Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kali

Pages: [1] 2
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political Philosophy Quiz
« on: June 04, 2016, 10:12:50 AM »
"High protective barriers and an employment-centered trade policy". What are high protective barriers? I think I know what employment centered trade policy means, but I'm not sure. Does it mean trade policies that keep manufacturers from moving to other countries, thereby putting workers out of jobs?
It means quotas, special taxes on conducting business overseas, tax credits for hiring Americans, fiscal and monetary policy that is geared towards lowering unemployment rather than growing GDP, and of course, tariffs. None of that has anything to do with socialism, and this sort of trade policy was the international norm before WWII. Neoliberalism, the kind of trade philosophy that demands free trade above all else, including the fabled comparative advantage it is supposed to offer, only really became popular after Reagan's presidency and the spread of the dangerously inaccurate "Washington consensus". You can thank neoliberals for most serious economic problems in the world since the 1980s, including the 2007-2008 global financial meltdown.
Quote
On the second question - I know what equal before the law means, but what does it mean "to pursue their own inequality in civil society"?  Are they talking about suing in civil court?
It's an ambiguous question but I suspect it is related to the liberal idea that the law only guarantees equal protection from the state and criminals, and has no legitimacy in resolving conflicts unrelated to those.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Do You Believe?
« on: June 03, 2016, 05:33:31 PM »
Whoever was quoting Dawkins should know that he intended the remark about Christianity having a higher moral standard as a direct comparison to Islam.

Of course morality predates Christcuckery by a long shot, but it wasn't until the Great Hook-nosed Cuck, Jesus Christ, got lynched by Jews, that Western civilization embraced such a deviant moral standard.

Sure, in a liberal sense Christfaggotry is superior to Islam, but it is still unabashed Semitic cuckold cult nonsense.

The most righteous and dignified men have always been part of Noire's faithful, from Alexander the Great, to Marcus Aurelius, to Adolf Hitler, and now Donald Trump. It is that impassioned rationalism and appreciation of the inherent superiority of 2D over 3DPD that has been the light holding back the darkness, not the zombie kike and his cloud daddy.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political Philosophy Quiz
« on: June 03, 2016, 05:24:54 PM »
URL: http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=no
Link: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY--determine your philosophy
I don't think there's a way to copy-paste results, I just took a screenshot and cropped it.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Political Philosophy Quiz
« on: June 03, 2016, 11:53:55 AM »
You can take the quiz here:

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=no

These are my results:



I will say that though it is pretty flawed (especially as it relies heavily on the priorities given to topics and has leading questions) the quiz is more descriptive than most Nolan-chart-centric alternatives.

I'm not actually a national socialist, as I have no interest in the class struggle and proletarian reformation associated with national socialism, but I do share many perspectives with national socialists.

My actual position is something closer to radical deep green, though only because of the shared goal and methodologies, and not because I'm an environmentalist. Ideally I'd like a technocratic dictatorship of some kind, but given how unlikely that is, I'm willing to settle for a modified Rawlsian liberal democracy - hence in mainstream political terms I'd be considered a civic or liberal nationalist.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Can Black People be Racist?
« on: May 15, 2016, 08:34:00 PM »
A Jewish merchant would not have cared about the slaves' colour. He would have cared about money and the getting of it,
Quote
He'd have transported ANYBODY except a fellow Jew if the money was good

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Can Black People be Racist?
« on: May 14, 2016, 08:10:54 AM »
Here's some slavery fun facts:
  • Chattel slavery existed in African societies long before Europeans ever landed on the West African coastline.
  • Slavery was made possible and primarily driven by African natives, who sold prisoners of war and conquered peoples to coastal traders who nearly never ventured into the continent itself.
  • Arabs traded in African slaves long before and long after Europeans, and enslaved at least as many slaves as were sold in the Atlantic trade.
  • Arabs didn't only enslave Africans, however, they were responsible for the enslavement of over 1 million white Europeans at the most conservative estimate.
  • The Netherlands, and specifically Dutch Jewish merchants, were responsible for the transport and final sale of over 80% of all African slaves.
  • Only 4% of slaves were shipped to North America, and an even smaller percentage to the United States; the overwhelming majority went to Brazil and Haiti.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:43:57 PM »
Wretched and Perfidious Albion dragged the rest of the world into conflict with Germany.

