Damn. Do you live in the year 2016 or did you just wake up from a coma? In which case:

The early 2000s called. They want their lazy islamophobic joke back.

https://lemmy.world/comment/25741594

The comment you edited

I have to be done with this conversation because we are on different wavelengths and you’re stepping on all of my buttons and I can’t not show that that’s bothering me.

I have ASD. That is a reason, not an excuse, for the confusion. I genuinely cannot read your first question as anything but bad faith framing that pits the morality of conservation against veganism, like they’re at odds with each other. I was trying to be as kind as I could in my first response, but when you responded like I was refusing to answer when I thought I was I started to lose the plot.

Edit: in all seriousness, how could the answer to your question about how killing kangaroos isn’t bad, so how is it not vegan be “cause they can’t consent”? It sounds coherent written out like that, sure, but the meaning of that answer doesn’t fit with the meaning of the question. It doesn’t make sense to me how killing kangaroos for conservation has anything to do with not consuming the products of their death after they’re dead (which is what veganism is). Those are two different things! One needn’t be a pyromaniac to do prescribed burns anymore than one can’t be vegan if they cull uncontrolled animal populations.

Why is kangaroo meat not vegan, even though the animal was killed to preserve the remaining population? Cause the animal did not consent to being killed, it did not want to be killed, and killing it caused it pain.

Could a vegan internalize your logic and therefore consume kangaroo meat? Yeah. Does that make kangaroo meat vegan? Not even close. Hell, the usual loophole meat of oysters aren’t vegan even though lots of vegans eat them.

Veganism isn’t a religion, and each person lives it differently as a result. Like your assertion that veganism is or should be about the consequences isn’t even a factor for everyone. Some people are vegan cause eating dead things is creepy and stealing food from babies feels wrong, and that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to be vegan.

Also, you edited a previous comment to suggest that you only care about this for non-vegans. In which case, why do you care if it’s vegan or not? Why do you care if vegans care or not if omnis eat it?

Also, I jumped to conclusions because I thought I was answering what you asked, but apparently I wasn’t so I needed to guess at a different interpretation of your question since you didn’t actually clarify what you meant, just accused me multiple times of not reading what you said.

The bees don’t want you to take their honey. They don’t make excess, they make what they need and we steal it and replace it with stuff that’s “just as good” according to us. Bees die in the process of harvesting honey.

These are reasons that honey isn’t vegan.

I’m confused. Are you asking if killing kangaroos because they have no natural predators could be considered vegan? Yeah, probably. Are you asking what the point of veganism is since you’ve randomly decided it isn’t a coherent philosophy based on your own strawman? I can’t answer that question, it’s not based in reality. I mean, I could ask how you can talk with all that rebar in your mouth, but since you don’t have rebar in your mouth, the question doesn’t make sense, does it?

I chose to clarify that eating the kangaroo is the non-vegan act here, not culling the population, since you’ve somehow decided that eating an animal and killing them are somehow synonymous. I hope it’s obvious that they aren’t.

Notice how your entire argument for ethical behavior applies to controlling the population rather than eating the animals after? The step of eating the animal is the not vegan act.

Control the population, leave the remains in the ecosystem it belongs to.

No. An animal died for it, it isn’t vegan. Simple as.

Operation Brannigan’s Gambit. I’m certain the Klingon have a kill limit, and I aim to find it.

They rebooted this not even 20 years ago. Is there some burning demand for spy satire that makes this make sense? Cause I know there isn’t enough pull from the IP for it.

Well, yes, but it’s really the fact that the “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” ad campaign was identified as the most influential of the 2024 campaign season. They, again, think fear mongering is why that campaign worked. It wasn’t, it worked cause Harris was running status quo in a time of social upheaval and that ad readily showcased that in a novel way.

So in no way an actual response to Sony. No guarantee of ownership of digital media, just printable 3D models. Cool. Not seeing the point, but cool.

Before I get the response, DRM free isn’t the same as “you own this game from our store front in perpetuity” it’s just “we can’t take over your installed version of this game”

And the list of democrats to jackboots!

Or “we weren’t actually hiring anyone for the position, but we have to keep running interviews so that our competitors don’t know that”

Sidestepping federal authority over the USPS. When the feds want to ratfuck, find a way around?

Properly organized and democratic workers unions are not on the same level as a random internet boycott. You know that, right?

Understand understand. Understand understand. Understand understand the concept of love.

Yeah, if you live in Scotland. Basically anywhere else and it’s an ecodisaster wrapped in massive land wastage.