This entire exchange has basically been "yes they are people", "no they aren't", "yes they are". You haven't provided evidence that animals are people, you've simply linked to articles that say some people believe animals are people. Which sure, there are, but that doesn't leave room for any response other than "I don't agree".
There is one good thing I got out of one of your links however:
Other theorists attempt to demarcate between degrees of personhood. For example, Peter Singer's two-tiered account distinguishes between basic sentience and the higher standard of self-consciousness which constitutes personhood. Wynn Schwartz has offered a Paradigm Case Formulation of Persons as a format allowing judges to identify qualities of personhood in different entities. Julian Friedland has advanced a seven-tiered account based on cognitive capacity and linguistic mastery. Amanda Stoel suggested that rights should be granted based on a scale of degrees of personhood, allowing entities currently denied any right to be recognized some rights, but not as many.
This makes much more sense to me than just insisting animals are people. Dolphins might deserve some rights, maybe apes deserve some rights, but cows don't.
Counterpoint this is on you to prove come up with a definition of personhood that isnt self defining (i.e. a person is a human). That excludes all animals(or all factory farmed animals). That also includes all humans. For instance if you define personhood by intelligence then you need to accept that gore instance a human child of developmental age comparable to the intelligence of an animal you consume if they were stopped from growing up(lets say a 2 year old with some debilitating disease that will kill them in the next 6 months). Then that child is not only not a person but you are morally allowed to butcher that child for meat.
Im going to assume you mean wisdom by sapience as they are etymylogical synonyms and I can find no other definition that would seem to fit your case. I doubt many would call young children wise and even if one did are you comfortable saying an unwise human has no moral worth? Can you kill an unwise human? Can you eat them. Also I cant think of a solid reason why one would define personhood on the level of species but if we do take it as fact. What makes you think every single animal species has no sapience? I don't think you have any evidence that they dont beyond a gut feeling. If you're looking at it from a risk perspective youd rather be wrong about them being people than wrong about them not being people. If you're wrong about not killing things that are not people it's no problem if you're wrong about killing something that is a person thats a big problem. And surely if sapience is this magical quality it would exist within the brain. Therefore the safe bet would to avoid eating things with brains yes?
The ability to know things and reason with that knowledge.
Which is not at all the same thing as the usual definition of "wisdom". The things you "know" don't even have to be correct and the reasoning doesn't have to be very good, it just has to be present. The dumbest person you know is still sapient.
Again you judge based on the species as a whole, not the individual.
The ability to know things and reason with that knowledge is absolutely present in animals like cows and pigs. Ill choose a relevant example cows have to get pregnant to produce milk and when they do their children are taken away from them. This is obviously very distressing. As this continues cows get more distressed by their children being taken away knowing they are not coming back furthermore when allowed adequate room to do so they will try to protect their children from farmers trying to take them away. They know something( I have just given birth and this is my child, all my other children were taken away by these farmers ergo I must protect my new child being taken away by these farmers) this seems to fit your definition of sapience and is just once example of many
In case you haven't see this comment, I think the best thing to do is to make this community explicitly for omnivores, as opposed to /c/vegan, which already exists.
Vegans don't want to see posts with meat, omnivores don't want vegans moralizing in their posts about pepporoni pizza or whatever. Just separate them.
You can err on the safe side without including literally every animal. Maybe dolphins are sapient, idk, we can give them rights (or really just leave them alone). But cows are far enough away from sapience.
That's a disagreement over whether sapience or sentience is what matters. Neither point is morally superior and believing yours shouldn't be required of others. And yeah, if you believe it's sentience then eating meat would be bad.
Animals aren't "someone". Animals aren't people.
deleted by creator
That entire section is about apes. Last I checked most omnivores here don't eat apes.
deleted by creator
The first link is, you edited the second in after my comment.
The second link basically amounts to "animals rights activists exist".
deleted by creator
I mean, no shit animal rights activists exist, I never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right or morally superior.
deleted by creator
This entire exchange has basically been "yes they are people", "no they aren't", "yes they are". You haven't provided evidence that animals are people, you've simply linked to articles that say some people believe animals are people. Which sure, there are, but that doesn't leave room for any response other than "I don't agree".
There is one good thing I got out of one of your links however:
This makes much more sense to me than just insisting animals are people. Dolphins might deserve some rights, maybe apes deserve some rights, but cows don't.
deleted by creator
Counterpoint this is on you to prove come up with a definition of personhood that isnt self defining (i.e. a person is a human). That excludes all animals(or all factory farmed animals). That also includes all humans. For instance if you define personhood by intelligence then you need to accept that gore instance a human child of developmental age comparable to the intelligence of an animal you consume if they were stopped from growing up(lets say a 2 year old with some debilitating disease that will kill them in the next 6 months). Then that child is not only not a person but you are morally allowed to butcher that child for meat.
You define it for species' as a whole, not for individuals. And a definition that fits your criteria already exists: sapience.
Im going to assume you mean wisdom by sapience as they are etymylogical synonyms and I can find no other definition that would seem to fit your case. I doubt many would call young children wise and even if one did are you comfortable saying an unwise human has no moral worth? Can you kill an unwise human? Can you eat them. Also I cant think of a solid reason why one would define personhood on the level of species but if we do take it as fact. What makes you think every single animal species has no sapience? I don't think you have any evidence that they dont beyond a gut feeling. If you're looking at it from a risk perspective youd rather be wrong about them being people than wrong about them not being people. If you're wrong about not killing things that are not people it's no problem if you're wrong about killing something that is a person thats a big problem. And surely if sapience is this magical quality it would exist within the brain. Therefore the safe bet would to avoid eating things with brains yes?
What I mean is something closer to:
Which is not at all the same thing as the usual definition of "wisdom". The things you "know" don't even have to be correct and the reasoning doesn't have to be very good, it just has to be present. The dumbest person you know is still sapient.
Again you judge based on the species as a whole, not the individual.
The ability to know things and reason with that knowledge is absolutely present in animals like cows and pigs. Ill choose a relevant example cows have to get pregnant to produce milk and when they do their children are taken away from them. This is obviously very distressing. As this continues cows get more distressed by their children being taken away knowing they are not coming back furthermore when allowed adequate room to do so they will try to protect their children from farmers trying to take them away. They know something( I have just given birth and this is my child, all my other children were taken away by these farmers ergo I must protect my new child being taken away by these farmers) this seems to fit your definition of sapience and is just once example of many
deleted by creator
Vegan comrades spamming this point everywhere isn't productive either.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
In case you haven't see this comment, I think the best thing to do is to make this community explicitly for omnivores, as opposed to /c/vegan, which already exists.
Vegans don't want to see posts with meat, omnivores don't want vegans moralizing in their posts about pepporoni pizza or whatever. Just separate them.
deleted by creator
You can err on the safe side without including literally every animal. Maybe dolphins are sapient, idk, we can give them rights (or really just leave them alone). But cows are far enough away from sapience.
deleted by creator
That's a disagreement over whether sapience or sentience is what matters. Neither point is morally superior and believing yours shouldn't be required of others. And yeah, if you believe it's sentience then eating meat would be bad.
deleted by creator