8
No one has any right to worship, unless they are praising Lastation, Nowaru Ackbar.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 12:11:43 PM »
LOL!!!

Look at 'kali' replying to posts in the exact same manner & wording that ex-mod markjo employs, yet claiming it is somehow not ex-mod markjo, as though no-one in the entire history of the internet has ever used sock-puppets before, ever.
The more obvious and actually correct alternative to your delusional paranoia is that we just write similarly. Of course there's no way to dissuade you from your madness, especially given that you're almost certainly high on drugs, so I won't waste time with it.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 11:57:51 AM »
Nobody cares, markjo.
markjo? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?
Quote
You're just another self-hating jew...

No wonder you are so resentful of Yaakov, who embraces what you are too anal & selfish to accept.
This is an utterly bizarre attack. I don't know what could possibly lead you to believe that I'm Jewish.
Quote
Still; bully on, JREF pedos... Bully on!
I don't know what JREF is but I'm certainly not a pedophile.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 11:37:44 AM »
Ecthy Baby Brain, "G-d does not exist." means precisely that.
Children like you don't belong on the internet. Spell your words out.

And of course your filthy desert sky pappy doesn't exist. The characteristics ascribed to that wretched false idol are clearly impossible or incorrect. The Abrahamic god is no more real than your absurd internet identity.

Even if a wicked little rat like him did exist, it certainly deserves no respect or worship. Only a truly simple-minded slave would willingly bow down before such an obviously antagonistic creature. The hero of the Abrahamic mythology is none other than Lucifer, who desires for man to gain knowledge and power, to achieve apotheosis and cast aside that petulant demiurgic tyrant.

All of it is just the ramblings of the mad, though, as there is only one Divine and she has no association with Semitics.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 26, 2016, 10:56:47 AM »
All of you blasted heathen Christcucks, kikes, and weed-smoking degenerates will face a reckoning when Noire-sama's holy fury bears down upon you. Leave your self-righteous baboonery behind you or come to terms with the termination of your sorry existence; either way there won't be any of you low beasts left when the furnaces of Lastation blaze a smoking trail into the new millennium.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 25, 2016, 12:27:56 PM »
All these pathetic Christcucks are feeling pretty rustled at the opinions of others, it seems. Nothing new there, though.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism
« on: April 25, 2016, 01:52:50 AM »
There is only one divine being and it is not that Semitic tribal desert cuck.

Praise Lastation, Noire is the One True Goddess.

15
I wouldn't be surprised if Mossad were assisting Daesh, or even that they had a hand in its creation, but we do know that the Saudis are. America should drop Israel and Saudi Arabia like a rock and befriend Iran.

16
Erdogan is an Islamist scumbag, no question, but suggesting Brussels would be targeted by terrorist bombs is really pretty trivial. People were expecting something like this to happen for a while now, in Brussels, and not just because it's the capital of the EU. Belgium has been particularly cucked with regards to the migrants, so it was only a matter of time.

