstances.

Not necessarily with all of these things, but I see your general point.

It's the whole 'nobody is perfect so to hell with it' mentality, right?

No its really not. Learn the basics of logical implication and then come back and read my post again.

That's absurd. Exactly the same?

All harmful things are not equally harmful. The harm done from taking showers and eating rice or whatever doesn't even come close to the harm produced from factory farms in the production of meat and animal products.

I assumed it was obvious from the context I was referring to vegans being exactly the same as meat eaters with regard to both being people who are willing to cause or contribute to the suffering of sentient beings for their own pleasure, only differing in the degree to which they are willing to make such a contribution (that last part I did explicitly state, so Im really confused how you couldve interpreted it this wrong).
Thus they cannot use the moral argument that they wish to minimize suffering, by only contributing to suffering when it is necessary for their own survival, which as I stated is the ONLY non-idiotic argument a vegan has ever put forth to justify their veganism.


Not to mention the fact that I have expressed my disdain for factory farming TWICE in my post, yet you somehow bring it into the equation as though Im adjudicating it.

Your idea is to be less good, because we can't be completely perfect?

Again a failure to understand basic logical implication. In what way does this imply my idea is to be less good? Who says what everyone wants is to be less good?
That is an assumption you make. I wonder what kind of person you are if you dont have an innate desire to do good things generally.

To elaborate on what the not being a dick philosophy would look like applied to the problem of meat eating...
Supporting factory farming would make you a dick, for how those animals LIVE in a horrible way. However just eating meat (obviously non factory farmed) and/OR enjoying all the luxuries I mentioned as a vegan doesn't make you a dick, even though you both contribute to the horrible deaths of billions of animals.

And if you want a justification for that last part... First and foremost, everybody not living in a self sustaining community intent on using the most minimal of resources is contributing to these practices, and doing things I think we can both agree is a dick move? Yet both of us are not willing to change our behavior to the absolute extent of minimizing suffering, so we both accept ourselves being dicks in this regard.
Second... Even though they are dick moves, we are not doing anything that wouldnt happen anyway in 99% of cases, and that is why I literally dont give a single fuck about being a dick in this regard.
99% of prey animals will die in a similar way as getting sucked up into the blades of a harvesting machine in the case of agriculture, which grants you vegans the luxury of not having to be self sufficient, or getting their throats cut like in the (non factory farmed) meat industry, that grant meat eaters the pleasure of a sunday roast.
Granted, raising a cow to maturity requires a lot more rabbits getting sucked up into the combine or poisened or whatever than just using those grains for humans. But hey, if you dont care about billions of rabbits each year just so you dont have to go through the trouble of living without western luxuries, then what is wrong with killing an order of magnitude more rabbits and some cows to enjoy a sunday roast to go with that luxury lifestyle.
And more importantly, if for some reason you say "a couple billion is ok, but a couple hundred billion is not" where the fuck do you get the audacity to start pointing fingers at a meat eater that gets his food from farms that ensure animal welfare, and sets his line somewhere else than you.

And im curious... what is your justification for being a dick in the regard that you are willing to contribute to billions of bunnydeaths (and other kinds of animal suffering) for your own personal convenience/pleasure?

I agree that we shouldn't necessarily advocate for veganism specifically, because that seems pretty hard for people and might not work as well as advocating for something less 'drastic', but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't practice it ourselves.
There's a difference between what is actually best and what is best for activism.

You can practice it all you want, if that is your preference, but if you are willing to contribute to the suffering of all kinds of animals for the convenience and pleasure of not having to be self sufficient and sacrifice all luxuries you currently enjoy, then I dont really see why you wouldnt also wanna eat a good steak twice a week that came from an animal that lived a happy life and was slaughtered humanely.

IslandMorality wrote:ad hominem, not gonna reply

Nope, I wasn't using that to refute your arguments, so it's not an ad hominem.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I just found it humorous that, after equating vegans and vegetarians to meat-eaters in rationality, you then said that you like vegans better. How generous.

IslandMorality wrote:No my friend, you just seem not to be able to read. I am strictly adressing the idiots who literally use "you wouldnt eat YOUR dog would you?" as an argument. Not the ones who present your current argument. I have literally had that happen on repeated occasions in debating vegans and vegetarians.
I began by taking it the way you are describing it now, which is also stupid by the way, because thats easily refuted with the simple fact that I would have no problem eating dog meat if it was available relatively cheaply, it tasted good, and had one of those labels on it that ensures those dogs had a good life until they got a hammer to the face and their throats cut.
Those people then literally started making it about my dog in specific.

What?

Um, no, you just don't seem to realize that you're making a distinction where there is none.
There's no real difference between the argument, "Why not eat your pet?" and "Why not eat dogs (pets)?"
They're both pointing out the same exact thing in the same way.

Why not eat dogs argument:

The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing a dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). People arbitrarily make dogs pets and pigs food because of their culture, but dogs and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.

Why not eat your pet dog argument:

The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing your pet dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). You arbitrarily made that dog your pet, and pigs food, because of your culture, but your pet dog and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.

