sorry comrade poopballs but your flesh is fucking delicious
I’m vegan. I know pig meat tastes good. I just wouldn’t want to be responsible for the painful death of an animal . Do you think that just because something feels nice to you that it’s okay to do even if it hurts someone else?
Hot take: If you’re vegan and down with the revolution you should also be down to yeet all obligate carnivores.
Striving to absolve yourself of guilt while being unwilling to act to stop the things you don’t want to be guilty of from happening is pure liberalism.
Bad take, animals other than humans have no moral agency, and therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Revolutionary violence isn’t justified because the targets have it coming need to be “held accountable” and revolutions aren’t (or at least shouldn’t primarily be) about punishing oppressors. Revolutionary violence is justified because it is the only (or at least the surest) way to end oppression and the oppression ended is far worse than the violence used to end it.
Obligate carnivores kill other animals horribly whenever they are given the chance and their continued existence means other creatures are dying so they can live. Why should we hold the lives of the predators as more valuable than the lives of their prey?
No, but the bar for how we treat non-human animals is currently so low that i don’t have the luxury to debate about the rights different species have to their bodies after they die at this point. We still have to debate about their rights to quality of life. if you can find me an animal that was not exploited by capitalists then the conversation about speciesism becomes more a more complicated ethical argument to have, but our society is not even close to that point yet. we all know that even the most greenwashed farms within capitalism contain animals who live restricted lives, are bred to overproduce/overfatten/etc. the cases of the miracle lone pig that never suffered a day in its life and died peacefully of natural causes is the exception that proves the rule, not the other way around.
