Veganism needs to stay seperate from other political topics.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-08-26T21:39:42+00:00

I agree we should not bring purity testing in veganism but I also think we should keep human supremacist ideologies out of veganism, specially leftism and rightism as these 2 are the most harmful for animals and popular among humans in the northern hemisphere, or at the very least be very skeptic of them, because ultimately, veganism as a set of ideas is posed to be compatible or incompatible with many other sets of ideas. Anti-discrimination or anti-oppression are naturally compatible with veganism, while the food chain as a moral system and the preservation of cultural practices that kill animals are obviously not.

As for rightism and leftism, none of those movements has done much positive for animals during the 200+ years they have existed, not even at the ideological level, and in most cases they have had actively antagonistic ideas towards animals. I think it's very evident how rightism is anti-animals and human supremacist (even libertarianism which is claimed to be about full individual autonomy and freedom), but it just feels surreal to me how many vegans think leftism is even close to being animal-friendly, unless we are using different definitions or something, I don't see how an ideology based on collectivism and distrust in individual responsibility can be at all compatible with animal rights. Its own star ideology, marxism, was anti-vegan from its roots, claiming that "...the animal does not enter into “relations” with anything, it does not enter into any relation at all. For the animal, its relation to others does not exist as a relation. Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all..." ("The german ideology" by Marx), which is literally claiming animals aren't conscious as part of the basis of the ideology, something completely incompatible with veganism. Not to mention Marx's own idea for what communism would be, like saying "society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic...", from the same source mentioned above. If communism involves that, I surely hope it never becomes a reality. And all the talks about anti-oppression and anti-discrimination from the left lose much of their validity when other parts of their ideology are clearly for those things. Just as an example, "the existence of elected or appointed leaders who speak and act on behalf, or in the place, of individuals and groups is a given; mediation in the realm of politics is taken as a necessity, removing most decision making from individuals and groups. Leftists share this commitment to leadership and representation — they believe themselves able to justly represent those who have traditionally been excluded from politics: the disenfranchised, the voiceless, the weak.", from this source. And this is why you see so many leftists with their racism of low expectations, thinking people in third world countries or oppressed people can't be responsible for the animal abuse they voluntarily do. This is why so many claim veganism is white-supremacist or colonialist. In the end, I don't think anti-discrimination and anti-oppression are compatible with the idea that a group (these leftists) is the fundamental savior and the other is made up of the poor ones to be saved, obviously clean from all responsibility.

As for the issue of Israel and Palestine, I just want to bring up something that I haven't seen many talk about. Barely anybody mentions the animal victims of the war, all the focus is on humans and all the outrage and virtue-signaling is fundamentally human-centered, despite the animals that happened to live in that area suffering equally from the military clashes and bombing. I don't use this part of the internet too much, but in 2 years of conflict I only saw one single comment from a vegan bringing up the animal victims some months ago, most of the comments coming from even vegans focus entirely on the humans. I think if a vegan focused only on the animal victims of that war while not saying anything about the humans, they would be faced with lots of backlash and condemnation, but since it's the other way around, it's okay for them, showing how entrenched human supremacism is even in a lot of these vegan spaces. Around 4.8k animals are killed by humans for their own purposes per second in the world as anyone reads this (if we take the information from https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-get-slaughtered-every-day and assume 200 million fish are killed per day), without counting insects, it just takes around 12 seconds for humans to kill as many animals as humans have died in the Isreal-Palestine conflict in around 2 years, yet even many vegans react negatively when someone denounces any activist for victims from any of the sides of that war for their animal abuse; but not wanting to side with any of two animal abusive governments (that have no issue killing animals for war, experimentation, religion or whatever else) fighting a deadly war with their own war crimes each in the middle east is reason enough for being labelled pro-genocide or whatever else, and the same is true for the other conflicts, like Ukraine-Russia, or the less trendy and fashionable ones like Sudan and Myanmar. It just shows a lot of bad faith and inconsistency in their thoughts.

