I don't think you know what veganism is. Poultry is not a grey area at all. None of the things you listed are inconsistencies. "Dont eat animals, don't support the harm of animals." It's fairly simple as a line.
Most agriculture exists to make animal feed, so not eating animals would still reduce harm if you insist on the "but what about the plants oyster vuvuzella" thing.
This is like when libs argue against their totally made up versions of what communism is. Would you argue that eating someone in a vegatitive state should be vegan? That's absurd.
None of the things you listed are inconsistencies. "Dont eat animals, don't support the harm of animals."
Yes it is, why is your line animals? Why are oysters so obviously worthy of life but not complex plants and fungus? Vegans claim that just because an creatures nervous system is arranged different, it doesn't mean that it's not worthy of life. Why does this not extend to complex plants and fungi?
Because there aren't yet alternatives to consumption of plants. We know for a fact that animals suffer, feel pain, feel emotions, and have thoughts. We can reduce that harm easily.
And once again, most farmed plants go into animal feed. Your arguement still supports veganism.
Your arguement also implies that cannibalism is fine, because plants also suffer. Slavery? Also okay under this reasoning. Literally everything can be justified by this logic.
At what point does this line of reasoning end? Because there's no current way to achieve perfection, we should just stop trying. Leftism is over I guess? Nothing can ever be less bad, because fungus might be unhappy with us. Shut the site down, I'm off to go eat a Palestinian child because my fucking lettuce isn't 100% ethical.
I don't think you know what veganism is. Poultry is not a grey area at all. None of the things you listed are inconsistencies. "Dont eat animals, don't support the harm of animals." It's fairly simple as a line.
Most agriculture exists to make animal feed, so not eating animals would still reduce harm if you insist on the "but what about the plants oyster vuvuzella" thing.
This is like when libs argue against their totally made up versions of what communism is. Would you argue that eating someone in a vegatitive state should be vegan? That's absurd.
Yes it is, why is your line animals? Why are oysters so obviously worthy of life but not complex plants and fungus? Vegans claim that just because an creatures nervous system is arranged different, it doesn't mean that it's not worthy of life. Why does this not extend to complex plants and fungi?
Because there aren't yet alternatives to consumption of plants. We know for a fact that animals suffer, feel pain, feel emotions, and have thoughts. We can reduce that harm easily.
And once again, most farmed plants go into animal feed. Your arguement still supports veganism.
Your arguement also implies that cannibalism is fine, because plants also suffer. Slavery? Also okay under this reasoning. Literally everything can be justified by this logic.
At what point does this line of reasoning end? Because there's no current way to achieve perfection, we should just stop trying. Leftism is over I guess? Nothing can ever be less bad, because fungus might be unhappy with us. Shut the site down, I'm off to go eat a Palestinian child because my fucking lettuce isn't 100% ethical.