That argument makes perfect sense, because most meat-eaters would not eat dogs.
In addition, it points out your hypocrisy in apparently having no problem eating dogs, but not being willing to eat your dog.

IslandMorality wrote:And this is the last time Im addressing this level of argument again in this topic, just so you know

Ah, so is that you at twenty-four seconds?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUKTz4EzfBA

IslandMorality wrote:No its really not. Learn the basics of logical implication and then come back and read my post again.

This actually is an ad hominem. You didn't attempt to refute what I said; you just dismissed my argument, saying that I don't understand the 'basics of logical implication'.

You essentially said that, because of a few extremely minor forms of harm that are very difficult to avoid (showers etc.), vegans cannot be perfect in their quest to avoid harming others. So therefore, vegans are just as hypocritical and immoral as meat-eaters, and so people shouldn't even bother with veganism.
That's the 'nobody is perfect so to hell with it' mentality.

IslandMorality wrote:I assumed it was obvious from the context I was referring to vegans being exactly the same as meat eaters with regard to both being people who are willing to cause or contribute to the suffering of sentient beings for their own pleasure, only differing in the degree to which they are willing to make such a contribution (that last part I did explicitly state, so Im really confused how you couldve interpreted it this wrong).

That's not the impression I got. When you said 'EXACTLY the same', and followed it with that we just go one step further than meat-eaters, it sounded like an implication that we are both pretty much the same morally even though there is technically a slight difference.
Your suggestion that vegans are just as irrational and inconsistent as meat-eaters also made me think this (and I thought they were connected).

On what basis do you call us equally irrational and inconsistent, then?
I thought it was regarding this, but it sounds like you weren't saying what I thought you were.

Sure, all three groups are willing to contribute to suffering (though to VERY different extents).
But you made it sound like vegans are nearly the same as meat-eaters, and that we just have one tiny minuscule difference.
That's just not true, because factory farming causes way more harm than eating rice.

IslandMorality wrote:Not to mention the fact that I have expressed my disdain for factory farming TWICE in my post, yet you somehow bring it into the equation as though Im adjudicating it.

When I use meat-eaters, I mean the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters, and I thought that's how you were using it also.
And, since you put 'other' for your diet (because it's not showing up), and because of the way you wrote, I thought you were separating yourself from 'meat-eaters', even though you technically are one.

IslandMorality wrote: Granted, raising a cow to maturity requires a lot more rabbits getting sucked up into the combine or poisened or whatever than just using those grains for humans. But hey, if you dont care about billions of rabbits each year just so you dont have to go through the trouble of living without western luxuries, then what is wrong with killing an order of magnitude more rabbits and some cows to enjoy a sunday roast to go with that luxury lifestyle.
And more importantly, if for some reason you say "a couple billion is ok, but a couple hundred billion is not" where the fuck do you get the audacity to start pointing fingers at a meat eater that gets his food from farms that ensure animal welfare, and sets his line somewhere else than you.

This is the 'nobody is perfect so to hell with it' mentality again.
Have you ever heard of the phrase 'lesser of two evils'?

Not sure where you got a couple billion rabbits anyway though.

IslandMorality wrote:Again a failure to understand basic logical implication. In what way does this imply my idea is to be less good? Who says what everyone wants is to be less good?

I didn't say that everyone wants to be less good, but that would be the consequence based on what you seemed to be suggesting.

You said: "You just do what you want, but you try not to be a dick in life as best as you can,"
As in, "Do what personally benefits you, but try not to harm others when it's convenient enough."

You're now acting like you were really saying that 'doing what you want' is being good.
So what you really meant is... "You just do what's good, but try not to be bad."
...

Not to mention that this entire time you've been supporting doing things that give you pleasure at the expense of others.

IslandMorality wrote:That is an assumption you make. I wonder what kind of person you are if you dont have an innate desire to do good things generally.

That's not an assumption; it's what makes sense in the context of what you were saying.

I do have that desire. It didn't seem like that's what you were suggesting 'do what you want' is.

IslandMorality wrote:And im curious... what is your justification for being a dick in the regard that you are willing to contribute to billions of bunnydeaths (and other kinds of animal suffering) for your own personal convenience/pleasure?

Unfortunately, it's inevitable that I'll cause harm to other sentient beings.
But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to reduce the harm.

IslandMorality wrote:You can practice it all you want, if that is your preference, but if you are willing to contribute to the suffering of all kinds of animals for the convenience and pleasure of not having to be self sufficient and sacrifice all luxuries you currently enjoy, then I dont really see why you wouldnt also wanna eat a good steak twice a week that came from an animal that lived a happy life and was slaughtered humanely.

That came from an animal that lived a happy life and was slaughtered humanely... That's not what the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters support.

But even so, it's very easy to not eat animals.
Showering and eating some food is extremely different.

IslandMorality wrote:And this is the last time Im addressing this level of argument again in this topic, just so you know

A requirement of participating in this forum is being willing to respond to arguments. That goes both ways. If you want people to reply to your arguments rationally, rather than just negating them, ignoring whole chunks of them, or changing the topic, you need to do the same and reply to criticism.

