Congratulations, you support eugenics. Historically governments have forcefully sterilized all sorts of people because their children would suffer unacceptably by the government’s standards.

Now please look into the history of eugenics and see what the policy you support has meant in practice.

Much like historical eugenics supporters, you are ignoring the outside factors that are causing someone’s suffering in your judgment, blaming a factory farmed chicken’s suffering on them being a “genetic freak” rather than on the people that lock them in cages shoulder to shoulder.

The descendents of chickens will produce so many eggs that they will start rotting near the nest and become a health threat, so they need assistance with getting enough protein and with removing the eggs before they rot. This is not a life of suffering, they only need a tiny bit of assistance to live as full life as any bird.

Chickens choose to make their nests in coops if they are built for them. Fences around a chicken yard are usually there to stop predators from murdering them and most chickens will not fly over them even if they can, as long as the fenced off area is large enough.

The same goes for dairy cows, who need assistance getting the milk out because they produce more milk than their calfs can drink. A farmer with a bucket may be approached by cows that want to relieve the pressure.

Some vegans consider honey to be provided with consent if the beekeeper is gentle enough. By the same standard, chicken eggs gotten when helping them clean their nest and milk gotten from cows whose udders would otherwise break would be vegan.

Of course without killing the males, a farmer probably can’t saunter up to a cow and help them get the milk out quite as easily, but that’s a skill issue.

If you weren’t playing, you wouldn’t be responding. So apparently you think this is a bad faith interaction that you are choosing to engage in. Thanks for clarifying your position, I’ll be blocking you now.

Okay, so answer the questions.

if 2 humans wanted to bring a child into existance that would suffer its whole life and then die of a heart attack into the world I would also say that’s immoral.

So what would you want to do if they kept making such children? Imprison them? Forcefully sterilize them? Would you like the political system of your society to have the authority to decide what “suffering your entire life” is?

From what I can see, OP refused to answer the question because it’s a hardly relevant edge case. Could you link the comments where OP took the purist stance your original comment is a response to, and where OP responded in a purist way?

Though to answer the question you pose for myself, I would say it’s up to Inuit to find a way to evolve their culture to become vegan while preserving the things they care about that don’t involve brutalizing animals. Cultures evolve all the time; the horse wasn’t native to the Americas but was happily adopted by nations across the North American and Argentinian steppe. This isn’t loss, it’s improvement. You aren’t entitled to hurt others just because it’s traditional to do so.

And if some people refuse to let their culture evolve, and in some distant future activists have nothing better to do, and the ecosystem is at least as balanced if the animals aren’t killed¹, and all less violent ways to apply pressure have been exhausted, then at some point it would be right for people to defend animals from hunters with deadly force, whether those hunters are Inuit or anything else. What those hunters want to do other die trying to kill others is up to them.

Consider how rhinos are currently being protected with deadly force from poachers. There are lots of traditional cultures that want to hunt and kill rhinos for their bodies, but local governments have decided that the continued existence of rhinos as a species is more important than those rituals and the lives of those who want to enable those rituals.

Do you think the people that are willing to kill traditional hunters to protect those rhinos are wrong?

Though sad as it is, Inuit likely won’t have a choice. The ecosystem that relies on seasonal ice coverage and the necessity of cold adaptation is being undone. Climate change will drive most species Inuit traditionally hunt to extinction, or at the very least drive them north much further than the places Inuit have traditionally lived and reduce their populations below the point people (or other predators) can sustainably hunt them. Inuit culture will have to evolve or die without any person getting between them and animals they might hunt. So why not evolve into veganism while they’re at it?

¹: I personally don’t see a moral difference between predators of different species hunting animals to kill them and eat their flesh. Deer likely don’t care whether they are killed by buckshot, spear, or a wolf’s bite. For thousands of years Inuit were part of a balanced ecosystem as an apex predator, competing with polar bears, orcas, and birds of prey, and they were no worse than them. But in an ideal world, there world be no predators and no overpopulation of the animals they prey on.

One day, when this is the most pressing issue, and we know there is a predator species that can’t be kept alive with a vegan diet and whose ecosystem can be balanced without them, I would be okay with letting that species go extinct rather than let prey animals suffer and die to feed them. Hopefully we can find better options, though.

Without climate change, it would be quite possible that Inuit hunters turning vegan would destabilize the ecosystem by creating a surplus of herbivores that cause a collapse of populations lower down the food chain, or that it would end up with just as many animal deaths as other predators fill the ecological niche and there is just as much suffering. But now, polar bears are at risk of extinction in the wild, and the ecosystem is getting unbalanced in ways Inuit tradition never had to encounter.

genetic freaks are so deformed

holy ableism batman. If animals are people, then denying domesticated animals reproductive access because of their genetics is genocide.