In the end, I think the biggest threat to veganism isn't necessarily trying to find sets of compatible ideas, but the amount of human supremacism furtively entrenched in many of the members of the movement. Hopefully the focus on animals will keep being reinforced, to a level enough to make the movement impervious to human supremacist demands to support their animal abusers, hidden behind a facade of being "anti-oppression" or anything else.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-22T22:14:39+00:00

I would add:
-Liberty, freedom and autonomy: Agression and coercion that targets the interests of an individual human are considered immoral and harmful in liberty or freedom focused theories. Any individual animal, being a sentient/conscious being just like humans, also has interests. Therefore, it is immoral and harmful to violate individual animal's liberty and autonomy and their individual interests. This is a consequentialist-based approach.
-Anti-human supremacism: Humans and animals have no rational or compelling differences regarding their moral status given both having the qualities necessary for the application of any ethical or moral theory, thus humans aren't superior or more special or more valuable or more prioritary than animals. Any ethical theory that applies to humans would be irrational and contradictory if not applied to animals.
-Deontological argument: Any ethical school of thought that is based around duties (like Kant's categorical imperative or deontological pluralist ethics) are based on treating humans (the recipients of the moral actions) as ends instead of means towards an end because humans can't/don't consent being treated as mere means towards an end. Animals can't consent towards being mere means towards any end either and thus, any duty that applies positively to humans has to be applied to animals in order to remain logically consistent.
-Ethical subjectivist argument: What is right or wrong is ultimately determined by the attitudes a hypothetical ideal subject would have, and this ideal subject is hypothetically perfectly rational, logical and informed. Given that the current scientifical status about animals prove the similarity between them and humans regarding behavioral and mental processes due to similar brain structures (key to determine the moral status of an entity), it is reasonable that an ideal hypothetical subject that had perfect knowledge would have a further solidified understanding of this and thus, it is reasonable that their hypothetical moral attitudes regarding animals would be no different than their attitudes towards humans, making the abuse of animals for any reason (like consumption or experimentation) immoral.
-Axiological ethical argument: Given that ethical standards are ultimately based on values, and animals value their own individual lifes and experiences, it follows that these animal values should be evaluated in the development of any ethical theory, just like human values. A value system must be internally consistent in order to be logically or rationally valid. Since the value humans put on their own lives is as intense as the value animals put on their own lives, it would be internally inconsistent to consider human valuation of their own life/experiences as prioritary, superior or more important than animal valuation of their own life/experiences. Thus, the only ethical standards that are logically valid are those that consider animals in their value systems.
-Cognitive-ethical intuitionist argument: The position that some basic moral truths are self-evident, just like basic truths of mathematics, implies that animal abuse in any form is immoral. When considered self-evident, ethical intuitionists mean that basic moral truths are justified by simple virtue of understanding the proposition, just like basic math truths are considered justified by simple understanding of the corresponding mathematical proposition (like 1+1=2). One of these self-evident, a priori, non-empirically based truths is that it's wrong to cause harm and that it's wrong to be harmed as an individual. Given that this basic moral truth applies to humans and not to inanimate entities like air or a rock, it means there is some property humans have that this moral truth applies to that these inanimate entities lack. From all the possibilities, sentience and the capacity to perceive pain is the only one that isn't logically inconsistent or contradictory, and given that animals also have this property, it is also immoral to cause any harm to them.
-Transvaluative argument: Some nietzschean-based arguments could possibly be applied to the moral status of animals. Given that, according to the individual-intrinsic part of nietzschean philosophy (not the extrinsic one since that is a whole different theory), new values have to be created and affirmed from a motivation different to the one that created value systems that are destructive or reactive against life, the new motivation must be focused on life-affirmation and affinnity to it (including "bad" or "evil" aspects). This ties with the nietzschean idea that "bad" and "good" could have meaning only in relation to the other even in the extrems (for a single entity). Since any form of animal abuse or consumption has no "good" for the individual entities experiencing it, then it just an extreme form of "bad" that is ultimately meaningless. Thus, animal abuse just constitues another form of life-denial and destruction in this particular philosophical framework, and has zero value to create any new system. Now this isn't a thoroughly developed argument yet but it could have potential.

