Don’t be so fucking creepy and respect her diet choices the same way you want others to respect yours
“respect her diet choices the same way you want others to respect yours“
Yeah no…This isn’t an “I’ll respect your love of Marmite if you respect my loathing of it” situation. It’s vital to recognize that these aren’t simple issues of personal life choices to respect, as it stops being a matter of personal choice when those most affected are other sentient beings. It simply ceases to be a matter of simple personal dietary choice when those dietary choices have direct victims, and in the case of choosing to consume animal flesh/milk for young/eggs, it’s a fact that other beings are being directly and needlessly victimized by being bred, kept captive, exploited, and brutally slaughtered as a result.
How you style your hair, your favorite color, a banana or apple, these are personal choices that 100% should be respected. Who you choose to abuse, exploit, and brutally slaughter, however, are not. And If you still choose to support this as a consumer when it’s “possible and practicable” to avoid doing so, then no, that choice absolutely should not be respected. Just like other choices to support/contribute to such violence and cruelty when it’s possible and practical not to do so.
I doubt that most people would consider it a matter of personal choices that should simply be respected when it comes to other acts that needlessly harm other sentient beings for personal pleasure, such as the dog meat trade, dog fighting, animal abuse of “pets”, bullfighting, skinning animals for fur, etc.
What’s not creepy = Expresses disappointment on a personal blog at an influential public figure making a joke out of the slaughter of defenseless animals, by literally eating a big bowl of their butchered limbs as a game.
What’s super creepy = making a joke out of the slaughter of defenseless animals, by literally eating a big bowl of their butchered limbs as a game.
Time to roll up the sleeves I suppose.
There is nothing wrong with consuming milk or eggs. The animals that produce them are domesticated, and produce far more than will ever be consumed or become chicks. Most chicken eggs go unfertalized, and unless removed, will rot and attract predators and insects that will infest the area and kill chickens/chicks. The cows must also be milked because they over produce, and without milking they will develop mastitis or other infections. It’s incredibly painful and the cows feel relief upon being milked. It’s a mutual relationship for the animals and the humans, as we protect and feed them and they produce a product for us. Of course, this goes without saying, some corporations terribly mistreat and abuse their animals and they should not be supported, which is why it’s important to support local small farms and ethical production.
Same goes for meat. They live a healthy and much more comfortable life than they ever would in nature, and thus have a more comfortable death. If lions and wolves and sharks aren’t evil for fulfilling their nutritional needs, neither are we. You would never chastise an ape for eating their prey, don’t chastise a human either. Though again, some farms and slaughter houses are unethical and cruel, and it’s important to do your research and support your local small businesses that do things properly and painlessly. Or just raise and kill your own animals, like myself. I know for a fact they get the best care and the happiest lives and the most painless death, because I provide it.
Nothing wrong with a dog meat trade again, as long as it’s done with the best care and death provided for the animal. The first trade should go hand in hand with the meat trade, no waste. If your going to kill an animal you should use it all. It’s a waste of a death and you aren’t properly appreciating what those creatures died to provide you with in the first place. Animal fighting provides nothing, is cruel inherently, and should be banned forever and always.
No it’s pretty creepy, because you choose to phrase it in a horrible creepy way. “But it’s technically right!!” Yes, but so is claiming that vegans enjoy injecting the severed limbs and reproductive organs of organisms with they then slather in the juices from the same or similar organisms and slorp that down to injested in their own vomit. Plus plants can and do release signals that warn other plants of the damage they have suffered and attempt to summon organisms to assist, which is a pretty good piece of evidence that they know you’re eating them, and they they may feel pain. And you eat them alive, which is Uber creepy.
Things have to die for life to continue. Whether it’s bacteria, fungus, plants, or animals, including humans. We are all part of the food chain, and it’s ridiculous to attempt to assign morals to nature.
Get over yourself
Well if we are rolling up sleeves *rolls up the sleeves of my Totoro hoodie*
~ Domesticated hens only produce so many eggs due to the fact that they are both genetically engineered to produce many more eggs than is natural and are usually subjected to near-constant lighting and fed high protein feed to increase egg production so they produce over 300 eggs a year which is massively detrimental to their health. This is not an argument for consuming eggs but is an argument against breeding these animals into existence in the first place to exploit and slaughter for profit. I mean just the simple act of continuing to bring them into existence, never mind the brutal exploitation, abuse and slaughter is an act of cruelty in itself due to how much they suffer from these abnormal bodies.
