I know I know… “obligate carnivore”
Well I mean the loud/extremist vegan minority are quick to call meat eaters as abusers (“rapist enablers” even because we’ll drink milk a “rapist” (farmer) got from a cow) just for eating meat, even though most of us are far removed from the entire process.
But here they are, making a direct immoral action to force their chosen diet on another being who in all likelihood would NOT choose themselves. And that’s on top of the fact they should probably not have a pet at all based on their strict interpretation of vegan.
Nah, they deserve the call out.
This entire drama has had me thinking about that one talk show clip that has a vegan guest and was talking about how their dog “Is totally vegan now and won’t even choose meat if it’s in front of her”. When the hosts tested the dog by bringing out a vegan dish and a meat dish, the dog devoured the meat dish lmao
Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don’t buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.
This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.
I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can’t live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).
I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that’s what they do.
First of all, the mere death or killing of an animal isn’t immoral or wrong or murder, it’s simply the way of life in the animal world. The animal world knows nothing of morals and ethics, this very discussion is a wholly unnatural and human unique thing to have. Do you call a lion a murderer when it hunts down and eats a zebra?
Second, a direct immoral action is worse because it involves a clear, intentional act that directly causes harm. In contrast, buying meat is far less worse because a) it’s more like paying someone to solve a problem for you who doesn’t tell you how they solve it and in turn pays someone else who in turn pays someone else who in turn pays the actual person/company taking the action who in turn is spending millions upon millions to keep the majority of people thinking “Everything is fine, no abuse here” and b) the mere consumption of meat isn’t immoral, like I said its just how the animal kingdom works it’s natural. But rather the way that meat is made, the conditions the animals are subjected to that are immoral and wrong.
Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.
Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how “direct” the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.
Ah, the classic diffusion of responsibility under capitalism.
The consumer is blameless because they have no control over the production process. The people committing abuse are blameless because they’re just doing what they’re paid to do, and if they didn’t do it someone else would. The CEO is of course blameless because they have a feduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. And so, the real villains are the shareholders, like granma who has a S&P 500 retirement fund with 0.00001% of the company.
If you accept that when it comes to meat, then what’s the difference when it comes to something like slave labor, or sweatshops? A company sets up in a third world country with deplorable, illegal conditions, which are necessary to compete in the market and secure a contract with a multinational corporation, if their practices get exposed, the big corporation pleads ignorance, some low level manager takes the fall, and they set up another company to do the exact same thing. Once again, everyone’s just responding to price signals and doing what they’re told or what they need to to keep their job.
It’s a wonderfully designed system that ensures that the evil necessary to keep the machine running can be performed without the hindrance of those peaky little consciences. But I have to question whether it’s more moral to make sure everyone can pass the buck for doing something wrong, rather than one person directly doing the same thing and being responsible for it.
Is it more “moral” to kill someone if you do it via firing squad where only one gun is loaded than just having one person shoot them? Is it more “moral” to be 1% responsible for abusing 100 animals than 100% responsible for abusing 1? I’m not sure I understand the moral framework you’re using to arrive at your conclusions.
You don’t call a lion immoral because lions can’t comprehend morality. That doesn’t mean that humans can do the same actions without being judged morally. Lions can also kill other lions which would be more comparable to murder than your hunting example and still they wouldn’t be held morally responsible and yet humans would if they killed another human. A lot of animals rape too, doesn’t mean it’s moral for humans to do.
The difference is that we CAN understand morality which is why we are held to moral standards and animals aren’t. This is like, pretty basic stuff and shouldn’t be at all confusing. Maybe read a book or two before having loud opinions?
you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it
no one is paying someone to abuse animals
But you are when you buy the animal products. You are paying them as indirectly as you are supporting the animal abuse indirectly.
You pay the store for the milk, the store pays the wholesaler and the wholesaler pays the farmer who is committing “animal abuse/ rape”.
At least that is the logic flow they are using. I personally agree that there is no problem with this as long as it is done as humanely as possibly.
But here they are, making a direct immoral action to force their chosen diet on another being who in all likelihood would NOT choose themselves.
This is the single worst argument you could make.
Every single pet owner does that. Would any animal - including farm animals - choose to eat what humans provide them? Surely [cheapest store brand] wouldn’t be popular if they had a choice.
Would any animal - including farm animals - choose to eat what humans provide them?
Good question when it comes to pets. “Would you rather have to go out and hunt every day to get enough to eat, or just eat the canned stuff I give you?” I know I’d take the canned stuff, but who knows what individual pets would choose.
I’ve seen this choice play out with my own cats. I live in a 120+ year old farm house, and both cats came from my in-laws farm and therefore are familiar with catching mice. Every fall at least one mouse makes its way into the house to try to escape the cold and meets its end with the cats. They ultimately choose to eat the cat food (I generally go for Purina because its available at multiple local stores and decent quality) and chase the mice to death, which we ultimately have to toss into the yard to dispose of since they choose not to eat the mice.
