I haven’t defined ‘need’ nor brought up speciecism.

I purposefully left for the reader to decide if the medicine is needed or not. No evaluation of the ‘need’ on my part. Just pointing out that if animal exploitation is needed, this animal exploitation isn’t needless.

Sure, someone’s preference to exercise could be kicking animals. That doesn’t mean it’s a good justification to do so.

Most of the people I outreach when doing activism are actually against exploiting animals when there is no need. It just follows that if you believe that and don’t want to be a hypocrite, you have to be vegan. Non-blacks that supported the civil rights movements didn’t do so because someone ‘tell them an answer for a problem they didn’t have’, they did so because they thought it was the right thing to do. It’s the same with veganism, people against needless animal exploitation will go vegan, they just need to be educated on what they are supporting. Most people I talk to have no idea how animals are exploited.

I’m not sure what you’re proposing, I’d love to listen to some actionable ideas that would help abolish or minimize animal exploitation though.

what if i juat dont think about them? Does that work?

Ah, the Epstein defense. The only argument that beats veganism.

We don’t need that much education to understand the argument, it’s quite simple actually:

You and animals both feel and want to live.

You don’t want others to harm your feelings or end your life.

If everyone respected eachothers feelings and desire to live, people wouldn’t harm you.

Therefore, we shouldn’t mess with the feelings and desire to live of beings that can feel and want to live.

it assumes that animals and humans sit in the same moral category

No, just that animals deserve some moral consideration.

In the case of livestock, many decide that food, culture, convenience, or nutrition justify it.

Some decide that kicking dogs is a good way to exercise, doesn’t mean it’s a good justification. Especially when there are other options. Same with animal products, there are other options.

Veganism is not about animal suffering, but needless animal exploitation.

Is the medicine needed for you? Then it isn’t needless animal exploitation.

Do you have other options besides exploiting animals to death for food? Then it is needless animal exploitation.

Would you rather live to be exploited to death or not be born at all?

Sheep are not native to the Americas and are not extinct, far from it actually.

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.

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.

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?

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?