this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
381 points (97.7% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
41781 readers
4038 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most of are agreed that the point of veganism is to reduce nonhuman suffering. Following absolute rules for no reason is silly. The point is the ethics.
But the other vegans have the wrong opinion about whether eating honey causes suffering.
Ahh thanks. But wouldn’t that make you a vegetarian?
(Not trying to be confrontational or disagreeing with your point, asking out of genuine curiosity)
No. If someone ate no animal products besides honey that doesn't make them not vegan, it means they don't share the opinion that honey causes animal exploitation. I do not wish to register an opinion there, I'm just saying what the rationale is.
I'm actually not a vegetarian. I'm a kangatarian.
Kangaroos have evolved over the past 60,000 years to breed in such numbers that their population can sustain hunting by humans. They have no other natural predators, unless you count parasites. Dingos in some places, but not many. The result is that if humans don't hunt kangaroos, they over-breed. Destroy the local habitat, threatening endangered species, then starve. Some kangaroos must die at human hands for the good of everything else, including the other kangaroos.
So the government uses drone surveys to analyse the population, and then tells people how many kangaroos need to die. Each kangaroo in the quota can either be hunted, or culled. Culled kangaroos will be shot, and their bodies will rot in a ditch. Their meat will benefit nobody. If they're hunted, then at least some good comes of it. If a kangaroo survives the initial shot, hunters will stun and then kill it. I'm unsure whether the same regulations apply to cullers.
So, I eat kangaroo meat. All kangaroo meat is hunted, there's not a single kangaroo farm in the world. At least, not the western idea of a farm. Every kangaroo I eat lived a free life in nature, and then died for the good of the ecosystem. No animal slavery.
And I propose a bigger question than honey: is kangaroo meat vegan?
Counterpoint: this is because we killed off most of their natural predators.
No. An animal died for it, it isn't vegan. Simple as.
Veganism is about consequences or at least should be. If an animal was (and apparently in this case is) killing the ecosystem if you don't kill it, I'm curious what the rationale for it not being vegan is. Veganism seeks to end cruelty and suffering. Whereas in this case not killing the kangaroo would be a choice that leads to more suffering and that's not just for humans. If veganism isn't about applying these "rules" for a purpose and instead it's just about applying them without taking context into consideration, what's the point of it?
Notice how your entire argument for ethical behavior applies to controlling the population rather than eating the animals after? The step of eating the animal is the not vegan act.
Control the population, leave the remains in the ecosystem it belongs to.
Notice how you're not responding to my question?
Edit: the silent downvote indicates you don't intend to, and that's a shame, assuming you'd reply in good faith. You're literally arguing for leaving carcasses to rot instead of replacing other meat in human diets which would have been derived from pointless cruelty.
I'm confused. Are you asking if killing kangaroos because they have no natural predators could be considered vegan? Yeah, probably. Are you asking what the point of veganism is since you've randomly decided it isn't a coherent philosophy based on your own strawman? I can't answer that question, it's not based in reality. I mean, I could ask how you can talk with all that rebar in your mouth, but since you don't have rebar in your mouth, the question doesn't make sense, does it?
I chose to clarify that eating the kangaroo is the non-vegan act here, not culling the population, since you've somehow decided that eating an animal and killing them are somehow synonymous. I hope it's obvious that they aren't.
Did you even read anything I wrote? Because that's not what I said or believe.
You jumped to a conclusion that I consider veganism invalid which is absolutely untrue. What I would consider invalid is random absolutist interpretations of it which refuse to explain themselves. Since you won't explain it, I'm forced to assume you think the kangaroos should be left to rot due either to some undefined principle that it's better that way, or some emotional reason. Those animals could be literally replacing factory farmed animals in people's diets so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me without explanation. I wish these conversations could literally ever go better than this.
Why is kangaroo meat not vegan, even though the animal was killed to preserve the remaining population? Cause the animal did not consent to being killed, it did not want to be killed, and killing it caused it pain.
Could a vegan internalize your logic and therefore consume kangaroo meat? Yeah. Does that make kangaroo meat vegan? Not even close. Hell, the usual loophole meat of oysters aren't vegan even though lots of vegans eat them.
Veganism isn't a religion, and each person lives it differently as a result. Like your assertion that veganism is or should be about the consequences isn't even a factor for everyone. Some people are vegan cause eating dead things is creepy and stealing food from babies feels wrong, and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to be vegan.
Also, you edited a previous comment to suggest that you only care about this for non-vegans. In which case, why do you care if it's vegan or not? Why do you care if vegans care or not if omnis eat it?
Also, I jumped to conclusions because I thought I was answering what you asked, but apparently I wasn't so I needed to guess at a different interpretation of your question since you didn't actually clarify what you meant, just accused me multiple times of not reading what you said.
I don't know what edit you're talking about genuinely and I don't know why you think I accused you of anything multiple times because I didn't.
So the answer to my question is "because they didn't consent". Okay. This could've been reached much more simply and without all the assumptions which you refuse any responsibility for and blame it on me for not being clear. I get that vegans deal with a lot of bad faith arguments but if you assume every argument or question is in bad faith, that's not helping anyone.
https://lemmy.world/comment/25741594
The comment you edited
I have to be done with this conversation because we are on different wavelengths and you're stepping on all of my buttons and I can't not show that that's bothering me.
I have ASD. That is a reason, not an excuse, for the confusion. I genuinely cannot read your first question as anything but bad faith framing that pits the morality of conservation against veganism, like they're at odds with each other. I was trying to be as kind as I could in my first response, but when you responded like I was refusing to answer when I thought I was I started to lose the plot.
Edit: in all seriousness, how could the answer to your question about how killing kangaroos isn't bad, so how is it not vegan be "cause they can't consent"? It sounds coherent written out like that, sure, but the meaning of that answer doesn't fit with the meaning of the question. It doesn't make sense to me how killing kangaroos for conservation has anything to do with not consuming the products of their death after they're dead (which is what veganism is). Those are two different things! One needn't be a pyromaniac to do prescribed burns anymore than one can't be vegan if they cull uncontrolled animal populations.
That's fine. You're not able to understand that I am not against you. I'll block you now to avoid this in the future.