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 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.