See the first rule:

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.

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=11&t=52

If it becomes apparent you are here to lecture rather than engage in arguments (because you make claims and then won't back them up or respond to criticism), your posts will just be removed.

It goes both ways. Vegans here will not be allowed to just lecture at you and not answer questions or respond to your criticism of their arguments.

If you did not want to discuss "This level or argument", you shouldn't have brought it up by making claims against it.
If you are unable to support your claim, just admit that you may have misunderstood the argument or misspoke and retract your original claim (you don't need to negate your claim, just no longer assert it as true: e.g. admit 'agnosticism' toward it; the difference between "God does not exist" and "I don't accept that god exists, nor do I deny the possibility"), and you will no longer be required to defend it.
By making claims you assume the burden of proof, and of arguing on their behalf including responding to criticism.

Pretty easy.

EquALLity wrote:

IslandMorality wrote:No its really not. Learn the basics of logical implication and then come back and read my post again.

This actually is an ad hominem. You didn't attempt to refute what I said; you just dismissed my argument, saying that I don't understand the 'basics of logical implication'.

Again, IslandMorality, you must respond to the arguments made. Dismissing arguments like this is against forum rules.

If you have a problem with her reasoning, then you should explain more clearly what fallacies are being made and where.

If at any time you feel somebody has not responded to YOUR arguments against that persons' claims properly, but just negated or ignored and went on to argue more without addressing them, then you are free to report the post as a violation of rule #1.
Keep in mind, this doesn't apply to somebody arguing against ONE of your arguments, but not against another. Only the person making the assertion originally is required to support it.

So if EquALLity argues against your assertion about the "dog argument", but ignored the rest of your original argument (did not negate it), then that's fine. You have to reply to her argument against yours regarding the "dog argument", and she has to reply to your arguments against her argument about the "dog argument" etc.
Each argument is its own independent thread, and nobody is required to address ALL of your points; just continue to address those points which argue against what he or she has actually claimed.

If you have any questions about how this burden of proof and argument works, please don't hesitate to ask.


This part is for EquALLity, I'm not attempting to form an argument against IslandMorality here, just correcting a point EquALLity made based on my understanding of what the argument was:

EquALLity wrote:In addition, it points out your hypocrisy in apparently having no problem eating dogs, but not being willing to eat your dog.

This may not be hypocritical, it's just being an asshole/blinded by irrational sentiment and incapable of seeing the actual ethics in an action in terms of its effect on others. That is, he only cares about his own feelings, not the feelings of others.
Like the willingness to melt down other people's jewelry for gold, but not your own because it has sentimental value to you -- If I understand his argument, he sees no more innate value in the life of an animal than in a chunk of metal, only the value he gives it.

If he thinks irrational sentimental value is equivalent to ethics, he's just a moron (and that's a different matter you could get into).
I don't know if this is the claim he is making yet, though, so I'm unsure if I should address this.

He apparently thinks mere sentiment (or utility, like the dog protects the house) is the reason most people won't kill their pets, and can not fathom the objective and rational ethics of respecting another being's will to live regardless of personal attachment or lack thereof to it.

While this is true for some rather amoral people -- only abstaining from killing their dogs while useful, or because they have sentimental attachment -- for many there is at least some substantial moral concern regarding the wrongness of killing a being who doesn't want to die (which is inconsistently applied to dogs and not pigs), and that's what the argument about "why not kill dogs?" addresses.

EquALLity wrote: Nope, I wasn't using that to refute your arguments, so it's not an ad hominem.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I just found it humorous that, after equating vegans and vegetarians to meat-eaters in rationality, you then said that you like vegans better. How generous.

seriously man?
"Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it." Getting people to associate me with someone like Cenk Uygur is definitely not to my favor if you watch the average TYT video, and more than qualifies as an ad hominem.

This might have just been my interpretation that that was your intention in posting that, in that case my mistake.

What?

Um, no, you just don't seem to realize that you're making a distinction where there is none.
There's no real difference between the argument, "Why not eat your pet?" and "Why not eat dogs (pets)?"
They're both pointing out the same exact thing in the same way.

Why not eat dogs argument:

The argument is that, in reality, there is no difference (ethically speaking) between killing a dog and killing a pig, since they are both of the same sentience (relatively). People arbitrarily make dogs pets and pigs food because of their culture, but dogs and pigs are actually pretty much the same in regards to how they should be treated.

Again, and also for the last time, the people I was addressing when I wrote that comment were the ones that in former debates after I gave my "I would also eat humanely cultivated dogmeat" response, in which I address the argument of there being no difference between killing a dog or a pig, they made it about my dog specifically.
And the point of that argument (you wouldnt eat YOUR dog?) is null, considering it is a false analogy. It is definitely not the same one as "there's no reason for dogs and pigs to be treated differently", because then they would just be asking me to repeat the explanation I just gave them.

That argument makes perfect sense, because most meat-eaters would not eat dogs.