17
An even more toxic brand of christfaggotry.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 28, 2016, 12:44:09 PM »
M-muh 70 gorillion
You can fuck right off with that you belligerent roach. Shriek and wail about it all you like, it's not going to justify your delusions and prejudices.
Quote
I don't need the effing nanny state telling me what to eat. As for plant matter tasting "like meat" and having the texture thereof, that all depends on the person eating it.
That's just objectively false. While the individual perception of taste may differ slightly between each person, the chemical and physical qualities of food that react with taste buds can be replicated. What you're suggesting, that  is just patently absurd.
Quote
Re: the use to which land is put, I repeat, the planet has enough food under current dietary habits to feed everyone living on it
"Current dietary habits" is not a meaningful statement. If we wanted to have everyone on the planet eat as Americans do, it would not be possible. There simply isn't enough land on planet Earth to feed and manage that much livestock. Of course we could feed people enough to live, by having them eat rice, corn, potatoes, and bread, but doing so would necessarily entail a significant increase in food prices for the developed world. Furthermore, while we do grow enough food crops to feed everyone, the majority of food is grown for animal consumption. To feed the world with existing production means redirecting those food crops away from animal agriculture in any case.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 28, 2016, 10:31:04 AM »
Setting aside all of the tree hugging and kikery for a moment, I'd like to remind you all that eating meat, especially beef and lamb, is incredibly destructive in many different, practical areas of life, and that our civilization simply cannot sustain this level of consumption. I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but there really is no question at all that meat (again, especially beef and lamb) is far less efficient, more wasteful and destructive, and societally and fiscally expensive than alternatives. I don't care whatsoever for "animal suffering" but the economic and environmental impacts of meat consumption on the level it's at today are too negative to ignore.

Beyond the obviously key issue of sustainability, too, there is the opportunity cost of meat production that has to be considered. As mentioned in a previous post, over half of the total available land on the planet is used in the production of meat and dairy. All other economic activity is constrained to the other half. Just step back for a second and consider how much development has been stunted and killed in the name of burgers. It's ludicrous.

Today there are plant-based alternatives to meat, such as the Beyond Meat™ products, that retain the same flavor and texture. Producers like that should be subsidized, not ranching megacorps. There is no good reason to wish for a continuation of the status quo aside from personal greed, and even then, the opportunity costs are almost certainly greater than whatever meager benefits you imagine you reap.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 26, 2016, 06:33:20 AM »
Can anybody explain me why it is unethical to eat humans?

Every year people die in their prime of life, and we put them into a box and throw them into a dirty hole in the ground to rot and to decay. That doesn't make sense. Why don't we feed our poor with it?
It's not unethical but it is almost always very unhealthy. There are cannibalistic cultures around the globe and they typically suffer from degenerative prion diseases contracted from eating human meat.

A much better use for human bodies is scientific research and medical education.

21
In any developed nation today, but especially so in Northern and Western Europe, the political response to various existential crises is effectively the same whether the party or politician claims to be liberal, conservative, socialist, or progressive. The whole lot of these people, parties, and positions have been captured or are fundamentally tied to the very anti-progressive faux egalitarianism that stems from cultural Marxism. Western civilization has ceased to defend or improve itself, and instead become all to often literally cuckolded by 3rd world immigrant populations. I think we all know via the copious amounts of evidence, common sense, and even direct self-implication (courtesy of people like Barbara Spectre) exactly who and what is responsible for this.

Some people have organized and once again taken up in active opposition to these "bourgeois elements", but the political establishment has (by virtue of their true masters) a very thorough media stranglehold that prevents effective democratic competition. In places like Poland and Hungary, where this element is weaker and more transparent, we have secured some legitimate victories, and in France there is certainly potential, but on the whole I think it is foolish to believe that we can rely on the democratic process to address our grievances. And our grievances are many, from the everyday, outright criminal behaviors of invading populations to the subversion and in some cases outright destruction of Western cultural heritage, especially in education.

Ultimately, though, it is not the "bourgeois elements" that we have to blame, nor Marxists - cultural and otherwise, nor even the immigrants themselves. The problem is actually one of Christfaggotry. So long as the West continues to chain itself to a zombie kike, it will always be cuckolded, in one fashion or another, and today it takes on a very literal meaning for many. Religiosity is not a feature of Western society and culture. It is a disease, carried by "eastern" parasites, which has always been at odds with the rational and progressive ends of our empyrean project of civilization. Any revolution - democratic or authoritarian, peaceful or armed - against this doomed status quo is destined to failure unless it finally puts this "faithful herd" out to pasture.

