It’s actually not an ad hominem, even if it seems insulting. I’m saying your argument is a coping mechanism typically deployed by humans trying to justify non-human animal exploitation. And I said it in connection with my argument critiquing what you said, so you’re taking it out of context.

It’s literally from the study I sent.

Because deforestation is still happening at an alarming rate, most of it in the Amazon, and most of it for beef pastures and soy for livestock feed (humans consume a fraction of the soy produced, vegans an even smaller fraction (and soy is avoidable - there are soy-allergic vegans), and most of it doesn’t come from the Amazon when fed to humans). This is all going to increase as animal product consumption is currently increasing, not decreasing - though it’s decreasing in more developed countries as more humans who have already had the luxury of animal products for a long time have started to realize all the massive problems with them, and increasing in more developing countries and populations that are becoming wealthier and more able to afford it more frequently. And also, just because the human population is still increasing (and most of those will be raised as carnists), despite dropping birth rates.

And also, the effects of climate change from animal agriculture, which are manifold, but include direct GHGs, and the opportunity cost of maintaining deforestation (in addition to increasing it) instead of taking advantage of the essential carbon sequestration potential of reforestation & rewilding, contribute to climate change and environmental destruction too, which obviously kills far more plants and contributes to the 6th mass extinction event of various species of organisms on the planet in general.

Additionally, even on lands where forests have already been cleared, preventing plants from becoming overgrown there and constantly “maintaining” the land for animal farming still harms a lot more plants than using far less land and requiring far less plants to just give them to humans directly.

And of course with the much higher crop/plant use/harvesting for animal products than plant based foods & products, the number of plants harmed and killed in animal agriculture blows that of plant agriculture - when provided directly to humans - out of the water.

These are calculations using data from the study I sent. Just because you don’t like facts doesn’t mean they’re automatically bs. You reject and deny literally any evidence put in your face, the sign of an insecure position.

deleted by creator

Some random James Cameron quotes (I know he’s not a scientific authority. I already provided tons of scientific evidence supporting what he’s saying).

"By changing what you eat, you will change the entire contract between the human species and the natural world.” - James Cameron, Vegan Filmmaker who advocates a plant-based diet for the environment, planet & climate

"We couldn’t lecture oil companies and turn around and eat hamburgers.” - James Cameron made sure Avatar used fully plant-based catering so they weren’t being hypocrites.

“It’s not a requirement to eat animals, we just chose to do it, so it becomes a moral choice and one that is having a huge impact on the planet, using up resources and destroying the biosphere.” — James Cameron

But that’s simply a false empirical claim. It does make a huge difference to animals, plants and the environment whether we eat/consume/use plants, or animals, or both, or other options, etc. Particularly, if we use plant based/non animal options instead of animal derived options, it causes much less death, suffering and destruction, even if you are the ultimate utilitarian and don’t care about the deontology or intent or circumstances of actions at all (such as that it’s less bad to kill in self defense than it is to kill opportunistically or to exploit and take advantage of and harm deliberately), though most humans do when it comes to humans, dogs & cats but don’t when it comes to many non-human animals who they have less respect for, who they see less as individuals and more as a collective mass (another speciesist double standard). Even if harm is inevitable, that doesn’t mean that taking actions & making changes we can easily do to significantly reduce harm to others and the world (& not cause it on purpose to known sentient beings), as far as possible and practicable, isn’t beneficial, morally positive, or obligatory - factually it definitely is, and morally it very arguably is. Please stop making the nirvana fallacy.

Gross view. The same was said of human slaves.

Just because you’ve dictated a purpose for someone’s existence, that doesn’t mean that’s the only way they’re capable of living or the best outcome for them. They are capable of being free and happy and respected and we are capable of giving that to them. And they already are part of our society. Dogs have relationships with humans. Pigs and cows do too. They don’t have to talk or be the same species to be part of our society. There are humans who can’t talk and humans who have different shapes and sizes to us too, those who rely on us to support them, etc. There’s no reason we can’t apply the same mentalities of care and protection to other sentient beings.

