Love them

Yeah, but I don’t think that’s a great way to think. I was talking to a vegan who said he’d let a man die in a burning car because if he pulled him out he’d probably eat meat again. I don’t think this is how we should be thinking about the issue.

A truck full of random Americans being sent to slaughter

We literally have obese vegans. We have bodybuilder vegans. We have Olympic athlete vegans. We have powerlifter vegans. And yes we have trans vegans. If you want to eat animal products then do so, but don’t spread misinformation.

The 🐐

Do anti vegans ever tire of getting intellectually demolished every day on this app or do they not know that’s what’s happening?

The worst is farmers who have Instagram pages showing how cute their animals are. Makes me sick.

They will literally eat one of these cows in the video and feel good about themselves because the cows got to experience a little bit of joy before being butchered.

This is a common problem. A lot of non vegans pretend vegans believe stupid things as a way to dismiss veganism as irrational. I think they call it the straw man or something.

True, but we can form a consensus based on what seems most plausible.

I set personhood at a lower bar than you. I don’t think people without those should be classified as things. Our language is limited, but as of now we have personhood and thing. And animals can have obligations, reciprocity and they even seem to occasionally have ideas.

David Attenborough is not an animal rights activist at all. He is more of an environmentalist/conservationist type. It’s a different psychology. He’s been decent on this issue but I have a very low bar.

The trait most people use now to recognize others as persons is being human. That wasn’t always the case. Basing what a person is on vibes with no identifiable criteria is silly. A teddy bear can be a person, a tree, a dog can be a person while a pig is not. We need criteria.

That’s a terrible classification. You need some criteria that can be applied consistently. Peer recognition is subject to the type of bias that lead certain groups of humans not being recognized as persons simply because of bigotry.

So someone without grammar and a shared history is not a person? And what is sapience? I’ve never heard a good definition that doesn’t exclude a lot of people.

What makes someone a person?

So if you say whales are not people because they don’t have X trait, you’ve just made a scientific claim. So yes verifying if other animals have personhood is a scientific question. Discussing what personhood is, is a philosophical discussion, but even that is science informed.

Neither of you will answer so I will just spell it out. The traits you are going to use to justify personhood have to be scientifically verified since science is what attempts to verify empirical claims, Philosophy may generate the values but science helps inform them.

Yes, but what specifically? In your opinion.

What do you think makes someone a person vs a thing?