~ Also, when it comes to the actual eggs, chickens will cannibalize their own eggs and this is an incredibly important practice (especially in domestic chickens that have been bred to produce so many more eggs than natural or healthy) that gives back vital nutrients to their system lost during egg production and laying. Producing eggs involves a massive loss of lots of calcium and puts massive pressure on the hen’s body a reason why these genetically engineered hens so young aside from slaughter. Also taking a hens egg away sends the signal to her body to make a replacement. So the more eggs used for human consumption the more eggs the hens will produce which is not good for their body and health at all. Solution? Stop breeding these animals into these bodies that they suffer so greatly from because you want to eat their eggs. And if you’re looking after rescued hens leave the eggs to them to cannibalize instead of taking them away to encourage ore egg-laying. And make sure they are safe from predators which would try to kill them regardless.
~ Its actually only because of genetic manipulation via intensive breeding practices in order to maximize profit. that has resulted in dairy cows now producing so much more milk than is natural, and at the incredible detriment to their health. This, coupled with the fact these cows are required to give birth to one calf annually so are forcibly inseminated repeatedly so that they can produce such high levels of milk for 10 months of the year. Of course, the solution to this issue is not to continue doing this but to stop artificially and forcibly breeding them into existence into these genetically engineered bodies to brutally exploit and slaughter for profit.
It’s also worth recognizing that issues you raise only occur both, from the living conditions these animals are kept in, their genetically engineered bodies, and the fact that they are only “milked” twice a day instead of the five to six times a day a calf would ween from her. This adds to the accumulation of milk accumulate in the udder which greatly enlarges the udder and leads to lameness in her hind legs and predisposes her to mastitis and many other serious health issues. And of course, the average dairy cow now completes less than four forced lactations before she is then brutally slaughtered because she stops being profitable either because of low milk yield, infertility or diseases caused by living conditions and the incredibly large strains forced on her body in order to produce so much milk. This is horrifically cruel.
~ There’s no such thing as “ethically produced” animal flesh, milk, or eggs as bringing an animal into existence for the sole purpose of needlessly exploiting and brutally slaughtering them in their young is not ethical under any circumstance. When it comes to animal agriculture, in all farms, regardless of the size of the farm, location, or the labels used (”free range” “organic” “grass fed” etc) animals live their too-short lives trapped in genetically engineered bodies that are ravaged by their size and forced overproduction of babies and milk till they are “spent” and are slaughtered for profit, all for needless human pleasure.
Its also worth noting that many of the cruelest practices industrial factory farming takes place on smaller local farms, these include forced impregnation, stealing babies away from mothers, routine mutilations without anesthetic, murder of newborns and young animals (including using methods such as bludgeoning and maceration), horrendous living conditions, denial of important instinctive behaviors and preferences and brutal transport and slaughter conditions. And of course, these animals all end up in the same slaughterhouses at a fraction of their lifespans and there is no “ethical” way to needlessly slaughter a sentient being that doesn’t want to die. While buying from a local farm might be slightly better than buying from a factory farm, it’s still just trying to find the right way to do the wrong thing.
~ Aaahh…The “but they have it better than in nature” argument. its a weird argument but one I see often..the facts are that this isn’t an either/or situation where either the animals we needlessly farm and eat die a violent, harrowing death in nature (after a violent, traumatic life..hmm reminds me of the life of farmed animals), or they have a comparably “easy” life and a “better” death on farms. These farmed animals would never have been born in the wild in the first place as they are artificially bred in mass numbers into existence specifically to be exploited on farms for human pleasure and profit. Animal agriculture does not save them from the brutalities of nature and possible horrible death. These animals are not being rescued or saved or protected, they are bred by humans to be killed by humans without a fighting chance. This hypothetical nature scenario is a false premise and does not justify the needless breeding, exploitation and brutal slaughter of animals for food.
~ @acti-veg has a great article about this here. But in short, Lions and other animals need to kill for survival, without it they would die. Humans killing animals for food is cruel and unnecessary because we know that we have no biological need to consume animal flesh, milk, eggs or honey. Other species do a lot of things we don’t do, why pick one thing wild animals do that you want to copy and disregard the rest? I doubt you would defend that same line of logic when it comes to other violent actions by saying, “yeah but animals do it in the wild” would you?
