It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Bending over backwards to continue justifying the eating of meat is honestly

It's always this with vegans. You simply have no arguments, so you make a strawman in which you think I'm trying to justify eating meat. It's a wonder you didn't say "justify murder", lol. How about some more "you fucking carnists" which you say to literally anyone who even dares question the holy teachings of veganism.

Which just shows how empty the ideology is, which makes it even worse when people are religiously vegan like you. Because veganism is irrational in the end, just like I've shown.

A day or two of crying yet not a single answer, just a bunch of insults and fallacies.

I don't eat meat often so why would I be offended by being called something I'm not and which is only insulting in your mind? It's like if I assumed you're gay and then tried pretending that's an insult, like some teenager. Would that offend you? If it would, you should rethink your values. But I'm sure it doesn't, just like your empty attempts at insults don't hurt me.

I mostly eat rice and vegetables and some fish, so it's rather rarely that I buy meat, especially because game is so expensive and as I've said, I don't support factory farmed meat. Must be a new thing to you, someone actually thinking through the values they practice..?

If domesticated sheep need to be sheared

What do you mean "if"? Oh right because you tried arguing "wild sheep exit they dont need to be sheered"? :D there's no "If" about it. Sheep have to be shorn or the tangled matt becomes a vector for all sorts of illnesses and harms.

If it is possible to use that wool in an ethical manner without creating perverse incentives, then some vegans would be ok with that

Oh, "some" but not all? Is that because vegans are so "internally consistent"? Haha.

Yeah ofc it would be moral to use wool when there aren't incentives to abuse the animals. That's a given for any rational person. Unfortunately that description usually takes vegans out of play. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We may or may not be able to accurately predict the harm that may come to animals if we stop doing wildlife management. We know they are harmed if we shoot them

No we know for a fact that overpopulation of deer which causes overbrowsing is definitely harmful and overpopulation of deer undoubtedly increases car-deer crashes. So the overall amount of suffering is without a doubt increased if you stop shooting the deer. That is not in question. If you think it is, you don't understand rather basic biology even after it's been explained and sourced to you.

Moose exclosures (fenced-off areas) are used to determine the ecological impacts of cervids, allowing scientists to compare flora, fauna, and soil in areas inside and outside of exclosures.[11][13] Changes in plant communities in response to herbivory reflect the differential palatability of plants to the overabundant herbivore, as well as the variable ability of plants to tolerate high levels of browsing.[9] The heights of plants preferred by herbivores can give indications of the local and regional herbivore density.[14] Compositional and structural changes in forest vegetation can have cascading effects on the entire ecosystem, including impacts on soil quality and stability, micro- and macro- invertebrates, small mammals, songbirds, and perhaps even large predators.[9][15][10][11]

https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105725

https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3100037

So unless youre denying those studies done in moose enclosures as some sort of bullshit or that you actually have an academic paper ready to dispute their findings..? Oh you don't? I'm shocked.

We know we have to control their population. Yes, eveyone would love to live in your lalaland where nothing ever dies and the circle of life just... doesn't exist and humans don't have to take care of our environment, just keep yelling about "carnists" while the entire ecosystem gets destroyed because you're too afraid of death to control deer population so now you've killed off the entire ecosystem. Congrats!

However, given that getting your calories from meat takes something lik

Because implying I'm "a carnist" who eats nothing but meat isn't at all irrational or a ridiculous fallacy? Oookay.

But you can't answer any of the questions I've actually put to you, no, you just display your incredible ignorance and the same garbage irrational bs I see every time I show those arguments. And I'd like to remind you I dated a vegan in the army as well. See I've actually thought my stance through. You've just hopped onto a bandwagon because you weren't up to making your own worldview. Thinking is so hard, huh?

veganism simply demands we harm as little as possible.

Then you simply have no choice but to be **pro-**hunting them. There's no other way about it. That is the path of least harm. All your weird ass notions either increase harm (wolves tearing deer apart while they're alive) or ignore reality, pretend like we don't know what uncontrolled deer populations cause but that we'd know that "shooting is harmful". To an individual, sure. But if that individual isn't harmed, a majority of the individuals die. And that's more harm than one individual.

Also btw, if that harm reduction logic is also applied to humans, then you're also for the legalisation of all drugs. Regulated, ofc, but legal.