This guy harms humans to "help" animals. This guy argues for pure altruism, treating animals as greater than humans. He uses force to do it. I consider this completely immoral. Sure, causing pain for the sake of causing pain is contemptible - but using animals to better your life and the life of your family, not so much.

See, he has never said outside of "animals are our brothers" why it should be immoral. I totally get what he is saying, and I get that he is trying to attach an "ism" to it - the problem is he has supplied no justification for doing so. Speciesism should be put on the level of Nazism why? Because he said so?

His arguments are terrible. For example, put a kid in a crib with an rabbit and an apple? Kids that age will try to put anything in their mouth. Also, the rabbit will bite the kid - so its not advisable to actually try the experiment.

Or "dont use tools, dont use fire". And " Humans learn behavior". Well of course we do in both cases - our faculty of reason is what sets us apart. This guy is basically saying " throw away what makes you human, and then you will find humans eat plants". This is so absurd for making a moral argument regarding animals on so many levels it would take 15 pages minimum to begin to explore all the angles of absurdity.

Its not even about being inferior necessarily, theres also the sentience aspect. If a pig wrote me a letter asking not to be eaten, I would consider it.

Again, another fail argument - where he was talking about how the diseases borne by plants come from shit. Well, many do. But he was absolutely lying when he implied that the shit in question came exclusively from industrialized farming. This guy knows dick all about agriculture. Of course if he was educated on how the world actually works, he wouldnt hold these extremist views and expect other humans to follow him on pain of incurring his "righteous wrath".

Whats next for this guy, kill all the humans so animals have their "territory" back? Thats how a lot of PETA people think anyway. These types of people who advocate force to implement their agendas are not good people, and they are not moral people, and they have no case to make that they are standing up for a good cause.

This guy even bashed Descartes, who is considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time - by using irrational arguments, unfounded assertions, straw men and red herring comments.

Also, the argument about how much animals eat and it is supposedly inefficient is a simplistic argument, that does not cover a great many cases - and in any case is completely irrelevant to the morality issue of eating animals and using animals. "Global Warming" and the danger it does or does not pose, and causes thereof are a different topic altogether and should be treated separately or the thread will go hopelessly off topic.

Lastly, he fails to make a case for why the well being of animals should be more important than the well being of humans. To put it in context, think of the well being of your own children or family. Would you seriously deny your children a better life due to the feelings of a cow or pig?

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)