Yes, I am "ideologically vegan" in the same way as a soldier in an active war zone could be an "ideological conscientious objector" -- I believe the proper Hellenic term is "hypocrite".
Erika3sis
Because c/vegan is for vegans only and I am not at present a vegan
It seems like there's no rule against it, just a recommendation that I misunderstood as a hard and fast rule.
Wait, we're allowed to make multiple emoji proposals in the same post?
Would you like to share your story of how you became vegan?
The thing is that the chicks being killed by the millions within hours of hatching, and the animals having no life aside from the bare minimum needed to satisfy human greed, are two sides of the same coin. I pointed out that the animals are killed young and by the millions, because rhetorically that evokes cold, systematic, industrial extermination, and is furthermore the phrasing actually used in the ad. That my problem is not simply with the quantity of animals killed, or the age at which they die, but in fact rather with the entirety of the industry, should've been obvious from the fact that I wrote, "There is no good egg brand to choose if you care about animal welfare because the industry is fundamentally exploitative of animals" — "fundamentally" meaning in this context "regardless of whether they cull chicks or not"
So my moral stance is not "animals should not be killed young and/or in large numbers, i tochka" — my moral stance is that human beings do not need to kill or assault animals in order to survive, human beings are in fact capable of empathy and morality, and so if we see ourselves constructing a system of industrialized exploitation that murders baby animals by the millions (really, billions), then we should be able to say that this is a cruel and entirely unnecessary affair and that something has gone terribly wrong with the world that we could ever reach such a point. My moral stance is that there is a straight line from deciding that it is OK to immediately kill most all the male or unhealthy chicks on the basis of improving profit margins, to declaring that entire groups of human beings are "useless eaters" who deserve extermination.
That is what makes chick culling savagery, but not other animals' predation of chicks in the wild. I'm not going to pretend to know what's going on inside a chicken's head, but what I will say is that when our species has built a machine of death of Biblical proportions fine-tuned to be as efficient in its one goal as possible, that this is representative of an exploitative hierarchy between humans and other animals. I would in fact not see it that humans would ensure that every single chick in the wild makes it to maturity, because if humans could and would do this, it would mean that the hierarchy between humans and animals has not actually been abolished — we would've simply replaced the commodity we get from them.
Look at that, I thought something was wrong with uBlock because I kept getting those anti-adblock messages, but I guess that's been fixed now. That Invidious instance also seems to work for me.
You're talking like a parliamentarian in a TV interview.
Sorry, I don't want to misinterpret you, so I just want to be certain that you really are trying to say that culling chicks is a perfectly fine practice because most chicks would die in the wild "anyways", before I burst a blood vessel.
I am to be surprised by something everyone else found predictable‽
Could you have come up with a better comparison at 3:40 AM, or is the comparison actually very apt and you just don't like the "tone"?