What nonsense. Hunters do in most cases actively target bigger/stronger animals, not children or the weakest ones. The fact they don’t have complete carte blanche/freedom of choice over which animals to target as they’re limited by the animals in the area and immediate proximity, and may not be able to kill/“catch” the absolute most resilient, fastest & strongest animals in their species (though they of course could if they really wanted to, but it would be a waste of effort and time), and that there are natural ecological and biological forces (namely Darwinism) that generally favor the survival of stronger animals, doesn’t change the fact that humans can counteract that and subvert the “natural order” (and have regarding basically everything we do with animals) and “override” the usual phenomena we see (Btw, I’m not appealing to nature. Nature is brutal. But it’s just a fact that what humans do to/with other animals nowadays is mostly unnatural, under most common construals or notions of what “natural” means). There’s nothing stopping a human with a gun from choosing to shoot the bigger deer in front of them rather than that deer’s child standing next to them, regardless of any other factors at play in a natural setting. So, is it 100% “perfect” in exclusively targeting the strongest animals? Obviously not. But it does obviously have an impact and does contribute to the effects we described if in any situation, stronger animals are being targeted first, which they are.

The only argument that holds water without a simple ‘citation needed’ rebuttal is his first point regarding individual rights.

That’s a pretty big, crucial point and kind of the main thrust of what I’m saying. Also, you didn’t provide citations for your claims either, but they’re also easily debunkable through basic logic by just thinking for a second. And similarly, most of what I said is logic- and morality-based (which I said it would be near the beginning), not about empirics/facts. Like the fact that hunting predator animals leads to an increase in the population of their prey animals who humans then justify killing to counteract that effect; because if you kill someone, they can’t kill others, and then those others are more likely to survive and reproduce. Sometimes proving a claim, and even what can be considered forms of evidence or truth, doesn’t require external sources or empirical observations or experimentation. A priori reasoning (not a posteriori) allows us to conclude things like “1+1=2” based on an internally established logical system without needing to provide some other form of additional evidence. I don’t know if you know but it’s become kind of a meme to mock people who say “wHaT’s YoUr SoUrCe?” after someone makes a completely obvious or self-proving, self-evident statement, regarding which a source is unnecessary and often not even applicable or possible. It’s an absurd nonsensical attitude to have that everything must be measured on paper and documented (so to speak) or else it can’t be accepted or considered valid & sound evidence & reasoning, or truthful. We wouldn’t have made many of the leaps of progress that we have by thinking that way.

That said, the points I made that did involve empirical claims that would require external evidence to verify are in fact supported by wildlife conservation orgs and well documented. As I said I don’t have time to research this again and cite sources that I’ve observed/read previously. So “don’t take it from me, do your own research”. But to completely reject everything that doesn’t have a source attached, even if it would require one in order to prove it, is pretty ridiculous. To recognize that it’s an incomplete proposition and reserve judgment until/unless further evidence is provided is reasonable, and even to research it yourself based on the information conveyed. What’s more, to argue that something is false simply because there’s no evidence provided for it is known as an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy that I doubt anyone would hold consistently (you seemed to suggest this, I apologize if I misinterpreted). And yes, what someone is saying isn’t immediately wrong simply because it’s fallacious or contains a fallacy, but if it makes arguments that hinge on a fallacy, it can fail to successfully prove its point.

Even then, we knowingly set aside that concern [individual rights] to prioritize the survival of the species.

You’re basically just making a utilitarian greater good argument, desirable ends justifying morally despicable means that violate important deontic principles. And again, I doubt you would apply this logic to humans, or else most other humans would consider you a psychopath and maybe even a danger to society. It also reeks of eugenicism. Further, this is not why they’re killed and doesn’t even achieve that effect/outcome (you’re implying that the species would go extinct if humans didn’t hunt them, despite the fact that many wild animal species have gone extinct or been rapidly diminished and endangered through hunting and animal farming, and no explanation for how the species would go extinct if humans didn’t hunt them). [Additionally, I don’t believe a species matters more than an individual. Does a race matter more than an individual member of that race? Is it ok to kill supposedly weaker members of a race to that end?] What you probably mean is you prioritize the “strength” of the population, which is actually weakening it, in most cases completely unnecessarily or to reverse the damage of other human actions toward animals (e.g. hunting predators in order to protect cattle farming operations). Or that you basically just care more about arbitrary qualities like the animals being strong than their actual lives and experiences.

But let’s be real, that’s not why you’re defending this. In all likelihood, it’s because you’re not vegan and you feel threatened by the arguments against animal exploitation and killing because you participate in it unnecessarily, so you feel the urge to attack any and all pro-animal arguments by proxy even if they’re opposed to actions that you don’t even do yourself. Please consider watching www.DominionMovement.org

Plus, animal farming uses vast amounts more land for crop growing, grazing, feedlots, pens & slaughterhouses compared to plant farming when directed to humans instead of used to facilitate animal ag. So, animals are far more likely to be labelled as “pests” or “invasive” to human farming operations if humans farm animals and intrude on wild animals’ habitat more, since we’re the real invasive pests on Earth.

