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.
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?
Did you even read anything I wrote? Because that’s not what I said or believe.
You jumped to a conclusion that I consider veganism invalid which is absolutely untrue. What I would consider invalid is random absolutist interpretations of it which refuse to explain themselves. Since you won’t explain it, I’m forced to assume you think the kangaroos should be left to rot due either to some undefined principle that it’s better that way, or some emotional reason. Those animals could be literally replacing factory farmed animals in people’s diets so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me without explanation. I wish these conversations could literally ever go better than this.
Why is kangaroo meat not vegan, even though the animal was killed to preserve the remaining population? Cause the animal did not consent to being killed, it did not want to be killed, and killing it caused it pain.
Could a vegan internalize your logic and therefore consume kangaroo meat? Yeah. Does that make kangaroo meat vegan? Not even close. Hell, the usual loophole meat of oysters aren’t vegan even though lots of vegans eat them.
Veganism isn’t a religion, and each person lives it differently as a result. Like your assertion that veganism is or should be about the consequences isn’t even a factor for everyone. Some people are vegan cause eating dead things is creepy and stealing food from babies feels wrong, and that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to be vegan.
Also, you edited a previous comment to suggest that you only care about this for non-vegans. In which case, why do you care if it’s vegan or not? Why do you care if vegans care or not if omnis eat it?
Also, I jumped to conclusions because I thought I was answering what you asked, but apparently I wasn’t so I needed to guess at a different interpretation of your question since you didn’t actually clarify what you meant, just accused me multiple times of not reading what you said.
I don’t know what edit you’re talking about genuinely and I don’t know why you think I accused you of anything multiple times because I didn’t.
So the answer to my question is “because they didn’t consent”. Okay. This could’ve been reached much more simply and without all the assumptions which you refuse any responsibility for and blame it on me for not being clear. I get that vegans deal with a lot of bad faith arguments but if you assume every argument or question is in bad faith, that’s not helping anyone.
I have to be done with this conversation because we are on different wavelengths and you’re stepping on all of my buttons and I can’t not show that that’s bothering me.
I have ASD. That is a reason, not an excuse, for the confusion. I genuinely cannot read your first question as anything but bad faith framing that pits the morality of conservation against veganism, like they’re at odds with each other. I was trying to be as kind as I could in my first response, but when you responded like I was refusing to answer when I thought I was I started to lose the plot.
Edit: in all seriousness, how could the answer to your question about how killing kangaroos isn’t bad, so how is it not vegan be “cause they can’t consent”? It sounds coherent written out like that, sure, but the meaning of that answer doesn’t fit with the meaning of the question. It doesn’t make sense to me how killing kangaroos for conservation has anything to do with not consuming the products of their death after they’re dead (which is what veganism is). Those are two different things! One needn’t be a pyromaniac to do prescribed burns anymore than one can’t be vegan if they cull uncontrolled animal populations.
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.
Did you even read anything I wrote? Because that’s not what I said or believe.
You jumped to a conclusion that I consider veganism invalid which is absolutely untrue. What I would consider invalid is random absolutist interpretations of it which refuse to explain themselves. Since you won’t explain it, I’m forced to assume you think the kangaroos should be left to rot due either to some undefined principle that it’s better that way, or some emotional reason. Those animals could be literally replacing factory farmed animals in people’s diets so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me without explanation. I wish these conversations could literally ever go better than this.
Why is kangaroo meat not vegan, even though the animal was killed to preserve the remaining population? Cause the animal did not consent to being killed, it did not want to be killed, and killing it caused it pain.
Could a vegan internalize your logic and therefore consume kangaroo meat? Yeah. Does that make kangaroo meat vegan? Not even close. Hell, the usual loophole meat of oysters aren’t vegan even though lots of vegans eat them.
Veganism isn’t a religion, and each person lives it differently as a result. Like your assertion that veganism is or should be about the consequences isn’t even a factor for everyone. Some people are vegan cause eating dead things is creepy and stealing food from babies feels wrong, and that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to be vegan.
Also, you edited a previous comment to suggest that you only care about this for non-vegans. In which case, why do you care if it’s vegan or not? Why do you care if vegans care or not if omnis eat it?
Also, I jumped to conclusions because I thought I was answering what you asked, but apparently I wasn’t so I needed to guess at a different interpretation of your question since you didn’t actually clarify what you meant, just accused me multiple times of not reading what you said.
I don’t know what edit you’re talking about genuinely and I don’t know why you think I accused you of anything multiple times because I didn’t.
So the answer to my question is “because they didn’t consent”. Okay. This could’ve been reached much more simply and without all the assumptions which you refuse any responsibility for and blame it on me for not being clear. I get that vegans deal with a lot of bad faith arguments but if you assume every argument or question is in bad faith, that’s not helping anyone.
https://lemmy.world/comment/25741594
The comment you edited
I have to be done with this conversation because we are on different wavelengths and you’re stepping on all of my buttons and I can’t not show that that’s bothering me.
I have ASD. That is a reason, not an excuse, for the confusion. I genuinely cannot read your first question as anything but bad faith framing that pits the morality of conservation against veganism, like they’re at odds with each other. I was trying to be as kind as I could in my first response, but when you responded like I was refusing to answer when I thought I was I started to lose the plot.
Edit: in all seriousness, how could the answer to your question about how killing kangaroos isn’t bad, so how is it not vegan be “cause they can’t consent”? It sounds coherent written out like that, sure, but the meaning of that answer doesn’t fit with the meaning of the question. It doesn’t make sense to me how killing kangaroos for conservation has anything to do with not consuming the products of their death after they’re dead (which is what veganism is). Those are two different things! One needn’t be a pyromaniac to do prescribed burns anymore than one can’t be vegan if they cull uncontrolled animal populations.
That’s fine. You’re not able to understand that I am not against you. I’ll block you now to avoid this in the future.