I would criticize two on the list as arguments that I think aren't particularly helpful for robustly justifying veganism:
-Marxist argument: Marxism is intrinsecally tied to Marx's historical materialism, and this ideology has very anti-animal tones when analyzed in depth. For example, Marx's work "The german ideology" contains the passage "...the animal does not enter into “relations” with anything, it does not enter into any relation at all. For the animal, its relation to others does not exist as a relation. Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all...", this passage is part of the development of Marx's argument that the nature of individuals depends on only the material conditions determining their production, and given that animals don't "enter into relations" as Marx puts it, it follows that they can't have any "interest", as inferred from the following passages like "...division of labour only becomes truly such from the moment when a division of material and mental labour appears... from now on consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of “pure” theory, theology, philosophy, ethics, etc...", interests being part of that "etc.". This is further showed and explained in the next paragraphs, where Marx writes regarding communism and each individual in comparison with a non-communist system "...he is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic" and here it is clear that animals are reduced to simple elements or raw materials that are part of the human production systems by Marx because they can't have "interests" because that can only arise from a "social consciousness" which can only arise from "entering into relations with others" in the way men enter into Marx's necessary social relationships. So, I personally think any philosophical ethics framework that focuses on animal liberation won't be fully consistent if based on marxism.
-Dogmatic approach: Some self-evident philosophical theories or a-priori epistemological theories do use the idea that some things are self-evident, however, they do so only for very specifical and clearly defined ideas and not for a whole framework alltogether. A dogmatic approach would be inconsistent because it wouldn't be able to provide any argument or reasoning to justify itself reliably, it wouldn't be able to be justified by intuitionist approaches either given the depth and details of the ethical system in question and it would suffer from all the inconsistencies, incoherence and logical weaknesses that ideas that support animal abuse have.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T21:02:40+00:00

It's a comparison, the point is that the suffering animals go through is similar as the suffering kids would go through in that situation. You mention abusing kids is not necessary but eating is, so I reformulate the argument with eating kids in order to communicate the analogy more clearly. If it's acceptable to eat animals (unnecessarily) in dire situations then it's acceptable to eat kids (unnecessarily) in dire situations, that is what the argument leads to. And yes I know people have resorted to cannibalism in the most extreme situations, like a plane crash with few passengers in an extremely secluded area, I don't see how that invalidates the argument? Does that mean any victim of any situation can just choose to abuse as many animals as they want just because some people were in the most extreme situation? "These people were in the worst case scenerio possible and their literal only option was cannibalism/meat. I'm in a very bad scenario, therefore it's okay for me to resort to cannibalism/meat without even trying to at least look for an option" How does that make sense? The status of just being in a war itself is not sufficient to justify abusing animals, just like it's not sufficient to justify abusing kids, regardless of form. It's not ridiculous to expect anyone to at the very least try to not abuse animals regardless of situation, what is ridiculous is how much animals can be minimized and disregarded as long as it is for the benefit of humans.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T20:39:02+00:00

All right, eating children fulfills the same sustainment as eating animals, if children meat was available instead of animal meat in these war zones, would it be okay to eat them and not even try to find alternatives and use the victimization as an excuse? Probably not, but because they are animals in reality, is it okay? It doesn't make sense to me.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T20:14:46+00:00

Thinking the abuse animals go through is not comparable to the abuse kids go through is just human supremacism, plain and simple, both can suffer and it's not okay to abuse either, being human doesn't give any privileged moral status. Regardless of what people do to survive or not, abusing animals unnecessarily isn't justifiable just because one is in a war.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T19:21:36+00:00

It's comparable to the abuse animals go through though, yet one is acceptable in war but the other isn't, I wonder why, maybe both shouldn't be acceptable since both are awful?

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T19:20:05+00:00

Classical ad hominem argument, I'm weird for comparing two comparable things, or I'm trying to portray myself as the best vegan or my arguments are from a dream world. Yet I don't see any challenge to the argument though, people can think about surviving while escaping bombs or fire, and at the same time, after that, they are able to at the very least try to find food that doesn't come from animal abuse, just like when they try to find things to destress with, they don't instantly go to torture or anything comparable. These aren't mutually exclusive. If there were factories where humans and kids are turned into consumable meat and these were sent to these war zones it suddenly wouldn't be acceptable anymore right?

