Hi Larsen! Good video and I agree with most, but there are a few points on which I think you are not accurate enough in your critique.

When a vegan says, "I respect all life" or "all animals owns themselves", and then you go attempting to debunk this statement that moral valuation is subjective. Your argument is not a valid one. Most vegan who knows basics of ethics, understand that we all value different individuals, differently. That does not mean, I don't think all life has a right to live, by the sole reason that they are living, thinking beings. Most people couldn't give crap about (human) babies that are abused and murdered all around the opposite end of the Earth, but I still believe that the baby have a right to life.

You say "No, no, no" and says you can prove it. You did not prove anything, you only proved what most people accept, that moral valuation is subjective. I value my own life, more than a mosquito. I wouldn't go out of my way to kill a mosquito because he was "bugging" me or just sitting there, but I value getting to job and earning a living, so I kill thousands of them while driving my car.

You also say: "If the value of every life is equal", which you state such that this is something a vegan would mean, or at least the majority of whom you have had interactions with. I doubt this is true, and it is not really what vegans think or say, to my experience.

Veganism is avoiding all use of animals, to an extend that is acceptable for the individual. If you have to die for a mouse to survive, you will end the life of that mouse. It is not about complete removal of suffering, it is not an utopia. It is also different for every individual, while some do have the time, energy and resources to grow their own food and harvest their own food, and thereby avoid killing mice, rats, birds in the process, that is not something everyone have the luxury for. Most people need to rely on industry food, which means that mice, rats, birds and other animals are killed in the production of food. That does not make those individuals, non-vegans.

Most vegans would also say it is morally good, to use life critical medicine, even if that medicine is either/or tested on animals and contains any animal product.

It is not purism, it is a goal to reduce pain and suffering in the world.

We cannot apply our moral framework to animals, they do not understand the mental concepts required for it. But, the point is that the basis of morality, is natural phenomena that have evolved to where we are today. We are not the sole possessor of behavior such as reciprocity, which is one of many pillars of morality.

With this in mind, it is quite natural that most people extend their moral valuation to more than just their fellow humans, we extend our moral valuation, and judgement, towards other species.

So most people agree with the vegan sentiment (or rather, principle), that we should be kind to other species, as well as humans. The value with veganism, is that it is a defined moral framework. Instead of every individual having to figure out where their line is (as you mention in the video, most people have different lines), veganism says that the line is with all animals, no matter if it is an ant or a mouse. That is why veganism is based on moral principles, principles that applies to all animals. Moral principles are great, as they are much better to follow and apply, than random rules that gods, politicians, kings and rulers attempt to use to cattle us humans.

Voluntaryism, Anarco-Capitalism, are philosophies that are built on a few guiding principles, as is Veganism. Either of these are easy to "get into", but it takes decades to fully apply and truly understand.

Another point you make, is that vegans shouldn't say that meat is suffering, and then you go on talking about edge-cases (road-kill). It is for simplification, that we can assume that all meat, means suffering. Factory farming is the de-facto standard, and the majority of all meat, comes from factory farming (and industry fishing). There are not enough wild-game (or road-kill) on this planet, to meet the demands of people.

So by arguing like you do on this point, has very little value and distracts from the major issue, that there is a lot of suffering going on. You do not present any solution to this problem, you only attempt to invalidate the standpoint of the vegan, by pointing out edge-cases. That is not doing anyone a favor, especially not those animals that are suffering. The same can easily be done to Voluntaryism, Anarcho-Capitalism, or any other principles moral framework.

You also say we should focus on the the act of killing the animals, not the eating. This is also very silly semantics from your part. Most people don't slaughter their own food, but they are paying for it. They are contributing, with their money. If someone hire someone else to beat another person, are they free of guilt?

The way you present your argument, it looks as though you think people should be guilt-free from eating meat, as the meat itself is not bad. And that is entirely correct, meat is not the issue, you simply jump hoops over reality in this regard. People don't get their meat from road-kill or wild-game, they get it from the supermarket.

And yes, you might as well eat the meat if you come across road-kill. But what is even better, you give that meat away to someone that is eating meat, and you avoid it yourself. This would have even better effect, if the goal is to reduce pain and suffering.

I do agree that it is important to be clear in communication, but slogans such as "Meat is murder", is to catch attention, it is marketing. A lot of people would stop drinking milk, if ads was required to show and tell the actual truth. The ads would run for an hour each, as well.

You clearly have an issue with these "catch phrases", but what would you suggest is the solution? I would think most vegan activists, rarely get more than a minute or two of the attention of other people. There is no time to elaborate all details in a clear way, but obviously if anyone is interested in learning more, it is important to deliver knowledge in a clear and concise manner - but I don't think it's of much value to attack these "slogans", it simply just ignores the philosophy and principles.

"Taxation is theft" is another similar slogan, which is not entirely correct, but it is effective.

You also argue that it is not about the suffering, because animals in the wild suffer more than domesticated animals. Of course it is about the suffering, just because you state that it is not, doesn't make it true. Just because someone cares more about one animal that suffers less than another, doesn't invalidate their position that suffering is bad.

In general, I think it is likely that you have seen more of the culture in your region, than of veganism as a whole. I'm pretty sure that vegans are very different across various cultures and regional locations on this planet. We are all influenced by the culture we grow up in, so a voluntaryist in Norway, would unlikely be entirely similar to a voluntaryist in India, China or USA.

And in closing, I think you mostly are creating red herring yourself, and attacking that ("No, vegans don't value all animals equally"), as oppose to going into the actual debate on veganism (I understand this video was about an attempt to debate veganism at all).

As you say, grey-areas exists in all moral frameworks, and I have yet to meet any vegan that does not accept this fact in veganism. So I really don't have the same experience as you, I don't meet these "militant vegans" who think all life are equally worth. Might be more of an issue where you live, but around here, I have never had any encounters with such individuals :-) So this is more about "Dishonesty of Militant Vegans", or "Dishonesty of Militant Ismish".

Your closing remarks makes this clear, you are arguing a non-issue, at least from my own personal experience. I don't think people are arguing from a non-grey position to begin with, and your argument is to stop doing that. I do agree that if anyone does that, they should stop, I just don't agree at all that this applies to most, or majority of vegans, which you initially state it does.

Thanks!