Thats because most meat eaters are uninformed, inconsistent and irrational people, just like most vegans are uninformed, inconsistent and irrational people.

In addition, it points out your hypocrisy in apparently having no problem eating dogs, but not being willing to eat your dog.

How in the world would that make me a hypocrite?
First of all: Im definitely willing to eat my dog if he dies of natural causes, at the very least in the sense that I have no objections to it, moral or otherwise. It would just not happen for the same reasons I dont go around to farms and prepare my own steak from the corpse of a cow. Too much effort for one...
And FYI, if there is a culture in the world that practices this (even eating the remains of dead people in their family), I would have no objections to them doing that whatsoever.
Second: if you claim Im a hypocrite for not killing my dog, you need to reread that part about 'pet pig' and 'sole purpose for having a meaningful relationship'. If you still think Im a hypocrite then, please let me know now so I have absolute 100% confirmation that you cannot be reasoned with, as I am currently suspecting already.

This actually is an ad hominem. You didn't attempt to refute what I said; you just dismissed my argument, saying that I don't understand the 'basics of logical implication'.

First its not an ad hominem, you claim Im saying something I never said and then proposing an argument to negate that thing I never said, which is the very definition of a straw man argument. I have every right to say you need to learn the basics of logical implication before having a debate with someone.

Second: right below it I explain it anyway. (that the ONLY thing implied with me saying that was that vegans cannot use the moral argument that they wish to minimize suffering, by only contributing to suffering when it is necessary for their own survival.)

You essentially said that, because of a few extremely minor forms of harm that are very difficult to avoid (showers etc.), vegans cannot be perfect in their quest to avoid harming others. So therefore, vegans are just as hypocritical and immoral as meat-eaters, and so people shouldn't even bother with veganism.
That's the 'nobody is perfect so to hell with it' mentality.

Contributing to massive deforestation, pollution and direct animal fatalities I wouldnt exactly call "minor" (also a remarkable choice that you focus on the showering part and not the having kids or the '99% of everything you have ever bought' parts). And "very difficult" is also an incredibly subjective expression. It wouldnt be detrimental to your health at all to give up all western luxuries and join a self sufficient community somewhere in the world. It would just be incredibly uncomfortable to you as a person and you choose to view it as an enormous sacrifice in quality of life.
The people who live in such communities are perfectly happy living the way they do. You viewing their sacrifice as "very difficult" is no different than a meat-eater viewing your sacrifice of eating meat very difficult.
So yeah, you are indeed a hypocrite if, in your position, you use the argument of 'minimizing suffering' against a meat-eater.

That's not the impression I got. When you said 'EXACTLY the same', and followed it with that we just go one step further than meat-eaters, it sounded like an implication that we are both pretty much the same morally even though there is technically a slight difference.
Your suggestion that vegans are just as irrational and inconsistent as meat-eaters also made me think this (and I thought they were connected).

On what basis do you call us equally irrational and inconsistent, then?
I thought it was regarding this, but it sounds like you weren't saying what I thought you were.

Sure, all three groups are willing to contribute to suffering (though to VERY different extents).
But you made it sound like vegans are nearly the same as meat-eaters, and that we just have one tiny minuscule difference.
That's just not true, because factory farming causes way more harm than eating rice.


When I use meat-eaters, I mean the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters, and I thought that's how you were using it also.
And, since you put 'other' for your diet (because it's not showing up), and because of the way you wrote, I thought you were separating yourself from 'meat-eaters', even though you technically are one.

Ok then, from now on you know when I say the word "meat-eater" I am talking about people who eat meat conscientiously.
And for the record, you ARE exactly the same as those meat eaters Im talking about, with regard to being willing to have animals suffer for your personal pleasure, with just a tiny miniscule difference between you two.

There is however a world of difference between the group of vegans and my kind of meateaters, and the group of meateaters that keep factory farming alive.

This is the 'nobody is perfect so to hell with it' mentality again.
Have you ever heard of the phrase 'lesser of two evils'?

If you really believe that and want to live by that motto, then join a self sustaining community, you billion-bunny-murdering vegan.

But seriously, you honestly believe killing billions of animals in a certain way is ok to enjoy luxuries, but killing hundreds of billions in the exact same way for that very same reason is suddenly not ok?
Other than that I am quite curious where you get the "to hell with it" part as I am clearly advocating very conscientious practices such as limiting meat intake to two days a week and fish and dairy intake to 2 more days a week. This ofcourse because its the only way to eliminate the need for factory farming, which needs to be eliminated because it contains horrific practices not present in vegan-oriented and conscientious animal agriculture.
When you remove factory farming from the equation it becomes just a question of numbers and no longer a question of different types of suffering.