Exactly. And when they do that, it also can increase the population by allowing more of the weaker members to survive and eliminating the most dominant competitors for resources. So it’s super ironic and counterproductive. Whether it’s to strengthen the population or to lower it, it does neither and often does the opposite.

Been meaning to look into Christine Korsgaard, thanks for reminding me. Multiple vegans have recommended her to me already. I don’t agree with everything Bentham says either, or many ideas associated with utilitarianism for that matter. And I do think veganism is a deontological stance against animal exploitation rather than a utilitarian calculation of how we can do the most good and reduce the most suffering etc. But, Jeremy will forever remain an insightful, pioneering & seminal voice in the animal rights movement, in my opinion.

Ok fair enough, I apologize for assuming you weren’t vegan. In my defense, you sounded quite a lot like what non-vegans often say & it seemed like you were echoing their talking points, but you probably didn’t mean it in the same ways, I’m probably just hyper alerted to it based on my experiences with non vegans. I’m also now assuming you are vegan, even though you didn’t explicitly say you are, and I’m interpreting that when you say you don’t purchase or consume animal products, that includes non-food items as well, and that by extension you don’t fund or participate in other forms of animal exploitation either (even if it’s “fair trade” or “ethical” - to humans, by typical speciesist human standards - which is obviously important, and I respect you for doing your due diligence to try to buy products that respect human rights, but imo it must consider non human sentients also). I also do my best to buy products that treat humans ethically, fairly etc. and buy second hand where possible and I’m all for that.

I wasn’t suggesting that we would put out a listing for accommodation and then deny/turn away everyone who wasn’t vegan (which would likely be the majority or entirety of responses, only because of how few vegans there are period in current society). That seems like a silly plan, and yes probably cruel/unethical or at least morally dubious. I didn’t actually propose any specific method of helping them, in fact one of my questions was asking people how they thought we should help them. Unfortunately I didn’t get an answer from anyone to either of my questions (why there is a substantial overlap between vegans [OR plant based eaters, I guess] and homelessness, and what we can do about it), but I guess I kind of answered myself when people challenged me to justify why I even said anything about it in the first place or questioned whether it was a real phenomenon. And regarding strategies of how to help them, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t have to be like you said. For example, That Vegan Teacher, who now lives in Italy, proposed the idea of the “Pods” system, which other vegans such as Taryn4Animals were looking into organizing and developing and implementing in different locations in the US (but ideally it would be a global community effort). She has talked a lot about it and refined and evolved the idea over the years. After determining that it might be difficult to enact the full scope of her idea physically, she has more recently diverted to a digital version of “Pods” which is more of a general support network for vegans and animal rights activists to help & assist & support & uplift each other, promote each other’s content, motivate each other, etc. But the physical version of the concept would involve vegans who own or rent housing and have the ability to accommodate other roommates/housemates etc, promoting the offer specifically to vegans (in vegan/animal rights spaces, so it’s not advertised directly to carnists etc) for them to come and stay in the building(s) or complexes etc and create kind of a vegan safe house of sorts where vegans could provide each other, including homeless vegans, with a place to stay and maybe vegan food to eat, but also drive each other to keep doing activism (that part could easily be removed and the system would still provide a lot of benefit). Also, as much as it’s virtuous and even obligatory in some cases to help others (including both humans and non human sentient beings), I don’t think anyone should be forced to let others into their home especially who they don’t know. It’s almost like the 3rd amendment of the US constitution where no one can be forced to house soldiers in their home during war. And in some cases, vegans are much more likely to trust and be comfortable with someone else who is vegan (for one thing it demonstrates they’re probably a peaceful nonviolent nonthreatening and respectful person given the compassion they show for animals, ofc not always), and to also be willing to live with them, than to have to potentially violate their values (not saying these values are necessarily inherent to veganism, but can accompany it) of not wanting to be involved with or in close proximity to or even seen as potentially enabling in this case, people doing bad things to nonhuman animals (& the environment & humans etc etc) that they’re morally opposed to and repulsed by. They’re also much more easily and practically able to accommodate that person and live compatibly with them if they’re vegan. So can you really blame a vegan for having a spare flat, and wanting to provide it specifically to vegans? Btw, a vegan did this once during the Ukraine war, advertised a spare flat specifically to vegans on Reddit who were in need of sanctuary from the war, I’m not sure that was the best way to go about doing that or best situation to do it in but they did explain their reasoning and it made sense. They really wouldnt have been able to provide for anyone who wasnt vegan.

Yes, humans are animals. I apologize for when I often accidentally say “humans and animals” or just “animals” to refer to non-human animals. I try to remember to not use language that implies humans aren’t animals, or are in some separate pseudoscientific category, and instead say things like “other animals”, “non-human animals”, “non-human sentient beings” (when referring specifically to all animals who aren’t human, and “sentient beings” or “animals (including humans)” when referring to all animals or all sentient beings).

I largely agree with your take. Could you possibly elaborate on what you meant by the category of human is problematic and largely scientific? I know only a little bit about posthumanism (and transhumanism, though I know that’s different), but I don’t really immediately see how these ideas connect. I’d love to know more, because this reminds me of concepts I’ve thought about for a long time. I’m developing a theory I call critical species theory - based of course on critical race theory. So this is right up my alley.

Damn, I disabled the VPN restriction too. Dumb site.