>>5050046
"animals" as a group has no inherent ethical relevance whatsoever so the vast majority of them are expendable so long as expending them benefits mankind.
there are sensible ethical arguments against factory farming and animal torture because these ultimately have consequences for mankind, and not good ones, and sensible arguments against the overconsumption of meat (especially red meat) for it makes the individual less healthy and has consequences for the wider world, but none against eating animals in itself.
veganism you see, is not a philosophy, because it can not be one. there is no consistent philosophy that supports it without either 1: denying that human life has supreme value and therefore being fundamentally evil (only internet vegans do this because this is only an acceptable stance on the internet) or 2: delving into religious bullshit about karma, soul cleanliness, and reincarnation and therefore being a pajeet (and indeed, veganism associated malnutrition has blighted india with an epidemic of low intelligence)
veganism is a virtue signaling activity.
it does not matter how sense veganism makes. it matters how many idiots admire you more for denying yourself tasty, nutritious food and pretending to care about things that don't affect you - or anyone. a vegan can be as nonsensical upon close inspection as they want as long as they are scoring brownie points with the people they wanted brownie points from.
>>5050011 (OP)
"loving animals" as a whole is impossible without being evil or an idiot, unless the love is meant as admiration of nature's machinations rather than actual care for things like ticks