~ How do you justify needlessly taking the life of another sentient being that doesn’t want to die for your own personal pleasure, and at a fraction of their lifespan? I mean you could argue that the act of taking their life is even crueler if they have a happy life beforehand. But regardless of the fashion of the slaughter, there isn’t a justification for taking that life. It is still needlessly taking the life of a sentient being, for your own personal pleasure. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt you’d say “that’s fine because you did it painlessly”? Though maybe you might. But I know that most people would very much be against that. I am interested though in how you slaughter animals “painlessly”?
~ Yeah no, the exploitation of, and slaughter of other sentient beings when its avoidable is always wrong. Dog, pig, chicken, sheep, cat, horse, etc.
~ Please, tell me how it was creepy?
~ Wait..wait…are you comparing plants to animals?? You’re trying to say that the stem of a plant is the same as the butchered limb of a chicken? You are seriously trying to use the “plants feel pain? Of course plants arent living organisms, they are, just like bacteria and fungi. What they aren’t though is sentient. And it is sentience which is the issue here. Plants lack nerves or a central nervous system, brain or anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Because of this, they cant respond to stimuli in any deliberate way (what they do have are non-conscious reactions, and it’s these reactions you’re talking about). Unlike animals (sentient beings) plants absolutely lack the ability or potential to experience pain/suffering or have sentient thoughts, so there isn’t an ethical issue with eating them because of this. There is the same level of an ethical issue as someone cleaning a worktop and killing bacteria. And I’m pretty sure nobody is abstaining from cleaning their house or taking medication because they are killing bacteria in the process.
Sentience: The capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Animals = Sentient Plants = Not sentient
But let’s say we lived in an alternate universe where we discovered that plants actually have something akin to what we understand as “sentience” and so could feel pain. The difference , In this case,is that we need to eat plants to survive, but we don’t have to eat animals. In fact, it’s incredibly harmful to human health. Also, more plants are used for animal flesh/milk/egg production than for plant production because the animals farmed are fed plants. So if we lived in this alternate universe it would still be better to minimize plant usage by feeding humans directly with them, rather than feeding many more plants to animals to then eat ourselves.
~ Food chains help maintain natural ecosystems and natural population sizes of wild animals, and they help maintain the natural ecology of areas of the world where they exist and are fundamental to the survival of those ecosystems. What we do to animals when we forcibly artificially breed them into genetically engineered bodies they suffer so greatly in, to exploit and slaughter needlessly has nothing to do with a food chain. Nor does it resembles anything like you would see in the wild. It has nothing to do with helping to maintain healthy population sizes or maintaining the ecology of environments and is actually actively incredibly detrimental to them. What we do to these animals could not be further detached from any sense of the food chain.
~ Yes, let’s use nature as a justification for our violent actions., who needs morality when it comes to humans copying actions we see in nature! Another species does it? That’s A-okay for us as humans to also do!
If you can think of an argument that isn’t on there I’d be very surprised and eager to hear it. I hope you consider looking into how vegans answer these arguments we hear constantly. Everyone needs to examine this for multiple reasons: animal rights, the subsequent human rights issues brought about by animal agriculture, public health concerns, and the harmful ways it effects the environment. It’s the right thing to do.
Innocent sentient beings who feel pain and don’t want to die don’t deserve to be killed for profit and fleeting, unnecessary palate pleasure when it’s also bad for our health, other humans, and the environment, while vegan alternatives already taste amazing. There’s no right way to do the wrong thing, humane slaughter is an oxymoron. No matter how nice their life or how painless and quick their death, they still were bred into existence and killed against their will with no choice in the matter when they didn’t have to be, and that’s wrong. They’re individuals, not machines, slaves, products, or commodities. They’re a someONE not a someTHING. And we need to do better.
Be quiet for a minute, I’ll return and go through all of this and use unbiased scientific sources to point out your wrongs and rights, and what they mean to people that eat meat, and we’ll talk about your personification of animals, and what it means as well.
