text: Potion No. 9 is our exquisite chocolate sauce, hand-made in small batches using premier ingredients, including antioxidant-rich cacao, organic evaporated cane juice sugar, cultured butter straight from the farm, and fresh cream. Want to raise your premium ice cream up the food chain? Add some of our artisanal chocolate sauce. It is also excellent for use in place of icing, glaze or filling in baked goods. Drop a dollop into coffee, dip fresh strawberries in it, or eat it right off the spoon like a lollipop. Either way, you will be instantly under it's chocolate love spell.
  Want to add some commotion to your potion? Add a dash of Grand Marnier for a subtle citrus profile. Also try it with Amaretto, Sweet Bourbon, or Baileys. Add another dimension to this decadent sauce by sprinkling in some fresh ground cinnamon.
  Last night I was grateful to do my first public speaking on Veganism live on a radio show which is hosted by two of my friends on Facebook, Joseph Aquilino and Holise Cleveland. If and when I’m asked to go back on the show, I’m going to post the link in advance here and on my Facebook timeline so many more people can listen live if they want. But they have posted last night’s episode on Youtube, so here it is. I hope you all enjoy it. My segment starts at approximately 1:13:00:
  Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, hetero-sexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.
  The following thoughts were posted in the group Healthy Vegan Cats (you need to join to see the posts but if you have cats in your home, it’s worth it) by my friend Peter Csere. He’s an authority on anything Vegan cat-related and a lot of other things about Veganism to boot:
  Feeding farmed animal products to domesticated felines is not a humane or vegan option since we are enslaving + murdering one species to feed another which we find prettier and more preferable for companionship.
  Letting cats “roam” and “hunt for themselves” is not a humane, vegan, or environmentally sound option since, according to numerous wildlife studies, human-subsidized domestic felines have a HUGE and disastrous impact on local wildlife populations. Domestic felines have singlehandedly caused the extinction of over 33 island species of mammal, reptile, bird, and amphibian, and the number one threat to many endangered songbird and rodent species is the domestic feline. The domestic feline is not even native to North America yet is the most populous feline predator on the continent, numbering over 150 million in the US alone (according to various estimates of “owned” cats and stray cat populations.)
  Another important issue is that domestic felines compete for prey with natural/indigenous predator species such as mountain lions, cougars, panthers, and fisher cats. This food competition reduces the possible population of important natural predator species. Even cats that are fed by humans still kill many animals per instinct.
  Feeding domestic cats laboratory-grown meat, organs, and bones modeled after their natural prey (insects and rodents) might be an excellent option for the future when laboratory-grown meat becomes economically feasible and in regular production. However, *this option is not currently available.*
  I’ve noticed that some people parrot on and on about lab-grown meat but then seem to think that this constant parroting gives them license to continue purchasing real meat to feed to their domesticated cats in the meantime. By all means, donate to lab-grown meat entrepreneurial initiatives, tell your friends, advertise, get the word out and the projects started. But in the meantime, the other arguments regarding humans killing one animal to feed to another animal which they find preferable, still apply.
  (Editor’s note: Feeding cats “In Vitro Meat” is a good solution when we’re dealing with the small portion of cats who physically can’t or won’t eat Vegan, this is not meant to endorse In Vitro Meat being fed to *all* cats. I also personally don’t support encouraging In Vitro Meat projects for human consumption whatsoever.)
  Feeding cats a plant-based diet which has a sufficient nutritional profile to keep them healthy and happy for a similar lifespan to a domestic cat on a meat-based diet, could be presented as not humane or vegan, since technically it is not “natural” for the cat – but still, *it is the most humane and ethical of all currently available options.*
  All these options are side-stepping the real issue, which is that humans are continually unnaturally subsidizing, in-breeding, domesticating, and enslaving an artificial species (the domestic feline) at the cost of much suffering to the cats, the local ecosystems that their inflated population affects, and the animals that they inbreed and enslave to feed the cats. As long as the domestic cat population continues to rise, feeding them vegan diets will help but still will only slow the suffering that results to all involved.
