“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.”
“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