No you didn't. You only said they're numerous.

bsky.app/profile/mans...

Your racist doppelgänger trying to defend racism with the exact same logic.

Why do these differences matter morally? If you can't explain why they do, then they're just arbitrary/convenient to discriminate against.

"as long as they're white"

"one includes all white people, the other doesn't so that's quite the difference innit"

That's exactly the same mindset, and you've done a very poor job at disputing that. Still waiting for the morally significant difference(s).

Yes, both as humans, just with a ton of differences.

Being different doesn't mean the difference is morally relevant.

A white man has white skin and a black man has black skin. That's a difference. But it's a morally irrelevant one, and wrong to discriminate on that basis.

"because race is a category that includes all white people and the others don't"
- a white supremacist

There you go. You just pick the one that's convenient (of that feels right) to discriminate against, like a racist or sexist would.

Oh so it's the amount of differences?

Would it be okay to be racist if black people had a ton of differences with white people, then? Is that the "relevant" metric?

The only difference is the category.

What is the relevant difference between the categories?

How is it any more relevant than race or religion? If you can't explain why it's relevant, then it's arbitrary. Let's see.

Yes? Species are different, religions are different, skin colors are different. Is that a reason to discriminate one against the other?

The moral agency? We covered that, and you still wouldn't harm a human baby, despite not having any.

In other words, the only thing that truly matters to you is being human. Which you admitted.

How is that a false equivalence?

You're claiming somebody is more valuable than somebody else by virtue of being human.

A racist claims that somebody is more valuable than somebody else by virtue of being white.

How is that any different, besides the category itself?

Just because it keeps growing overall (and is predicted to keep growing) doesn't mean it hasn't had an impact. It's just so astronomically widespread that even hundreds of thousands of animals won't make a chart like that budge.

But for all these individual animals, it's their entire lives.

Yep, that would be very racist of me. Speciesism is the same mindset, just with another arbitrary category. Like sexism, etc.

And my words have nothing to do with an appeal to nature, which you'd know if you had read the link.

"nope, just being white is good enough for me"

You didn't read that link, did you? An appeal to nature is saying something is good because it's natural. How is that in any way close to what I've been saying?

There you go. Essentially because they're part of the same group as you do. Now tell me, how is that any less arbitrary than any other group, e.g.:
- because they're part of the same race
- because they're part of the same religion
- because they're part of the same gender
?

You know what supply & demand is, right?

Yes. So? The relevant difference is "being part of the human species"?

It has absolutely nothing to do with species, only with how many innocent lives my acts can actually spare, as any reasonable being would behave.

Babies have no moral agency, no knowledge, no ability to make educated decisions.

Well, guess these differences aren't relevant to you at all after all.

Okay so the differences I mentioned are the morally relevant ones to you, alright. Moral agency, ability to make choices, knowledge.

So, is it okay to murder terminally ill human babies then?

By not consuming animal products and doing activism, my impact is (potentially) overwhelmingly higher than spending my life in a jail cell getting fed animal products.

As a random citizen during WWII, rescuing Jews would've saved more lives than what the vast majority was able to accomplish.

Yes? What is your point?

You've dodged the question btw. What is the morally relevant difference?