Nevertheless, within a flock it is possible to observe individual birds with high productivity and good bone strength (Dunn et al., 2007). Genetics has been shown to be important, with around 40% of the variation in an index of bone quality being due to genetics (Bishop et al., 2000). This bone quality index was used successfully to improve bone strength and reduce skeletal damage (Fleming et al., 2004).
The provision of dietary 25 (OH) D3, feed restriction with substitution of carbohydrate by dietary fat, supplementation of choline, inositol, vitamin B12, folic acid and vitamin E in the diet have all been shown to limit the incidence of hepatic steatosis and FLHS in layers (Bouvarel and Nys, 2013).
The chickens, as long as they are responsibly bred and properly cared for and fed, will have no issue with laying as much as they do. But let’s look at the jungle fowl, the birds that chickens were domesticated from. They only lay 10-15 eggs a year, about two clutches. Why? Because that’s when food is heartily available. That’s right! They are half starving most of the year, so that special time of year when they’re up to their little waddles in food, they mate and lay. Which is why some groups, especially those living in or near palm plantations where food is readily available always, have begun laying year round, nearly everyday. Like a chicken.
In many areas, red junglefowl breed during the dry portion of the year, typically winter or spring. This is true in parts of India, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos [11][12][6][20][21][22]. However, year-round breeding by red junglefowl has been documented in palm-oil plantations in Malaysia [16], and also may occur elsewhere [21]. During the laying period, red junglefowl females lay an egg every day. Eggs take 21 days to develop. Chicks fledge in about 4 to 5 weeks, and at 12 weeks old are chased out of the group by their mother – at which point they start a new group or join an existing one. Sexual maturity is reached at 5 months, with females taking slightly longer than males to reach maturity. [4]
Egg Cannibalism
As long as the feed contains the proper nutrients, eggs cannibalism is not only not needed, but harmful, as it can easily lead to habitual cannibalisation, where the chickens consume the eggs upon laying them, fertilized or not. Don’t really need a source for that, it’s pretty much common knowledge, common sense, and basic nutrition.
Just like how human women don’t actually need to eat their placenta if they have access to pretty much the same thing in another form, like specially formulated supplements or a specific diet.
Dairy Cow Health
No responsible dairy farmer will back-to-back a dairy cow. It’s bad for the cow, bad for milk quality, bad for business, and shortens the overall time period and amount a cow will produce.
An optimum calving interval of 12 to 13 mo has been suggested in various studies to maximize the number of peak lactations that a cow achieves during its productive life (Weller and Folman, 1990).
Milking a cow for too long will make it fat, lazy, and unlikely to become pregnant again, even with artificial insemination. It’s also important to remember that cows don’t have sexual agency the same way humans do, meaning cows have a heat that humans don’t experience, and cows WANT to conceive whenever their hormones tell them to. They don’t have things like careers, money, and so on holding them back. Artificial insemination is also safer, as bulls and cows have been known to seriously hurt and/or kill each other. This includes wild bovine as well.
There are several advantages by artificial insemination over natural mating or servicing.
There is no need of maintenance of breeding bull for a herd; hence the cost of maintenance of breeding bull is saved.
It prevents the spread of certain diseases and sterility due to genital diseases.
Eg: contagious abortion, vibriosis.
By regular examination of semen after collection and frequent checking on fertility make early detection of interior males and better breeding efficiency is ensured.
The progeny testing can be done at an early age.
The semen of a desired size can be used even after the death of that particular sire.
The semen collected can be taken to the urban areas or rural areas for insemination.
7 It makes possible the mating of animals with great differences in size without injury to either of the animals.
It is helpful to inseminate the animals that are refuse to stands or accept the male at the time of oestrum.
It helps in maintaining the accurate breeding and cawing records.
It increases the rate of conception.
It helps in better record keeping.
Old, heavy and injured sires can be used.
Disadvantages of A.I:
Requires well-trained operations and special equipment.
Requires more time than natural services.
Necessitates the knowledge of the structure and function of reproduction on the part of operator.
Improper cleaning of instruments and in sanitary conditions may lead to lower fertility.
If the bull is not properly tested, the spreading of genital diseases will be increased.
Market for bulls will be reduced, while that for superior bull is increased.
Artificial insemination is just for the best, really.
