nsrxn

joined 1 month ago
[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social -1 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

that's not causal.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 point 2 hours ago (1 child)

the question is "why". as in 'why would you kll it" and if the answer is almost any justification (for food, for clothing, for medicine), then it's probably fine. everything dies and if their death serves some purpose, that's good.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

>Letting animals be tortured and slaughtered en masse

eating beans doesn't stop this. vegans are letting them be slaughtered as well.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

the animal is already dead. all the harm took place long before I decided what to eat.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 2 points 4 hours ago (8 children)

>You’re acting like the options are (a) cause as much suffering as you like

no. I'm saying that everyone makes decisions about which animals get treated which ways. eating a burger doesn't cause any harm, anyway.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 2 points 4 hours ago (10 children)

people can't eat grass or silage. but that's entirely besides the point. vegans don't avoid plants that were protected from pests and scavengers. they decide to treat some animals differently for just as arbitrary reasons.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 point 7 hours ago (12 children)

everyone makes such distinctions. including vegans. they don't care that animals are displaced by agriculture, killed in the protection of crops, or their harvesting.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 2 points 1 day ago

i2p facilitates anonymous torrenting over a darknet

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 1 day ago (5 children)

you're using statistics to absolve an evil institution.