If its less money out of one's bank then the subsidies are a secondary consideration if they're considered at all

It could be that in wealthy countries it is cheaper to consume meat due to factors like subsidization. Or, as I said, a thousand other factors.

there could be a thousand confounding factors. you probably oversimplified

The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women's movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, "We're sentient beings too!" They argued, "We're fully human too!" Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.

Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.

what in the boomer book is this doing on lemmy

You know that others will resupply if you buy this thing

if you will admit that it is impossible to know this, we can follow whatever tangent you like

since the future hasn't happened yet, no claim about it can, in the present moment, be true. so you can't know it.

tomorrow we dine in hell

knowledge, being a justified, true belief, precludes knowing the future. I cannot know what others will do.

money is still bound by linear time. the animal is already dead, and the person who did it is already paid.

I don't mistreat animals. this is libelous.

no. different things are different.