I agree, that’s why I said there’s only one reason to go vegan. You have to be against exploiting animals.

There may be other reasons to go on a vegan diet, but this is the only reason to go vegan.

How do you define veganism?

I think vegan communities should welcome everyone, but words have meanings and we should use them correctly to make sure we make ourselves understood.

Imagine a community called c/politicians, made by politicians and it’s about politics. They welcome everyone, including a newcomer, Bob. Bob does not engage with any kind of policies but presents himself as a politician in the community. Would they be excluding him from the community by pointing out that his use of the word “politician” is wrong or, at least, very unique?

You use “vegan” in a idiosyncratic way. I would never call Alice, who doesn’t consume animal products but kills animals for fun, a vegan.

Do you think all c/vegan communities in the fediverse have their sidebars wrong, as in they should be about diet and not veganism?

Please check out the original definition of veganism, by Leslie Cross https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history

Veganism is definitely not just about consumption choices, people can exploit animals in so many other ways besides consumption. Using them for their work, vivisectioning them, testing on them, etc.

A vegan who does it for environmental reasons is more vegan than someone who is philosophically opposed to animal exploitation but still eats cheese.

The first person is just plant-based, not vegan. They can stop being plant-based as soon as they find an environmental reason to go back to animal exploitation. Also they wouldn’t necessarily be against using animals for their work, vivisectioning them, etc.

There’s only 1 reason to go vegan, everything else is bonus.

People who go plant-based for health, environment, etc… aren’t necessarily vegan unless they agree that needlessly exploiting animals is wrong. Veganism is a philosophy about not exploiting animals, not dietary preferences.

Tonight’s dinner seems delicious!

You claimed lots of things, but when comes the time to justify your beliefs, applying reason, you chose not to. Then you make claims about me without giving a proper reason. I think you’re unreasonable.

Sure, you’ve seen and know how bad it is. You also know how not as bad it can be when done otherwise.

But I’m asking why is it bad? And does it have anything to do with the treatment of the animals?

If they don’t hold the cervix, they’re gonna be poking that insemination rod into the cow’s cervix for a while until it gets to the canal.

What you eat is a personal choice from what’s available to you.

Would you say the same about exercise? Say out of the activities available for me there’s my two favorites: walking and kicking dogs. Do you think it’s a personal choice whichever option I pick?

thinking one way or another is superior abstracts this to philosophy and outside of reality

You don’t care what people do? Even if it would impact your personal choice?

I’m definitely not a sociopath. I cannot even feel if you’re mad or not.

2 steps ahead of you, I’ve been a mammal since I was born.

They are not checking for pregnancy. They are impregnating the cows.

Though the anus they hold the cow’s cervix in order to stick the insemination rod: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/l6AdaYfgcfk

Getting fisted is better than getting mounted all day? Sure, you’re still gonna exploited throughout your whole life and when they can’t exploit you anymore, killed. But you forgot at least another option besides fisting and getting mounted: not being bred into existence for the sole purpose of being exploited to death.

Why do you care if factory farming is bad?

Can you expand a bit more on being a personal choice? Would you say an action is a personal choice even if there’s a victim involved?

I think it really depends on what these “human-similes” actually are.

Would there be a difference if they were an alien species or a species related to us but not Homo sapiens, when either woud still feel and have a will to live?

Ok, now let’s equalize the trait that justifies the difference in treatment between cows and these beings: passing a turing test.

Say these human-similes are mentally handicapped and have the intellect equivalent of a cow. Would you now verdit as guilty someone who artificially inseminated one of them without consent?

Tomorrow we discover there’s an amount of (what we thought were) human population that is not really human. There’s a vote and all countries decide to classify them as non-human animals, not part of our society anymore and now standard to farm them as food. Woud you classify artificially inseminating this human-simile without consent as rape?

If yes, what’s the difference between this human-simile and cows that grants considering one being raped and not the other?

So artificially inseminating your property without consent is rape when it’s a human, but not when it’s a cow. What’s the difference between a cow and a human that grants this?

Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go,

they only compared retail costs

on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost

they didn’t account for people

which of course they didn’t, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn’t paying for them.

When someone says “this is 30% cheaper now”, any reasonable person would understand that they’re referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like “this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps”.

Just to make a bit more clear:

If someone was accused of enslaving and raping a woman and you were in the jury, the defense says “it’s not rape, it’s artificial insemination of my property”.

You would verdit them as guilty of enslaving, but not rape because artificial insemination of his property is not rape. Did I get it right?