“I need my chicken to come in drumstick form or I can’t eat it” fuck you either own the murder or change your diet coward
OP: I think “If not A, then not B.”
You: oh fuck they’re telling everyone to do B!
More like OP is saying “If you’re okay with eating meat then you’re okay with animal slaughter.”
Which, sure.
And then goes on to say, “You’re only allowed to be okay with slaughter if you do it yourself.”
lol y tho. If we’re just doing the debatelord formal logicgame, then the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.
Because the personal confrontation highlights the inconsistency hidden by commodification and the abstraction of the food item. For many, support for violence against animals for entertainment purposes can only be supported by such a disconnect.
Personally, I think this point is obvious and hexbear is continuing to show its ass and internalized liberalism. I’m convinced that most people here don’t even do anything irl, so they should at least try to have basic empathy and understanding in lieu of that.
Personally, I think this point is obvious and hexbear is continuing to show its ass and internalized liberalism. I’m convinced that most people here don’t even do anything irl,
How does this post encourage any kind of political organizing? Making the focus of your political messaging on the hyper-individualist concept of personal choice, voting with your wallet, and consumer behavior is about as liberal as you can get. Consumer spending habits will never be a solution to the abuses of industrial food processing because those abuses are not a function of consumer demand. And if your proposed plan of action has no viable theory of change attached to it, then it is not a political position. It is virtue signaling, and nothing more.
