@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 7 months agoSoupmander.xyzmessage-square183fedilinkarrow-up1794
arrow-up1794imageSoupmander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 7 months agomessage-square183fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish4•7 months agoNormally yes, because you can’t do more for nature & people than that. But in this case it’s just too late, the rich already turned into regular (tho toxic) meat as it neared the end of its life. Now, if you get a regular not-about-to-die rich and turn it into a smoothie, then yes, vegan gazpacho.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•7 months agoTheoretically with consent, assuming the consent based veganism.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•6 months agoThey consented by being there, just how we’ve consented to the state and capitalism.
Gazpacho, non-vegan.
But eating the rich is vegan, no?
Normally yes, because you can’t do more for nature & people than that.
But in this case it’s just too late, the rich already turned into regular (tho toxic) meat as it neared the end of its life.
Now, if you get a regular not-about-to-die rich and turn it into a smoothie, then yes, vegan gazpacho.
Theoretically with consent, assuming the consent based veganism.
They consented by being there, just how we’ve consented to the state and capitalism.
That’s good enough for me.