  Humans need to learn that when they take an animal with desirable characteristics, and force it to only have sex with another animal with desirable characteristics, and do this generation after generation producing a species with inbred genetic health problems and dependency on humans, much suffering will result. Long-term solutions may or may not include a number of strategies, such as: slowly re-wilding and introducing wild genes back into the domestic cat species, relocating them to their natural habitat, wide-scale spaying and neutering, etc, among others, some of which may be controversial and some not so much.
  None of these options can really be considered 100% ethical and humane, but a complete hands-off approach also results in much suffering, so in the meantime, while we struggle to find solutions that best meet the needs of all involved, to this ridiculous problem that only humans are stupid enough to create – we can feed properly-formulated plant foods to domesticated cats and stop enslaving other animals or decimating local ecosystems i.e. making a bad problem worse.
  Here are some more excellent resources on the solutions to the problem of being Vegan and keeping nonhumans in our homes:
  I’m making separate posts on individual issues related to Veganism, so that anyone who wants a handy reference guide to each issue won’t have to go through my entire link list to find it. The links included in each individual post may not be updated regularly, so the Master List will be the only place to find complete updates. These posts will be comprehensive enough to cover most or all questions related to each issue however.
  “Essentialism, Intersectionality, and Veganism as a Moral Baseline: Black Vegans Rock and the Humane Society of the United States”:
  Here is the basic argument for Abolitionist Veganism. I’ve incorporated a couple different major Animal Rights theories into one:
  Conclusion: If we don’t stop intentionally exploiting nonhumans to the best of our ability, all the systemic violations we consider atrocities and major problems in the world will never end. We also will not be able to consider ourselves truly morally consistent people. To stop intentionally exploiting nonhumans completely means Abolitionist Veganism.
  Abolitionist Veganism also means we do our best to eliminate speciesism (which is the intentional, harmful discrimination by humans against individuals and groups of other species based solely on the morally irrelevant criteria of species membership) within each of us. Speciesism is the tree from which springs all intentional, harmful discrimination against any individual (nonhuman or human) on the basis of any morally irrelevant criteria. Speciesism is rooted in the myth that human animals are morally superior to nonhuman animals.
  Ergo, if everyone becomes an Abolitionist Vegan and exclusively advocates a 100% clear moral baseline of Abolitionist Veganism, all of the atrocities we abhor such as world hunger, poverty, ecological destruction by humans, systemic human rights violations, and discrimination against any individual beings based on any morally irrelevant criteria, will either be severely decreased or eliminated. Every living being on the planet, from nonhuman animals to human animals, will be much happier and healthier.
  The crucial point here is that if you have moral concern at all for nonhuman animals or human animals and so you want these problems to be decreased or eliminated, it makes no sense for you to participate in actions that will increase or foster those problems. It is your moral responsibility to stop engaging in actions that increase those harms, which means going Vegan (and, if you want to help everyone further, educating others about Veganism).
  Final thoughts: If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s incredible for the animals, great for you, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue/volunteer/adopt/foster/spay/neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where and when you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.
  The most fundamental problem in AR debates right now is the fact that we are not continuously addressing the myth that humans are morally superior to nonhumans. This idea needs to be eradicated before any truly revolutionary thinking about Animal Rights can begin on the part of morally confused and inconsistent humans. This idea is so ingrained in our societal mindset that it’s completely invisible to almost everyone, and it’s the underlying structure for all irrational, harmful moral double-standards regarding human-nonhuman interaction. There is no speciesism without Human Supremacy.
  The single most overlooked, and at the same time most foundational error in logic whenever anyone tries to justify human animals exploiting nonhuman animals is the irrational idea that human animals in general are morally superior to nonhuman animals. This idea can be easily disproved, and yet most people do not even question it. It is assumed to be indisputable when it isn’t based on objective fact (contrary to what some would have us believe).
  Unless we can explain how human animals are morally superior to nonhuman animals, whenever we try to justify humans exploiting nonhumans in the ways that we do, we can’t rule out arguments that would otherwise justify humans exploiting other humans in the exact same ways and for the exact same reasons (our mere pleasure or convenience).
  All other forms of moral supremacy -from ethnic, to religious, to gender-based, etc.- stem from this one basic idea: that it’s acceptable to refuse the same moral consideration to another being that we accord ourselves, merely because of morally irrelevant criteria like the color of their skin, which genitalia they have, or their species membership.