So you actually don’t care about animals OR plants, since you aren’t interested in alternatives or solutions that reduce or avoid animal exploitation and harm to all organisms and the environment as much as we can - simply because they aren’t perfect? So you’re still making the same nirvana fallacy?

Just because the majority - not literally all humans, since vegans exist - accepts that we need to kill plants and animals in order to live, doesn’t make that acceptance morally or factually correct. That’s argumentum ad populum. The majority can and has been wrong - in fact they usually have been historically, on many issues and every societal injustice, revolution, evolution, realization, discovery or enlightenment.

Firstly, imagining and working toward a better way of living, even if not possible now, is more of an ethically defensible position than accepting the status quo despite it being cruel and unideal and not seeking to even attempt or investigate or entertain the possibility of changing and improving it.

Secondly, it’s not necessarily true that we need to kill plants and animals to live - at least not inherently in different circumstances and controlled environments. For example, there is veganic farming, but vertical & indoor farming can potentially reduce harm even further, and further still could lab-grown/cultivated/cultured/cell-based, 3D printed, and artificial or alternative food system/production possibilities in the future. We’re also far more likely to get to a system like that if we’re already overhauling it now to shift towards plant based living, and if we promote values like veganism/animal rights in society, which are primed to extend respect even to non-animal, even if non-sentient/non-conscious/non-experiencing, organisms or phenomena, like plants and the environment. Despite all of the talk of plants as a deflection by non-vegans, who quickly reveal they don’t actually care about plants or animals, vegans are far more likely to care about plants since we already extended compassion to non-human animals, the most vulnerable individuals among us and the most different from us, yet still the same in the ways that matter, still thinking, feeling, experiencing, desiring, exploring the world, loving their families, etc. There are vegans who genuinely care about plants and animals equally, even genuine animists, panpsychists, cosmocentrists, EBFs etc who cite protecting plants, other organisms & objects & phenomena harmed, harvested and destroyed by animal agriculture as one of their reasons for being vegan.

So the people who actually care about the things you pretend to care about (like plants) to distract from the arguments about beings you know you should care about (animals) still acknowledge that, even if killing animals and plants were a necessity to live, and we can’t avoid that entirely or be perfect in that regard, that doesn’t mean there’s no moral difference between for example killing thousands more animals and plants than we need to or not doing so, or for deliberately exploiting, causing suffering to, victimizing & killing sentient beings unnecessarily instead of consuming and using plant based foods & products, not intentionally victimizing any known sentient beings, and reducing harm to them, plants & the environment & society overall. Obviously that’s a better option for everyone.

The argument of “we need to kill to live, therefore we’re free to kill as many and also exploit and do whatever we want to as many of any kinds of entities as we want”, can be used to justify going out and massacring humans just because as a society we need to kill some humans who pose an immediate & deliberate threat to others’ safety that can’t be resolved without lethal force etc (like someone who tries to do or continue with a public shooting or stabbing). You could also say “we can’t avoid r word happening in society altogether, so I guess it’s fine to do r word”. It’s a fallacy of converse accident to conclude that because we might need or be forced to do an action in some situations like killing in self defense, we therefore have carte blanche to commit violence to any individuals in a wanton and unrestrained manner.

I never said you literally said those words. But you are basically saying “plant lives matter too” in response to animal advocacy because they’re the one category of organisms that you can point and deflect to, in order to try to - erroneously, since it does spare them - claim we aren’t respecting or aren’t helping by being vegan - all the while refusing to address the critical plight of the non-human animals. This is the same logic of whataboutism that “All Lives Matter” used. People also often say “What about humans?! Why don’t you focus on them?” which apart from being speciesist, is a false dichotomy and fallacy or relative privation. Just because you think human causes are more important, that doesn’t mean the nonhuman animal cause isn’t important as well, and there’s no reason we can’t focus on both; as a society, and as individuals. But all of these arguments are whataboutisms about other individuals or other situations to try to derail and steer the conversation away from the poor ignored individuals we’re advocating for - who you refuse to acknowledge or respect - and onto us somehow being hypocritical in some other, possibly unavoidable way (making it also a nirvana fallacy), which renders it also all ultimately ad hominem that doesn’t interact directly with the arguments and just jumps all over the place attacking the messenger of the argument.

