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.

Or uncompressed audio in multiple languages/different soundtrack variants (original/remaster)

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.

Someday the meat eaters will realize this applies to animal oppressors as well, but not this day.

Based.

Yes let all the Nazis racists eugenicists etcetera run wild because we don’t want to censor based on morality 🥺🥺

I mean I’m just saying, banning meat lobby shilling and boomer tier animal abuse memes is morally good. Would be pretty based mod. Idk. They can get shit on in the thread for sure but I wouldn’t mind not seeing the brain rot 🤷‍♂️

PETA takes any animal. So those no kill shelters that you probably love so much have to get rid of animals and send the animal to the next shelter in the chain. Eventually, that could mean PETA shelters. Guess what that means? The most aggressive animals, the most disabled animals, the most sick animals, the most expensive to take care of animals, and otherwise those least desired by those looking for companion animals, are likely to end up at a PETA shelter. They don’t have the funding, the staff, or the safety protocols in place to deal with the never ending supply that breeding creates. If you don’t want PETA to kill animals, which they don’t want to do, encourage the ban on animal breeding so there are fewer of these cases. Also stop pretending that your local no kill shelter is separate from that process. They just offload the bad press to PETA. Do not buy animals. Rescue & adopt.

Weird, I haven’t seen much of any Star Trek stuff.

Disgusting.

As long as you don’t buy an animal, no moral wrong in having a preference in appearance. Adopt and rescue.

It’s not exactly “the same thing” though. One encourages direct violence. Dr. Phil presumably does not. One component of exploitation being comparable is not the same as totally equal.

Since I’ve updated the main post picture, here’s the original I uploaded (with less cut off)

It’s seemingly true. If not admins (who else would it be?), it’s absolutely getting botted like crazy. Here’s the evidence

Refresh the page homie, I got you! New update to the pic replaces the old one.