Apparently “rich” is different from “the rich”
Vegan here: hurting and killing innocent, defenseless animals for food because of speciesism is wrong and harmful.
The rich are extremely harmful to everyone and have no feelings worth valuing, so eating the rich is reducing the exploitation of animals and very, very vegan.
Do you know how many microplastics are in a full grown human? No thank you.
Maybe we ought to throw them in a pit, chain them to a wheel, and let them grind their own meal. Like the serfs in the good ol' days they long for.
Counterpoint, while it might be ethical to eat free range billionaire, it’s the least tasty of human meat because of all the cocaine use and STDs.
Uh isn't a core point of veganism to not consume things with sentience?
Even an "evil" human has sentience and doesn't wish to be eaten. (Unless they do, and in that case, crank that hog)
Not entirely true. Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals.
Which leaves certain gray areas regarding the consumption of sentient beings. For instance, eating roadkill does not cause suffering for animals. Similarly, when Inuit people hunt animals, although it may cause suffering, it is their only means of survival. There are also instances where the only available medication contains animal products. Additionally, killing a human or non-human animal in self-defense when you haven't intentionally put yourself in that situation would be vegan.
On the other hand, the consumption of non-sentient items does not have to be vegan. For example, milk, eggs, and honey cause suffering for the animals that produce them.
Regarding the consumption of a CEO, one could argue that killing them is a form of self-defense and that eating them doesn't increase their suffering. Along with the net positive effects on the world, it could be considered very vegan.
Are 'don't walk on the grass' signs speciesist? I feel like it's unfair that the other animals are allowed and i'm not.
"Don't walk on the grass" signs are usually stupid anyway because vast expanses of bare lawns with nothing but a single kind of mowed grass are almost exclusively dumber, uglier, and worse for the environment than native plants. (To actually answer your question, no, because speciesism is differential treatment without critical thought as to why they're treated differently, and non-human animals
can't readare way cooler than humans tbh.)
Ethical maybe, but definitely not vegan
possibly the funniest image
I started playing RimWorld again (new DLC!) and I use the Anthro Race mod, which requires Humanoid Aliens as a base, and that adds a couple new ideology options about cannabalism.
You can be against cannibalism of your own species, but fine with eating aliens. I have it set this way. And yet, butchering any humanoid still gives you negative thoughts even if eating the resulting meat them doesn't. It's kinda stupid. I want them to be respectful of other races and not just try to kill everyone; but anyone who dies attacking us should be fair game as food (as long as they aren't a member of the Anthro race).
It's been so long since I last played, I forgot how to edit the ideology mid-game. I know you can, somehow...
Anyway, we can't eat the rich because the rich are usually cyborgs and therefore inedible; but we can disassemble them and turn our own people into cyborgs.
The real version:
