Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 7 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 6 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 5 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 1 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

So sorry that your quote is being down voted.

Clearly, those folks don't have loved ones who are vegan for ethical reasons, and don't understand the pain of being so empathetic.

I'm not vegan, I'm not even vegetarian. And I know that vegans are smart, caring and intelligent.

Condolences on this reception to accurate words.

(When even hard core Republicans like George Will say that our factory farm practices are horrendous, you know that they damn well are.)

Absolutely not a straw man when the statement it contradicts was "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”
At what point do you decide (for yourself, the only one you get to decide for) 'sentience' exists? Shrimp? Crabs? If so, then logically also mosquitos, gnats, and ticks.
Also, why have YOU decided so capriciously that 'sentience' is the measure of a life's worth? What, if anything, do you base that decision on? Perhaps a sense of biological superiority?

BUT you insist others adopt YOUR definitions of non violence, oppression, exploitation, others, property.

Again, you insist that "every human believes" something you believe. That's absolutely not true of ANYTHING, and totally wrong about this topic...clearly. It clearly doesn't 'when it concerns humans' or we wouldn't be murdering and torturing each other as we are.

We clearly disagree that animal consumption is the MAIN issue globally....just as we clearly disagree that it's even a possibility for humanity to switch to a purely vegetarian diet...pasture land is not the same as farmable land.

There are certainly ecological issues with meat production on the scale and in the manner we do it today...there was no such issue when the population being fed was 1/10 what it is today....no one burned massive portions of the rainforests to raise cattle 150 years ago, they didn't need to.

When I see a video like this that highlights people being kind to animalS (the dog AND the bird) it's disturbing that people are so disconnected with normalcy that they see a connection with murder and torture....or that they see murder and torture where it doesn't exist, and disturbing that they feel the need to shit on the happy video comments with a 'but you're all murdering bastards...feel bad and capitulate'.

Yeah, again, I don't click random links, and I don't get science from the internet, no need to read any vegan propaganda. Thanks

Ask 10 people on the street if they think it's OK to humanely raise animals for consumption, 9.95 of them will say "yes".
Now you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm, equating intentional frivolous casual injuring and killing for pleasure with occasional unintentional injuring and killing for an essential purpose.

not really-life = sentient life is the only assertion which i clarified and this assumption was stated from the beginning so was implied. the suggestion that this changes everything is a classic straw man fallacy.

the imperatives which i am espousing on are merely non-violence and a rejection of oppression, exploitation and using others as property and economic commodities which almost every human believes when it concerns humans and perhaps a few other species. it is only the others whom should be considered under the umbrella of moral concern which is the key point of the issue for most people.

as far as the population, the main reason WHY the human population IS such an issue is due to the consumption of animal products. along with the obvious moral and ethical issues of murdering other sentient beings, the production of animal based foods requires many times the resources to produce an equivalent calorie compared to plant based food which drives things like climate change, resource depletion, water scarcity, biodiversity, species extinction and other aspects of environmental devastation.

when a video such as this one comes up which highlights people being kind to an animal, it is disturbing that people are so disconnected that they do not make the connection between the animals in the video whom they feel good about being rescued and the countless others which are being tortured and murdered for their dinner plate. this is exactly what the short article i posed above articulates so well.

“Ask ten people on the street if they think it’s wrong to injure or kill animals for one’s amusement or pleasure, and nine or ten will say yes, of course. Chances are all ten of those people freely consume animal products, simply because they like to and they’re used to doing it." - Karen Manfrede

You made no such equivocations in your original assertions. You've completely changed your argument by adding them. EDIT: You quoted "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”, nothing about sentience, reasons, intent, etc.

Your imperatives may not be others'. Your insistence that they must be is what makes you enemies rather than allies.
No serious organization would make any such spurious claim. Poor treatment of animals is an issue, but it is incredibly far from the most critical issue humans and the planet are facing. Over population is, as it drives EVERY human caused issue one can name, but you don't see me interjecting that into every comment thread I enter, because that would not convince anyone of anything besides convincing them that I'm a single issue zealot that should be ignored at best.

you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm. mixing situations of conflict with situations with no conflict and equating sentient life with non-sentient life since it is impossible to live without killing, it is also imperative to do the least harm possible and that can be accomplished by first refusing to murder sentient animals in the name of pleasure and profit. in many countries the vast majority of humans also used to strongly believe that a white person's life was much more valuable than a black person's life but that did not make it so.

it is telling that one would consider the torture and murder of 60 billion+ sentient beings every year in the name of a trivial taste preference as a mere "pet project". in fact, many organizations are finally coming to realize that it IS the most critical issue humans and the planet are facing. here is but one of countless examples:
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-environmental-law-journal-elj/blog/leading-cause-everything-one-industry-destroying-our-planet-and-our-abil
ity-thrive-it

even if one does not accept the idea of animal rights and the equality of sentient beings, if non-human animals matter morally (as they obviously do to the man in the video in question and anyone who likes this story), this short article will explain why not eating or using non-human animals is the only logically consistent response:

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/veganism-without-animal-rights/

First, since this is your SOLE focus, and so you inappropriately insert it into every conversation you participate in, you are preaching about it. No one likes to be preached at, and that methodology always ends with the preached at becoming opposition to the preachers. That means that the way you go about trying to convince people of your point is working against your goal and is creating adversaries rather than cohorts.
Second, most people strongly disagree with your base premise, that all life is equal. Have you ever taken medicine or other steps to get rid of a disease? Ever slapped a mosquito? If so, you are an uncaring, hypocritical, torturous and murdering bastard! You killed billions of living micro organisms, and likely thousands of macro organisms. If all life is equal and it's cruelty to kill, period, then all life is evil because it's impossible to live without killing.

That some people can't see that their pet cause is not the most important issue facing the planet and/or that their viewpoint on a particular topic might not be rational is the root of all that's wrong with the world.

that is my focus because this is where all the harm is taking place. as Paul Farmer said, "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”

the video is about being a man being kind to a dog and a bird-i was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of being kind to these animals while paying others to murder cows, pigs and chickens who are not at all different from the dog or the hummingbird.

"In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people." — Ruth Harrison

I'm calling it preaching because the only comments you have ever made are about cruelty to animals and veganism. It wouldn't be so bad if you had something else to contribute, on ANY other topic, but its always the same. In MY opinion that to me is preaching.

Also there was absolutely nothing in the video about murdering other animals. So no i don't think you're on topic.