Yeah, with the added factor of convenience this will probably change - but you could extend it to vegan food with supplements and the choices probably wouldn’t change significantly.
My thought was to provide a pet with the choice of:
- store brand food
- alive prey in a cage
to remove any aspect of (in)convenience. By that metric, I think nearly all carnivores would choose the prey. Except maybe if your pet happens to be a vulture.
a vegan guest and was talking about how their dog “Is totally vegan now and won’t even choose meat if it’s in front of her”.
Christ, I hope that dog got taken off them.
Why can’t ppl just be a “vegetarian that does not drink milk”, instead of making a whole new ism?
It’s because ism is a syllable of power! They shall cast it when the time is right and have control over the massesssss!
Because it’s more than just not drinking milk. Vegans avoid all products that result from the direct exploitation of animals, including eggs and honey. It also includes not using animal products like leather; you can be a vegetarian and still wear leather.
Honey always seemed a stretch to me, as apiaries benefit bees, but veganism is pretty significantly different from vegetarianism; having a different term for it makes sense.
I think part of the honey thing is its not so clear if we are hurting or harming them, so its best to play it safe until then. Ive also heard it argued that bees don’t make extra honey, so thats another reason but I’m not sure the validity.
I didn’t know “eggs” were considered vegetarian.
Very /s apologies for my misunderstanding, which stemmed from vegetarian packets being marked with a green circle and eggs being marked with a black one, clearly stating not vegetarian.
I can do two things, ya know.
I just find it wild that vegans can simultaneously come to the conclusion that all forms of animal farming is unethical but still accept that keeping pets is ethical. My wife grew up on a milk goat farm, every single goat had a name (and they had hundreds of goats), and the goats generally lived lives as good as the average pet. They’d run around and play, get attention from the people who lived and worked there, and every once in a while escape the pens just to prove that they can (they’d literally be standing around the yard waiting for their escapades to be discovered)
Even if the concern is “some farms are unethical and I’m not able to validate where my food comes from to make sure its a farm that isn’t abusive to its animals” there’s ways around that, like buying from your local coop (in the case of meats, buying from a local butcher) or buying direct from the farm. Usually when you’re that close to the farm its really easy to trace your products back to a specific farm, or even make a deal with the butcher/coop to only buy products from a specific farm
There are many different vegans with many different viewpoints. I am not vegan, but I come pretty close - I do still consume a limited amount of dairy, but otherwise I don’t buy animal products. This is for the reasons you say - I don’t want to support factory farming. I also have a limited amount of time in my life for investigating everything I eat, however - I don’t honestly have the stamina to check every egg-containing product to see if it used battery eggs or not. I really don’t have the time to check if the “free range” eggs I’m buying are really free range or if they have sneaked around the regulations and it’s battery farming in disguise. It’s just easier not to buy any eggs.
I will accept eggs from people I know who keep chickens - no problem from me there. I think that humans having relationships with domestic animals is fine, generally we both benefit - the animals because they are protected from predators, they get fed, etc, and us because we gets eggs.
Some vegans would not agree with me. Some vegans don’t believe humans should keep any animals, including pets. I don’t believe there’s an issue with keeping some pets though. Domesticated animals wouldn’t even exist without us… Like it or not their “natural” habitat is living with humans. You couldn’t release all the dogs and expect that to be better for us or them.
Honestly at that point I think it’s lower effort to just go vegan. You’re already avoiding meat in every situation where you can’t investigate the supply chain, so no meat at restaurants, fast food, friends’ houses, etc. I guess if you really crave the taste of meat or something or if you live on a farm already I could see a case for it. For me, the case of going to the grocery and making a meal at home was always the easiest case to have a vegan diet (and avoiding all the extra prep and cleanup from preparing meat were nice perks), the parts that were actual hurdles were the convenience of fast food and not wanting to assert myself in group meals.
Personally, I figure that the tiny sliver of meat that’s produced ethically can go to the tiny sliver of people with weird dietary restrictions, and to cats, I guess. We still need to see a massive reduction in meat consumption if we want to address the abuse that’s rampant in the vast majority of meat production.
What does adopting vs. buying from a breeder have to do with this person’s point?
feeding a cat a diet that is biologically incapable of meeting a cat’s dietary needs
We’ve been putting supplemental taurine in cat kibble for decades.
Just because there is supplemental taurine in cat kibble doesn’t mean that’s the only thing they need from their diet. Just get a different pet jfc
There’s a world of difference between supplementing taurine and engineering a synthetic meat-free diet for a cat
What do you think the supplemental taurine is intended to accomplish?