And like I said earlier: if you dont give a shit about 1 billion animals killed a certain way to enjoy certain luxuries, its completely absurd to start caring about 100 billion. That does not imply a 'to hell with it attitude', that just implies you already made a choice that its morally acceptable to kill animals that way to enjoy certain luxuries. And you know what... it IS morally acceptable, for the reason I already stated, but you so "arbitrarily" left out of your quotes of my post.
Namely because it is the type of way they would die anyway. It doesnt fucking matter to the animal in question if it happens at time x because of human y, or if it happens at time x+3 years because of predator z. It will experience the exact same type of suffering.
At least in conscientious animal agriculture the livestock get their throat cut after they get knocked unconscious by physical or medical means and are saved the pain a lot of other animals experience.

The golden rule says do onto others as you would have them do onto you. I would much prefer dying by a hammer to the skull followed by getting my throat cut while I am unconscious than be consiously eaten alive by a predator in the wild.

Not sure where you got a couple billion rabbits anyway though.

Think a billion a year of random sentient animals killed by non-animal agriculture is more than a safe bet, don't you agree? In fact Im pretty sure its the understatement of the century...
And me using bunnies is just for convenience and not to be taken too literally.

I didn't say that everyone wants to be less good, but that would be the consequence based on what you seemed to be suggesting.


You said: "You just do what you want, but you try not to be a dick in life as best as you can,"
As in, "Do what personally benefits you, but try not to harm others when it's convenient enough."

You're now acting like you were really saying that 'doing what you want' is being good.
So what you really meant is... "You just do what's good, but try not to be bad."
...

Not to mention that this entire time you've been supporting doing things that give you pleasure at the expense of others.

That's not an assumption; it's what makes sense in the context of what you were saying.

I do have that desire. It didn't seem like that's what you were suggesting 'do what you want' is.

No it wouldnt be, I dont think people's moral views are that big of a determinant of their eventual behavior. If you dont agree with me on this I suggest you start asking meat eaters around you if they think its right to kill an animal for fun, or you look up the statistics on teen pregnancy in religious teens that believe in no premarital sex.
That was in fact the entire point in suggesting to hold such a fleeting, shallow, ludicrous moral set of values. Because it doesnt really fucking matter what you tell yourself. Social context and personal desire are OVERWHELMINGLY bigger driving forces of behavior.
So just try to not be a dick as much as you can, because that is the only set of moral values you will be able to live your life by.

Unfortunately, it's inevitable that I'll cause harm to other sentient beings.
But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to reduce the harm.

What I was asking was why you choose to not reduce it further by going to live in a self sustaining community, restricting your diet to the most resource-efficient foods, and never buying anything you dont need anymore?
In other words what makes this level of you being a dick acceptable, other than your own arbitrary desires?

That came from an animal that lived a happy life and was slaughtered humanely... That's not what the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters support.

But even so, it's very easy to not eat animals.

I asked YOU, I dont give a shit about what the overwhelming majority of meat-eaters support. Why wouldnt YOU eat a nice animal-friendly-farm-produced steak twice a week if you are willing to contribute animal suffering by not cultivating your own food in a self sustaining community and by buying all the unnecessary shit you undoubtedly own just like every other westerner?

Showering and eating some food is extremely different.

Again with the showering... Someone who felt confident in their position wouldve chosen to use one of the more terrible examples to completely obliterate my point

brimstoneSalad wrote:
A requirement of participating in this forum is being willing to respond to arguments. That goes both ways. If you want people to reply to your arguments rationally, rather than just negating them, ignoring whole chunks of them, or changing the topic, you need to do the same and reply to criticism.

See the first rule:

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.

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=11&t=52

If it becomes apparent you are here to lecture rather than engage in arguments (because you make claims and then won't back them up or respond to criticism), your posts will just be removed.

It goes both ways. Vegans here will not be allowed to just lecture at you and not answer questions or respond to your criticism of their arguments.

If you did not want to discuss "This level or argument", you shouldn't have brought it up by making claims against it.
If you are unable to support your claim, just admit that you may have misunderstood the argument or misspoke and retract your original claim (you don't need to negate your claim, just no longer assert it as true: e.g. admit 'agnosticism' toward it; the difference between "God does not exist" and "I don't accept that god exists, nor do I deny the possibility"), and you will no longer be required to defend it.
By making claims you assume the burden of proof, and of arguing on their behalf including responding to criticism.

Pretty easy.

So if in a debate I say "If you are a vegan you are making an uninformed decision, because spock was never the captain of the enterprise", people actually have to engage that sort of crap?

I would expect a basic minimum of intellectual prowess from the people I talk to, and I dont think that is too much to ask. I cant be expected to teach a class on logical fallacies...

EquALLity wrote:
Again, IslandMorality, you must respond to the arguments made. Dismissing arguments like this is against forum rules.

If you have a problem with her reasoning, then you should explain more clearly what fallacies are being made and where.

If at any time you feel somebody has not responded to YOUR arguments against that persons' claims properly, but just negated or ignored and went on to argue more without addressing them, then you are free to report the post as a violation of rule #1.
Keep in mind, this doesn't apply to somebody arguing against ONE of your arguments, but not against another. Only the person making the assertion originally is required to support it.

