Thats cute. Keep up with the animal holocaust animal abuser. Force breeding for human desired traits is itself literally eugenics.

Carnism is unhinged. I.e. your lifestyle is unhinged.

You in the wrong sub my dude. No one asked them to unbirth themselves. More bad faith shit. They slit their throats. Really fucked up that you are okay with that. Weird priorities youve got in the Vegan subreddit. Dumby dumb dumb I am telling you that forcibly breeding them is immoral. Anyway bye carnist.

Homie the problem with breeding them like this is selecting them to ovulate 300 times a year so we can steal their excretions.

Symbiotic relationships don’t involve human breeding intervention. Least of all when it’s for selecting traits that come to the animal’s detriment. I’m not opposed to rescuing animals or providing accomodations for animals facing extinction so as to safetly raise young with minimimal human interaction.

You know what else isn’t a partnership? Slitting their throats. Which happens to these chickens. Thats creepy. Assuming you aren’t Vegan, which I don’t think you identify as much, idk why you care if they go extinct - because you want to keep eating them? I just don’t see good faith framing in your interpretation of what I said at all.

Supplements and well managed diets do help, but of the available data, it looks like 12-35% are still deficient depending on area of the world. I checked for studies in USA and Europe. And of course, once that’s determined for particular chicken who end up producing thin shell eggs - they get killed.

And ultimately, they’ve been bred to rely on said diet and supplementing. Vegans are against breeding as it is, let alone breeding them to be dependent.

The eggshell requires calcium. At the rates at which modern egg laying hens ovulate, their bones become far more fragile to siphon it. That is to say that their ability to self sustain and survive for the total lifespan of a chicken is greatly reduced.

Salty carnists downvoting vegan content in a vegan community on the matter of clear hypocrisy in enforcing rules.

I’m supportive of a diversity of tactics not just for particular ‘brands’ activists are given, but for differing response to particular people. Tash has many forms of activism, many of which are far less disruptive and agressive. There are a few things I think you are failing to consider.

This particular individual is a proud animal abuser with a massive financial incentive to continue his actions. This particular person outright banned all Vegans from their restaurant because of a review he didn’t like that simply pointed out the owner’s mistake in forgetting a pre-arranged meal and overcharging for a barebones last minute offering. Banning a group of people with a shared ethical position in any other case would be obviously discriminatory. Sorry, someone who is outspokenly anti-Vegan is not going to have a compassionate and understanding response no matter how kindly you approach them.

The business owner themself set the bad faith precedent. There was no discussion to be had at this event. Of note however, post this event, Tash has since had tv debates with the business owner. He is still incredibly bad faith. Some discourse needs ridicule. There are some nazi’s you’d probably be fine with seeing punched, and I don’t see how this is all that different.

The goal is to generate outrage, clicks, and attention. For that audience, it is the only way they will be reminded that people oppose their actions, and is in that respect the only way they will have any opportunity to try and figure out why they would conduct themself in that matter. Because of this event, Tash got several interviews on television to talk about animal rights to the general public, all of which went incredibly well. That’s huge. Far more than the average activist ever gets the chance to do. Most of the viewers will go “she’s crazy” sure, but if its that or nothing, I’d choose the former. She reached someone I’m sure. Likely more than a street activist one on one discussion generally does. Because of this event, a large population of people got to listen to a message they never otherwise would.

If you still don’t think this a massive W for Veganism outreach, idk what to tell you. We don’t just need a bunch of Earthling Ed’s running around. Some people don’t have empathy. Some people don’t care about being logically consistent. Some people will never approach this topic in good faith. Sometimes you just have to tell those people to cut it the hell out and shut the hell up, and unlike almost any activist, she is willing to put her safety at risk in order to make a bafoon of the shameful restauranteur and make carnism appear as it is - inherently violent. Sometime shame is appropriate. Btw, the owner literally assaulted Tash after a second protest at his business. Seems shame-worthy to me.

Removed by mod

I’d agree that it’s not. What about honey makes you feel like you need it or otherwise that it is somehow different than eating other animal products? If you use it just because you like it, you could argue the same for any other animal product. I’m primarily concerned with their lack of consent, in some cases the clipping of queen bee wings & confinement to a fixed space, & resource theft. There’s also the concerns of native bee populations being unable to compete with honey bees.

Go Vegan

May as well not considering willful complicity in their deaths is wrong.

Definitely should go with PC enhanced edition these days. Easy to get setup with the new install wizard. Loads of new features, graphical improvements, and bug fixes. Even fixes for bugs that persist in all console versions of the game. Of course, one could wait for the new version to come out in about a year.

The Cat Lady. It’s a point and click style game that is well recieved even ten years on since its release, and has since become the first in a trilogy of sorts. Good writing, multiple endings, sad+spook with some good twists. Gameplay is definitely limited, art can be a bit unusual, but what it has to offer is worth your time.

I cannot for the life of me begin to understand who would still want to buy a kia. The company fucking cuts so many corners that inevitably cost the consumer, irrespective of the engine itself being completely unremarkable.

During the hair falls in my face phase I just used a beanie or hair tie when it got long enough for that. Five years of growth FYI. I don’t use product so cant chime in on that. Would just recommend to be sure you find the right conditioner for your hair.

Ive got curly hair so cant recommend brushing like some of the others here. If you have wavy/curly hair look for advice on that.

Have you eaten beans? I eat them on the regular and am a feces excreting machine

Go back to school. Arguments lead to logical conclusions. Your point is stupid. You are worried about framing in discourse far more than the argument. Just use that brain power of yours to reformat the argument minus the framing you don’t like. Such as, ‘if anything digestible is morally permissable to digest, that would include babies, which you probably wouldn’t morally permit, so perhaps you should find a more useful argument. Babies have meat too.’ There, that better? You shouldn’t eat animals (or 99.9999999% of them) because they are conscious - entailing varying degrees of thoughts, feelings, social dynamics, and the obvious capacity to suffer - many animals of which exhibit higher degrees of consciousness than a newborn human.

And jfc my dude you responded to the idea of babies being eaten with ‘besides, some people are cannibals.’ I didn’t strawman. You actually said that.

If you still can’t figure out how ‘my body can digest stuff so its a-okay to eat literally anything digestible’ is incredibly dumb even after I’ve told you where that logic leads then just don’t participate in discourse at all and we’ll help you get through life since you can’t do it on your own. Are you done with the intellectualy dishonest semantics or no?

My point is that our “body” is able to sustain itself on a diet that includes animal meat, out body has evolved to be able to process it. Including babies and dogs.

Your point is stupid and absolutely includes babies and dogs. You can digest those beings just fine.

Besides, while I don’t share their views, there are cultures where eating dogs or practicing cannibalism is common.

‘I’m not normalizing eating babies,’ proceeds to normalize eating babies

Why can your body digest new born babies and dogs? Why can your body sexually violate them? Dumb take. You dont derive ethics from what your body is physically capable of doing.