Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. There are, you'll be pleased to hear, many vegans with stronger ethical arguments than "meat is murder". Such as, in summary: * unnecessary extreme suffering is unjustifiable. * some non-human animals (notably the ones we eat most of) are as capable of suffering at the physical level as humans are. We shouldn't discount their suffering just because they aren't members of homo…
I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. I believe suffering is caused by, roughly, difference between one's preferences and reality. But animals do not have preferences (this is controversial. will you agree that if th…
No, you're decades out of date. It is established fact, on all sides of the animal rights argument, that animals suffer and feel pain. I'd be shocked if you could find a single credible source arguing otherwise at this point.
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. If you kick a dog, which you shouldn't, it'll exhibit all the same physiological responses that we do to being kicked; it will be in obvious pain and distress, and measurably so; it might cry, it'll hide, it'll be scared of you in the future. What else is there?
> But animals do not have preferences
No, that's patently ridiculous. Many adult animals, and most especially other primates, hold long-term preferences and have tested at the cognitive level of young human children (toddlers). Again, why would you possibly expect anything else?
> You haven't even said what you think suffering is.
There are books upon books written about animal suffering, and I was giving bullet points, so not exhaustively defining my terms is hardly a fair criticism. You could read Wikipedia: