Android phones…?

Symbiotic means mutually beneficial. Half or more of the time it’s not benefitting the human and machines cannot benefit from any experience.

Yeah artists don’t have it hard enough already, let’s victim blame them for trying to use tools that used to be less hostile.

Exactly what does any of that change?

But unless it’s my line, it’s evil.

How about people loudly talking/laughing in museums? For me that can ruin an experience and there’s not much you can do about it unless you’re looking to make a scene with some 16 year olds or whatever.

Yeah, that’s it.

No one said any of that here.

Doesn’t seem like an unpopular opinion. At least not on Lemmy.

I guess you’re going for hoardes of people vomiting like in that one family guy episode. Might work.

Can junkies just stop using drugs? Technically yes but they are gonna struggle. And no I’m not excusing anything I’m just being realistic. These sites are designed to be incredibly addictive.

It is representative of most people who call themselves Christians, but not the ones who actually care about being decent. The latter group seems in the minority.

That’s a classic example of evil seeking an excuse. The religion telling her to be different is offensive because what it actually says is of no importance. Her specifically chosen reading of it is all she cares about.

Yeah. I think it comes down to the absolutism. They almost certainly ate some amount of meat/animal products themselves, but once they arrived at their current principles, they have no more understanding for it. Rather than remember that they too had to learn/work to get to their understanding, they see you as an enemy for not sharing it. Of course I mean if you offer even the slightest pushback.

I’ve reduced my meat intake by a lot and I agree with what you wrote here. If vegan food was widely available everywhere I’d probably eat WAY less animal products. But dozens of vegans online have given no shits about that, whereas a reasonable person would, and would have some level of empathy toward not being 100% with them on everything they say in terms of applying the knowledge. I totally get wondering how a person could acknowledge animal suffering and still participate in it. I’ve examined myself over that one hundreds of times now. But it’s the reality, it’s where I’m at. And I should be able to talk about it without an automatic assumption that I’m a thoughtless monster who is trying to tear down their worldview. I’m not. Is this about me personally? I’m talking about so obviously yes it’s sorta personal that I have these unpleasant and unproductive conversations on the Internet sometimes, but I truly would rather them not happen for anyone else either. For the toxic assholes who really do want to tear down veganism, they’re worse people, but I already knew that. For the vegans spewing hatred at all the “carnists” I expect better and I think I’m right to. They changed their lives for a good reason. Now why the fuck can’t they talk about it the majority of the time? It’s frustrating.

That’s fine. You’re not able to understand that I am not against you. I’ll block you now to avoid this in the future.

I have known vegans IRL who are genuinely reasonable and can discuss this stuff. On the Internet, 95% of the time you just cannot even discuss it with someone who identifies as vegan, I would imagine even if you’re a vegan yourself, unless you 100% agree with them on how to apply the philosophy. In this very thread I asked a question and it was all but ignored and I was assumed to be shitting on veganism rather than questioning a specific argument/interpretation of it. I think it sucks because I literally agree with like 90% of everything any vegan says, it’s when they veer away from the facts and more toward personal feelings they have that I cannot talk to them about it anymore. It makes sense on the one hand because if that viewpoint resonates with you it’s gonna make you upset to think about and to be shit on for, but on the other, if it cannot even be discussed without false assumptions, insults, and avoidance of inconvenient facts on their part, they’re just going to lend credence to the anti-vegan prick arguments. Because of this extreme inability to even discuss the topic I have to block a lot of vegans because I’d rather do that than always remain silent for fear of upsetting them. They always seem 100% convinced I’m an evil carnist who hates them and is pretending not to be just to erode veganism, but it’s just not so.

I don’t know what edit you’re talking about genuinely and I don’t know why you think I accused you of anything multiple times because I didn’t.

So the answer to my question is “because they didn’t consent”. Okay. This could’ve been reached much more simply and without all the assumptions which you refuse any responsibility for and blame it on me for not being clear. I get that vegans deal with a lot of bad faith arguments but if you assume every argument or question is in bad faith, that’s not helping anyone.

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?

Did you even read anything I wrote? Because that’s not what I said or believe.

You jumped to a conclusion that I consider veganism invalid which is absolutely untrue. What I would consider invalid is random absolutist interpretations of it which refuse to explain themselves. Since you won’t explain it, I’m forced to assume you think the kangaroos should be left to rot due either to some undefined principle that it’s better that way, or some emotional reason. Those animals could be literally replacing factory farmed animals in people’s diets so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me without explanation. I wish these conversations could literally ever go better than this.

Notice how you’re not responding to my question?

Edit: the silent downvote indicates you don’t intend to, and that’s a shame, assuming you’d reply in good faith. You’re literally arguing for leaving carcasses to rot instead of replacing other meat in human diets which would have been derived from pointless cruelty.

Veganism is about consequences or at least should be. If an animal was (and apparently in this case is) killing the ecosystem if you don’t kill it, I’m curious what the rationale for it not being vegan is. Veganism seeks to end cruelty and suffering. Whereas in this case not killing the kangaroo would be a choice that leads to more suffering and that’s not just for humans. If veganism isn’t about applying these “rules” for a purpose and instead it’s just about applying them without taking context into consideration, what’s the point of it?