top 92 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 81 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The whole debacle can be easily avoided by just eating the bees directly.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 2 months ago (16 children)

    I'm not a vegan, but the current state of beekeeping is pretty shit. Taking the honey and replacing it with sugar water on top of the stresses of monoculture and killing varied flora with herbicides creating food deserts and using market conditions to race to the bottom on pollination contracts just results in a whole bunch of dead hives. Like you can both support sustainably practiced beekeeping and find the production of industrial honey to be a horror show.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 91 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Regardless of whether you are vegan, vegetarian, carnivore, or other, if you aren't horrified by industrial food production, you should be. This goes for industrial fish trawling & fish farming, industrial chicken cow and pig processing, honey I guess, even factory plant growing e.g. alfalfa almonds and corn (ruins the land and wastes water)

    It's so pervasive it's hard to avoid everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    This is the correct response. Small-scale hobbyist beekeeping is awesome for humans, bees, and nature, and we absolutely positively need it. Industrial beekeeping, in which bees are carted across the continent to pollinate the fields of the highest paying industrial farmer may still be tolerable to the bee but far less so for nature. Many people don't appreciate the nuance. Apis mellifera almost certainly won't go extinct as long as beekeepers are around. But that's not what we talk about when we say the bees are dying...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Industrial honey is just another facet of my distain and complaint of industrial agriculture as a whole. Almost every vegan argument I've ever encountered has been in reaction to the horrors of the industrial process

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This is what will lead me to the full change in diet. I'm at the mitigation and small changes phase. I really don't have ethics issues with animals as food (farming & hunting meat isn't bad when suffering is inherent to existence, and to deny this is to deny given order), but we exist in a capitalist hellscape that has zero shame or remorse for exploiting making perverse anything once natural for profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    farming & hunting meat isn’t bad when suffering is inherent to existence, and to deny this is to deny given order

    But it isn't necessary (at least in most cases), and we have the intelligence to make better decisions simply because they are better.

    Unless I misunderstood your comment, "when suffering is inherent to existence" could be used for things like burglaries as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Hard agree. I'm no vegan as a fully understand that a) humans are omnivorous mammals who thrive on a mixed diet and b) eons of selective breeding has created creatures that are designed for food and goods and wouldn't survive in the wild in their current state without either much suffering or outright death of the species. The monocultures created for large industrialized farms are a blight for the environment as well.

    I champion local small scale farms with permaculture and local plants as much as possible while reducing meat consumption in general (at least here, meat is usually at every meal so reducing it to one a day if not every few days would be a huge shift). I also recognize not everyone wants nor cares about going vegetarian or vegan but would accept the reductions in meat use and focusing on buying local if it was made more readily available

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Which is why when someone asks me "Well what about indigenous tribes? Almost all of them hunt, are you doing to tell them they're morally wrong?". No, no I am not, because they are not morally wrong. They're hunting for survival, in relative harmony and reciprocity with the ecology that completely enveloped every aspect of their social development.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    Apis mellifera isn't native to the Americas and neither are a lot of the plants they pollinate. They crowd out the native bees and destroy their habitat. Small-scale beekeepers working in populated spaces aren't the problem though. And they rescue swarms that would otherwise be exterminated. Plus they're more likely than the average person to know about their local natives and support them, by making carpenter bee homes or whatever.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I wouldn't say "need". European honey bees are a foreign invasive species. They displace the native pollinators. IMO hobbyists are worse because they are damaging the native bees without reason unlike industrial farmers that need the bees to produce the food we all eat.

    And the reality is the vast majority of hobbiest bee keepers do it as a tax dodge. In most states, if you put a hive on your yard, you get to classify your house as a farm and pay virtually no property taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    European honey bees are a foreign invasive species

    But... I am European?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Europeans used to be pretty invasive, too!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    The real debate is with figs.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    And don't get me started on mushrooms

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    Mushroom aren't classified as either plants nor animals, with some arguing they're much closer to animals. I'm not a vegan or vegetarian myself, but that'd be an interesting point to consider.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Huh, I've not heard any vegan talk about that. In fact mushrooms are a staple in many of the vegan foods I'm aware of

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    That's cause we don't, the only time I've ever heard this mushroom fud come up is from non-vegans. "Did you know that grass screams when you cut it?"-tier territory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    No one said any of that here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I think you misunderstand me, I'm comparing the mushroom claim to an equally silly claim that often rears it's head in these sort of discussions, not saying it was made here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    No I understand. I don't think anyone is implying that because mushrooms aren't plants that it makes veganism bullshit. My response came from a place of me wishing things like that could be discussed without the black and white thinking. I haven't heard anyone discuss that. And I have a feeling the knee jerk reaction would normally be defensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    By definition are vegans those that don't eat or use animals or animal byproducts.

