I disagree. The arguments vegans use are far more morally consistent and thought out than non vegans. Non vegans don’t reason themselves into the position and often don’t have a good justification for why they’re not vegan. When they are pushed they fall apart instantly.
The arguments vegans use are far more morally consistent and thought out than non vegans.
it’s true that vegans often think far more about the moral arguments around veganism. i, however, find the arguments to be unconvincing, and often sophistic.
animal agriculture isn’t slavery. i don’t believe even vegans believe this syllogism rings true. if they did, we’d have a lot more harriet tubmans and a lot fewer tash petersons.
this doesn’t make them right, and in fact often leads them to use easily debunked but rhetorically impressive arguments. that’s called sophistry.
I disagree. The arguments vegans use are far more morally consistent and thought out than non vegans. Non vegans don’t reason themselves into the position and often don’t have a good justification for why they’re not vegan. When they are pushed they fall apart instantly.
it’s true that vegans often think far more about the moral arguments around veganism. i, however, find the arguments to be unconvincing, and often sophistic.
most of the time, maybe. but ex-vegans certainly do, among others.
The rhetorically impressive and easily debunked argument:
A) Slavery of sentient beings is wrong
B) Animals are sentient
∴ Enslaving animals is wrong
i used a plural. it’s not just one argument. you’re not being very honest about the breadth of the arguments made.
animal agriculture isn’t slavery. i don’t believe even vegans believe this syllogism rings true. if they did, we’d have a lot more harriet tubmans and a lot fewer tash petersons.