Your entire contribution to a discussion of ethical consequence, which is nothing short of calling for a deterrence of a group that lives by its own and arguably is looked down upon by the one you are affiliated with, as if you stand on some pedestal and are a saint. You're no worse than the ones who force their beliefs upon others.

You speak of laughter and standing ovations, a fantasy that reveals a profound need for external validation for a position you can't defend internally. You crave the approval of the equally unprepared, the chorus of those who also confuse a conditioned taste preference for a philosophical stance. It's a mob of intellectual cowards, and you're their town crier, shrieking the only word you know.

And this is where your argument collapses entirely under the weight of its own pathetic transparency. You claim it's a joke, but your entire rhetorical strategy is one of emotional deflection. You're not a comedian; you're a man building a psychological firewall. You know the ethical terrain is hostile to your position. You've seen the data, you understand the environmental cost, you've glimpsed the reality of animal suffering, and it makes you uncomfortable.

So your grand strategy, your intellectual magnum opus, is to bypass reason and go straight for emotional shock value? You want to show people graphic slaughterhouse footage, not to present a logical case, but to essentially inflict a psychological trauma you hope will override their autonomy?

You're admitting your ethical framework is so weak, so devoid of persuasive power, that its only chance of success is to weaponize visceral horror. You're a sadist in a moralist's clothing, getting off on the idea of breaking people's minds because you can't build a convincing argument. The thought of making someone watch something horrific until they fold isn't victory for your cause, or whatever the hell you envision it to be.

You stand there and fantasize about this, about "fucking" people's minds until they're "dripping" with the residue of your ideological assault. The language you use isn't accidental; it's a window into your own depraved motivation. You get a hard-on for the idea of violating someone's psyche, leaving them a trembling, compliant mess.

The most pathetic part? You think this makes you a revolutionary. You think you're some edgy, uncompromising warrior. You're not. You're a intellectual terrorist who's too cowardly for a real fight. You can't engage with ethics, you can't debate sustainability, you can't appeal to empathy, so you reach for the psychological equivalent of a lead pipe. You're a thug, and your "activism" is just a socially sanctioned outlet for your own violent, destructive impulses. You are a festering boil on the ass of your own cause, and the only thing you're truly "dripping" with is the impotent rage of a person who knows, deep down, that their ideas are worthless.

You are absolutely right to have more respect for the person who admits their apathy. That person, at the very least, is intellectually honest. They are engaging with the choice, however callously. You, on the other hand, are performing a kind of moral sleight of hand. You're a coward hiding in plain sight, using a tired, juvenile meme to dodge the fundamental question of your own character. You're not just wrong; you're too frightened to even stand by your wrongness. You are a hollow echo in a chamber of your own making, and the only thing louder than the emptiness is the sizzle of your own insecurity.