If you eat meat, would you be willing to kill an animal to continue to be able to?

[Bonquisha Brown]

And in answer to the question, yes I would if I were given the proper tools and had at least some intruction on how to kill the animal as quickly, painlessly, and cleanly as possible.

[RozzVanian]

I'm forced into eating meat by my mother. Literally. I have no choice but to eat it. But I'd rather be a vegetarian, because I've seen what they do to the animals to get the meat, and I don't much like it. Infact, it's downright appalling.

And I could never hurt a thing, even if my life depended on it. What makes my life more important than theirs? We're all living creatures that deserve compassion and empathy.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by Mr E Nigma

Saya was in fact the first person to call chimps savages. Seidre merely agreed that they were the more savage type of the 2 species. You can use ctrl+f or cmd+f if you use a mac to find this on page 6.

That goes to the guy on page 6 as well that addressed Seidre in saying she called chimps savages, then went on to say he liked Saya more because he agreed with her views.

Ah, yes, it was Blackwater...



Blackwater, be sure that when you condemn someone for saying something, that you don't make yourself look like a hypocritical dumb ass by saying you agree with the person who hold the exact same view you condemned someone else for.

Although it does make for a good laugh...

Let's review.

Honeythorn, arguing for meat being a natural food source, first mentioned the savagery of chimps:

Originally Posted by honeythorn

And also, for those who may argue that close relatives such as apes do not eat meat, Wrong. Chimps definitely hunt and eat meat. I'm sure many of us have seen the footage of wild chimps hunting down and killing a colobus monkey. Literally ripped it limb from limb whilst it was still alive and screaming. Then they ate it. Much like us, most of their diet is/should be plant based, but they do eat meat when they can get it.

To which saya explained that other primates are not as violent:

Originally Posted by Saya

Chimps are savages, they will murder each other for fun and cannibalize their own babies, not something you want to compare our behavior to. May I suggest the peaceful gorilla, who at the most might eat bugs if he's hungry enough? Otherwise he flicks them off his fruit.

Explaining that primates' behavior varies from species to species within nature is an argument against using 'nature' as a basis for morality; while chimps are our closest ancestors, other primates are vegetarian, so one cannot draw the strict conclusion that it is in our 'nature' to eat meat.

Seidre then agreed by saying that chimps do indeed act savagely:

Originally Posted by Seidre

Gorillas eat meat too, actually. And they’ve also been known to engage in cannibalism. Both species have been known to murder, though it is true that chimps are the more savage of the two. As of right now, I believe it is unknown why they do such things. But anyway, I think the main point there was that apes are omnivores.

It seemed Seidre was justifying human aggression and apathy towards other animals based on the actions of our closest genetic relatives. Then she waxed philosophical about nature being a harmonious balancing agent.

It was at this point that I called 'bullshit' and asked Seidre to explain the gap between her judgment of chimps as savage and her assumption that 'natural' equates to moral.

Pay attention, and don't call out a member of this board when your argument is baseless, especially since so far you seem to have been a thoughtful contributor and a welcome addition.

[Mr E Nigma]

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Seidre, nature as an entity does not exist. The nature you describe as the basis for your morality exists only in your mind and as a justification for your actions.

Your reasoning fails on many levels. You call chimps savages for killing other types of monkey to survive, despite that this occurs "naturally" in every sense of the word: without outside intervention; in the utilitarian sense of capacity for nourishment; in the sense that the animals suffer no physical or psychological blowback for their actions, etc. Yet, despite your round condemnation on a moral level of this animal's natural behavior, you are unable or unwilling to apply this same standard to yourself. Why?

Review you say? Alright

And my argument wasn't baseless at all. The argument itself is pretty much the base.

2 things I guess you obviously missed maybe.

Saya was the first one to call chimps savages, I've already made that clear. Honeythorn may have described their actions but Saya classified them as savages.

You, called Seidre a hypocrite, (You didn't use the word hypocrite but you basically worded out it's meaning, that she morally condemned chimps but wouldn't apply that same thought process to us, since if their nature results in her condemnation of them, then why doesn't ours?).

She is not a hypocrite, nor did she do what you actually said. She NEVER condemned chimps.. I'm not sure where you feel she did, she did however agree that they are savage. (which isn't a condemnation) She never said that those chimps were wrong for what they did because it was in their nature, just like the same types of things are in our nature. So Sir, your argument was the baseless one.

