Comment on I'm right and the other vegans are wrong

• TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Veganism is about consequences or at least should be. If an animal was (and apparently in this case is) killing the ecosystem if you don’t kill it, I’m curious what the rationale for it not being vegan is. Veganism seems to end cruelty and suffering. Whereas in this case not killing the kangaroo would be a choice that leads to more suffering and that’s not just for humans. If veganism isn’t about applying these “rules” for a purpose and instead it’s just about applying them without taking context into consideration, what’s the point of it?

  source

  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Notice how your entire argument for ethical behavior applies to controlling the population rather than eating the animals after? The step of eating the animal is the not vegan act.

    Control the population, leave the remains in the ecosystem it belongs to.

    source

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Notice how you’re not responding to my question?

      source

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I’m confused. Are you asking if killing kangaroos because they have no natural predators could be considered vegan? Yeah, probably. Are you asking what the point of veganism is since you’ve randomly decided it isn’t a coherent philosophy based on your own strawman? I can’t answer that question, it’s not based in reality. I mean, I could ask how you can talk with all that rebar in your mouth, but since you don’t have rebar in your mouth, the question doesn’t make sense, does it?

        I chose to clarify that eating the kangaroo is the non-vegan act here, not culling the population, since you’ve somehow decided that eating an animal and killing them are somehow synonymous. I hope it’s obvious that they aren’t.

        source

        • -> View More Comments