People feel they are ‘doing enough already’, which I really don’t get. If you changed yourself after leaning that these animals have to die for you, why not change again?

Everybody knows that animal feed comes from magical farms that never exploit humans.

Come on you vegan dummy, go get your B12 supplement. >!/s!<

So funny how when ‘vegan’ is mentioned, everybody is a homesteader.

I’ll just summarize your points:

• There’s a way to get cheap and ethically sourced plants when they’re destined for animals
• There’s no way to get cheap and ethically sourced plants when they’re destined for humans

You’re missing that humans are also animals and we eat some of the same crops non-human animals eat. The human exploitation you’re arguing against doesn’t magically disappear from crops grown for animals.

Until now you were arguing that buying plants would incur in human exploitation. But now that I’ve argued for the least exploitative scenario, you came up with ‘responsibly sourced plant options at a reasonable price’.

So now we can get plants without exploiting immigrants, right?

Then there’s no need to exploit animals, simple as that

Why not compare to home crops, then? If the person has resources to produce the animal feed (so they can ensure there are no humans being exploited, right?), they surely can grow crops to directly eat.

You say that as if migrant workers aren’t exploited to make animal products.

When you buy a meal, you have 2 options: contribute to animal exploitation (that probably contains human exploitation) or not.

If you know which companies exploit humans, it’s on you to denounce them publicly and not support them.

Until you can name these companies so you know what to avoid, you can be sure that any animal product you get is the result of animal exploitation (and probably human as well).

One thing is a system that depends on exploitation. These systems should be abolished, like exploiting animals for their flesh or secretions.

Another completely different thing is a system that contains exploitation. These should be improved, like underpaid/overworked employees.

There is no hypocrisy in that. It’s not a dichotomy where you need to exploit either an animal or an human. Just go vegan and also advocate for human rights.

If I help some mentally handicapped homeless women with newborn children, do you think it’s OK for me to milk these women since I’m helping them? Even if their milk taste the freshest?

Veganism is about not exploiting animals when you don’t have to.

Even in your scenario, there can be cruelty involved: the hatcheries you get your chickens from also grind the day old male baby chicks. These genetically modified egg laying hens that put about 1 egg a day have a huge strain on their bodies compared to what their natural counterpart used to be (red jungle fowl), laying about 1 egg a month.

But to reiterate, veganism is about not exploiting animals.

“We likely can’t stop child abuse but we can make it less cruel, let’s just do it on less sentient children”. What kind of crazy take is this article? “Dairy = medium bad” 🤮.

This has nothing to do with veganism. Welfarism is exploitation with lipstick.

How would that happen without public support? The public currently pays for these companies to keep doing what they’re doing

!Nb6? Even if you meant Nb7 or Nb5, then black Rxg8+ followed by white’s Rxg8+ is not mate in 2. I duplicated the ponies so it’s easier to see, even in this position is not mate !<

When you see a pic of a child, do you also feel the urge to comment “I like tight pussy. I love sex”?

The jury decides on a verdict (guilty/not guilty) of the crimes they’re being accused. If guilty, then the judge will define their sentence (usually following some guidelines) in between the minimum and maximum established by law.

My most respect to activists that take direct action, but we should protect ourselves so we can have a continuing impact.

This type of activism can be good because it makes the news, but if there’s no follow up the impact is limited. Especially when the abusers get to push this narrative:

Petaluma Poultry has said that DxE is an extremist group that is intent on destroying the animal agriculture industry.

I hope she appeals and wins, condemning someone that was saving sick animals from being mistreated is crazy.

Why do you state it’s a contrary view? It’s not like OP’s article title is “The myth of the omnivore caveman”.

Unit 731 and the Stanford prison experiment helped us advance in our understanding of physiology and psychology, so what?

As I’ve said in the above comment, hand pollination is not the only alternative. Fixing this problem is a bridge we’ll cross when most people are on board with veganism.

Lower density only means lower production of the usable land remains the same. Which would not be the case if the world became vegan: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Thanks for conceding. Now to your new point: once the majority of people are vegan, we can focus on those systems that can be improved. Currently the majority does not even care about animal exploitation, so there’s very little value in trying to change systems that don’t depend on animal exploitation.

Those two counter examples that I provided aren’t all possibilities to replace open pollination. Surely experts in the field can come up with better solutions once this problem actually becomes a worry in the minds of the majority.

Oh honey, I have no idea

Do those crops depend on transportation of pollinators? To me it seems like they don’t.

By your own admission, there are natural pollinators. We can also manually pollinate them, which reinforces my point that systems that *contain* exploitation should be improved.