Saya specifically was the one who called chimps savages and suggested it might not be a good idea to relate them to ourselves. But seidre had no problem doing so.

And as for morals based on nature being in her head go...

Seidre, nature as an entity does not exist. The nature you describe as the basis for your morality exists only in your mind and as a justification for your actions.

Anything remotely relating to a persons morals, is simply that. It's what they view in their mind as being okay. Plenty of people think it's wrong to smoke or drink alcohol. That it's immoral to get into a fight. Other people think it's honorable to be in a fight.

Morals are based on what you believe to be right and wrong. And if Seidre wants to use the bases of any animal's natural instincts to be morally okay for something, I have no idea why you'd tell her it's wrong. But maybe then again your morals go against that, because oh wait... you've decided for yourself that that's not right. I'm not saying that is how you feel, but it's a good example of morals.

You telling her she's wrong justifying herself the way she does because her idea of nature is all in her head is absolutely baseless considering any justification for anything is someone deciding in their head what's right and what's wrong based on whatever they damn well please.

I know plenty of christians who are okay with a lot of stuff because their moral basis lies with their thoughts on god.

Plenty of people in the mid east justify being a kamikaze for religion. Some celtic druids feel a moral obligation to preserve all animals in their natural habitat without human interference, nothing to do with caging or having a reservation, but simply lacking the existence of humans around them. There are loads of ancient naturalistic ideals which revolve around nature and instincts. Animism, Druidism, Wiccan... They treat the very idea of nature as a sacred thing.

It might be your opinion that they are absolute imbeciles and have no idea what they're thinking, but you make that decision that you think that way, that you have certain moral standards based on your opinions. So you've no right to condemn someone else for merely using something as a moral basis when you do the same thing. And yes I could say you condemned her for it, because you flat out told her she was wrong.

That's why I simply said you were making yourself look like a hypocritical dumb ass... Sorry I didn't think I'd have to point it out to you.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Mr E Nigma

Morals are based on what you believe to be right and wrong. And if Seidre wants to use the bases of any animal's natural instincts to be morally okay for something, I have no idea why you'd tell her it's wrong. But maybe then again your morals go against that, because oh wait... you've decided for yourself that that's not right. I'm not saying that is how you feel, but it's a good example of morals.
.

Jane Goodall documented chimps attacking a neighbouring tribe and killing every single member for apparently no reason. Does this mean that because genocide is natural, as it occurs in nature, its okay?

[Mr E Nigma]

For me, no, I think it's absolutely wrong. Why would you even ask me that? I'd think that you'd already know the answer considering you know I'm a buddhist and I've long since told you I have the upmost compassion for all living beings and wouldn't want to harm anything.

[honeythorn]

At the end of the day, I think the chances of the whole planet, or even your average town going vegan or vegetarian , are almost non existant. Too many people like meat for that to happen, human beings have evolved to eat it chimps or no chimps.

There IS a balance. Things eat other things to either survive, or because they like the taste and will take the opportunity if they have it. Nature has pretty much always been this way, people included.

I think it's far more realistic to strive for better animal welfare on farms or wherever animals are raised, than to try to contain yourself and others in a bubble world where no living thing ever gets harmed by anything else, just in case it had a brother somewhere who might be a bit sad if said creature went missing.

Animals will always be used for something. Or eaten by something/one, somewhere on the planet . There's no getting aound it . If you do not want to eat any animal products then good for you. But the fact is some peope either have to because they have few to no alternatives due to health ( similar to Solumina ) or because they like it, plain and simple.

And it's more realistic to ensure that while those animals are going to be killed for some purpose or other, they should have a good life while they are alive, and a quick death when it comes. Those two things ARE achievable. Far more achievable than trying to make the world stop eating meat by blasting people and being condescending , and you have been Saya.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Mr E Nigma

For me, no, I think it's absolutely wrong. Why would you even ask me that? I'd think that you'd already know the answer considering you know I'm a buddhist and I've long since told you I have the upmost compassion for all living beings and wouldn't want to harm anything.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy for using "chimps eat meat" as an excuse, you know? So if we should eat meat because apes eat meat, and apes also do thinks like kill for no reason at all or for territory, why can't I kill my neighbour, take over his apartment and celebrate with a barbeque?

Originally Posted by honeythorn

I think it's far more realistic to strive for better animal welfare on farms or wherever animals are raised, than to try to contain yourself and others in a bubble world where no living thing ever gets harmed by anything else, just in case it had a brother somewhere who might be a bit sad if said creature went missing.