    Fungi aren't animals. If this group doesn't consume fungi then they should call themselves something else entirely to avoid further confusion. Maybe they should go strictly by herbivores.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Not some. They are taxonomically more related to animals than plants. Just a fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 111 points 2 months ago* (26 children)

    i got banned from a vegan comm for saying that bees tend to leave hives if they're not satisfied with the conditions, a fact that's just verifiably true.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly, I'm on Team Honey, but that argument has a glaring hole in it.

    Which is that many apiaries put an object over the entrance to the hive which lets worker bees pass freely but blocks the queen from escaping. And worker bees bonded to a queen will literally die before abandoning her.

    So they can't just leave. Bees that do that in the while travel as a colony in what's called a swarm (which is actually very docile because they have no hive to defend). A bee that gets separated from its colony dies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not an expert by any means, but I have known some beekeepers. Once I was asked to go help because one of their hives had "swarmed", meaning a group had left the box with the/a queen and had posted up on a neighbors rose bush.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Some areas have a "swam list," where beekeepers put their name on the list and whenever someone in the area finds a swarm on their property they call someone from the swarm list and they come out to get the bees.

    It's a lot better than the alternative, which is ignorant property owners spraying the swarm with wasp poison... :(

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Those extremists would be very upset if they could recognize reality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 21 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Reality is a social construct defined by the dominant ethnic group and manipulated by the Epstein class to control us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I'd say it's defined by the dominant group, but that group isn't necessarily an ethnic group. For example, Sundar Pichai and Jensen Huang are certainly a part of that group. It's not limited to white Anglo-Saxons anymore.

    We really need to stop looking at the issue by pigeonholing it into racial, gender, or sexual categories, because that does not reflect the reality. There are gay oligarchs. There are women oligarchs. There are oligarchs of every skin tone.

    These are counter-examples, of course; deviations from what we might consider the "norm," which is cishetero white male oligarchs. Pointing out that it's not limited to the latter isn't a denial that the latter form a disproportionate majority of oligarchs. That's the part a lot of people miss when I bring this up.

    The fundamental issue though is class disparity, which we cannot lose sight of; even if there are other demographic trends within that disparity. Trying to make it about anything else is overly reductive and harmful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Here in Australia, there was a genocide for a long time where the goal was to destroy Aboriginal culture. I mean, there was plenty of murder and eugenics in there too, but the culture was a really big thing. Kids were stolen from their parents and put on missions where they couldn't speak language or practice religion. English and Christianity only. For a long time, Aboriginal people could only be granted citizenship if they renounced their Aboriginality. No more interacting in any way with the community, no language, no culture.

    Aboriginal ontology and metaphysics are fundamentally different to European ontology and metaphysics. It's a different reality. Consensus reality was made by white people, practicing whiteness in their actions. And then everyone else was forced into it, at least in "the west". I assert that nonwhite people in the anglosphere are only allowed to join the dominant class, if they give up their own culture and its reality, and practice whiteness and white reality instead. Which isn't that hard for a lot of bougie people of colour to do, because they've been colonised and assimilated.

    I think the intersections of race and class are really important to understand, because if we rebel against race and not class, we'll just end up with racist socialism. You know, like China and the USSR. And we'll be doing "the people's genocide" against the Uyghurs or whatever.

    I propose instead that the revolution must be decolonial. Communism was invented by Turtle Islanders and Aboriginal people. Engels got the idea from reading Lewis Henry Morgan's books on the Haudenosaunee. We will achieve successful communism, with no state, by working together with Indigenous people as our Elders and teachers, because they're the experts. They've got the social science to do it already.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    For example:

    HyperNormalisation is a 2016 BBC documentary by British filmmaker Adam Curtis. It argues that following the global economic crises of the 1970s, governments, financiers and technological utopians gave up on trying to shape the complex "real world" and instead established a simpler "fake world" for the benefit of multi-national corporations that is kept stable by neoliberal governments. The film was released on 16 October 2016 on BBC iPlayer.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -15 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    I agree with you on the fact, but willingness to stay does not equal informed consent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Informed consent does not exist in the animal world and I'm very saddened that that's a sentence I had to type.

