If You Claim To 'love' Animals But

You Don't Have To Love Animals To Recognize That It Is Immoral And Unjust To Exploit Them. But If You Do Love Animals, But You Continue To Participate In Their Exploitation, You Need To Rethink Your Idea Of What Love Means.

Who I've Been Is Not As Important As Who I'm Becoming.

Speciesism Is Morally Objectionable Because, Like Racism, Sexism, And Heterosexism, It Links Personhood With An Irrelevant Criterion. Those Who Reject Speciesism Are Committed To Rejecting Racism, Sexism, Heterosexism, And Other Forms Of Discrimination As Well.

99% Of Our Uses Of Animals, Including Our Numerically Most Significant Use Of Them For Food, Do Not Involve Any Sort Of Necessity Or Any Real Conflict Between Human And Nonhuman Interests. If Animals Matter Morally At All, Then, Even Without Accepting A Theory Of Animal Rights, Those Uses Of Animals Cannot Be Morally Justified.

I Find It Very Annoying That So Many Animal Advocates Talk About The Difficulty Of Being Vegan. Many Animal Advocates Are Inclined To Make The Issue Their Suffering And Not The Animals' Suffering, And I Suppose That Accounts For Part Of The Reason That Veganism Is Portrayed As Such A "sacrifice." And Many Animal Advocates Are Not Vegans, Or Are "flexible Vegans," Which Means That They Do Not Observe Veganism At All Or Not Consistently, And Emphasizing The Supposed Difficulty Of Veganism Is Part Of Justifying Their Own Behavior.