Because it still doesn't make it right. For every movement there have been welfarists (the ones who wanted to keep slaves but treat them more "humanely", didn't want women to vote but have "protection" laws so her husband can't beat her) and the abolitionists, the ones who saw slavery and oppression as wrong and refused to take part in it at all. I'm sure back then no one thought women would have rights or black people could be free, and while racism and sexism are still around it has no legal standing, and conditions for these once second class citizens are far better then any "humane" laws could ever provide them, all due to people who would not stand for it even though it was a socially accepted thing. Why settle for "humane" laws when animals have an inherent value beyond that of property? Why settle for a lesser evil when it is still evil?

[Ebbhead]

I would kill an animal if I was peckish, but I wouldn't want to skin it etc. Sounds like very gross, messy and boring work. Whereas shooting a deer from a distance wouldn't really feel like killing.

Hurray for attempting to morally justify tasty murder.

[honeythorn]

Originally Posted by Ebbhead

I would kill an animal if I was peckish, but I wouldn't want to skin it etc. Sounds like very gross, messy and boring work. Whereas shooting a deer from a distance wouldn't really feel like killing.

Hurray for attempting to morally justify tasty murder.

And after you shot it you'd have to skin, gut and dismember it in order to get it back to where you live. I don't see why distance would make the killing any less of a kill seeing as you'd have to go over there and deal with the body.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

Because it still doesn't make it right. For every movement there have been welfarists (the ones who wanted to keep slaves but treat them more "humanely", didn't want women to vote but have "protection" laws so her husband can't beat her) and the abolitionists, the ones who saw slavery and oppression as wrong and refused to take part in it at all. I'm sure back then no one thought women would have rights or black people could be free, and while racism and sexism are still around it has no legal standing, and conditions for these once second class citizens are far better then any "humane" laws could ever provide them, all due to people who would not stand for it even though it was a socially accepted thing. Why settle for "humane" laws when animals have an inherent value beyond that of property? Why settle for a lesser evil when it is still evil?

I hate when people say we shouldn't eat meat because it isn't right and then compare it to groups of people not having legal rights, they aren't comparable. Those animals would not exist if not for the fact that people are going to use them, what should happen? Farmers can't exactly afford to keep them without any monetary return but I suppose you wouldn't be okay with all of those animals being put to death for no reason and it isn't as though they would be able to live in the wild, are people like you willing to foot the bill for those animals?

What about the people who couldn't afford to feed their families if not for the fact that they supplement their diet by hunting? You may be supervised by how many people this applies to and it isn't exactly like there is tofu for them to go collect instead. How about people who live in regions where it is easy to raise goats but not crops due to the climate (as goats are able to digest just about any plants and people are not), should they not be allowed to provide a decent life for their family by raising goats and using the goat's milk, wool, and ultimately it's meat? What would you have them do instead?

I understand that you care about animals but you have to understand that for many people eating meat is a fact of life because there is no other option. They may not be the majority in first world countries but it is not such a small group that they can simply be discounted, some of my best friends as well as some of my own family fall into that category. Do you look down on them for the life that they were born into? If not then how do you tell who they are? It isn't as though you can tell without getting to know them.

I don’t understand why you think that eating meat is evil. Meat eaters don’t deny that there is more worth in an animal than a meal, small farms treat their animals well and there is a lot of love for those animals. I can respect the fact that you don’t agree with it but I do not understand why you see it as evil. There is a lot of evil in the world, evil that causes much pain and suffering yet you choose to indiscriminately vilify anyone who eats meat, I just don’t get it.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

I hate when people say we shouldn't eat meat because it isn't right and then compare it to groups of people not having legal rights, they aren't comparable. Those animals would not exist if not for the fact that people are going to use them, what should happen? Farmers can't exactly afford to keep them without any monetary return but I suppose you wouldn't be okay with all of those animals being put to death for no reason and it isn't as though they would be able to live in the wild, are people like you willing to foot the bill for those animals?

These animals are being bred already to the point where its costing us and the environment. I've said it a million times right now but of course as veganism and vegetarianism becomes more popular the demand goes down, and thus the numbers of animals bred goes down. If it happened all of a sudden? Yes we would be willing to take them in. We already have farm rescues, some very big ones like Farm Sanctuary, and if so much of the population became dedicated to veganism they would get more funding. I myself hope to open a rescue one day or at the very least buy a property where I can take in as many animals I can care for.