  The belief that humans are morally superior to nonhumans is not based on instinct. If it was, then why would anyone even question it, and therefore, why would you even be reading this? And yet, it’s the reason why we believe it’s just fine to torture a nonhuman, who is fully capable of desiring to not suffer or die as much as a human, in ways that we wouldn’t torture the worst human criminals.
  The myth of human moral supremacy is almost never even examined. But when it is, it’s obvious: just like the arguments we use to try to justify racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, or any other irrational form of oppression, it’s based on nothing more than arbitrary personal opinion (and biased, self-serving opinion at that).
  The idea that humans are superior to nonhumans is based on the misconception that all humans have some characteristic or set of characteristics that all nonhumans lack. These criteria are commonly believed to include: “intelligence;” “mind;” “consciousness;” abstract thought; the capability of understanding and following moral codes; creativity; the ability to invent tools, technology, or art; some sort of physical ability or physical adaptation; proliferation; a “soul” or some other form of divine endowment; the capability of surviving in conditions or environments that others can’t; or some other unspecified faculty.
  All of these criteria are obviously as arbitrary as gender, ethnic membership, or religious belief when it comes to moral superiority, since we can’t prove that either they are possessed by all humans, nor that they are lacked by all nonhumans. Not only that, but whichever faculty is being proclaimed as superior is always one which is possessed by the person arguing on behalf of Human Supremacy.
  Although human animals created a concept of morality, many humans commonly break the moral codes imposed by society. This is why we have human slavery, rape, torture, murder, and all the other atrocities that ethical humans abhor. Nonhuman animals, who cannot be proven to understand the concept of a human moral code, almost always follow our moral codes better than we do. They do not enslave us, create concentration camps, weapons of mass destruction, torture chambers, or pollute or otherwise destroy our habitats. Nor do they wage war on humans, or any of the other atrocities that humans are guilty of. They merely wish to be left alone to live and die on their own terms. To claim that they should have to follow our moral codes to benefit from them would be like claiming that we should punish a severely mentally handicapped human for failing to pass the S.A.T.s.
  Human animals created individual moral codes for ourselves because most of us believe that enslaving, raping, torturing and murdering other humans is wrong. Most adult human animals are moral agents, while nonhuman animals, infant humans, and severely mentally disabled humans (among others) are moral patients.
  In order to be a moral agent, one must be capable of abstract thought in order to have a specific minimum understanding of the meaning of morality. That is to say, moral agents can understand the concept of morality and can therefore make moral decisions; meaning that they can make decisions that affect the interests of both moral agents and moral patients. Furthermore, moral agents have moral responsibilities to both other moral agents and moral patients. This means that they are capable of being assigned blame if they intentionally make a moral choice that they know will cause a being who is capable of feeling pain and other sensations to suffer unnecessarily.
  A moral agent must be capable of giving informed consent, which means that an explicit meeting of the minds takes place -via spoken or written human language, and no less- where both parties are capable of abstract thought, understand what the nature of the social contract is, and what the general future ramifications of the agreement are.
  Moral patients, on the other hand, cannot understand the human concept of morality and are thus incapable of giving informed consent. Moral patients cannot make moral decisions that affect either moral agents nor moral patients. They do not have moral responsibilities; however, in order for there to be moral consistency, moral patients must benefit from our individual moral codes without being able to have moral responsibilities themselves.
  This is why, for instance, it’s morally wrong for an adult human to murder a severely mentally disabled human, and also why it’s wrong for an adult human to have sex with a human child. Because those entities, being moral patients, cannot give consent to being euthanized not to sexual activity. This is also why ethical people believe that humans having sex with nonhuman animals -who also cannot give consent to be used for sexual activity- is also wrong. We don’t hold nonhuman animals morally culpable to this code simply because we understand that -like severely mentally disabled humans and human babies- nonhumans are incapable of understanding and abiding by human moral codes (or at least, any truly rational human understands that they are not capable of this) plus the fact that -regarding their interactions with us- they almost always, by default, follow our moral codes better than we do regarding our interactions with other humans (and even moreso, with nonhumans).