It’s completely accurate. There are so many right wing arguments responding to this post it’s not even funny. So many white liberals setting the timetable to another’s liberation, so many LGB people who think the T is just going too far, so many workers threatening to vote for the party that dismantles workers’ rights if the pro-worker party supports migrants.

And the same happens every time. Non-vegan self-identified leftists’ arguments against animal liberation are almost always right wing logic and right wing talking points.

Oh hey, you’re the same person that I responded to in a different comment on this post. I’ve given a more detailed explanation there, but you’re arguing against a straw man interpretation of the OP. It doesn’t say meat eaters can’t be leftist, it says self-identified leftists tend to argue against animal liberation with right wing arguments.

So the OP is not exclusionary to meat eaters, it is only exclusionary to people that oppose animal liberation. Which is good because animal liberation is good. Trying to sell oneself to centrists by compromising one’s ideals, thus proving one has none and one will sell people out for political expedience in a heartbeat, has been catastrophic for left-wing parties throughout the western world for the past 40 years.

That’s not what it says. Go back and look: it says “leftism leaving people’s bodies as soon as you ask them about animal liberation”.

This does not mean you can’t be leftist and eat meat. It merely observes that, often enough to be memeable, self-identified leftists pull out all the dogshit centrist/right wing arguments they would otherwise not just oppose but recognize as dogshit.

You can see this in this thread; the majority of replies are “lgb without the t” tier arguments about the left going too far, about that level of moral purity simply not being feasible, about it not being politically expedient, threatening to join the right if that’s the way it is, judging a political position by its weirdest supporters, conjuring up the most niche edge cases as if those invalidate the structural change being proposed, and yes, railing against straw man versions of what they are seeing.

Sadly, you do not make the cut here.

Maybe you can process the fact you’ve been attacking a straw man and re-examine whether you still feel like OP threatens cultural erasure?

Also, unrelated,

Blanket statements should be opposed if they are wrong, even if they are in the spirit of good.

It’s interesting. The statement discredits itself, and yet you made it in earnest. How?

Would you respond the same to a post saying “leftism leaving people’s bodies the moment someone mentions trans people”?

How would you try to convince someone that their circle of caring is too small? That they don’t need to be perfect in how they handle that group as long as they acknowledge their shortcomings and work on getting better? That solidarity with victims is more important than solidarity with perpetrators that are more like you?

This just in: progressives continue to progress. More news at 11.

What makes you think OP doesn’t support other leftist ideals?

Oh, I had responded to it from my inbox and I thought it was a reply to my other comment on this post.

It’s consistent, though. People whose response to being informed they are doing something bad is hostility are dangerous to put in any position of power, or even any social group, frankly. It’s only a matter of time until they do something bad that negatively affects the group and then try to use their power to try to remain in the group to cause more harm in the future.

This is not a matter of moral purity, but of a healthy movement where problems are addressed before they become catastrophic.

I don’t even consistently eat vegan, dude. No ethical consumption under capitalism. I will have solidarity with anyone who is willing to work towards a better future, who can acknowledge their own bad habits without making excuses and who can work towards growth at whatever rate they can manage.

Compare to how Buddhists acknowledge their own desires in the process of seeking to reach a state without desire. It doesn’t matter where on the road you are, as long as you are on it.

Making excuses for murdering animals means no longer being on the road. It means you’ll refuse to give up meat even when you can, and that is voluntary oppression, and that puts you on the wrong side of history.

It is okay to eat meat if its joy gets you through the day. It’s okay not to research vegan recipes because you’re exhausted from work and news. As long as you are consistently working towards a better world and you are happy to give up meat when that is the best way you can do better.

Thanks for ridding us of your presence!

Yeah, that’s why I have human children locked in my basement that I sometimes eat the flesh of. It’s not immoral, I’m just above them on the food chain.

Just becuase you’re so poor that when you cherry-pick policies to support because they would benefit yourself most of those policies happen to be left-wing, that doesn’t make you a leftist.

if you get rid of the class system

I mean, sure, and American Psycho is Mr Bean but Wall Street.

Even the non-AI stuff looks AI now.

Microsoft is betting on technofascism. On an economy where labor - and most importantly military-industrial labor - has been automated to such an extent that consumption is irrelevant. Consumers won’t have money to buy their shitty software anyway and governments and private military organisations will be running their increasingly automated mass murder programs on Azure servers. As they already did for the Palestinian genocide.