That’ll vary quite a bit person to person. A lot of people who are fegsn are also just woo new age hippie weirdos who do it for health reasons and don’t give a fuck about animals. I’ve met many ‘vegans’ who eat honey cause bees aren’t directly harmed in it’s making but like…if you buy eggs from.someone who’s nice to their chickens that’s kinda the case except chickens blast off a lot of nutrients into their eggs and tend to eat their unfertilized ones to get it back, think of how full you are off an egg vs what a chicken generally eats, that egg is tsking a lot out of the chicken and if you eat it they can’t get it back. Similar with honey, they didn’t make it for us, it’s not ours to take.
They do. As I wrote, they gotta blast out an egg worth of nutrients and thst came from somewhere. A lot of chicken energy went into it so they eat their own eggs to get it back. The stuff chickens eat is fairly low nutrition but they eat a lot of it so to replace an egg worth of lost nutrients isn’t really practical with the corn and grain and occasional worm they eat cause chickens also blast out eggs constantly. Their tummies get full and it takes time to process all that grain, if they’re not chomping their own eggs back down they’re gonna be malnourished
to add to this point, taking the chickens eggs interrupts their laying cycle, causing them to produce more eggs introducing potential health problems and iirc shortening their lifespan
There is something to be said about the commodification aspect of it, i.e., taking the eggs and using them still reinforces the mentality that animals exist for us to use them. The problem with the relationship between humans and animals is that humans view animals as resources to use for their own benefit. Veganism is not welfarist—it is abolitionist, and it recognizes that these things that belong to other animals are not ours to take. These chickens should not exist in the first place, but if they’re on a sanctuary, they shouldn’t be viewed as a means to a human’s end. The guardian should take care of them the same way they’d take care of a child, expecting nothing in return. Having the thought to use the egg in the first place is the problem. If a non-vegan came across some tarantula eggs, there’s a reason why they most likely wouldn’t think to make use of them. Similar things could be said about consuming roadkill—some people would argue that vegans should approve of it because of a consequentialist outlook, but the thing is that veganism, as a principle, rejects the commodity status of animals, period, and with roadkill, we notice that it’s typically brought into question only concerning certain kinds of dead bodies such as deer corpses specifically. Why? Why wouldn’t someone think to consume a human corpse or a dog corpse they find lying around? Mindset, the mindset that oppresses non-human animals.
“Commodification” here refers to viewing animals as property, resources, or objects for human benefit—not just in a capitalist sense, but as a fundamental mindset that reduces sentient beings to objects or things to be used.
Framing this as a non-sanctuary scenario makes it worse, not better. Where do these backyard chickens come from? Almost certainly a breeder or farm that exploits them as egg-laying machines, meaning their very existence is rooted in commodification. The act of keeping them for eggs (even “kindly”) reinforces the idea that animals exist to serve humans.
On tarantula eggs: The point isn’t about taste or nutrition—it’s about mindset. Nobody considers exploiting tarantulas for their eggs because they’re not culturally conditioned to see them as commodities (at least for that purpose). Veganism seeks to extend that baseline respect to all animals, rejecting the idea that chickens (or their eggs) are exceptions.
Regarding roadkill: You’re dodging the core analogy. The question isn’t “Why don’t most people eat roadkill?”—it’s “Why do some people consider deer roadkill ‘acceptable’ but recoil at the idea of eating a dog or human corpse under the same conditions?” The answer is objectification. Society assigns arbitrary value to animals based on human utility, not inherent worth. Veganism rejects human supremacy outright.
This isn’t symbiosis—it’s domestication under oppression. These chickens are the result of centuries of selective breeding to turn them into egg-producing machines. Jungle fowl (their wild ancestors) don’t lay nearly as many eggs. The truth is that humans manipulated their biology for selfish gain. Calling this “mutual benefit” is like arguing slavery was “symbiotic” because slave owners provided food and shelter. Oppressors don’t get to define the terms of the relationship.
Guard dogs? Same issue. Domestication is human supremacy in action—breeding animals into servitude and pretending it’s “for their own good.” Veganism isn’t about tweaking exploitation to be kinder—it’s about dismantling the very mindset and system that treats animals as tools to begin with.
If you’re still trying to justify any use of animals as “symbiosis” or “mutual benefit,” you’re missing the foundational point of veganism: It’s not about reforming exploitation—it’s about abolishing the idea that animals exist for human ends.
Your “Tony Stark cloning” hypotheticals and guard dog mental gymnastics don’t change that. Veganism rejects the entire framework of animals as resources, whether under capitalism, your backyard, or a sci-fi lab.
You’re still missing the core issue. The tarantula egg and dog meat examples aren’t about personal comfort—they’re about exposing the arbitrary, culturally conditioned mindset that designates some animals as “resources” and others as “off-limits,” and that is the very issue veganism seeks to address, but you are dismissing it on the basis of vibes and viewing it as a meaningless cliché rather than understanding the intention of these examples in this context.
Veganism isn’t debating which exploitation is “okay”—it rejects the entire premise that animals are ours to use. If you can’t engage with that principle, this conversation is pointless. Let me know if you ever want to discuss abolitionism instead of hypothetical loopholes for “happy slavery.”