Cow Milking and Calf Weening
Ideal schedule
Cows love routine and are content doing the same thing each day. They need to have their 24-hour day budgeted correctly with hours in the day allocated to certain activities to be the most productive. According to research by Grant and Albright, a cow (living in a freestall barn) prefers to spend its day with the following routine:
• 12 to 14 hours resting
• 3 to 5 hours eating
• 7 to 10 hours ruminating (while standing and lying)
• 30 minutes drinking water
• 2 to 3 hours of social interaction
• Leaving 2.5 to 3.5 hours for outside of the pen activities (milking)
Calves also aren’t just nabbed from mom the moment they drop, they’re left with mom for several months during the heaviest milk production, so the morning and evening milk are accompanied by the calf feeding throughout the day. Only when the calf is able to consume dry foods, or if there is a medical issue, should the calf be taken early. After the calf is taken, the milk production will naturally be lower, and it will become comfortable to milk twice a day, though very heavy producers may need a mid day release.
Dairy calf weaning age is a topic of considerable ongoing debate. University of Guelph veterinary researcher Michael Steele weighed in on the subject during a presentation at the recent Dairy Calf and Heifer Association annual conference.
Steele, whose primary research focus is calf nutrition and digestive function, recommends a weaning age of at least 8 weeks. “Six-week-old calves just can’t consume enough calories to optimize the milk-feeding stage and prepare digestively for the transition to a ration of solely dry feed,” he said.
Ethical Production and Treatment
So what is ethics? Well “Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy.” Thus, if it aligns with your morality, to you, it is ethical. To me, ethical treatment means all unnatural pain and suffering is avoided, and comfort provided which out performs what would be found in nature for the same or a similar creature, as that is the only other form of existence.
You claim it’s impossible to ethically produce and harvest animals and their goods. This is incorrect. It is perfectly possible to raise all animals with their preferred husbandry in a happy and healthy environment, being sure to properly care for them, as we have shown above that, with proper practices, their breeding doesn’t actually harm them.
As for ethical slaughter, it is again possible, a painless slaughter would mean the severing of the spinal cord from the brain itself, including the stem, which would result in instant death, or destruction of the stem itself, which also provides instant death. Any toxins or methods that would shut down consciousness and then the nervous system painlessly, like going to sleep, would also be ethical.
Farm vs Nature vs Extinction, Natural Forms
You argue that providing better than nature isn’t an argument, as extinction is the ideal. Please refer to the human nutrition section for why NAH is the answer.
Biological obligation for meat consumption, health
You claim meat isn’t healthy for humans, obviously this is false .
Meat is a valuable source of high biological value protein, iron, vitamin B12 as well as other B complex vitamins, zinc, selenium and phosphorus. Fat content and fatty acid profile, a constant matter of concern when referring to meat consumption, is highly dependent on species, feeding system as well as the cut used. Pork meat can have the highest fat content but poultry skin is not far behind. It is also crucial to distinguish meat cuts from other meat products especially regarding its association with disease risk.
As in other dietary components, moderation is advisable but meat has been shown to be an important component of a balanced diet.
Meat is also the only source of nutrition to several civilizations, who are perfectly healthy in their heavy consumption thereof, most famously, those native to the far far north. Meat makes up the vast majority of their diet.
Also, we should talk about energy in general. Meat, as we all know, contains more than plants. Its less efficient to eat plants than it is to eat meat. You have to eat far more of it. How much more? Well pretty much everything we are using for feed animals right now, AND THEN SOME, why? Because we aren’t herbivores. Our digestion process isn’t nearly as long a thorough and we just cant get as much out of it as true herbivores can.
Meat is a valuable source of high biological value protein, iron, vitamin B12 as well as other B complex vitamins, zinc, selenium and phosphorus. Fat content and fatty acid profile, a constant matter of concern when referring to meat consumption, is highly dependent on species, feeding system as well as the cut used. Pork meat can have the highest fat content but poultry skin is not far behind. It is also crucial to distinguish meat cuts from other meat products especially regarding its association with disease risk.
As in other dietary components, moderation is advisable but meat has been shown to be an important component of a balanced diet.
Our body is designed to be omnivorous, as that is how we evolved. We would also have nutrition problems that could lead to shortages and severe medical problems globally, especially among populations that evolved with heavy doses of meat as a part of their diet,
However the supply of some important nutrients that we now get from animal products would decrease, including calcium, vitamins A and D, B12, arachidonic, eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic fatty acids.