So if EquALLity argues against your assertion about the "dog argument", but ignored the rest of your original argument (did not negate it), then that's fine. You have to reply to her argument against yours regarding the "dog argument", and she has to reply to your arguments against her argument about the "dog argument" etc.
Each argument is its own independent thread, and nobody is required to address ALL of your points; just continue to address those points which argue against what he or she has actually claimed.

If you have any questions about how this burden of proof and argument works, please don't hesitate to ask.

Same as what I said to EquALLity, I gave my explanation right below that sentence.

This may not be hypocritical, it's just being an asshole/blinded by irrational sentiment and incapable of seeing the actual ethics in an action in terms of its effect on others. That is, he only cares about his own feelings, not the feelings of others.
Like the willingness to melt down other people's jewelry for gold, but not your own because it has sentimental value to you -- If I understand his argument, he sees no more innate value in the life of an animal than in a chunk of metal, only the value he gives it.

You cant say "this is for EquaLLity" and then say Im being an asshole and make all kinds of claims about what Im doing. And in no way could you logically conclude that I only care about my own feelings from what I said without making a shitload of unjustified assumption.

Other than that I am quite curious what kind of ill effects an animal (dog, human, or livestock alike) would suffer having their skulls bashed in by one-hit-ko in an isolated environment. I would argue none, considering they would be dead and not able to suffer anything anymore, because they wouldnt be sentient beings anymore.

If he thinks irrational sentimental value is equivalent to ethics, he's just a moron (and that's a different matter you could get into).
I don't know if this is the claim he is making yet, though, so I'm unsure if I should address this.

Trust me, I really, really, REALLY dont.

He apparently thinks mere sentiment (or utility, like the dog protects the house) is the reason most people won't kill their pets and can not fathom the objective and rational ethics of respecting another being's will to live regardless of personal attachment or lack thereof to it.

Yeah I do (the sentiment part, not utility), and Im right. I will bet you one thousand dollars if you ask 10 random people on the street that are walking their dog why they wouldnt kill their dog, but they dont mind pigs and cows getting slaughtered, you will get nothing but emotional responses. Not a single argument from philosophical theories of ethics will be presented.
And I will bet you another 1000 dollars that you are not willing to accept this bet.
You know why, because the average individual on the street is not very smart and doesn't really think the things he/she does through that much.

And objective? Please Read some books on ethics and get back to me then when we're actually able to have a meaningful discussion.

While this is true for some rather amoral people -- only abstaining from killing their dogs while useful, or because they have sentimental attachment -- for many there is at least some substantial moral concern regarding the wrongness of killing a being who doesn't want to die (which is inconsistently applied to dogs and not pigs), and that's what the argument about "why not kill dogs?" addresses.

Why do YOU think killing a being that does not want to die is wrong?

(and mind the word "killing", give me your answer in the best possible context of that dilemma, i.e a clean kill, one without any conscious experience of suffering whatsoever)

IslandMorality wrote: "Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.

It's about intent and usage.

If I discredit your argument through rational argument, and then say "furthermore, you are an idiot", that is not an ad hominem fallacy, it's just a good old fashioned insult.

IslandMorality wrote: Again, and also for the last time, the people I was addressing when I wrote that comment were the ones that in former debates after I gave my "I would also eat humanely cultivated dogmeat" response, in which I address the argument of there being no difference between killing a dog or a pig, they made it about my dog specifically.

Then you were making a straw man fallacy. Understandable, since you apparently engaged with some vegans who were less than rational. Those people did not convey the argument correctly, likely because they did not have a grasp on moral philosophy. They were trying to follow a script, and went off script when you didn't give the expected response.

Making it about your dog specifically after you say you'd be fine with eating dog (other people's dogs), is not a standard vegan argument. You just ran into somebody making a strange argument, that shouldn't be represented as a typical vegan argument.

IslandMorality wrote: And the point of that argument (you wouldnt eat YOUR dog?) is null, considering it is a false analogy. It is definitely not the same one as "there's no reason for dogs and pigs to be treated differently", because then they would just be asking me to repeat the explanation I just gave them.

Because you derive utility from your dog, and your dog is worth more to you alive than dead because of that: Whether that is protecting your home, or providing company.
However, you see nothing morally wrong with killing and eating your dog (is this correct?), and that's what you should have clarified to them.
If at some point the value of your dog to you was higher as meat than for companionship, I assume you would have no problem killing and eating it, aside from the inconvenience, correct?

IslandMorality wrote: If you still think Im a hypocrite then, please let me know now so I have absolute 100% confirmation that you cannot be reasoned with, as I am currently suspecting already.

You may be a hypocrite for other reasons, but probably not because of that point: Which is why I pointed it out for her as a mistake (based on my understanding of your argument).

IslandMorality wrote: First its not an ad hominem, you claim Im saying something I never said and then proposing an argument to negate that thing I never said, which is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Then specify that it was a straw man fallacy, and try to clarify your argument.

The reason she misunderstood your argument is because you presented a very strange argument (not a standard vegan argument), and represented it as common. Essentially, you built the first straw man in this battle of straw men -- perhaps because you've been misinformed on vegan arguments by talking to somebody very stupid who was an actual straw vegan.