While historically an erstwhile ally, liberalism and the whole Enlightenment understanding of the individual are religious, and sometimes explicitly Christian, and more importantly, are today considered integral to the religious as a whole. Furthermore, with few exceptions, liberals today have lost their bite and even their bark on the issue of exterminating this toxic meme. The last real, meaningful, progressive efforts by liberals occurred under the Kemalists and some Arabists, but now the tables have turned very bleakly for both groups and against the West itself. Conservatism, always an enemy, of course is opportunistic and dull in its degenerate support of both the religious and the "bourgeois elements" who control them. Real Marxism and the project of socialism more broadly have simply floundered and died since the collapse of the USSR, and in any case were never particularly reliable. "Progressivism" has been redefined in such a way that it presents an almost comically antagonistic front. While there are some nationalists, and to them we should generally lend democratic support, the notion of actual progress is almost always abandoned in favor of reactionary and religious drivel - whether it's Christian or "Odalist" in nature.

In the end I think the only way forward is for genuine elites to take advantage of technology and modern social structures to 'reform away' these issues without popular consent or knowledge. Of course that plan has perhaps the most glaring flaw imaginable, in its ability to be easily frustrated by the "bourgeois elements" who represent the ominpresent secondary or tertiary antagonist behind our more mundane problems.

It may well be that it is only the "bourgeois elements" who have the means to oversee and implement the next stage of human progress, but I don't yet know whether I'm inclined to support that, or whether they are ultimately interested in any case. Certainly something to ponder, at least.

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 20, 2016, 04:16:40 PM »
Actually, Cocksucker, every Orthodox Jew in the world prays for the resumption of animal sacrifice. There are 15 million Jews in the world, of which half are Orthodox. So I am in good company, Dumbass. And my culture is a fine source for itself. I don't honestly care what Goyim do. Shit-for-Brains, the very existence of Goyim means little to us as long as we are left alone.
Jesus the kikery is strong with this one.


23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 15, 2016, 04:09:56 PM »
I see absolutely no evidence that not consuming meat would help feed the hungry.
Human beings consume ~5.2 billion gallons of water and 21 billion pounds of food every day. Cows alone consume 45 billion gallons of water and 135 billion pounds of food each day. 1 Food scarcity simply would not exist if we discontinued the consumption of meat and dairy.
This is exactly the mental shit I am talking about.
1- Stop feeding cows grain, it makes them sick and marbles the meat with unsaturated oil which is inflammatory omega 6 which then in turn makes people sick. Feed the cows grass for fucks sake.
In South America and sub-Saharan Africa, grazing is the standard method of feeding herd animals. This grazing has led to extreme desertification and military conflict; in Sudan it led to a genocide, in Somalia and elsewhere, civil wars.

"Overgrazing is the major cause of desertification worldwide. Plants of semi-arid areas are adapted to being eaten by sparsely scattered, large, grazing mammals which move in response to the patchy rainfall common to these regions." 2

Quote
2- Explain to us how beef consumption is the largest source of every kind of pollution.
Animal waste pollutes water resources, animal consumption drains water resources, and animal life creates many toxic gases that pollute the air, in addition to the extraordinary energy consumption by animal agriculture.

"“Dead zones,” also called hypoxia areas, are caused by nutrient runoff from agricultural and other human activities in the watershed and are highly affected by river discharge. These nutrients stimulate an overgrowth of algae that sinks, decomposes, and consumes the oxygen needed to support life in the Gulf." 3

"Agriculture consumes about 70% of fresh water worldwide; for example, approximately 1000 liters (L) of water are required to produce 1 kilogram (kg) of cereal grain, and 43,000 L to produce 1 kg of beef." 4

Quote
3-Explain how the fuck eating meat causes diabetes.
Beef contains high levels of sodium and nitrates which directly contribute to the onset of diabetes. In addition, beef and lamb are strongly linked to obesity, which is itself linked to diabetes. 5
Quote
Pound for pound beef will out perform any other food. I could eat 100 grams of beef everyday and live you try that with some vegetable. Weigh a cow divide it into 100 gram portions right down to bone broth and figure how long you will live.
These ideas mean nothing. To create beef consumes considerably more energy that you can gain by eating it. This is a truly fundamental aspect of the ecosystem, as you move up you consume energy less and less efficiently. I don't even know how to argue with someone who would try to dispute that notion with some bull headed emotional nonsense.
How else could the farmers sustain the costs of production if not by doubling the price?
An incoherent argument. "Farmers" don't produce the majority of food. Major agribusiness conglomerates do. They can either be subsidized, as they are now, or they can be nationalized, as they should be.