Which part hasn’t been established?

The moral claim that helping the planet and the animals and ourselves at the same time is good or a win win? Moral claims can’t be proven, but they can be well-reasoned, defensible, and consistent in holding up to scrutiny - and they can extend logically from others’ views.

Or the fact that plant based living (one aspect of veganism/avoiding animal exploitation) is better for the animals, the planet and ourselves at the same time? No, I’m pretty sure that is either implicit in what I said, or proven by the studies and references I shared. But you’re a sealioning troll, so you will deny any evidence in front of your face in favor of your own beliefs, in stark opposition to TST tenets.

I’m not ignoring them. If you want to use a broader definition of “creatures” that includes plants, go ahead. And I will too if you want (in the context of this conversation - I don’t understand your definition enough [what exactly is included under “creature”?] to know if I’d think it’s a useful definition or not). I think you’re myopically focused on the word creatures, which is really not particularly relevant except that it includes non-human animals - whether it includes other organisms or not. If it does, it’s just more reason to be vegan to respect all organisms as much as we can - which we would do anyway. And that’s all regardless of animals being confirmed sentient.

How does it not render the point moot? If simply directly using plants/plant based foods & products harms fewer plants than “using” animals (& growing & feeding plants to those animals & clearing & maintaining land [including plants & forest] to grow plants to feed them & for pastures & farming infrastructure & factories to “farm” the animals) then plants being hypothetically sentient would be even more reason to be vegan, wouldn’t it?

Why is this being framed as an argument against veganism when veganism would be better on the issue of reducing harm to plants as much as possible compared to animal agriculture/exploitation etc?

And that’s all in addition to it being kinder to animals and less impactful on the environment as a whole.

So what exactly is the objection? Is it pointing out supposed hypocrisy (tu quoque), or criticizing veganism for being imperfect on the issue of plants (nirvana fallacy), or are you actually making an empirical claim that disputes the science and facts on how many plants are harmed by plant agriculture when it’s used directly for humans, vs animal agriculture and the plant agriculture used to sustain it (which is clear that much fewer plants are harmed by human-directed plant agriculture)?

I explained it already. Sentient beings have a subjective experience of the world. They can experience phenomena like emotions, thoughts, feelings, suffering, pain, fear, joy, love/familial/maternal bonds, etc. They can either have their experience impacted upon positively (i.e. promoting wellbeing, reducing suffering, saving/sparing life), or negatively (i.e. reducing/depriving of wellbeing/freedom/autonomy etc, taking away life). If you make a sentient being suffer, that violates their inherent interest to not suffer (even if they don’t state this as an interest, it’s reasonable to infer they would want it to not happen since it generates a negative experience in a way that doesn’t benefit them and isn’t necessary). Cutting their life short (a fraction of their lifespans in most animal industries https://www.farmtransparency.org/kb/food/abattoirs/age-animals-slaughtered ) by killing them also violates their interests to keep on living (unless they’re in extreme incurable suffering and it can be true euthanasia) since we can infer - and the safe presumption in most cases is - that they would benefit from living and experience wellbeing that you’d be depriving them of by taking away their existence and ability to experience anything.