What about the people who couldn't afford to feed their families if not for the fact that they supplement their diet by hunting? You may be supervised by how many people this applies to and it isn't exactly like there is tofu for them to go collect instead. How about people who live in regions where it is easy to raise goats but not crops due to the climate (as goats are able to digest just about any plants and people are not), should they not be allowed to provide a decent life for their family by raising goats and using the goat's milk, wool, and ultimately it's meat? What would you have them do instead?

I'm from an extremely poor rural town myself, and while they do suppliment their diets there with moose and rabbits that they poach its not their primary diet. Regardless, I think food is a human right, and if Gandhi is correct and you can judge the moral standing of a country by how well it treats its animals, by the time everyone went vegan we'd probably have such notions of food and other necessities of life as a right. Also the price of veggies would go down as the lack of livestock to feed would give us a surplus supply.

I understand that you care about animals but you have to understand that for many people eating meat is a fact of life because there is no other option. They may not be the majority in first world countries but it is not such a small group that they can simply be discounted, some of my best friends as well as some of my own family fall into that category. Do you look down on them for the life that they were born into? If not then how do you tell who they are? It isn't as though you can tell without getting to know them.

Like I said, animal rights isn't my only cause, I do believe food should be a human right and these people shouldn't be in the situation where they have to hunt for food. I think Canada should take a serious look at Brazil's Zero Hunger strategy and make sure that everyone has access to high quality food.

I don’t understand why you think that eating meat is evil. Meat eaters don’t deny that there is more worth in an animal than a meal, small farms treat their animals well and there is a lot of love for those animals. I can respect the fact that you don’t agree with it but I do not understand why you see it as evil. There is a lot of evil in the world, evil that causes much pain and suffering yet you choose to indiscriminately vilify anyone who eats meat, I just don’t get it.

You can't claim that you love an animal if you're willing to exploit and murder it for the sake of a meal or making a buck. For example, take companion animals. Lucy is a household member and she is not here for my amusement, and I'm not going to skin her and eat her one day. There is little difference between companion animals and farm animals and its completely illogical to have double standards regarding them. As living with animals has taught me they have their own personalities, wants, needs, and self interest and I cannot impose my will upon them unless its for their own health/welfare (taking Lucy to the vet, keeping Prudence in the cage when Lucy is around). The day I kill and eat Lucy for no reason other than cats are tasty I can no longer claim to love or respect her. Murdering her for such a sake would be no less than an evil act.

[JCC]

Saya is awesome.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Saya

You can't claim that you love an animal if you're willing to exploit and murder it for the sake of a meal or making a buck. For example, take companion animals. Lucy is a household member and she is not here for my amusement, and I'm not going to skin her and eat her one day. There is little difference between companion animals and farm animals and its completely illogical to have double standards regarding them. As living with animals has taught me they have their own personalities, wants, needs, and self interest and I cannot impose my will upon them unless its for their own health/welfare (taking Lucy to the vet, keeping Prudence in the cage when Lucy is around). The day I kill and eat Lucy for no reason other than cats are tasty I can no longer claim to love or respect her. Murdering her for such a sake would be no less than an evil act.

If you don't own the cat to be amused by her, why do you?

[Godslayer Jillian]

I assume you pay lip service to your pets rather than fulfilling the responsibilities of owning a pet?

[Saya]

We took her in from the SPCA, someone left her there in a box with her kittens, her kittens got adopted right away but she didn't. When my roommate heard about it she got upset that anyone would do that and went to Petcetera (they don't take animals from breeders, they work with the SPCA to adopt their animals), saw this scrawny cat say goodbye to her last kitten, and well, that was that. We're pretty sure whoever had her before neglected her, she was uber skinny and would flinch whenever we touched her, we honestly do just want to make her life as happy as we can so we can make it up to her for having a crappy life before.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I assume you pay lip service to your pets rather than fulfilling the responsibilities of owning a pet?

Do you get enjoyment out of imagining I'm some horrible person?
It's annoying.

No, I don't just "pay lip service."
But still, the reason I have my pets is because they're fun and cuddly.

[honeythorn]

And what of the cat food you feed Lucy? If the supply of meat stopped, thus the supply for cat food stopped and you don't want to use small farms who treat their animals well, and there is a short supply of rats/mice ect for whatever reason ( which can certainly happen ) what do you feed her? What will she hunt? You can't make a cat vegan or vegetarian. So then what?