  On the other side of the coin, humans enslave, rape, torture or murder nonhumans by the hundreds of billions each year, merely because we enjoy the taste of their dead bodies and secretions and the conveniences that it affords us. And we also are intentionally destroying every wild habitat that we can. We regularly treat nonhumans worse than we would treat the worst human criminals. So who is morally superior to whom again?
  The idea that we should be able to do these things because say, a lion eats a zebra is ridiculous in the extreme. A male lion often will kill a rival male and their offspring before copulating -in public no less- with the mother. If a mother lioness gives birth to a severely ill or deformed baby, she will usually cannibalize them. When applied to human contexts, do we think these are morally justifiable ways to behave?
  This is where the Human Supremacist says “Either we are morally superior to animals, in which case exploiting them is fine, or we aren’t morally superior to them, in which case we can kill them merely because we want to consume them, just like any other animal does.”
  However, this completely fails to recognize that claiming one is “morally superior” means that one adheres to a code of fairness and justice more than the other does, not that one can merely understand human concepts of morality. If a human can understand the concept of the injustice of slavery, rape, torture or murder, but does not refuse to engage in such behaviors, where is the moral superiority in that?
  As I mentioned, we very rarely hold completely to our optimal code of conduct. We claim as a society to believe in The Golden Rule, but we routinely inflict massive unnecessary suffering and death on innocent beings merely for our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We enslave, rape, torture and murder upwards of 1,000,000,000,000 nonhuman animals each year merely so we can unnecessarily consume their flesh and secretions and use their body parts for clothing (among other things), which not only causes massive suffering for them, but massive amounts of chronic disease for us and massive ecological devastation as well.
  We should realize that if we don’t follow a 100% egalitarian system of justice regarding every innocent animal, human or nonhuman, then the same arguments we use to attempt to justify inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on them: “that animal isn’t as smart as I am;” “they don’t have souls;” “it’s how I make a living;” “meat/fish/dairy/eggs/honey tastes good” etc., can also be used by other humans to justify inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on us: “that person isn’t as smart as I am;” “I’m one of the chosen people and that person isn’t;” “I wanted their property;” “rape feels good” etc.
  There is no way to morally justify the intentional, unnecessary exploitation of nonhumans by humans without also morally justifying the intentional, unnecessary exploitation of humans by other humans. This means that if we are personally in favor of violating nonhumans’ right to be completely safe from being forced into existence against their will, enslaved, slaughtered -or in any way used merely as replaceable resources for unnecessary human interests- then we have no rationally consistent claim that we ourselves should be safe from having those same things done to us by other humans. Any argument we try to use to justify harming nonhumans can also be used successfully by other humans to justify harming us in those same ways. This also means that until we as a species evolve past our irrational belief that intentionally exploiting nonhumans merely for our trivial interests is morally justifiable, we will continue to endure racism, sexism, cis-sexism, homophobia, ableism, tyranny, mass murder, and all the other human systemic rights atrocities we commonly abhor.
  Furthermore, claiming that because we can’t be perfect -and not cause harm to any living being whatsoever- is a valid reason to intentionally cause easily avoidable harms to the nonhumans we exploit for our pleasure or convenience is like saying that just because we know that some humans will die in traffic accidents it justifies us murdering them by intentionally running them over with our cars. The fact that we can’t prevent all homicides does not justify us intentionally committing mass-murder, just as the fact that we can’t survive without unintentionally killing a lesser number of animals or plants does not justify intentionally breeding nonhuman animals and feeding them a much larger number of plants, merely to slaughter and eat them or their secretions, when we can thrive perfectly well on a plants-only diet. Nor does it justify exploiting nonhumans for clothing, research, or entertainment. The only reasonable, morally justifiable thing would be to work to decrease the number of all living beings we harm in all cases, not to try to justify intentionally harming them in some cases while claiming to decrease harm in others.
  If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. Its easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.
  There is no such thing as “ostroVeganism.” The term Veganism has a specific meaning, and human animals using nonhuman animals for human interests is contradictory to that meaning.
