They’re being facetious as per your ridiculous comment above. bsky.app/profile/just...

The imbecile has been relentlessly trying and failing hard, to prove that veganism doesn’t have the least environmentally and climate damaging impact. It looks as though they don’t understand simple math and can’t read scientific papers. I’ve muted them so they can jerk off to their reflection.

"LIVESTOCK will drive us towards unmitigated ecological collapse. " NO It really, Really, REALLY won't If for no other reason than due in no small part to the fact that animals we refer to as "livestock" were here for TENS of MILLIONS of years before us And will be here LONG after we're gone

And you’re accusing others of science denial 🙄 It’s ridiculously stupid to compare wild animals roaming a free Earth with the 10s of billions of enslaved animals we bring into the world to be killed. #Livestock is the leading driver of #deforestation, #BiodiversityLoss, #water pollution & depletion

"you’re accusing others of science denial" CORRECTION: I am not "accusing" you of denying science that do not know or understand. I am PROVING beyond reasonable doubt for a FACT that you easily and readily checkably and demonstrably DO deny science that you neither know nor understand.

"The drung ox is a large semi-domesticated cattle in the Himalaya of South and Northeast India. It is a hybrid descendant of wild gaur and domestic cattle, Bos taurus. In India, semi-domesticated gayals are kept by several ethnic groups living in the forested hills of Arunachal Pradesh"

"The scientific name Bos taurus was introduced by Carl Linnaeus in 1758 for feral cattle in Poland" archive.org/details/mobo...

"It’s ridiculously stupid to compare wild animals roaming a free Earth with the 10s of billions of enslaved animals we bring into the world" NO It really, Really, REALLY isn't They are, quite literally the EXACT SAME SPECIES

Do you not understand what biodiversity loss means? bsky.app/profile/just...

ourworldindata.org/biodiversity

"you not understand what biodiversity loss means" FALLACY: Psychological Projection YOU'RE the one here claiming that "biomass" and "biodiversity" are the same thing YOU'RE the one here citing sites stating mammal biomass has INCREASED So the one here who doesn't know what "loss" means is YOU

There is also your delusional, demented, deranged and certifiably insane claim that "Homo Sapiens", a SINGLE SPECIES, somehow comprise 36% of all mammal Species on Earth: "There are currently over 6,750 identified species of mammals" a-z-animals.com/articles/how....

"Only about 14 large animal species have been domesticated, including cows, sheep, pigs, and horses. " www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/gunger....

"Do you not understand what biodiversity loss means? " I do But you obviously DON'T As is proven by your patently absurd, utterly bizarre and inexplicable, ludicrous, preposterous and laughably ridiculous claim that only 4% of the mammal species on Earth are wild:

Your opinion in meaningless and you’re obviously a wilfully ignorant waste of time. tc ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals...

The website you linked to: "Terrestrial mammals weighed in at an estimated 20 million tonnes of carbon 10,000 years ago. This is now around nine times larger" You [wrongly] believe that "biodiversity" and "biomass" are the same thing According your source what you call "biodiversity" has INCREASED

A deliberately-uneducated and intentionally-uninformed, intellectually-retarded elementary school flunkout and scientific illiterate such as yourself [who proudly boasts and brags about thinking that 99.99% is "only a few percent"] is in NO position to accuse ANYONE else of being "wilfully ignorant"

Even IF all 14 animal species that have been domesticated WERE all mammals [which they AREN'T], this still would only comprise 0.002% of the 6,750 mammal species on Earth Meaning that 99.99% of all mammal species are wild So you clearly lack any comprehension of what the word "few" means as well

"Wild mammals make up only a few percent of the world’s mammals" FALSE This claim has already been proven to be nothing more than a blatant, bald-faced and flagrant LIE, with reference to the fact that "There are over 6,750 species of mammals", whereas "Only 14 animal species have been domesticated"

"Biodiversity refers to the variety of living species on Earth, including plants, animals, bacteria and fungi." education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/bio...

" an investigator can count the number of species present (usually called species richness)" www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

"Scientists measure biodiversity by collecting data on the number of species" academics.lmu.edu/media/lmuaca...