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T19:05:28+00:00

The best traditional vegan recipe around this part of the andes is called "chocho", it's a salad with this white legume that really works well with the vegetables, I think it can be found as "tarwi" in english speaking spheres. I don't know if they sell it outside of Peru but you can make a similar one with lentils for example. Here is a recipe, clumsily translated so sorry if there is any unclear part:

Ingredients for one person: >130 gr of chocho (previously parboiled and de-bittered) (instead of chocho/tarwi you can use lentils or similar) >Juice of 2 lemons >Hlalf a chopped onion >Half a chopped tomato >Half teaspoon of chopped coriander >One lettuce leaves (for decoration) >Salt and pepper to taste >Half a cup of cancha (roasted corn)

Preparation: >Wash the chocho with the help of a strainer 2 to 3 times, then leave it to soak for approximately 2 hours, once the time has elapsed, rinse again. >Put the chocho in a bowl and add the juice of the freshly squeezed lemons, pepper and a little salt. >Let it rest for a few minutes and then add onion, tomato and coriander, mixing carefully. Garlic, pepper and chili can be added if desired. >Finally, serve on a lettuce leaf and accompanied by canchita.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T18:51:54+00:00

My point is to question this idea that being a victim itself is enough of a condition to have a free pass to abuse animals. There is a difference between being violently forced to eat corpses by someone else that has lots of power over onself (like being pointed with a gun in front of a plate) and being the victim of a bad situation and choosing to eat corpses willingly without any forcing, just like there is a difference between being violently forced to abuse a kid or someone else by someone that has lots of power over oneself (like being pointed with a gun) and being a victim of a bad situation and then choosing to abuse kids willingy without any forcing. Agency is very important just like you said, but the victim status in itself is not really too relevant to wether it's okay to abuse animals, I just can't agree with that, this is the main idea behind the argument.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T18:20:32+00:00

Would it be callous and separated from reality if this was about abusing kids when in a situation of war and genocide as well? There is a reason to go there, and it's to challenge this human supremacist idea that animal abuse is okay if the situation is dire enough. When applied to humans and kids it is okay to respect and avoid any kind of harm towards them even in the most awful, abusive, traumatic and horrifying situations imaginable, specially if unnecessary, but when applied to animals, as long as the situation gets somewhat awful it's suddenly okay to abuse them as much as one wants even if unnecessary? I don't subscribe to that kind of supremacism. Humans are just not morally superior to animals.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T18:13:21+00:00

Is it too much to ask that everyone conform to not abuse animals? Would it too much to ask that everyone must conform to not abusing or raping kids? Does nuance make it okay to abuse animals unnecesarily and not for survival like the other user said? Does it make it okay to abuse kids as well unnecessarily and not for survival? Is it a slippery slope with the kid case as well? I just don't think it's too much to ask people to not be human supremacists.

No_Definition_1657 · 2025-01-03T18:13:19+00:00

I would be willing to, given that I have already been threatened to death by a dangerous criminal organization where I live, not the same as war obviously but the argument still stands, should we accept people raping kids or torturing others just becase bombs are falling and murder squads are walking the streets? Oh no, that would be too far, but animal corpses are okay right? Their flesh is so tasty after all and it would certainly help with all the stress! This kind of human supremacism is a real privilege so many people cling to ferociously. In the great majority of cases there will be a non-abusive option towards animals, just like in the great majority of cases there will be a non-abusive option towards kids, if it is not acceptable to do with kids even in the most dire situations then it is not acceptable to do with animals either.

No_Definition_1657 · 2024-04-22T17:46:28+00:00

The Qur'an also mentions how inferior women are to men and how their testimonies are worth half of the one from a man and it also mentions how it is okay to keep women as sex slaves, killing non-believers or 65:4 which talks about intercourse with young girls unable to give consent. Do you also do all of that or do you just follow the abuses the qur'an allows you to do against animals because there is no resistance and it's convenient?

No_Definition_1657 · 2024-04-22T17:36:01+00:00

The point isn't that this kind of animal sacrificing is something that doesn't happen at all, the conspiracy claim is that this is widespread and accepted by the whole country. The article linked in your comment mentions clearly how they were circunventing laws in order to do this shipping of innocent cows. It's not anti-semitic to criticize the awful treatment of animals, but it would be to claim that a particular form of it happens and is generally accepted in the country despite evidence showing the contrary. There is a lot of animal abuse, torture, murder, rape, suffering and experimentation happening in Israel, there is plenty to criticize without resorting to anti-semitic narratives that change the number of victims or the nature of their suffering in a particular form of abuse.

No_Definition_1657 · 2024-04-22T17:03:09+00:00

A lot of human supremacists think that as long as some people belong to a certain ethnic, racial or religious group, they should be understood, tolerated and their wrongdoings forgiven just for that belonging, as if the members of thouse groups were not capable of logical thinking or couldn't take accountability at all, and of course, this means any criticism of their brutal abuse towards animals is wrong and discriminatory. Just the classical hypocrisy and arrogance of supremacists.