  I follow The Precautionary Principle and so I don’t advocate for the exploitation of any animal, regardless of the complexity of their biology. I advocate Veganism, which is a moral stance against human animals intentionally using nonhuman animals as replaceable resources for human interests, based on the nonhumans’ pre-legal moral right to not be used, which in turn is based on the fact that they are capable of feeling pain and so have the exact same right as humans do in this regard. We have no need to use any animals, and if someday we find out that whomever animal is insentient, since we lived Vegan, then no harm done. If we someday find out they are sentient, then also, since we lived Vegan, no harm done.
  Some people mistakenly try to claim that plants are also sentient as a way of silencing Vegan advocates. A Vegan ethic destroys the least numbers of plants compared to a non-Vegan ethic, so if someday we discover that plants were sentient all along, then we will have harmed the least number of plants; especially if we are able to eat a fruitarian diet due to our financial situation and/or where we live. And if we discover that we were right all along and plants are insentient, then also, no harm done.
  Also, using nonhuman animals of any species for human interests fosters speciesism and does not shift animals away from the “property paradigm.” Since most non-Vegans don’t know nor care what the difference between a sentient nonhuman and an insentient nonhuman would even be (if that even existed), it manifests to the public as a lack of a coherent and consistent moral stance.
  Some people have brought up the idea that since most or all consumers are currently only capable of buying Vegan b12 in plastic bottles that are manufactured somewhere that may -or may not- be far from the consumer, and that therefore there is a need to use a lot of resources to obtain them, which is harmful to sentient beings, that justifies consuming oysters who have b12 in them, since there are less resources needed to obtain them. This doesn’t morally justify using nonhumans for our interests though. Rationally, we need to start fabricating some other conveyance for b12 instead of discarding the idea that nonhumans have the right not to be used.
  Maybe we could campaign for Vegan B12 to be put in glass bottles and manufactured locally in many places? Or a campaign to get a law passed that all packaged food must have Vegan B12 added? Engaging in single-issue campaigns for human issues isn’t morally wrong as doing so for nonhuman issues is, after all. Changing the current paradigm from a non-Vegan one to a Vegan one through the education of non-Vegans on these issues as well as the overall understanding of the need for Veganism is a great start, in any case.
  There has also been a general cry that using oysters for our interests has various other environmental benefits as well. Veganism does have implications for environmentalism, since withdrawing our participation from the worst causes of environmental destruction is a wonderful incidental benefit of living our moral stance regarding nonhuman animals. Environmentalism is not the basis for Veganism though, so we can’t abandon our moral obligation to nonhumans in an effort to make environmentalist gains, especially since that would decrease the effectiveness of promoting the moral stance of Veganism to non-Vegans; and we should already understand that encouraging non-Veganism is the reason why our environment is as damaged as it is in the first place.
  Some people also claim that since oysters don’t have a central nervous system, and plants also do not have a central nervous system, that oysters are more similar to plants than animals. My response is this: Number one, it’s incredibly disingenuous to claim that plants have a “nervous system” at all. It’s also disingenuous to claim that just because oysters don’t have a central nervous system that means that they are like plants. Either they have a nervous system (which they do), in which case they are animals (which they are), or they don’t, in which case they are like plants. You can’t have it both ways. Just because oysters don’t have a central nervous system does not make them plants.
  Furthermore, even if we thought that it was justifiable from a moral standpoint to use individuals of some animal species we think are insentient for our interests, that argument would still never morally justify using every other species of animal, who can all be easily proven capable of feeling pain, for our interests. In other words, even if we’re confused about where to draw the line regarding who we use and don’t use, the line is still not rationally at “whoever we deem morally inferior, regardless of their ability to suffer.” So regardless of any other argument, Veganism is still the moral obligation of every single human reading this.
  Instead of calling ourselves Vegans and then trying to figure out how much we can get away with exploiting anyone through a “loophole” of scientific proof, we should be starting off by drawing our moral line in order to eliminate even the possibility of the maximum amount of harm, and then intellectually examining whether we can make exceptions on the side of caution afterwards. Meaning that we don’t harm animals we think may or may not be sentient anyway, unless our very survival depends on it.
  If you think animals matter morally, don’t try to find a nice way to do the wrong thing. Go Vegan and educate others about Veganism.