IslandMorality wrote: I have every right to say you need to learn the basics of logical implication before having a debate with someone.

If you did not make yourself understandable, you just need to clarify better, not attack the person and refuse to address the argument made.
The source of the misunderstanding was your misunderstanding of the typical vegan argument, brought on by somebody you encountered in the past making a very strange argument.

Argue in good faith, OK?

brimstoneSalad wrote:

IslandMorality wrote: "Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.

It's about intent and usage.

If I discredit your argument through rational argument, and then say "furthermore, you are an idiot", that is not an ad hominem fallacy, it's just a good old fashioned insult.

Why do you engage this and omit the part where I say "This might have just been my interpretation that that was your intention in posting that, in that case my mistake."?

Then you were making a straw man fallacy. Understandable, since you apparently engaged with some vegans who were less than rational. Those people did not convey the argument correctly, likely because they did not have a grasp on moral philosophy. They were trying to follow a script, and went off script when you didn't give the expected response.

Making it about your dog specifically after you say you'd be fine with eating dog (other people's dogs), is not a standard vegan argument. You just ran into somebody making a strange argument, that shouldn't be represented as a typical vegan argument.

No its not a straw man. This whole ridiculous discussion about "not eating your dog" was started by ME when I said:
"I have no time nor patience to explain to the less intelligent among you why arguments pointing out me not eating my dog are idiotic. Although Ill throw you a bone here (get it? throw you a bone... dog... anyway...) and say that this particular one is idiotic because its a false analogy because you have a pet dog for the sole purpose of having a meaningful relationship with it. I wouldnt kill and eat my perfectly healthy pet pig either."

It was an example, of one among many idiotic arguments used by vegans. In saying that I am in no way implying all vegans use that argument, I am just giving an example of the type of idiocy I will not engage with. (Which ironically I ended up doing anyway XD)
Plus I never said it was a typical one.

Because you derive utility from your dog, and your dog is worth more to you alive than dead because of that: Whether that is protecting your home, or providing company.
However, you see nothing morally wrong with killing and eating your dog (is this correct?), and that's what you should have clarified to them.
If at some point the value of your dog to you was higher as meat than for companionship, I assume you would have no problem killing and eating it, aside from the inconvenience, correct?

IF that were to happen yes, I wouldnt see a problem with it, on account of her not experiencing suffering when I do it. But I love my dog A LOT, so thats a big 'if'. The odds of that happening are slim to none.
But you are completely right, that is indeed what I shouldve clarified to them. Why didnt I think of that, thats a way better response to that amateuristic objection. Thanks!

Then specify that it was a straw man fallacy, and try to clarify your argument.

The reason she misunderstood your argument is because you presented a very strange argument (not a standard vegan argument), and represented it as common. Essentially, you built the first straw man in this battle of straw men -- perhaps because you've been misinformed on vegan arguments by talking to somebody very stupid who was an actual straw vegan.

Like I said in my previous response to you, did so below that sentence.

If you did not make yourself understandable, you just need to clarify better, not attack the person and refuse to address the argument made.
The source of the misunderstanding was your misunderstanding of the typical vegan argument, brought on by somebody you encountered in the past making a very strange argument.

Argue in good faith, OK?

As stated earlier somewhere at the top of this post, there was no misunderstanding of a vegan argument on my part. But you're right about arguing in good faith. I just get pissed off relatively quickly when people make random assumptions because they too entrenched in their own little box and dont argue on point.
Shouldnt let it get to me

IslandMorality wrote: Yeah I do (the sentiment part, not utility), and Im right. I will bet you one thousand dollars if you ask 10 random people on the street that are walking their dog why they wouldnt kill their dog, but they dont mind pigs and cows getting slaughtered, you will get nothing but emotional responses. Not a single argument from philosophical theories of ethics will be presented.
And I will bet you another 1000 dollars that you are not willing to accept this bet.

I accept the second bet. Now I accept the first bet. You owe me $1,000, since I have just won the first bet I accepted (by accepting the second, the first your proposed).
I will accept payment by bitcoin.

When we have settled this outstanding sum, I will perform the survey.

I may or may not win the survey bet (depending on the random people), but worst case I've broken even and have to return the $1,000, best case I get another thousand.

IslandMorality wrote: You know why, because the average individual on the street is not very smart and doesn't really think the things he/she does through that much.

Most vegans, as you say, as most people, are not very rational or educated. Most people DO function on emotional impulse foremost. But most people also try to maintain a sense of moral consistency on these matters -- while they will fail to do so, they try -- and attempt to use reason to rationalize those initial emotional impulses (much like you are doing now) because they want to consider themselves reasonable.

This is called cognitive dissonance, and it's basic psychology.

This is why the dog thought experiment is so useful; it highlights a contradiction for most people, and compels them to think about it.
Try it yourself: You'll find people kind of argue with themselves in trying to work out why one is OK and the other isn't. They didn't think of it before hand, but will do so before your eyes. They usually will not be satisfied with the explanation "I like dogs", but rather try to justify it in some way.