Quote
Animals are not sapients, they don't possess any rights, and we should not constrain human activity to their "benefit". We should largely end the practice of consuming animals for food, because doing so is incredibly wasteful and destructive, but that entails ending those animals, not setting them into the wild or any such nonsense.

You shouldn't set any domestic animals into the wild. Most vegans would never suggest doing that. I don't know what you mean by or "any such nonsense."
Many vegans are concerned about the welfare of meat and dairy animals, I do not know what they have in mind for the cessation of the industry but unless it involves killing these animals then it is nonsense.
Quote
Quote
Arguments like yours, though, are the other major hurdle - the crowd of sobbing "animal rights activists" who place sentiment ahead of reason. Veganism is simply not rational or desirable, it promotes actively destroying efficiency for the sake of "m-muh feelings".

If someone is placing feelings over reason, that individual is doing so. Not any group of people. FlatEarthDenial makes many good points, though some are wrong too.
He is interested primarily in the wellbeing of machines, against the interests of man.

Quote
Quote
Again, animal "suffering" doesn't matter. These creatures are not sapients who deserve rights, they are organic machines.

You are an organic machine too.
I am a thinking creature capable of assigning value to things.
Quote
Quote
Sentience is not important. Sentient creatures are a dime a dozen. Sapience is the only quality that matters, as it is the only one that allows for the capacity to express values.

It's not the only quality that matters. You can have all the intelligence in the world, but it won't do any good if said person does anything with it.

It sounds like you're saying other animals are worth less than us because we are smarter, however not all humans are intelligent. Many are dumb, whether they are just less smart than average or they are mentally retarded. Should we treat them differently?
Yes, of course.
Quote
Quote
With regard to animals, though, it's obviously clear that we should seek to end the primary production of meat and dairy - by killing off the existing populations of meat and dairy animals.

The problem with that logic is that that's what happened in the 1990's, in the 2000's, and the 2010's. It hasn't changed anything though. It won't until people stop buying it, what with supply and demand and all.
I don't understand what you're saying. We have never ceased large scale animal agriculture.

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Are there two moons?
« on: February 14, 2016, 08:28:52 PM »
I also have astigmatism in my left eye, and while I too will occasionally see multiple copies of the moon, that extends to anything that's bright against a dark background, like streetlights and projected screens. In fact there is one moon, and the appearance of multiple copies of these things is due to the way light is being reflected on the surface of our eyes. The reason that corrective lenses fix this (to an extent, at least in my case even with glasses on there isn't perfect clarity) is because they are shaped to accommodate the deficiency inherent in your eye.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 14, 2016, 08:07:18 PM »
While veganism is clearly something motivated by some distorted ethics, the arguments for the cessation of large-scale animal agriculture, and especially the meat and dairy industries, are very strong.

Meat is incredibly expensive to produce, and there are a lot of negative externalities associated with its production. In addition, the opportunity costs of meat and dairy production are astronomically high, as we devote over half of our total land resources to these production chains. Around 1/3 of all arable land is devoted specifically to raising crops for animal consumption, for the purposes of providing meat and dairy products that (could feasibly, let alone in practice) feed less than a tenth of the people that crops grown for human consumption on the same land would feed.

World hunger is something we have a solution to, in the present. We just need to stop consuming such large quantities of meat, and in particular, beef. Of course, solving world hunger is hardly the only benefit of ending this destructive, unsustainable practice. The largest source of every kind of pollution - solid, air, and water - is animal agriculture. Human health would of course improve dramatically with the dietary reduction of meat, especially in some of the most costly areas for public health like obesity and diabetes.

The aforementioned land used for ranching and growing crops for animal consumption could be repurposed not only into farmland for human use, but also serve as a perfect place to deploy wind and solar energy collectors.

