Ekky

deleted by creator

I guess I should thank you for demonstrating how I’m twisting your words by doing the same?

“Is a woman’s unfertilized egg a baby?” <- That’s a trap? Of course a woman’s unfertilized is not a baby, nor is a fertilized one until born, since that would usually be defined as “embryo” or “fetus” (if being all pedantic). Though, a woman’s unfertilized egg is an “animal product”, as is a slice of meat.

Now, I’ve chosen to use “meat” as a synonym, or over-category, for “animal products”. I realize that this generalization might be important for some, so let me apologize for this apparently vital oversight, I’ll try to cut it out in cardboard from now on.

Regarding your statement about morals, as I’ve stated before, the hyperbole would be meaningless if the creator (of the hyperbole) wouldn’t find any truth or parallel in it.

I’ve read your statement as “No vegan would ever say: You’re eating meat animal products, but that’s all OK!”, just a whole lot more demeaning and in perfect spirit of the original post.

And once again, to really cut it out and prevent these misunderstandings of mine, I read your statement as “Vegans will not morally lower themselves to omni standards (edit: /Ethics)”.

If this was not the intention behind your words, then I will gladly stand corrected.

That would have been the first statement: “Vegan here, bottom left is a very small but sometimes very loud minority.”

That second statement (about the religious killings) was specifically for why finding compromise is not possible for regular vegans. Even if it was a hyperbole, it would be meaningless if not sincere.

“Are eggs meat?” - Yes, that’s what I’m saying, I’m not sure how it can be understood any other way.

Though, how can calling somebody a murderous cultist not be considered the least bit demeaning, whereas saying their family should starve is? As per “You wouldn’t say „… I do respect your religious tradition of human sacrifice“” having similar aggressive or demeaning meaning as “I don’t care if your family starves”.

My point exactly! I don’t see where the discrepancy lies.

Maybe that calling someone a murderous cultist is not the same as saying their family should rather starve?

“I don’t care if your family starves, eating eggs is literally murder!” - How can this not be represented as “Eating meat is murder!”?

Isn’t it a little weird to call vegans who say eating meat is murder a “loud minority”, and then explaining why you cannot be a vegan without saying that eating meat is murder (hyperbole or not)?

Is there something in your comment I’m missing, or is this supposed to be some self-aware joke?

Can’t those both be true at the same time?

The “system” is working as intended by the rich elite/<insert antagonist>, which means that it’s fundamentally broken for the general populace, and therefore must be fixed, which is easiest done by first destroying and then rebuilding it?

Seems like an oxymoron to me, but I’m not entirely sure of the context.