This just reminds me of people who lost their fucking minds when they found out a big chunk of McD’s hamburgers were soy protein. This is a cost-cutting measure as often as it is any ethical consideration. Your cat may be far closer to vegan than you even realize.
Unashamed omnivore, fisher, and hunter here. Working on our play farm so we can source all of our meat ethically in the future. Taking active steps to prevent the suffering of animals we consume. Don’t have an ethical or moral problem with killing animals to eat them. Prefer to do it myself so that I know that I have done my best to minimize the suffering of the critters I kill.
I’ve been told I’m a raper and abuser.
fite me
Much better than sourcing animal products from the supermarker. Still worse than being vegan
They might be responsible for many less deaths than a vegan, though.
Some food for thought: https://www.carnivoreisvegan.com/carnivore-diet-is-vegan/
I’ve been told I’m a raper and abuser.
Factory farming is absolutely industrial scale rape and abuse. The more traditional hunter-gatherer mode of existence is at least approaching “natural” levels of cruelty, but it also takes immense volumes of vacant real estate.
It’s cool that you’ve found a way to do a little traditional animal husbandry, rather than procuring meat from the holocaust mills run by some soulless corporate horror show. But its not what I’d call economical. At least, not for anyone who commutes downtown from an apartment block.
I think there’s a kind of ethical middle-ground for folks who can keep a deep freeze full of meat from a cow that gets butchered every couple of months. Then you’re at least mitigating the enormous waste in industrial agriculture and you can talk about animals living a relatively dignified life in a pasture rather than walled up in a cattle concentration camp. But that would mean no pink slime on demand, which violates man’s constitutional right to eat burger.
I bet your carbon footprint is still shit. You got plans to go solar to offset that?
Cats are bad, generally.
They’re killing machines that have a big impact on local wildlife.
A vegan that keeps cats isn’t exactly approaching the situation from a purely vegan-based mentality.
As a person with 3 cats, I get what you’re saying. You’re getting down voted, but we all know cats can devistate local wild life populations.
Rescuing them and making them indoor cats is the responsible thing to do, but I don’t think any vegans would argue with that.
I think its after those establishing facts that the discussion is taking place.
I personally am not a fan of any breeding programs when there are so many cats and dogs available to rescue, but that’s just me.
True, ethical adoption is an option.
But then I always ran into the issue with how to feed the cute little monsters, which is what this drama is about.
Honestly, it’s easier to not have a cat. Plus I’m allergic, so…
Yeah, the pandemic just gave us the best example why many people shouldnt get pets that require a lot of effort and time.
At the start of the pandemic many people got cats / dogs ( of course bought them not adopted them ;( ) because they were home and had time during lockdown. But after it was over they didnt had any time and gave it up for adoption.
Everyone needs to check if they have not just now time but in the future too and if they have the money to have the pet. And get yours best from adoption as this reduces the “intentional-pretty” breeding, that harms them ( for example pugs and their 24/7 breathing issue ).
A vegan that
keeps catsallows cats outside isn’t exactly approaching the situation from a purely vegan-based mentality.
There, FTFY.
Absolutely nothing wrong with cats that are 100% indoors, not only do they have no effect on the wildlife, but their lifespans are something like ⅓ to ½ longer due to the lack of accidents or conflicts.
their lifespans are something like ⅓ to ½ longer
Outdoor cats have a life expectancy of 2-5 years. Indoor cats routinely hit teenager status and can push past 20 with quality care and a bit of genetic good fortune. Its crazy what a steady diet, low stress, protection from the elements/predators, and even middling modern veterinary health care can accomplish.
Now, imagine what this change in condition can do for homeless people.
They’re killing machines that have a big impact on local wildlife.
Saying this to my friends as I drive in my 2 ton steel box powered by liquid dinosaurs across the cemented remains of an old growth forest on the way to my job at the bitcoin mill.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
! We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. !<
Unless, of course, you’re saying that we shouldn’t stop one bad thing because we do other bad things.
We should rethink our attachments to miniature tigers.
Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality
I’m not sure what the solution is here.
We should rethink our attachments to miniature tigers.
And do what? Its not the pets that are doing the bulk of the killing.
That is, of course, only a problem with outdoor cats and feral populations. Indoor cats are fine. Personally I keep my cat indoors for a bunch of reasons, but I also think that reasonable human beings can feel otherwise. I’ve noticed that there are a lot of people online who have decided that not only is keeping an outdoor cat bad, it’s a form of animal abuse. And therefore they not only berate people who allow their cat outside, they also encourage people who stumble upon outdoor cats to take possession of them since they’re being abused. This is a pretty extremist position that probably doesn’t reflect the views of most cat owners, but it tends to get magnified in cat communities that rely on upvotes, since upvotes encourage echo chambers.
There’s a metaphor here.
