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?

I’m fairly sure that is a thing.

No. If someone ate no animal products besides honey that doesn’t make them not vegan, it means they don’t share the opinion that honey causes animal exploitation. I do not wish to register an opinion there, I’m just saying what the rationale is.

Huh, I’ve not heard any vegan talk about that. In fact mushrooms are a staple in many of the vegan foods I’m aware of

People who would be angered by this aren’t reachable, ya just gotta block em.

I assumed that was something teenagers grew out of.

You’d think and hope so lol. But just a couple years ago my partner was in a work related group chat where that happened. Full grown adults chastising others for defiling their blue bubbles or whatever. Super silly but afaik still a thing.

That’s super interesting concerning MMS messages still costing extra in the uk. My understanding of that tech is that it was just a wrapper around email. Each phone number would have an email address like phonenumber@mms.carrier.com and all the carrier is doing there is translating phone numbers to email addresses and vice versa and kinda hiding that it’s doing it. I haven’t really known if MMS affects my plan for a long time, I think those usually were included with unlimited texts for the most part. Anyhow yeah for some reason in my experience Americans usually only use Whatsapp due to having international friends or for large group chats that might have international folks in them. And signal is used frequently by more tech savvy people, but most “normies” I know would likely have never tried it. My parents probably haven’t even heard of Whatsapp. It’s largely a cultural thing.

Well, yeah, Whatsapp is e2e encrypted but also I’m pretty sure it’s known that the app can/does use chat data on the client side. If they aren’t doing that, they could always start someday because for the conversations to be readable they are decrypted on the device end for each user. And I would put nothing past Meta.

I’m in the US. Group chats infamously have this “green/blue bubble” issue where many iPhone users would have a group chat (automatically using iMessage) and then if an android user gets added, the chat gets downgraded to MMS I think and the android user shows as a green bubble. It’s a weird cultural thing where the iPhone users (as designed by apple) think the android user has a crappy phone because they designed their ecosystem like that. I am sure overall many people use non-sms apps but it’s pretty rare for someone to assume I use Whatsapp, they typically ask first. And people using signal is also rare ime. But I’m sure all this would be much different for younger people than me. I know Snapchat is still pretty popular and I’ve barely used it (hated it).

Ok, perhaps I misjudged you. For me, even younger people typically don’t use other messengers besides sms. I’ve only ever successfully gotten like 5 people to install signal. The other most popular messengers in the us, Facebook messenger and Whatsapp, are probably much worse for privacy than sms, due to meta ownership.

Ever heard of older people or just less techy ones? Guess not. I always find it weird when people get on some high horse about sms or any other tech topic. By the way you talk, one would think you literally think hundreds of millions or more people don’t use a texting capability built-in to their phone. But you clearly don’t think that. You apparently just have a need to “other” people who do use it.

Ps. You live in a world where people still use fax machines, checks, floppy disks, and AOL over dialup. People use old tech. It’s not that crazy and much of it has to do with older people not liking change.

I have and I’m not sure I get your point. I have an ability to understand how other people use technology. Which is aided by travel, not hindered by it.

“Fake email job” I guess this is just a weird spin on “office job”?

Sounds like you haven’t met anyone. Or more likely, it’s everyone not-you who is weird.

No link or citation is bold for such a take. Not heard it before now.

Uh are you just going straight full on racist…?