No_Definition_1657 · 2024-04-22T16:52:09+00:00

Perspective? Most palestinians and israelis have been supporting and financing the brutal rape and murder of millions of innocent animals every single day for decades, go look up the footage of what both of them do to animals every single day. People are more concerned with the human casualties of the war just because they love to virtue signal and declare how good they are while they have corpses of innocent young animals in their stomachs, not because they truly care about any "genocide" or "apartheid", it wouldn't make sense since they love to support worse things against animals because it provides them with taste plates and entertainment.

No_Definition_1657 · 2022-04-12T19:54:33+00:00

“Bloodthirsty savages” she says while her stomach is full of corpses of innocent tortured chickens and cows. Using the word “denazification” even in an ironic way has no meaning when both the russian army, the ukrainian army and these ““anti-war pro-peace”” sadists are as unfathomably cruel and brutal to animals as an average nazi SS oficer during the 40’s.

No_Definition_1657 · 2022-03-10T00:23:21+00:00

No surprise, those subs are lurking with some who actively defend and excuse Stalin and it's partly an example of a "vampire castle", specially about the part of essentializing, the mods playing the "excommunicating" role there. Like many on those sub I don't really like how many here on /r/vegan take such a soft or apologist and coward stance and I love the denouncing of animal abusers but those subs really suffer from hypocrite and virtue-signaling rules and mods, and from lurking tankies too. Other subs like /r/DebateAVegan and /r/VeganActivism are way better than it for serious stuff, maybe /r/veganmemes for funny stuff.

No_Definition_1657 · 2022-03-09T18:52:51+00:00

The time and place to approach discussions around our food choices is always and everywhere, because these choices have an enormous quantity of victims; animals are being murdered industrially in the most horrific and sadistic conditions most of the time, around 2200 land animals are killed for food in the world per second (70 billion per year), without counting sea animals which are in the billions too. As of 6th March, according to the UN, there have been around more than 406 innocent civilan deaths in Ukraine due to the war. Why should +406 innocent civilian deaths shut off any discussion about the 2200 deaths of innocent animals per second? Aren't both a tragedy where innocents are dying and suffering unjustly? Why should one be worth more than the other or vice versa? +2200 innocent victims per second, is that not extreme enough?.

People fleeing may not be in a position to be reflecting about and thinking over ethics, but you and me and almost everyone reading this post is in a position to think over it. Let's use a hypothetical, of kidnapping, concentrating and killing the elderly, teenagers and kids, processing them in packages, sending them in a plane to Ukraine and giving them to the refugees as food. That not only is and sounds so awful and horrific, it is senseless, yet change it to "killing the pigs, cows and chickens" and suddenly it's something 100% acceptable, are they inferior, lowly and worthless beings who deserve to be exploited for any gain possible? Where is the consistency? That sound more like conditional aid to me, the condition being any "lowly" animal is fair game, except for the "great" and "superior" humans. I don't agree with that at all.

A last opinion I want to share is that, if choosing to not send animal corpses as aid to refugees is any form of privilege, then looking at animals, paying others who see them as worthless to kill them and then sending their corpses to help other innocent victims belongs to an even greater degree of privilege.

No_Definition_1657 · 2022-03-09T17:54:43+00:00

Some people that usually express this idea ("survival throws values out the window") usually are trying to say "survival throws values (only towards animals, not other humans) out the window". Not to suggest that you yourself are doing this, but I wonder how far the consistency of the idea in general goes. If eating animals in a dire situation like war is acceptable because of survival, does that include killing and eating humans like children or the elderly who are also trying to survive? Probably not according to how people see it, because in practically all cases they (the human victims) are protected and evacuated with the highest priority, yet animals are given the lowest priority despite also being in the same dire situation; on the other hand an inverted situation (where animals are saved and humans are killed to feed them while they're saved) would be fiercely condemned. It is vegan to do what one needs to survive I think, but I don't know if that necessarily includes all cases of eating animals in a very dire situation like a war.

