Probably because they're your typical brainwashed far-right extremist that just built their "personality" around hating on everything that is more or less related to the imaginary concept of being "woke".

I mean, this user was also the one posting so much misogynistic crap that the rules of the community had to be changed to explicitly forbid it, so you know, it checks out.

I got a problem with the anti-honey people.

Bees consent.

Anyway, veganism is abstaining from consuming animal products. Bacteria are not animals, therefore antibiotics are not a contradiction.

I'm a vegan and for Me it's about not exploiting nonhumans. Most nonhumans can't advocate for themselves, so it's wrong to use them for labour. As a vegan, I'm fine with eating sponges, which are technically animals but have no neurons. But I'm not fine with exploiting non-animal creatures that have neurons.

I dunno, someone clearly came out on top.

They have a history of posting anti-women content, and anti-vegan/vegetarian content.

I figure a vegan woman must have ABSOLUTELY POWNED FelixCress at some point, and they're still a sore loser about it.

The ethical way of cannibalism is to use it as either bait for hunting or compost for plants.

Yes. Vegans draw the line at sentience, non-vegans have some arbitrary line based on what is culturally acceptable where they live. Which, in many places, is about the cuteness of the animal.

The vegan's argument isn't valid, but it's on the way to it. If the carnivore does believe that life isn't sacred, that does not imply they would condone eating all types of meat. It sort of leads into the "name the trait" argument that vegans use to have carnivores identify what makes certain foods morally permissible to eat, but not others. If such a trait is chosen, you can have a valid argument that it is morally acceptable to eat a dog/cat/human that lacks said trait.

The carnivore's argument seems to just be a strawman. I have never heard a vegan say all life is equally valuable. Typically vegans oppose the unnecessary exploitation of animals on the basis of the suffering inflicted and lack of ability to consent. This has some edge cases for life that we classify as animals but may not be capable of suffering, but a person committed to the idea that plants and fungi cannot be eaten either will obviously not be able to argue their position for long.

Many vegans would eat lab grown meat. Some may even eat meat that was harvested ethically, such as an animal that died in an accident, as that would not reasonably lead to encouraging any future suffering. And in an emergency situation, almost everyone would eat meat that they would need to survive. None of this contradicts the principle that preventable suffering should be minimized.

will seek out and kill other animals / bugs for food under standard conditions. So no cows, deer. Etc

Who wants to tell them?

Carnivores (and omnivores) don't taste as good to people, þough. Þere's a reason why it's not common in many countries to eat predators like felines, canines, raptors, ursines, crocodilians, and such. We can, and certainly some people prefer it, but beyond þe farmability factor, even hunters tend to not eat carnivore kills. Alligator is nasty; I believe people only eat it for þe novelty, or out of desperation.

Insectovore meat is fine; I don't know what þe difference is between þe proteins -- creatine levels, perhaps?