No, the RNC blurred it.

Cool!

I mean, waxing poetically about the cruel shit you can’t say anymore kinda feels like you want to be able to say it.

It’s like a white person complaining they can’t say the n word.

That’s why we created an AI of Edward Teller to revive Project Sundial. We’ve already collected enough nuclear material from Israel our enthusiastic business partners and plan to complete the bomb within the next few months. If AI fails to kill humanity within the decade, we’ll make sure no one knows that. That’s the Anthropocide Anthropic way!

Here’s the real question. Why are they touching the beds without checking them for bugs first?! Seeing the horrors one time was enough to never, ever touch soft surfaces in a hotel until they’re all thoroughly checked.

Why does this very old picture have a caption like OP took it?

I see what you’re saying, but they’re very culture war-y. They just turn it on when they want to silence the left. “We can’t fight about economic platforms right now, black people still get killed more by cops and were the ones kneeling about that”

GOP only goes down if democrats actually do shit to make that happen.

This group of people were assaulted and are retaliating for said aggression

“Guess they just hate our freedom. Enemy of the people.” pew pew pew pew pew

… are y’all okay?

Gods, he thinks people are dumb. I mean, people keep falling for it but come the fuck on, man!

His doctor will be tagging along, making sure he feels healthy and coherent. Picture of doctor:

Isn’t Authoritarian bullshit fun?

/s

Damn. Do you live in the year 2016 or did you just wake up from a coma? In which case:

The early 2000s called. They want their lazy islamophobic joke back.

https://lemmy.world/comment/25741594

The comment you edited

I have to be done with this conversation because we are on different wavelengths and you’re stepping on all of my buttons and I can’t not show that that’s bothering me.

I have ASD. That is a reason, not an excuse, for the confusion. I genuinely cannot read your first question as anything but bad faith framing that pits the morality of conservation against veganism, like they’re at odds with each other. I was trying to be as kind as I could in my first response, but when you responded like I was refusing to answer when I thought I was I started to lose the plot.

Edit: in all seriousness, how could the answer to your question about how killing kangaroos isn’t bad, so how is it not vegan be “cause they can’t consent”? It sounds coherent written out like that, sure, but the meaning of that answer doesn’t fit with the meaning of the question. It doesn’t make sense to me how killing kangaroos for conservation has anything to do with not consuming the products of their death after they’re dead (which is what veganism is). Those are two different things! One needn’t be a pyromaniac to do prescribed burns anymore than one can’t be vegan if they cull uncontrolled animal populations.

Why is kangaroo meat not vegan, even though the animal was killed to preserve the remaining population? Cause the animal did not consent to being killed, it did not want to be killed, and killing it caused it pain.

Could a vegan internalize your logic and therefore consume kangaroo meat? Yeah. Does that make kangaroo meat vegan? Not even close. Hell, the usual loophole meat of oysters aren’t vegan even though lots of vegans eat them.

Veganism isn’t a religion, and each person lives it differently as a result. Like your assertion that veganism is or should be about the consequences isn’t even a factor for everyone. Some people are vegan cause eating dead things is creepy and stealing food from babies feels wrong, and that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to be vegan.

Also, you edited a previous comment to suggest that you only care about this for non-vegans. In which case, why do you care if it’s vegan or not? Why do you care if vegans care or not if omnis eat it?

Also, I jumped to conclusions because I thought I was answering what you asked, but apparently I wasn’t so I needed to guess at a different interpretation of your question since you didn’t actually clarify what you meant, just accused me multiple times of not reading what you said.

The bees don’t want you to take their honey. They don’t make excess, they make what they need and we steal it and replace it with stuff that’s “just as good” according to us. Bees die in the process of harvesting honey.

These are reasons that honey isn’t vegan.

I’m confused. Are you asking if killing kangaroos because they have no natural predators could be considered vegan? Yeah, probably. 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? I can’t answer that question, it’s not based in reality. I mean, I could ask how you can talk with all that rebar in your mouth, but since you don’t have rebar in your mouth, the question doesn’t make sense, does it?

I chose to clarify that eating the kangaroo is the non-vegan act here, not culling the population, since you’ve somehow decided that eating an animal and killing them are somehow synonymous. I hope it’s obvious that they aren’t.

Notice how your entire argument for ethical behavior applies to controlling the population rather than eating the animals after? The step of eating the animal is the not vegan act.

Control the population, leave the remains in the ecosystem it belongs to.