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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
nah, i just like making fun of and annoying vegans. They call me slurs that are metal as fuck like “carnist” and “bloodmouth”, i love it.
Are these vegans forcing cats vegetarian diets in the room with us?
So y’all are feeding your cats a natural diet of small game?
Which animal in cat food would they ever eat in real life? Which cat is going to go find synthetic taurine to eat? What about the herd of cats that exclusively eats the diseased and rotted meat that isnt fit for humans?
If you are looking for someone to blame for vegan cat food then look at the quality of commercial cat food.
Which animal in cat food would they ever eat in real life?
Most of the cat foods I’ve looked at are primarily poultry which cats famously eat a ton of. Sure your average feral cat might not be taking down turkeys, but I honestly don’t find it at all hard to believe that it happens from time to time that a feral cat is eating some turkey, whether its roadkill or catching a young turklet itself
Cats in the wild won’t hunt anything too large, but they do like chunky animals that have as much meat as they can hunt. Rabbits are one of the biggest animals they hunt. In areas that have rabbits, its usually their main source of food. Any small game that size or smaller is a target though, including birds.
Duck, Turkey, cow, pig, deer, and bison all are not on the table for a cat to hunt. Cats will only scavenge if they are starving and otherwise will prefer to hunt for their food.
Your vague belief that it might be possible a cat stumbles upon a bison that just has died of natural causes does not make standard cat food natural or inline with the cats personal choices.
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 bet your carbon footprint is still shit. You got plans to go solar to offset that?
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.
People are so quick to call it animal cruelty. Did any of you ask a vet if it was harmful to the animal? I didnt coz I dont even have a cat but it seems some vegans did and were reassured that it is alright. I think that shows they care about their pet and want to ensure its health while possibly aligning it with their lifestyles, probably better than feeding them the cheapest crap they can find.
Im not saying its okay to just feed your pet veggies, but just because it doesnt seem ‘natural’ doesnt automatically mean it is bad. This is ‘being gay is unnatural’ all over again.
Ironically the cheapest crap contains vegan stuff like wheat or rice. And cats ( at least my cat ) doesnt get so well with such things.
My cat is also allergic to grains, and I don’t mind paying more for grain free food.
People are so quick to call it animal cruelty. Did any of you ask a vet if it was harmful to the animal?
I have a friend who’s a vet in a trendy community and has seen multiple instances of cats with health issues (some permanent) directly stemming from attempting a vegan diet so his blanket advise is “don’t even try it”
Cats , when left alone (as in feral), mostly eat meat naturally. There is documented behavior in animals that homosexuality occurs naturally in the wild. There is no correlation to your comparison.