These animals are being bred already to the point where its costing us and the environment

Which is exactly the reason I said farming should be scaled down to local levels. It would also take up less land/ Less animals = less land needed for their support = more land for veg.

We already have farm rescues, some very big ones like Farm Sanctuary

So basically these animals are using land they would have used on a farm, still get fed ( whatever food they need ) as they would on a farm, still produce waste and so on and so forth. They simply aren't killed. Which is fine, but as more are rescued, this isn't much better than breeding them if a constant stream of rescued animals comes in. You're still getting a steady influx of beasts, all of which need land, food, and will shit and produce methane as they would on a farm. So this isn't going to help the environment all that much.

And as Solumina has said, what of those hot/dry areas of the world, where crops are difficult to grow even with irrigation ditches? In such areas , Africa notably, farmed animals such as goats are a lifeline as they can eat and digest other native plants that human beings cannot eat, but the goats thmselves can be eaten . That's basic survival. If you get a drought and your crops fail with even the best efforts, what are you left with? Goats. There are a few tribes who drink the blood of their animals ( without killing them ) when water is not available. Their animals are valuable to them, and not for monetary value or as a snack. They don't massacre them willy nilly because they fancy a barbeque. They usually only slaughter one when they need to, which isn't exactly every day or even every week or month.

No one has said that meat should be a staple food source. It was never meant to be. We do eat too much of it too regularly, and yes, there are too many animals being farmed. The chances of the whole planet retreating to a bubbleworld where nothing gets killed ever is simply unrealistic.

Look at it this way. What is better of the two most likely things to happen if the whole world or the whole of a country does not go vegan or vegetarian.

Animals get factory farmed en masse and are killed in poorly managed slaughterhouses where their deaths are slower and more painful - Or - animals are raised on smaller well managed farms with welfare checked slaughterhouses.

If an animal's life is to be taken for food purposes, I would rather that animal had the best life possible. I know which one I'd choose.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by honeythorn

And what of the cat food you feed Lucy? If the supply of meat stopped, thus the supply for cat food stopped and you don't want to use small farms who treat their animals well, and there is a short supply of rats/mice ect for whatever reason ( which can certainly happen ) what do you feed her? What will she hunt? You can't make a cat vegan or vegetarian. So then what?

I have no idea if cats can really live off a supplement vegetarian diet, I'm not in charge of her food, my roommate is, and I won't think of giving her vegan cat food without supplements and by a vet's advice. Normally I would be uncomfortable having a carnivorous animal, but Lucy is what she is and she needs to eat what she needs, she's not like a human who has a choice. I'm told cats who are given vegan food with supplements don't enjoy it much and will go hunt their own food, and if Lucy were to do this if Earth was to become a vegan utopia I can't blame her, can I? And again, if veganism ever becomes global I'm sure by the time we will have put enough effort in finding a way to feed the cats we are the caretakers for. For now, for Lucy its a necessary evil, and like I said, I'm sure if everyone became that concerned about animals there will be a solution for our companion animals as well. I'll have to worry about it then, or look into the vegan diet when I have a cat and I'm in charge of their diet. Thats one of those really hypothetical situations where I don't really see the point of putting much thought into it, I have little faith that I will actually live to see the day where the property status of animals are abolished.

Which is exactly the reason I said farming should be scaled down to local levels. It would also take up less land/ Less animals = less land needed for their support = more land for veg.

So basically these animals are using land they would have used on a farm, still get fed ( whatever food they need ) as they would on a farm, still produce waste and so on and so forth. They simply aren't killed. Which is fine, but as more are rescued, this isn't much better than breeding them if a constant stream of rescued animals comes in. You're still getting a steady influx of beasts, all of which need land, food, and will shit and produce methane as they would on a farm. So this isn't going to help the environment all that much.

These farms have their animals neutered and spayed. There would be a cease to breeding and therefore while at first there would be a large number of animals in need of a home, these animals have so many problems most of them won't live very long at all. So there won't be a "constant stream" of animals.

And as Solumina has said, what of those hot/dry areas of the world, where crops are difficult to grow even with irrigation ditches? In such areas , Africa notably, farmed animals such as goats are a lifeline as they can eat and digest other native plants that human beings cannot eat, but the goats thmselves can be eaten . That's basic survival. If you get a drought and your crops fail with even the best efforts, what are you left with? Goats. There are a few tribes who drink the blood of their animals ( without killing them ) when water is not available. Their animals are valuable to them, and not for monetary value or as a snack. They don't massacre them willy nilly because they fancy a barbeque. They usually only slaughter one when they need to, which isn't exactly every day or even every week or month.

