Vegan here: hurting and killing innocent, defenseless animals for food because of speciesism is wrong and harmful.
The rich are extremely harmful to everyone and have no feelings worth valuing, so eating the rich is reducing the exploitation of animals and very, very vegan.
Not entirely true. Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals.
Which leaves certain gray areas regarding the consumption of sentient beings. For instance, eating roadkill does not cause suffering for animals. Similarly, when Inuit people hunt animals, although it may cause suffering, it is their only means of survival. There are also instances where the only available medication contains animal products. Additionally, killing a human or non-human animal in self-defense when you haven’t intentionally put yourself in that situation would be vegan.
On the other hand, the consumption of non-sentient items does not have to be vegan. For example, milk, eggs, and honey cause suffering for the animals that produce them.
Regarding the consumption of a CEO, one could argue that killing them is a form of self-defense and that eating them doesn’t increase their suffering. Along with the net positive effects on the world, it could be considered very vegan.
As clarification, the hunting and consuming of conscious sentient beings is pretty clearly not vegan. Eating something increases its suffering.
If the human does not want to be eaten, doing so (aside from after their natural death) is a hunt
Edit to be most clear, I meant isn’t a core tenant not eating things USING their sentience, when you have caloric alternatives. If it died naturally it’s just a hunk of meat
“Don’t walk on the grass” signs are usually stupid anyway because vast expanses of bare lawns with nothing but a single kind of mowed grass are almost exclusively dumber, uglier, and worse for the environment than native plants. (To actually answer your question, no, because speciesism is differential treatment without critical thought as to why they’re treated differently, and non-human animals can’t read are way cooler than humans tbh.)
Vegan here: hurting and killing innocent, defenseless animals for food because of speciesism is wrong and harmful.
The rich are extremely harmful to everyone and have no feelings worth valuing, so eating the rich is reducing the exploitation of animals and very, very vegan.
Do you know how many microplastics are in a full grown human? No thank you.
Maybe we ought to throw them in a pit, chain them to a wheel, and let them grind their own meal. Like the serfs in the good ol’ days they long for.
So long as there is a risk of them reaccumilating wealth, no thank you. Yeet them into the sun.
I say we send them to Mars. “Congratulations, you won capitalism. Now time to play on hard mode”
Do you want a galactic war between Mars and Earth? Because that’s how you get a war between Mars and Earth.
It wouldn’t be galactic. Just interplanetary.
Counterpoint, while it might be ethical to eat free range billionaire, it’s the least tasty of human meat because of all the cocaine use and STDs.
Uh isn’t a core point of veganism to not consume things with sentience?
Even an “evil” human has sentience and doesn’t wish to be eaten. (Unless they do, and in that case, crank that hog)
Not entirely true. Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals.
Which leaves certain gray areas regarding the consumption of sentient beings. For instance, eating roadkill does not cause suffering for animals. Similarly, when Inuit people hunt animals, although it may cause suffering, it is their only means of survival. There are also instances where the only available medication contains animal products. Additionally, killing a human or non-human animal in self-defense when you haven’t intentionally put yourself in that situation would be vegan.
On the other hand, the consumption of non-sentient items does not have to be vegan. For example, milk, eggs, and honey cause suffering for the animals that produce them.
Regarding the consumption of a CEO, one could argue that killing them is a form of self-defense and that eating them doesn’t increase their suffering. Along with the net positive effects on the world, it could be considered very vegan.
As clarification, the hunting and consuming of conscious sentient beings is pretty clearly not vegan. Eating something increases its suffering.
If the human does not want to be eaten, doing so (aside from after their natural death) is a hunt
Edit to be most clear, I meant isn’t a core tenant not eating things USING their sentience, when you have caloric alternatives. If it died naturally it’s just a hunk of meat
Are ‘don’t walk on the grass’ signs speciesist? I feel like it’s unfair that the other animals are allowed and i’m not.
“Don’t walk on the grass” signs are usually stupid anyway because vast expanses of bare lawns with nothing but a single kind of mowed grass are almost exclusively dumber, uglier, and worse for the environment than native plants. (To actually answer your question, no, because speciesism is differential treatment without critical thought as to why they’re treated differently, and non-human animals
can’t readare way cooler than humans tbh.)Ethical maybe, but definitely not vegan