lalo

Retail costs are still costs and plant based diets are globally around 30% cheaper than other diets. Where did I specify consumer (or any other particular) cost in my claim? Do you actually think the government giving free food means the food is cost free as well? Do you think self-sufficient people will affect the measure of the cost of food?

So the only thing stopping you from raping your own slaves would be that you think owning humans is wrong. Otherwise you would be ok with raping your own slaves, is that correct?

If owning humans were ok, nothing else would be stopping you from going into your slaves?

An act being natural or unnatural is not a reason to say that action is good or bad. I think we all agree unecessarily harming a sentient being is bad though.

How is it too narrow? They have considered data from more than 150 countries.

You go to the grocery store without the belief they have resupplied?

So you think it's unjustified?

Or do you think it's justified? And therefore you believe that they will kill another animal to resupply the demand that you've contributed to.

I conceive the freedom to chose on a personal ethical base above the idea of punching down ideas just because.

I agree it's a choice, but I don't think it's a personal one given that there is another sentient being victimized in the action.

A bit on the motivation behind vegan activism:

Say you're against needlessly exploiting animals. And you purchase/produce animal products when there are other options available. You would be needlessly exploiting animals while affirming a contradiction, that would be hypocrisy. Nobody can force you to act on that, but they can point what you're accountable for.

Vegans believe that most people are against needlessly exploiting animals, so they try to show this to people. Confusion may get in the way, but wanting to put on the spotlight what kind of exploitation people are supporting is what guides them.

Plant based diets are globally around 30% cheaper than other diets and it's adoption not only can be healthy, but it would be sustainable for the planet.

A: I'm a giving person. B: What would you do if you had a million dollars in your bank account? A: I don't have a million dollars in my bank so your argumentation falls apart.

Was B unjustified in providing a hypothetical because A doesn't have a million dollars in their account? How else would B understand the reasoning of A in a specific scenario without bringing hypotheticals?

And also you’re moving the goalpost

OP posted animals getting fisted without consent. I'm asking what we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent. Can't get more on topic than that.

I grant you that you've answered my first question. My bad for accusing you of not answering it, the message got lost in the same paragraph that was justifying an answer refusal.

I have clarified "what are hoomans" in a well defined manner and I'll do it again: Hoomans are like any human you don't know, but it's been found out that they're not from the Homo sapiens species. I also clarified that to have a false equivalency you have to have two different things being regarded as equivalent, which none of my questions have.

What's the difference between a human and a non-human animal that justifies calling the fisting of one rape and not the other?

You claimed it's impossible to know this in the philosophical sense, granted.

I clarified that my question was posed using "know" in the colloquial sense (i.e. to understand, to take cognition of). The question I originally asked is still unanswered.