Common means are:

"It's wrong to kill dogs because they are smart and have feelings, those animals aren't/don't."
"It's wrong to kill dogs because they were born to be pets, and other animals are born to be food; it's their purpose."
Very often the religious version:
"God gave us these animals to eat, so it's right to kill them for food, but not other reasons or other animals"
"It's wrong to kill animals if you don't have to, we have to kill other animals for food, we don't have to eat dogs."

All very bad arguments, but touching on various philosophical precepts, with a notion toward attempting to create a coherent ethical framework.

Only occasionally will somebody admit "I just like dogs, no other reason, I don't like cows/pigs/chickens".
And only very rarely will say claim "It's not wrong, you can kill dogs for food if you want, just not MY dog, because it's useful to me."

Again, try this survey yourself -- results will also vary substantially by region, it would be very interesting to map responses.

IslandMorality wrote: And objective? Please Read some books on ethics and get back to me then when we're actually able to have a meaningful discussion.

Don't worry, I'm quite well read. You will soon discover how absurd that taunt was.


As to the forum rules:

IslandMorality wrote: So if in a debate I say "If you are a vegan you are making an uninformed decision, because spock was never the captain of the enterprise", people actually have to engage that sort of crap?

That would be transparently trolling. But people could make an equivalent logical mistake (just one not so transparent), and you should be able to explain why it is a mistake: Otherwise, you probably don't understand your own argument. Perhaps it just appears not to follow, but it was just explained badly.

Perhaps, as with the "dog argument" issue, you were misinformed as to what the vegan argument was (by equally uninformed vegans). Maybe you thought people were vegan because they loved star trek and thought Spock (played by Leonard Nemoy, who I believe was vegetarian) was the captain.
This should be seen as an opportunity to correct a misconception, once it is identified.

Very often the majority of real argument is in rooting out where people are mistaken or misinformed, and finding the hidden assumptions. There's very little actual sparring of logical statements involved.

Again, it comes down to arguing in good faith, and trying to understand a position.

IslandMorality wrote: I would expect a basic minimum of intellectual prowess from the people I talk to, and I dont think that is too much to ask. I cant be expected to teach a class on logical fallacies...

Then you may want to reconsider using the internet. Half of what I do is explaining the same very basic concepts to people repeatedly. As I will probably have to do with you.

In the very least, you can name the fallacy and provide a simple link and a sentence explaining why it fits.

IslandMorality wrote: You cant say "this is for EquaLLity" and then say Im being an asshole and make all kinds of claims about what Im doing. And in no way could you logically conclude that I only care about my own feelings from what I said without making a shitload of unjustified assumption.

As I said, your argument was not necessarily very clear to me, which is why I wasn't sure if that was what needed to be addressed. I just skimmed and saw EquALLity's mistake.
I wasn't trying to make any representations of having fully understood your argument; just correcting another forum member.

IslandMorality wrote:

If he thinks irrational sentimental value is equivalent to ethics, he's just a moron (and that's a different matter you could get into).
I don't know if this is the claim he is making yet, though, so I'm unsure if I should address this.

Trust me, I really, really, REALLY dont.

Good to hear.

To your question:

IslandMorality wrote: Other than that I am quite curious what kind of ill effects an animal (dog, human, or livestock alike) would suffer having their skulls bashed in by one-hit-ko in an isolated environment. I would argue none, considering they would be dead and not able to suffer anything anymore, because they wouldnt be sentient beings anymore.

IslandMorality wrote: Why do YOU think killing a being that does not want to die is wrong?

(and mind the word "killing", give me your answer in the best possible context of that dilemma, i.e a clean kill, one without any conscious experience of suffering whatsoever)

Killing is not wrong if the being in question has no interest in living, in an isolated environment. It's also not wrong in sum if the benefits outweigh the harm (e.g. killing one to save many), in a non-isolated environment. The killing is probably wrong, but other goods may outweigh that. It depends on the consequences.

Generally speaking, most sentient animals -- including humans -- do not wish to be killed, and would like to live as long as reasonably possible providing they aren't suffering horribly.

The thing I'm morally interested is interests, and the consequences of actions upon them. If you have no interest in living and don't mind being killed painlessly, and this does not have more negative than positive consequences upon others' interests, then it is not wrong to kill you painlessly.

I don't care about "suffering", that is not the definition of moral harm (contrary to what some may have mistakenly led you to believe). Suffering only matters because most animals, like their interest in not dying, also do not want to suffer.
I can tell you now and quite definitively I would rather ensure the suffering of you stomping on my foot than be killed painlessly. Do you not feel the same way?
Suffering itself is irrelevant: We weigh interests.

There are two primary kinds of vegans: Deontological vegans who are obsessed with inviolable rights, and Utilitarian vegans who are interested in reducing suffering and increasing pleasure. See this thread for some discussion: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=7&t=785
Both are incorrect. The former more so than the latter (in so far as we can measure a magnitude of incorrectness).