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?
They main problem is that its currently as humane as is commercially viable. Which sorta means profits come first, animal welfare second.
Also people need to talk about the people who work in that industry and the effects it has on their mental health. If you care about people then you wouldnt want anyone exposed to such a workplace.
That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.
If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.
I believe that’s in the laws of macroeconomics (?)
That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.
supply and demand is a price seeking theory. you are misapplying the term to use it this way
Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer. If nobody bought cow milk from the store then the store wouldn’t buy from the farmer and then the cows wouldn’t be milked.
And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent. I’m not an expert on either side of the argument so I may be wrong.
I stopped consuming animal products for three years waiting for this utopia everyone parrots but every time I went to the grocery store the shelves were stocked exactly as they were before I stopped before waking up and realizing it was a pointless escapade of dealing with a situation akin to burying your head in the sand about global warming because you ‘recycle’.
Nah they’re referring to the insemination of the cows. Gotta keep getting the cow pregnant and take away it’s babies to get milk. Gotta inseminate the cows as soon as you can so you’re not feeding them with no return. That’s a basic factor of dairy farming you can’t get away from no matter how you try. If you believe in animal personhood you should find it abhorrent. I don’t.
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.
Straight up. I had one that wouldn’t even kill stuff. He would literally just let chipmunks go in the house as his plaything. Fucking monsters, them kitties.
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.
Then the inconvenience is moved to the owner, who must now either hunt the prey every day or buy it from a store (and the infrastructure isn’t there to supply every cat or dog owner with live prey to buy, not to mention the cost). Realistically, if the pet is going to be provided food and shelter by the owner, canned food is part of the deal. The fact that the average pet cat or dog lives around 3 times longer than ones in the wild makes it seem like the canned food doesn’t negatively affect the pet much.
Yes, and in that case there’s no problem with what type of food the owner provides, as long as it contains enough nutrients, right?
I’m fully aware that it is completely unreasonable for humans to provide the same food to a pet as it would eat in the wild. But since we are deciding what our pets should eat anyways, we can give them whatever food that provides enough nutrients. There is nothing immoral about taking away a pet’s choice - it never had one to begin with
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.
Very true. Similar to cow milk, there is a public perception that there is no cost to take it, or to induce a female cow into pregnancy to cause it in the first place.
Taking honey from bees starves their population and the bee enslavers murder their queens. It is not ethically to steal someone’s resources for your own ends.
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.
Seems to me like this just has Vegetarian replaced with Vegan, because, as you see there is no row labelled vegetarian without the prefixes.
Meat + Eggs + Dairy + Veg = Carno-ovo-lacto vegetarianism
Same species (human meat) + meat + eggs + dairy + veg = Homo-carno-ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
If you equate vegetarian with prefix to vegetarian without prefix, then everyone who eats anything vegetarian even once i their life is a vegetarian.
That’d make Hannibal Lecter a vegetarian because he decorated his raw human with some basil leaves.
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.
right but this is not enough evidence to assume it is immoral. we need some reason to believe it is immoral, or it is probably ok
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?
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.
They main problem is that its currently as humane as is commercially viable. Which sorta means profits come first, animal welfare second.
Also people need to talk about the people who work in that industry and the effects it has on their mental health. If you care about people then you wouldnt want anyone exposed to such a workplace.
no, you’re not. if someone is abusing livestock, they are paid by someone who isn’t me and long before I walk into the grocery store.
That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.
If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.
I believe that’s in the laws of macroeconomics (?)
Dont waste your time on trolls…
I try giving people the benefit of the doubt but yea pretty sure they are trolling.
supply and demand is a price seeking theory. you are misapplying the term to use it this way
we made milk before we had money. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop
but I’m not paying the store to pay the farmer. I’m paying for a product.
further, artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it is not rape.
Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer. If nobody bought cow milk from the store then the store wouldn’t buy from the farmer and then the cows wouldn’t be milked.
And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent. I’m not an expert on either side of the argument so I may be wrong.
I stopped consuming animal products for three years waiting for this utopia everyone parrots but every time I went to the grocery store the shelves were stocked exactly as they were before I stopped before waking up and realizing it was a pointless escapade of dealing with a situation akin to burying your head in the sand about global warming because you ‘recycle’.
Nah they’re referring to the insemination of the cows. Gotta keep getting the cow pregnant and take away it’s babies to get milk. Gotta inseminate the cows as soon as you can so you’re not feeding them with no return. That’s a basic factor of dairy farming you can’t get away from no matter how you try. If you believe in animal personhood you should find it abhorrent. I don’t.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that for me!
milking isn’t rape, either.
the. store makes their own decisions. I don’t decide for them
Yes you do. But you are either being dense or a troll. Have a good day
no one at the store has free will, but I do?
calling me names doesn’t change the fact that I’m right
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.
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.
So in their case the preference would be, “Let me hunt stuff for fun, but gimme the canned food so I don’t have to actually eat them.”
Straight up. I had one that wouldn’t even kill stuff. He would literally just let chipmunks go in the house as his plaything. Fucking monsters, them kitties.
These mitts were made for murderin and that’s just what they’ll do
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:
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.
Then the inconvenience is moved to the owner, who must now either hunt the prey every day or buy it from a store (and the infrastructure isn’t there to supply every cat or dog owner with live prey to buy, not to mention the cost). Realistically, if the pet is going to be provided food and shelter by the owner, canned food is part of the deal. The fact that the average pet cat or dog lives around 3 times longer than ones in the wild makes it seem like the canned food doesn’t negatively affect the pet much.
Yes, and in that case there’s no problem with what type of food the owner provides, as long as it contains enough nutrients, right?
I’m fully aware that it is completely unreasonable for humans to provide the same food to a pet as it would eat in the wild. But since we are deciding what our pets should eat anyways, we can give them whatever food that provides enough nutrients. There is nothing immoral about taking away a pet’s choice - it never had one to begin with
Christ, I hope that dog got taken off them.
Why?
Dogs don’t belong on TV.
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.
Honey is for bees only. They made it for themselves.
Very true. Similar to cow milk, there is a public perception that there is no cost to take it, or to induce a female cow into pregnancy to cause it in the first place.
Taking honey from bees starves their population and the bee enslavers murder their queens. It is not ethically to steal someone’s resources for your own ends.
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.
It’s called ovo-vegetarianism
Seems to me like this just has Vegetarian replaced with Vegan, because, as you see there is no row labelled vegetarian without the prefixes.
Meat + Eggs + Dairy + Veg = Carno-ovo-lacto vegetarianism
Same species (human meat) + meat + eggs + dairy + veg = Homo-carno-ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
If you equate vegetarian with prefix to vegetarian without prefix, then everyone who eats anything vegetarian even once i their life is a vegetarian.
That’d make Hannibal Lecter a vegetarian because he decorated his raw human with some basil leaves.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Veganism isn’t a diet.