We need a state with a certain amount of authority if we want to prevent those billionaires to become the authoritarians, though.

I would argue that Hasan helps bring a few people to the left, but other than him, they are pretty much useless yeah.

Well, Biden hasn't done any of those things, but we need to accept the facts that he did block peace negotiations in Ukraine, he vetoed multiple ceasefires in Palestine, and he supported both conflicts by providing weapons.

I don't know if trump would have been better, but we gotta admit that Biden actively did a terrible job.

TFU

Canada has a long history of accomodating nazis.

why are you people so quick to defend an oppressive state?

Seriously? Doubting a ridiculous article about fashion with absolutely no sources is "defense of an oppressive state"? Is critical thinking now considered wrongthink here?

This is nknews.org, literally an anti-DPRK propaganda outlet funded by the USA through the NED. Of course it's fake.

This kind of website has nothing to do on this community because it isn't news.

It's crazy how some people can have such strong opinions about this conflict while being so uninformed at the same time.

It did not get France to descend into authoritarianism.

When your policies are so unpopular that it comes to that level of rioting, you have two options:

1. You dissolve the National Assembly and organise new elections. If your party loses, you step down from the presidency.

2. You increase the budget of the police and the military, create additional surveillance laws, criminalise actions you feel are a danger to your ability to hold power, you ban environmentalist groups.

A democratic government would go for the first option. Macron has always been authoritarian.

Please don't reopen the camps.

Thank you mister privacy chief person. But we, in France, only take advice from our oligarchs. (and US consulting firms)

When we say everyone is equal, we mean that everyone should enjoy equal rights and responsibilities, not that everyone is identical. Marxism definitely recognizes and takes into account that every individual person is different.

Thank you for the clarification, english isn't my first language.

If that's the case, then my point the he has the wrong syllogism still stands as vegans do not think that humans and non-human animals are equal in that definition. (Nobody thinks hens should have the right to vote for example)

The ability to feel or think is directly connected to and stems from the physical form

Yes it is, of course. My point was that it doesn't matter to the reason we are against their exploitation. We aren't against it because they are fuzzy and cute, but because they are sentient, they suffer and grieve the loss of their peers. Yes they can feel those because they have a central nervous system basically identical to ours with a few minute differences, but if they were sentient for any other reasons, we would still be against their exploitation.

Consciousness is a part of our material reality and our physical bodies

Well, that's debatable but it's not the subject here. Consciousness being a part of material reality is more of a belief than a fact, and there is a lot of research done by assuming that consciousness is fundamental, and material reality exists within it. You can look up the work of Donald Hoffman for example, it's very interesting.

Currently we do not know what's the nature of consciousness and reality, but whatever the answer is I think it's totally irrelevant to the way we live and it's just mental masturbation. At the end of the day we evolve in a material manifestation of the universe and that's what we should focus on.

We do place humans above other species, for better or worse, and that is not a relation that can change easily, if at all.

I realize that, just the same way we placed white men above women and black people for a very long time. I don't believe any of those assumptions about the value of an individual are helpful to today's society, and also I don't think that even if we decided that a group of individuals was inferior based on arbitrary criterias, it would be a good justification for making them suffer for our pleasure.

The point is to move away from a moral argument

The point of OP's post was to question the morality of veganism. That's why I'm addressing his syllogism in that way.

However, even though I agree that the material arguments to abolish animal exploitation are much stronger from a rational point of view, let's not forget that we humans are emotional creatures first, and so emotions have a much stronger potential to provoke us to review our ideas and actions. It's no coincidence if every propaganda (even Marxist one) relies on emotional and not rational appeal.

Also, in a communist society where people will undoubtedly be more slanted towards solidarity, cooperation, and compassion, the number of people who will be concerned for moral reasons by the exploitation of animals will grow exponentially, creating tensions and infighting. This will need to be addressed, and the most likely way it will be done is by abolishing it since there is no material reason to support it.

Equating racism, sexism, ableism, etc. with human treatment of animals is quite chauvinistic and fails to take into account the material basis for any of these phenomena.

Well, calling that chauvinistic is needlessly aggressive, especially in the abscence of any kind of argumentation. But it would be interesting if you could expand on that, and explain why you feel that way if you have time.