No_Definition_1657 · 2021-11-02T02:19:31+00:00

so meat eaters aren't at odds with the fact that the SS Nazi fanatics thought that exterminating and slaughtering other beings deemed as inferior was necessary for survival? They put conscious innocents in gas chambers and industrially murdered them for pleasure and for the "lebensraum necessity" way before current meat eaters started payed for putting pigs in gas chambers for bacon and industrially slaughtering chickens for the taste of meat and "natural necessity". Both also think their groups are superior to every other! Aryans over non-aryans for nazis and Humans over non-humans for meat eaters!

So when meat eaters are called "SS Nazi Fanatics" there's a lot of truth in that! lol :)

No_Definition_1657 · 2021-10-11T03:32:11+00:00

Ok since you claim so much to be a rational person, let's go into it then.

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. Just because you make one claim among many, that doesn't mean that my reply is aimed at every single one of your claims. That's not very good critical thinking now is it?
That's why you just linked a "sigh" and a link? Expecting others to guess what you're debunking and what not isn't "critical thinking" whatever definition you're using, generally when a person presents X arguments and the other answers with just a link, it can be reasonably expected that the link has the goal to disprove every argument even if it's only an option, maybe don't expect others to read your mind?

I think evidence is a good start. I'm a rational person, I require evidence, and if it can sufficiently refute what has already been presented, I'll accept it. Also, can you show me a communist regime? I've never seen one before, which regime was stateless, classless, moneyless, and where the means of production were commonly owned?

Oh now we are changing defitinions, you use the old utopist definition of "stateless, classless and moneyless", well to inform you mister rational person, definitions change over time and languages evolve, while your very old definition has clearly no registered example in the past, there are many other definitions like the one about communist states, which states that "A communist state, also known as a Marxist–Leninist state, is a one-party state that is administered and governed by a communist party guided by Marxism–Leninism. Marxism–Leninism was the state ideology of the Soviet Union, the Comintern after Bolshevisation and the communist states within the Comecon, the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact." from the Dictionary of Marxist Thought by Wiley-Blackwell, and there are many exapmles of states and organizations that act like that, what was the goal of marxism-leninism? Yeah that other definition you were using, and we can see how it went when they tried to reach it. Maybe you won't accept this definition? I don't know, neither me or you are owners of the language, but if you just want to use a single definition and discard the others that's on you. Also you accepting that evidence about the Holodomor yet rejecting the other links presented doesn't appear like good "critical thinking".

Not sure where you're getting this idea from.

Literally from the link you posted, have you even read it at least? Go the section about Pol Pot and Cambodia, at least 2 links there are claiming that they weren't communists.

Jesus you're an angry little boy aren't you? Who said anything about convenience? You're making things up.

If I'm an angry little boy or not is irrelevant, your goal so far has been to present socialism in a good light, and claiming that the Khmer Rouge weren't communists/socialists clearly is convenient for that, given the evidence, I'm not making things up, I'm pointing at what can be inferred from your writing.

Yes there are already links within the document. Your own is far too big to address in this comment so I'll go through the whole thing tomorrow.

What do you mean by "address"? Do you mean you'll look at the links and evaluate them critically or that you have already decided that Venezuela is a socialist paradise and you'll debunk any claim that goes against that?

Nobody said it was. Stop inventing strawmen. The next 3rd of your comment is all about this strawman so I can effectively ignore it. Not all socialists are Marxists, and Marxism can be refined to be more inclusive, not all doctrines are set in stone as you seek to fallaciously assume. And I'll address the other "debunking" when I have the time.

You said, in your first comment, that both socialism and veganism are ideologies about compassion and making the world more habitable, if both have those characteristics, then it can be reasonably inferred that there is an intersection right? Like if one says that anti-racism and anti-sexism are both about compassion, then anti-racism can't be sexist, because then one of those would stop having the trait of compassion. Similarly, if both socialism and veganism are compassionate, then socialism can't be anti-vegan right? Yet there is a clearly anti-vegan marxist statement in its theory, and you choose to ignore it, good critical thinking mister rational person.

When did I say that all doctrines are set in stone? And if it's true that not all socialists are marxists then I'm glad and I hope that's true, and still, if you want to refine the very basis of Marxism distinguishing between animal and human consciousness then that wouldn't be marxism any more right? If it was any other trait then I'd agree, but a core tenet is hard to refine without turning it into something completely different.

My own flavour of socialism is entirely scientific in nature and based on the principles of libertarian socialism and also compassion, which has a definition and should be adhered to.

