you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 183 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (35 children)
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    My first date with my girlfriend was at a Wendy's and we took the bus to get there. That was 2005. We got married in 2009 and just celebrated our 15th wedding anniversary. It doesn’t matter where you go or how much you spend, it just matters who you’re there with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago* (28 children)

    If your first date is a glorious scam heist, the future looks promising

    Maybe don't order carnist options though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (20 children)

    Maybe don't order carnist options though

    Why not let people excercise their liberty to decide for themselves. Plus how is this relevent to a date a majority of people are omnivorous anyways

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Its not the liberty of the animals to be exploited and murdered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    The animals have no rights and no liberty. Plus if it wasnt for us farming them then their evolutionary niche wouldnt exist so if u think about it we are doing them the favour.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    The animals have no rights and no liberty.

    Why?

    Evolutionary niche

    On the one hand, the breeding of animals dependent on humans destroys evolutionary niches for animals independent from humans, on the other hand, humans destroy evolutionary niches directly.

    Farmers won't release or breed animals to improve their evolutionary niche, because farmers and consumers don't farm animals for conservatory reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That’s not entirely true because there are expectations depending on the jurisdiction on the standard of care for animals, in several countries they’re legally seen as sentient beings not property.

    Putting them in filthy crowded slaughter houses where they’re kicked and shoved only to be slaughtered as children relative to their life spans is not doing them favour. It is our responsibility to stop exploiting them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (8 children)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    I suggest you keep it to yourself next time, then, as you have only furthered the image that vegans are smug asshats who can't shut the fuck up about being vegan.

    Maybe that's what you want though, it's just a suggestion. c:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    If u took offence then it proves u are everything they claimed u to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It is not polite to use ad hominems rather than a logical argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 12 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Usually vegans use the term carnist to represent those who engage in animal products full stop, rather than breaking down the difference into carnivore and omnivore.

    To us vegans, whether you're carnivore or omnivore results in the same outcomes. Plus, many conversations surrounding veganism don't necessarily involve diets, such as with clothing, in which case again it's easier to use a single term to describe everything non-vegan.

    You might say that non-vegans is a good enough term to describe the above, but that kind of framing can paint carnists in a more benevolent light that acknowledges their freedom of choice, rather than framing carnists with regards to the outcomes they cause, and the victims that suffer because of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    You might say that non-vegans is a good enough term to describe the above, but that kind of framing can paint carnists in a more benevolent light that acknowledges their freedom of choice, rather than framing carnists with regards to the outcomes they cause, and the victims that suffer because of them.

    so it's just loaded language

  • source
  • parent