>>513134333
Their primary goal is try to modify the market by having more people demand vegan foods over meat products, which is why they're obsessed with moral brow beating you into being dependent on the super market plant food without exception.
>There is nothing immoral about it unless you think humans are worth the same or less
They're particularly good at eroding that though, the best you can do is essentially to say yes, you are presuming humanity is superior and then agree to the barrage of-isms to be morally consistent; you assume -isms justify behaviors, of which at the end they just call you a piece of shit which is completely based I guess because you're a morally consistent racist.
Otherwise, They basically employ a conversational tool called Name the Trait that is heralded as the core of their ideology ( "What trait present in animals, if present in humans, would justify killing humans for food?")
According to what I've researched, defeating it involves answering with "Sapience in conjunction with higher consciousness as a default, essentially stating that by virtue of those traits being present in a standard representative of the species, that abnormalities like a downs person or braindead coma patient are afforded the same moral consideration.
However, I've seen someone try arguing something close to this and they managed to somehow toss out the "Default part".
Basically the name of the game is if you name a trait or family of traits a human has that justifies them eating animals, they'll argue your moral consistency justifies eating cripples and retards then they REDUCED TO LE ABSURDITY!
Arguing by default is supposed to work around it, but it seems they simply do not accept that framework.
The good news for Pro-lifers is this NTT framework works in their favor and bringing that up in vegan discussions causes them to glitch out because their liberal bias does cause double-think in their philosophy regarding abortion.