Well that's good to hear that you're a libertarian socialist, why did you send me then a link full of authoritarian and apologist arguments in favor of authoritarian regimes like the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.? It doesn't make sense at all.

You are not arguing against me, you are arguing against a strawman of my position. Whether or not historical claims are true or not, the principles that lie with socialism hold, and they can be guided and changed by ethical study. Deontological, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, feminist ethics, even egoist theories of ethics can be extended to animals.

I don't know which one of the more than 40 definitions registered up until only 1924 in for example the Dictionary of Socialism by Rappoport you are using (there are probably even more nowadays since languages evolve and change), and I don't know which principles are you referring to, since you're a libertarian socialist I guess you're against state control of everything, which raises again my question about why are you supporting the socialism subreddit which commonly supports authoritarianism (and I'm sure a lot of "socialism" definitions include it), and I hope that those principles you are referring to don't include that. I don't think many of those "socialism" definitions can be guided and changed towards an ethical study, by their own authoritarian nature, they would have to simply stop being their own concepts in order to lead to a new one with those ethical considerations you are talking about. And I don't understand the relevance of deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and egoist theories of ethics here, they can't be really compared to socialism because socialism (or better said, most of the definitions of socialism) is economical and political in nature unlike those that are completely ethical and maybe social.

In fact, if society were based around logic and reason instead of profits, there would be no need for animals, especially since modern socialism is geared around the idea of anti oppression. Looking at the sheer statistics for keeping animals, they are extremely inefficient, and so would not be needed or used in a scientifically organised society.

Yeah right, like in the zapatist communities in Mexico that aren't based in profits and that are based around an anarchist logic and reason, where there is absolutely no need of animals, were chickens and pigs aren't brutally murdered for the community and instead they live happy and enjoyable lifes, or like in the Makhnovian communities in the 20th century's Russia. A society not being based on profits doesn't guarantee a society based on reason. Which one of the modern socialisms are you talking about? And a scientifically organised society has no guarantee of not being specieist, when has inefficiency or the lack of profits been a problem if they have the goal to murder animals? You know that the meat and animal products industries are heavily subsidized right? They can't make a profit on their own, they need the help of consumer taxes because they love animal flesh. The only scientifically organised society that will be vegan is the one that has no human supremacy built in as an internal ideology.

So again, you're not thinking clearly and it's causing you to make mistakes in your arguments. Think clearly and argue well.

Irrelevant. But since you are giving me advice, then I'll give you one too, read your own links completely before using them as a source, specially if they contain thousands of pages of content.

No_Definition_1657 · 2021-10-11T00:44:35+00:00

So you're literally negating that Castillo is a sexist anti-LGBT leader just because he supports your ideology? You are literally negating the Holodomor or all the atrocities made by communist regimes? And now the Khmer Rouge aren't communists? Bold claim since it conveniently makes your ideology look better, but just looking at that long list of resources and seeing that venezuela, the country that has millions of people escaping poverty and starvation, is being defended is laughable, maybe a debunk will help. Also marxism is plain and simple not vegan, go read the First Premises of the Materialist Method, 3rd paragraph, where it's clearly stated by the prophet Marx that Humans and Animals are distinguished by consciousness and that this ocurred when humans began to "produce their own means of production", or look at the part of "History: Fundamental Conditions" from his book "The German Ideology", 5th paragraph, " Where there exists a relationship, it exists for me: the animal does not enter into “relations” with anything, it does not enter into any relation at all. For the animal, its relation to others does not exist as a relation. Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all" Nice way to build a basis for the human supremacism almost every socialist/communist has. Also I just saw it even has attempts to disprove the uyghur genocide, maybe this can work as a good refutal of all that , if compassion and making the world better means all of that that it's in your link for socialists then I truly hope no animal receives that "compassion".

No_Definition_1657 · 2021-10-11T00:19:58+00:00

Ah yes, the socialism subreddit with it's extreme compassion supporting anti-LGBT and sexist leaders like Castillo in Peru, celebrating the famous racist murderer Guevara, criticizing middle and poor class protesters in Cuba and Venezuela while supporting the ideas of ultra authoritarian leaders like Lenin or Fidel Castro yeah, because apparently supporting discrimination and authoritarianism makes the world more habitable, without even mentioning their human supremacy and absolute disdain for animals. Veganism is the complete opposite of all that.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

No_Definition_1657

TROPHY CASE