Put another way, sentience matters in any being for the same reason it matters in humans. If a human lost the ability to experience anything, for example if they became completely brain dead but their body was still working, we might still owe some obligations to that individual and their body because they were previously sentient, and their loved ones may have preferences about what to do with them/their body, but it’s certainly not the same as if they were still sentient - if you had to take life support off that individual who was already dead mentally with no experience of anything whatsoever, or a sentient human who could continue living and experiencing and raising their family after they recovered, I think most would for good reason save the sentient human. And sentience mattering is also why most agree a human matters more than a plant or a rock.

That said, once again, if we want to shield all organisms from harm as much as we can, being vegan is requisite.

So that’s what you were talking about.

I’m not “artificially narrowing” anything. I assumed it meant animals when it said creatures because that’s what I understood creatures to mean, and is the most common definition. I acknowledged however that it’s possible they could be using a broader definition (though I think it’s unlikely since it’s made for a public audience who usually think of creatures as = animals).

The idea of considering non-animals, like plants, as “creatures” seems weird to me, but I’m happy to use that definition if you like (I’m not sure what the definition we’re using is, but I guess it includes animals and plants, at least).

If we suppose that they did mean something broader when they said creatures (or we interpret or extend upon it that way), which includes plants, then that’s even more reason to be vegan to spare more plants and animals - and to not deliberately exploit & victimize animals/confirmed sentient beings.

So, it can’t be “just focusing” on animals either way. Because I’ve addressed multiple times how these actions are respecting plants and the environment too.

No, it has been proven, science-denier.

Being offended at even comparisons between the circumstances of or actions done to different individuals, or the logic used to justify them (not even comparing the individuals themselves), because you think it’s insulting for a human to be compared to a non-human animal (which wasn’t even done), is the peak of speciesism and human supremacy. When vegans/animal rights activists talk about humans and non-human animals in the same context, you need to remember we have a much higher view of non-human animals than you probably do. So we obviously aren’t intending to insult or devalue humans. We seek to do the opposite and raise the status of non-human animals to deserving and receiving proper moral consideration and respect of their interests. You may think you’re entitled to be offended by whatever you want and that makes it immediately offensive or problematic (Btw, what happened to the Tenet of the right to offend?). But being offended by certain things is actually problematic and just reveals your own bigotry rather than anything about the person who made the comparison. For example, imagine being offended at men being compared to women, white people being compared to black people, or straight people being compared to gay people. This would just expose the sexism/misogyny, racism, and heterosexism/homophobia of the person offended.

Don’t be disingenuous & pearl-clutching. You know I’m not trying to disparage those groups in any way, in fact the opposite. No, comparing the circumstances of different vulnerable groups of individuals that may in some cases need others to advocate on their behalf and represent them, in order to demonstrate that most humans already find that to be appropriate & virtuous or even obligatory to come to their aid & defend the innocent who can’t defend themselves (aside from non-human animals), and that the same logic should be used to support animal rights activism, even if the non-human animals can’t speak up for and advocate their cases in our languages … is not in any way gross or problematic or bigoted. You’re trying to twist my intentions by drawing on common assumptions and painting me as a villain that carnists would love to hate so that they can feel good about their choices toward non-human animals and the planet. If I care about the rights of all sentient beings, why would I be trying to insult groups of humans who hadn’t inherently done anything wrong.

The reality is that many humans find it insulting even just to acknowledge the biological reality that humans are animals, or to be compared to other animals, or even to have the experiences & circumstances of humans, or the logic used to defend them, compared to those of other animals even when they are literally identical or very similar (which has nothing to do with “comparing those [humans] to [non-human animals]”, not that there would be anything wrong with comparing humans to other animals if there is no intention to insult or offend anyone - they are all sentient beings, and we should be comparing them more, highlighting their similarities and asking for consistency and compassion). But, ironically, whenever humans feign outrage over this, it’s almost always humans acting offended on others’ behalves, and the individuals whose groups’ situations or history are actually being referred to are often in agreement because they understand oppression and appreciate humans learning historical lessons from injustices and applying them to other groups to solve further remaining issues in society and avoid making the same mistakes - or identifying when we do.