And some of these nutrients have been linked to reduced risk of heart disease, visual and cognitive development in infants, and visual acuity.
“Very simply, there are some nutrient requirements that we cannot get just consuming plant-derived foods,” says one of the study authors Mary Beth Hall, of the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service
“It rather speaks to us evolving as omnivores.”
While it’s possible for an individual to be a vegan, a population is far more difficult, and the world, nearly impossible. Plus with the millions of slaves currently used to the majority of popular vegan foods, there probably wouldn’t be enough human population left to properly man the ships. Plus with the huge variation of crop we’d need, especially in tropical areas, we’d fuck the environment to here and back, less from emissions, and more because space, but also yes emissions, because we would have to FERTILIZE the land we continuously use, or we’d have to rotate, and still fertilize, just less, and use more land. Shit will go extinct.
Justification for Slaughter
It is necessary, as described above, for a healthy society. Like a bear eats a fish or a wolf a deer, so we too much also partake, so it’s best to do so as humanely as possible. Plus you guys never address the humane-ness of mice and snakes and birds being swept up and torn apart during harvesting so there’s that to consider.
Plants, Pain, and Sentience
Sentience is a philosophical concept, not a biological one. That being said, there are still definitions and rules. Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. And there are three criteria, intelligence, self awareness, and consciousness. Intelligence is just ability to problem solve, so koalas are out, self awareness, well, think of the mirror test. And of course the easiest to understand but heckin hard to prove, consciousness. According to the criteria, cows aren’t actually sentient. Neither are human babies, sea lions, chickens, or macaques.
As for plants, while they respond to stimulus, can have unique reactions, and have the capability to choose to share or attack other plants, are not currently known if they have sentience, because their current method of expression is extremely alien and not well studied because, well, we don’t know how. They don’t have a traditional nervous system, and they are far older and more varied than we are. It’s best to leave a question mark with “SUPER POSSIBLE” next to it.
And it’s creepy because you’re being obsessive and rude about a niche lifestyle that is impossible for everyone to follow. You’re also phrasing things are creepy as possible, which you wouldn’t have to do if you have science on your side.
I’m very happy to have a discussion with you, but you have literally just copy and pasted random sources, without making any distinction between what is copy and pasted and what are your own words. You use sources to back up your own claims, you don’t copy and paste random paragraphs. What is that Wikipedia article meant to be refuting anything I’ve said?
You’ve made a few claims, such as the incorrect assertion regarding eggs. a) Good nutrition doesn’t replace egg cannibalization, b) this is a natural behavior that is seen in both wild and domesticated hens, and wild hens have no issues carrying out this natural behavior, c) Commerical hen food is actually formulated to increase egg-laying in hens, d) wild hens have no issues laying the number of eggs they do, we know that the number of eggs domesticated hens lay as a result of genetic engineering is extremely harmful to their health. Especially as they are already living in bodies detrimental to health.
Again, I’m very happy to discuss these issues around animal exploitation/slaughter in animal ag, but by discussion, I mean actual discussion, not you trying to copy and paste as many random pieces of text in random order, with no distinction even between places you’ve copy and pasted from. I can respond to claims and attempts to refute anything I’ve said. Even just a quick bullet point list of things I’ve written that you want to claim as false, and at least one reason why you think it’s false, with links to sources by that bullet point to back you up. I don’t have the time to and turn try and go through this response to make it coherent enough to respond to. It’s frankly, a grammatical and incoherent mess. God, even making the copy and pasted parts italic which links to said source would be something!!
I provided sources for everything I said. The Wikipedia article links to the mirror test, a test for sentience. All sources from anything copied and pasted are linked at the end.
Those are all backed by scientific peer reviewed studies. Check the sources
I feel no need to create a proper mla essay, which would take hours, for your tumblr account pleasure. Figure it out, or don’t.
Alright. *Rolls up sleeves*
When you’re arguing with vegan activists, realise you’re not arguing animal ethics. You’re arguing against authoritarianism. They don’t care about the animals, they care about controlling what you eat. You ever notice communists have a starving people to death problem? Same psycology.
Do you like the color of the sky vegans losing their damn minds in the notes of a lighthearted gifset?
How the heck did veganism get into this so deeply?
Discussion ¬