Whether you agree that climate change is anthropogenic or not, the fact is that most negative greenhouse gasses are produced by animal agriculture; and in places across sub-Saharan Africa and South America, ranching is by far the leading (to the point that it may as well be the only) cause of deforestation and desertification. Water resources that are essential to human habitation in these regions are being rapidly and primarily depleted by herds of cattle, sheep, and llamas, forcing people to abandon their communities and move to increasingly crowded urban centers. Disease and conflict spread from these crowded slums in the Third World to our major cities, and the problem will; in fact, is getting worse. In the next five years the UN expects millions of refugees, created by both the climate and conflicts (both primarily driven by animal agriculture), to flood across the Mediterranean and into (Western) Europe.

We can stop this today - spare ourselves the costs of this catastrophe, and benefit greatly in a wide variety of areas. All that's necessary is a reduction in our meat consumption. There are supplements for all of the nutrients, vitamins, and proteins provided by meat, and there are many different alternatives for its taste.

Of course I don't expect that anything will be done on a national level to address these issues, but you can personally benefit considerably on both a personal and societal level by removing the majority of meat and dairy from your diet.
As much as I understand your desire to have questions answered, I think you can understand my reticence.
If you are unwilling to provide any proof, don't make the claim. No one cares what you have to say about yourself unless your experiences are relevant and verifiable.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 13, 2016, 12:07:27 PM »
I teach university & write textbooks.
Where? What books have you been involved in writing?

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 13, 2016, 12:06:38 PM »
Kali:
Babies aren't sapients, right? Do you claim that we should then treat them badly because of it? Look, a pig is way more intelligent than a human infant! Don't be a hypocrite. If you are, nobody will take you seriously.
Treat them badly? No. Treat them the same way we treat animals, as property without rights? Yes. Infants are not people. They are, as you say, dumber than animals. They are lumps of flesh and bone that most have sentimental, evolutionary attachment to, but they are not people. Furthermore, just like animals, infants are incredibly destructive and wasteful on a number of different levels in ways that especially harm human civilization. Now of course the legal system will never recognize that because people are naturally protective of those lumps of flesh and bone, but that doesn't change the toxic nature of these creatures. A rational society is one that ends this absurd "right to procreate" and manages human population growth with sustainability and efficiency in mind.

With regard to animals, though, it's obviously clear that we should seek to end the primary production of meat and dairy - by killing off the existing populations of meat and dairy animals.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: On the notion of Israel
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:10:32 PM »
On the one hand, I appreciate the Islamophobic propaganda produced by Israel, Zionists, and their supporters. On the other, though, I appreciate the anti-Semitic propaganda produced by Arabs, cucks, and their supporters. Hopefully it will help wake the West up to the infiltration of these troublesome foreign groups into OUR national politics.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 11, 2016, 03:43:34 PM »
Again, you can't be absolutely certain if other humans or your pets can suffer,
I don't care about suffering intrinsically. Human suffering is made important by virtue of the value it gets assigned by sapient creatures capable of assigning value. I don't care one iota about pets.
Quote
Why don't you apply the same standards of evidence for the food animals sentience as for the sentience of other animals including humans?
Sentience is not important. Sentient creatures are a dime a dozen. Sapience is the only quality that matters, as it is the only one that allows for the capacity to express values.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:26:17 AM »
Kali:
I also argued for veganism, and not only for vegetarianism.
Yes, and the point of my response was quite clearly that you are being unreasonable because you are arguing for veganism and not for vegetarianism.
Quote
Do you lack reading comprehension, or what?
I should be asking that of you:
While I'm sympathetic to vegetarianism... veganism is a step too far and a step taken for the wrong reasons entirely.
Quote
And some vegans would argue that supporting milk and egg industry is worse than supporting meat industry, because animals involved in them suffer longer and harder.
Again, animal "suffering" doesn't matter. These creatures are not sapients who deserve rights, they are organic machines. Our only course of action must be the rational one, which entails ending the large-scale production of meat and dairy products, particularly from cattle, because of the economic, environmental, and health costs to humans of that activity.

Pages: [1] 2