That’ll vary quite a bit person to person. A lot of people who are fegsn are also just woo new age hippie weirdos who do it for health reasons and don’t give a fuck about animals. I’ve met many ‘vegans’ who eat honey cause bees aren’t directly harmed in it’s making but like…if you buy eggs from.someone who’s nice to their chickens that’s kinda the case except chickens blast off a lot of nutrients into their eggs and tend to eat their unfertilized ones to get it back, think of how full you are off an egg vs what a chicken generally eats, that egg is tsking a lot out of the chicken and if you eat it they can’t get it back. Similar with honey, they didn’t make it for us, it’s not ours to take.
deleted by creator
They do. As I wrote, they gotta blast out an egg worth of nutrients and thst came from somewhere. A lot of chicken energy went into it so they eat their own eggs to get it back. The stuff chickens eat is fairly low nutrition but they eat a lot of it so to replace an egg worth of lost nutrients isn’t really practical with the corn and grain and occasional worm they eat cause chickens also blast out eggs constantly. Their tummies get full and it takes time to process all that grain, if they’re not chomping their own eggs back down they’re gonna be malnourished
to add to this point, taking the chickens eggs interrupts their laying cycle, causing them to produce more eggs introducing potential health problems and iirc shortening their lifespan
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There has never been a ‘normal chicken’. Chickens as they are have never been wild animals.
deleted by creator
There is something to be said about the commodification aspect of it, i.e., taking the eggs and using them still reinforces the mentality that animals exist for us to use them. The problem with the relationship between humans and animals is that humans view animals as resources to use for their own benefit. Veganism is not welfarist—it is abolitionist, and it recognizes that these things that belong to other animals are not ours to take. These chickens should not exist in the first place, but if they’re on a sanctuary, they shouldn’t be viewed as a means to a human’s end. The guardian should take care of them the same way they’d take care of a child, expecting nothing in return. Having the thought to use the egg in the first place is the problem. If a non-vegan came across some tarantula eggs, there’s a reason why they most likely wouldn’t think to make use of them. Similar things could be said about consuming roadkill—some people would argue that vegans should approve of it because of a consequentialist outlook, but the thing is that veganism, as a principle, rejects the commodity status of animals, period, and with roadkill, we notice that it’s typically brought into question only concerning certain kinds of dead bodies such as deer corpses specifically. Why? Why wouldn’t someone think to consume a human corpse or a dog corpse they find lying around? Mindset, the mindset that oppresses non-human animals.
deleted by creator
“Commodification” here refers to viewing animals as property, resources, or objects for human benefit—not just in a capitalist sense, but as a fundamental mindset that reduces sentient beings to objects or things to be used.
Framing this as a non-sanctuary scenario makes it worse, not better. Where do these backyard chickens come from? Almost certainly a breeder or farm that exploits them as egg-laying machines, meaning their very existence is rooted in commodification. The act of keeping them for eggs (even “kindly”) reinforces the idea that animals exist to serve humans.
On tarantula eggs: The point isn’t about taste or nutrition—it’s about mindset. Nobody considers exploiting tarantulas for their eggs because they’re not culturally conditioned to see them as commodities (at least for that purpose). Veganism seeks to extend that baseline respect to all animals, rejecting the idea that chickens (or their eggs) are exceptions.
Regarding roadkill: You’re dodging the core analogy. The question isn’t “Why don’t most people eat roadkill?”—it’s “Why do some people consider deer roadkill ‘acceptable’ but recoil at the idea of eating a dog or human corpse under the same conditions?” The answer is objectification. Society assigns arbitrary value to animals based on human utility, not inherent worth. Veganism rejects human supremacy outright.
This isn’t symbiosis—it’s domestication under oppression. These chickens are the result of centuries of selective breeding to turn them into egg-producing machines. Jungle fowl (their wild ancestors) don’t lay nearly as many eggs. The truth is that humans manipulated their biology for selfish gain. Calling this “mutual benefit” is like arguing slavery was “symbiotic” because slave owners provided food and shelter. Oppressors don’t get to define the terms of the relationship.
Guard dogs? Same issue. Domestication is human supremacy in action—breeding animals into servitude and pretending it’s “for their own good.” Veganism isn’t about tweaking exploitation to be kinder—it’s about dismantling the very mindset and system that treats animals as tools to begin with.
deleted by creator
If you’re still trying to justify any use of animals as “symbiosis” or “mutual benefit,” you’re missing the foundational point of veganism: It’s not about reforming exploitation—it’s about abolishing the idea that animals exist for human ends.
Your “Tony Stark cloning” hypotheticals and guard dog mental gymnastics don’t change that. Veganism rejects the entire framework of animals as resources, whether under capitalism, your backyard, or a sci-fi lab.
You’re still missing the core issue. The tarantula egg and dog meat examples aren’t about personal comfort—they’re about exposing the arbitrary, culturally conditioned mindset that designates some animals as “resources” and others as “off-limits,” and that is the very issue veganism seeks to address, but you are dismissing it on the basis of vibes and viewing it as a meaningless cliché rather than understanding the intention of these examples in this context.
Veganism isn’t debating which exploitation is “okay”—it rejects the entire premise that animals are ours to use. If you can’t engage with that principle, this conversation is pointless. Let me know if you ever want to discuss abolitionism instead of hypothetical loopholes for “happy slavery.”
deleted by creator