What you eat is a personal choice from what’s available to you.
Would you say the same about exercise? Say out of the activities available for me there’s my two favorites: walking and kicking dogs. Do you think it’s a personal choice whichever option I pick?
thinking one way or another is superior abstracts this to philosophy and outside of reality
You don’t care what people do? Even if it would impact your personal choice?
I’m definitely not a sociopath. I cannot even feel if you’re mad or not.
2 steps ahead of you, I’ve been a mammal since I was born.
They are not checking for pregnancy. They are impregnating the cows.
Though the anus they hold the cow’s cervix in order to stick the insemination rod: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/l6AdaYfgcfk
Getting fisted is better than getting mounted all day? Sure, you’re still gonna exploited throughout your whole life and when they can’t exploit you anymore, killed. But you forgot at least another option besides fisting and getting mounted: not being bred into existence for the sole purpose of being exploited to death.
Why do you care if factory farming is bad?
Can you expand a bit more on being a personal choice? Would you say an action is a personal choice even if there’s a victim involved?
I think it really depends on what these “human-similes” actually are.
Would there be a difference if they were an alien species or a species related to us but not Homo sapiens, when either woud still feel and have a will to live?
Ok, now let’s equalize the trait that justifies the difference in treatment between cows and these beings: passing a turing test.
Say these human-similes are mentally handicapped and have the intellect equivalent of a cow. Would you now verdit as guilty someone who artificially inseminated one of them without consent?
Tomorrow we discover there’s an amount of (what we thought were) human population that is not really human. There’s a vote and all countries decide to classify them as non-human animals, not part of our society anymore and now standard to farm them as food. Woud you classify artificially inseminating this human-simile without consent as rape?
If yes, what’s the difference between this human-simile and cows that grants considering one being raped and not the other?
So artificially inseminating your property without consent is rape when it’s a human, but not when it’s a cow. What’s the difference between a cow and a human that grants this?
Specification is not needed, even you assumed these were retail costs from the get-go,
they only compared retail costs
on the next sentence you conflated retail costs with consumer cost
they didn’t account for people
which of course they didn’t, retail costs will be the same even if the person getting the items isn’t paying for them.
When someone says “this is 30% cheaper now”, any reasonable person would understand that they’re referring to the retail cost, not the consumer cost unless otherwise specified. Like “this is 30% cheaper on my food stamps”.
Just to make a bit more clear:
If someone was accused of enslaving and raping a woman and you were in the jury, the defense says “it’s not rape, it’s artificial insemination of my property”.
You would verdit them as guilty of enslaving, but not rape because artificial insemination of his property is not rape. Did I get it right?
Retail costs are still costs and plant based diets are globally around 30% cheaper than other diets. Where did I specify consumer (or any other particular) cost in my claim? Do you actually think the government giving free food means the food is cost free as well? Do you think self-sufficient people will affect the measure of the cost of food?
So the only thing stopping you from raping your own slaves would be that you think owning humans is wrong. Otherwise you would be ok with raping your own slaves, is that correct?
If owning humans were ok, nothing else would be stopping you from going into your slaves?
An act being natural or unnatural is not a reason to say that action is good or bad. I think we all agree unecessarily harming a sentient being is bad though.
How is it too narrow? They have considered data from more than 150 countries.
You go to the grocery store without the belief they have resupplied?
So you think it’s unjustified?
Or do you think it’s justified? And therefore you believe that they will kill another animal to resupply the demand that you’ve contributed to.
I conceive the freedom to chose on a personal ethical base above the idea of punching down ideas just because.
I agree it’s a choice, but I don’t think it’s a personal one given that there is another sentient being victimized in the action.
A bit on the motivation behind vegan activism:
Say you’re against needlessly exploiting animals. And you purchase/produce animal products when there are other options available. You would be needlessly exploiting animals while affirming a contradiction, that would be hypocrisy. Nobody can force you to act on that, but they can point what you’re accountable for.
Vegans believe that most people are against needlessly exploiting animals, so they try to show this to people. Confusion may get in the way, but wanting to put on the spotlight what kind of exploitation people are supporting is what guides them.
If they don’t hold the cervix, they’re gonna be poking that insemination rod into the cow’s cervix for a while until it gets to the canal.