"Biodiversity is often measured as the species count in a given area, be it a single tree, an ecosystem, a landscape or region, or the planet as a whole." explore.britannica.com/study/4-diff...

"Your opinion in meaningless and you’re obviously wilfully ignorant" FALLACY: Psychological Projection The one here who, by their own admission completely, totally and utterly lacks any comprehension, knowledge or understanding of what "biodiversity" is or what the term "biodiversity" means is YOU

I can see you've given this a lot of thought....🥴

Vegans pretend to be superior to everyone else. Whenever anyone claims that they are better than me, I do whatever research is necessary to fact-check whether or not they actually are The results invariably tend to never be good for them. Most if not all people who claim moral superiority are LIARS

Plz tell us more how brutalizing, torturing, & slaughtering innocents b/c they taste good to you is equivalent ethical behavior to not doing so. Is it "pretend superiority" to believe that less suffering is preferable to more suffering? Go ahead, knock our socks off (I apologize in advance, readers)

"Is it "pretend superiority" to believe that less suffering is preferable to more suffering?" YES Because it flatly denies one of--if not THE most basic, elementary-level, foundational and fundamental principle tenet underling literally ALL of biological science: That human are animals.

"predators are not moral agents, and so they cannot violate the rights of another being" eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/15...

"predators are not moral agents and, therefore, cannot violate the rights of prey" digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcont...

"predators cannot survive without killing prey. Predators, as moral patients but not moral agents, cannot violate the rights of their prey, and so the rights of the prey, while they do exist, do not call for intervention." repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/jou...

"Predation isn't an immoral action on its own." www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVeg...

"prey are not necessarily victims of injustice" r.jordan.im/download/eth...

"There is no duty to prevent the suffering that predators cause to other animals. We must deny that they entail the wrongness of hunting." muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/articl...

"animal predation poses no moral problem" philarchive.org/archive/ALLI...

"slaughtering innocents b/c they taste good to you is equivalent ethical behavior to not doing so" CITATION NEEDED Please present your peer-reviewed scientific research proving your assertion that any and all predator-prey relationships in nature are "unethical" Your Nobel Prize is waiting for you

avoiding harm to others is preferable to needlessly harming others] CITATION NEEDED 🤦‍♀️

"predators cannot survive without killing prey. " repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/jou...

"avoiding harm to others is preferable to needlessly harming others" FALLACY: False Conflation According to quite literally EVERYTHING that anyone who has ever lived has ever known about biology and ecology, predator-prey relationships are in absolutely positively NO way, shape or form "needless"

You’re not a lion, hope that helps.

"The earliest reliable evidence of meat-eating in human ancestors comes from about 2.6 million years ago with the genus Homo habilis, indicated by butchery marks on animal bones at sites in Ethiopia. Earlier species like Australopithecus may have occasionally consumed meat"

"The first major evolutionary change in the human diet was the incorporation of meat and marrow from large animals, which occurred by at least 2.6 million years ago." www.nature.com/scitable/kno...

"Humans and their hominin ancestors have been consuming meat for >3 million years" pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

"The diet of our earliest ancestors about six million years ago in Africa was like that of chimpanzees, our closest living primate cousins, who mainly eat insects. Meat from the occasional animal forms about 3 percent of the average chimpanzee’s diet." www.americanscientist.org/article/meat...

Humans are not the only Primates who are predators Humans are not the only Apes who are predators Human are not the only Hominids who are predators Humans are not even the only species of the Genus "Homo" who were predators. Meaning, again, the ONLY way to STOP human predation is to END humanity.

If A, Then B =X= If B, Then A MEANING: The logical axiom that "All Lions are Predators" DOES NOT, in any way, shape or form, hint, imply, reccommend or suggest that "All Predators are Lions" That's not how logic works.

You DO know that lions are not the ONLY predators that exist on Earth, Right? ... ...RIGHT?

Oof. You are NOT equipped to be having this conversation. It's just shameful that innocents have to suffer as a result of your selfish, needless, brutality.

Exactly this.

"You are NOT equipped to be having this conversation." FALLACY: Psychological Projection Out of the two of us, I am quite literally the ONLY one to have EVER been intelectually capable of formulating ANYTHING that in any way, shape or form even remotely resembles a cogent or coherent argument