    You cannot apply human standards to animals, they do not understand contract law.....again, a sentence I'm just very sad I had to type because they didn't understand that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I've tried to have this discussion SO many times, and every time I'm treated like there's nothing I love more than raping goats and torturing pigs.

    That cow that lives on the hobby farm, spends its days roaming fields and eating flowers, then gets milked in the evening and petted with genuine love and affection, is not worse off because the farmer didn't create a formal contract in order to obtain it's consent to be milked.

    It gave its consent by walking to the milking station, and waiting to be milked.

    "Nuh uh! That's not consent! It didn't learn English and say the words 'I consent to being milked,' therefore milking it is evil!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    I have to imagine that those people are virgins, because no one is signing a 17-page contract prior to getting it on.

    Consent is allowed to be simple as long as it's obvious and real. I shouldn't need a law degree to suck a dick.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I have known vegans IRL who are genuinely reasonable and can discuss this stuff. On the Internet, 95% of the time you just cannot even discuss it with someone who identifies as vegan, I would imagine even if you're a vegan yourself, unless you 100% agree with them on how to apply the philosophy. In this very thread I asked a question and it was all but ignored and I was assumed to be shitting on veganism rather than questioning a specific argument/interpretation of it. I think it sucks because I literally agree with like 90% of everything any vegan says, it's when they veer away from the facts and more toward personal feelings they have that I cannot talk to them about it anymore. It makes sense on the one hand because if that viewpoint resonates with you it's gonna make you upset to think about and to be shit on for, but on the other, if it cannot even be discussed without false assumptions, insults, and avoidance of inconvenient facts on their part, they're just going to lend credence to the anti-vegan prick arguments. Because of this extreme inability to even discuss the topic I have to block a lot of vegans because I'd rather do that than always remain silent for fear of upsetting them. They always seem 100% convinced I'm an evil carnist who hates them and is pretending not to be just to erode veganism, but it's just not so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm in the same boat. I actually agree with 90% of veganism. Animals shouldn't suffer needlessly. People should eat less meat and animal products. Factory farming is horrifying and unethical. Where it falls apart is the universal claim of "Therefore, even the smaller regenerative and ethical farms are evil, because ALL animal use is unethical." Which, if you follow the logic and consequences, requires us to either support millions of animals in domestic environments without ANY method of financial independence beyond donations or government support. Or, we drive dozens of distinct species to extinction, simply because some people feel personally attacked when I make an omelette. If we could ask the animals themselves, I struggle to believe that a happy cow living on a dairy farm would prefer non-existance to getting milked occasionally when they want to.

    I have very little respect for anyone who cannot justify opinions, or get offended when beliefs are questions. If you don't want your beliefs questioned, don't announce them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Yeah. I think it comes down to the absolutism. They almost certainly ate some amount of meat/animal products themselves, but once they arrived at their current principles, they have no more understanding for it. Rather than remember that they too had to learn/work to get to their understanding, they see you as an enemy for not sharing it. Of course I mean if you offer even the slightest pushback.

    I've reduced my meat intake by a lot and I agree with what you wrote here. If vegan food was widely available everywhere I'd probably eat WAY less animal products. But dozens of vegans online have given no shits about that, whereas a reasonable person would, and would have some level of empathy toward not being 100% with them on everything they say in terms of applying the knowledge. I totally get wondering how a person could acknowledge animal suffering and still participate in it. I've examined myself over that one hundreds of times now. But it's the reality, it's where I'm at. And I should be able to talk about it without an automatic assumption that I'm a thoughtless monster who is trying to tear down their worldview. I'm not. Is this about me personally? I'm talking about so obviously yes it's sorta personal that I have these unpleasant and unproductive conversations on the Internet sometimes, but I truly would rather them not happen for anyone else either. For the toxic assholes who really do want to tear down veganism, they're worse people, but I already knew that. For the vegans spewing hatred at all the "carnists" I expect better and I think I'm right to. They changed their lives for a good reason. Now why the fuck can't they talk about it the majority of the time? It's frustrating.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    You just gotta stop giving a damn what dipshits think.

