• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    28 minutes 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.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 minutes ago

      Notice how you’re not responding to my question?

      Edit: the silent downvote indicates you don’t intend to, and that’s a shame, assuming you’d reply in good faith. You’re literally arguing for leaving carcasses to rot instead of replacing other meat in human diets which would have been derived from pointless cruelty.

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 minutes 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.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 minute ago

          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.