Dan UVE – I have nothing further to say to you because of your arguments of resistance to realize that you give humans authority – to keep quoting the theory of 1+1=2 shows it as it is a human theory to make mathematical sense of this world and a way to universally communicate in it.

First, it doesn’t get any more hypocritical than you — an animal exploitation advocate — telling people who do not exploit animals that saving the lives of and caring for refugees of the deplorable institution of pet ownership (or, treating animals as commodities) who have been domesticated and cannot live out their lives in the wild that what we do is immoral. I would call it arrogant, too, but as you’ll see in the next paragraph, I honestly think you’re merely underdeveloped in your moral capacity. Therefore I don’t see you as arrogant, but merely ignorant.

Second, we are not the authority either. I suppose, like very young child, you are literally incapable of thinking of morality outside of the concept of authority (which happens to be the lowest and most underdeveloped view of morality under Lawrence Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development). It is a shame that you are so profoundly underdeveloped in your moral capacity, and I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s just a sad fact.

People who reason from universalized principles of justice are on the sixth and highest stage of moral development under Kohlberg’s scale. People in stage six generate moral progress in society. People in stage six extend principles of justice to individuals — usually members of groups previously excluded by society from the moral community — who have an important interest in being treated justly. The principles themselves come from no authority whatsoever, just like the concept of 1+1=2 comes from no authority.

Third, the fourth meaning listed in the dictionary refers to virtually a slang meaning, as when people say something like “Watching NASCAR and drinking beer is my religion!” So, you are equivocating on the meaning of religion, Dante. Using the primary and core meaning of religion, veganism is not even remotely close to being a religion (any more than refraining from owning slaves is a religion).

I agree with Mary that this discussion has become unproductive at best.

I don’t believe that this publication supports PeTA. Why would you say that?

I adopted 3 special needs animals, all of whom would be dead if I released them. In addition, humans created the overpopulation situation and as a human I feel obligated to try to do something about it by giving homes to some of the animals we have created. I also Trap, Neuter and Release feral cats in my community by the dozens.

We disagree on many–if not all points–and it doesn’t seem to be a good use of anyone’s energy to continue this discussion. You do not think it is wrong to use/abuse sentient nonhumans when it is not necessary and I know in my heart and mind that it is as wrong as doing the same things to children.

Good day.

To clarify, the definition of religion is not what you state. You conveniently miss meaning, unless of course you don’t believe in the English dictionary; 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion).

If you can’t understand by now that Mary and I do not appeal to any authority whatsoever, except our conscience, empathy, basic moral principles, and reasoning from basic moral principles, then there is no hope that you’ll understand.

Veganism is simply refraining from speciesism in attitude, thought, speech, and behavior. It’s as secular as refraining from racism and human chattel slavery. There is nothing religious about it – no rituals; no afterlife belief; no metaphysics.

I also strongly reject PETA and agree that they are hypocritical. Despite their false claims to the contrary, they are NOT an animal rights organization, but an animal welfare organization. They are an obstacle to animal rights.

I also agree with Mary on pets. I think the institution of pet ownership, by which I specifically mean breeding, buying, and selling nonhuman animals, is wrong and should be abolished. Until the time comes when breeding slows down sufficiently, I think rescuing and adopting unwanted “pets” to give them love and care is to be encouraged.

Also, I do not think that humans should keep dogs and cats and horses (or any other nonhuman) as pets. To the contrary, I do hope that some day we will stop breeding them and stop putting them in a position where they need to be rescued. I rescue animals because the alternative (an unjust death) isn’t something I consider an option.

Furthermore, one could argue that having pets is not conducive to your theories. You assume that they enjoy being your pet. You can not prove that they do as I am confident in believing that you don’t speak dog language or able to read their minds. You can only make assumptions based on your human interpretation of their behaviour. How do you know that they wouldn’t be happier in freedom away from humans?

Mary Maritn, you are incorrect in saying that every religious text on planet earth was written by human beings. In addition, your final statement is without warrant as you do not even know what my belief system is.

Vegetarianism, vegan or other, is a lifestyle choice. To state anything other than that is, in itself a religion. Humans’ misuse and abuse of this world (including everything within this world) is a problem and has been since the beginning of time. The problem is larger due to larger population of humans therefore there are more to misuse and abuse. Not eating animals is not the answer to the problem. If everyone on the planet stopped eating animals, the problem would still exist.