    Post your initial message so that some passerby might glean some insight and then move on.

    The opinions of people whom I will never ever see nor interact with ever again means less than nothing. They can think I'm the biggest fucking idiot in the world, doesn't matter to me, I'll sleep just fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Exactly, feed them sugar and they'll happily stay, that's not saying it's good for them. Plus all the monoculture on which they often feed is detrimental to their survival as a species. It's funny to me how in this capitalist world, there is a living being that is somehow not immorally exploited.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Listen i love animals and I 100% believe they are far more intelligent and empathetic than humans like to give them credit for, but even a human isn't reading and signing apples terms and conditions i doubt an elephant is either

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    ITT: Honey-eating vegans getting ethically roasted by non-vegans.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Vegans fight amongst themselves all the time, and plenty of them have different rules.

    For example, veganism doesn't extend just towards diet but animal products overall. A lot of people will only focus on the diet or certain animal products such as leather though.

    Really wish people would just agree to do whatever they can, anything helps.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago*

    Yeah veganism isn't a single set of beliefs, it's a range of practices and the people who do those practices do so for a rather wide variety of sometimes-overlapping reasons. I've never had a more heated debate about veganism than one with a fellow vegan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    It feels like there’s a whole debate about honey I’m unaware of, but isn’t the point of veganism avoiding anything made by animals? If yes, why is honey an exception?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 19 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    Most of are agreed that the point of veganism is to reduce nonhuman suffering. Following absolute rules for no reason is silly. The point is the ethics.

    But the other vegans have the wrong opinion about whether eating honey causes suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    Ahh thanks. But wouldn’t that make you a vegetarian?

    (Not trying to be confrontational or disagreeing with your point, asking out of genuine curiosity)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    No. If someone ate no animal products besides honey that doesn't make them not vegan, it means they don't share the opinion that honey causes animal exploitation. I do not wish to register an opinion there, I'm just saying what the rationale is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 10 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

    I'm actually not a vegetarian. I'm a kangatarian.

    Kangaroos have evolved over the past 60,000 years to breed in such numbers that their population can sustain hunting by humans. They have no other natural predators, unless you count parasites. Dingos in some places, but not many. The result is that if humans don't hunt kangaroos, they over-breed. Destroy the local habitat, threatening endangered species, then starve. Some kangaroos must die at human hands for the good of everything else, including the other kangaroos.

    So the government uses drone surveys to analyse the population, and then tells people how many kangaroos need to die. Each kangaroo in the quota can either be hunted, or culled. Culled kangaroos will be shot, and their bodies will rot in a ditch. Their meat will benefit nobody. If they're hunted, then at least some good comes of it. If a kangaroo survives the initial shot, hunters will stun and then kill it. I'm unsure whether the same regulations apply to cullers.

    So, I eat kangaroo meat. All kangaroo meat is hunted, there's not a single kangaroo farm in the world. At least, not the western idea of a farm. Every kangaroo I eat lived a free life in nature, and then died for the good of the ecosystem. No animal slavery.

    And I propose a bigger question than honey: is kangaroo meat vegan?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    No. An animal died for it, it isn't vegan. Simple as.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

    Veganism is about consequences or at least should be. If an animal was (and apparently in this case is) killing the ecosystem if you don't kill it, I'm curious what the rationale for it not being vegan is. Veganism seeks to end cruelty and suffering. Whereas in this case not killing the kangaroo would be a choice that leads to more suffering and that's not just for humans. If veganism isn't about applying these "rules" for a purpose and instead it's just about applying them without taking context into consideration, what's the point of it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    There are at least a dozen inter-related reasons to be vegan and no hard line of what diets are and aren't vegan. All vegans check at least one of those boxes, many of us check multiple. Some vegans only care about avoiding the suffering of animals who experience life through a nervous system, therefore will eat shellfish which have no nervous system. When honey is exempted it's usually utilitarian vegans doing logical gymnastics to claim that the way in which it's farmed does no harm to the bees, or that while it harms the bees it doesn't hurt their nervous systems and cause them direct pain.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They work for each other, Morty!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›