Once again, I believe quality food is a human right and should be provided to everyone, no one should be forced to hunt an animal.

No one has said that meat should be a staple food source. It was never meant to be. We do eat too much of it too regularly, and yes, there are too many animals being farmed. The chances of the whole planet retreating to a bubbleworld where nothing gets killed ever is simply unrealistic.

Look at it this way. What is better of the two most likely things to happen if the whole world or the whole of a country does not go vegan or vegetarian.

Animals get factory farmed en masse and are killed in poorly managed slaughterhouses where their deaths are slower and more painful - Or - animals are raised on smaller well managed farms with welfare checked slaughterhouses.

If an animal's life is to be taken for food purposes, I would rather that animal had the best life possible. I know which one I'd choose.

Sure it'll be lucky if it happens here, let alone globally. But that doesn't mean the effort to abolish the property status of animals should be abandoned for the lesser evils. What would you rather? Women have no rights, but are treated "better" by the men they marry and are dependant on or women having full rights? Do you think the suffragists should have settled for the "protection" laws instead of fighting for rights, since it would be far easier? Women rights are still not global, but that doesn't make it right to settle for laws that fall short of offering REAL protection.

That and humane laws usually do jack shit anyway, as long as it can save them money people will find ways around them, and as long as we treat animals as property there's no real legal consequences for failing to uphold these laws usually just a fine if they ever bother to punish you. There's lots of incidents like this from Gene Baur's Farm Sanctuary book, he is a welfarist but he often talks about how futile his efforts have been, and what stood out in my mind was when he asked the USDA (the American government branch that upholds these humane laws) what they would recommend to use to dispose of unwanted male chicks, they recommended to him a garbage bin. Likewise, as lobby groups can get the seal of approval from PeTA, like McDonald's or KFC, people will feel better about eating meat and probably eat more of it, hell if the vegetarians are okay with it. It benefits the meat industry to have their products labeled "cage free" and "humane", it does nothing for the inherent issue that said "humane" farms still enslave, exploit and of course murder their animals. A cow will still lose all her babies, a chicken will still have to lay hundreds of eggs a year or else be killed. They are slaves, they are property, disposable things. A few years ago a vet that worked with Farm Sanctuary found a half dead sick lamb at a farm that was being trampled in the crowded barn by other sheep, she took it to a vet and sadly had to have it euthanized. She was charged with theft and originally sentenced to time in prison, but was commuted to community service and paying the farmer 200 dollars for the loss of his "property" and to make it worse, had to write him a letter of apology.

[Mr E Nigma]

Originally Posted by Saya

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy for using "chimps eat meat" as an excuse, you know? So if we should eat meat because apes eat meat, and apes also do thinks like kill for no reason at all or for territory, why can't I kill my neighbour, take over his apartment and celebrate with a barbeque?

You weren't pointing out the hypocrisy of anything. You quoted me, and then made a statement which had absolutely nothing to do with the quote being referenced. How does me making a statement about morals differing from person to person depending on their thoughts have anything to do with some random nonsense about chimps?

Saya, I love you and all, but that kind of actually aggravated me... in the same way that you'd probably be aggravated or pissed if someone you've known for a decent amount of time asked you, "Hey wanna finish the rest of my steak?" like there might be a chance you'd actually say yes...

Just because I was defending Seidre actually having morals in general for whatever reason she chooses, doesn't mean I feel the exact same way she does so please don't ask a person you know to be absolutely compassionate towards all living things if he thinks genocide is okay... like there's even a chance I'd say yes... Seriously not cool..

[honeythorn]

I'm told cats who are given vegan food with supplements don't enjoy it much and will go hunt their own food, and if Lucy were to do this if Earth was to become a vegan utopia I can't blame her, can I? And again, if veganism ever becomes global I'm sure by the time we will have put enough effort in finding a way to feed the cats we are the caretakers for. For now, for Lucy its a necessary evil, and like I said, I'm sure if everyone became that concerned about animals there will be a solution for our companion animals as well. I'll have to worry about it then, or look into the vegan diet when I have a cat and I'm in charge of their diet

The stupidity of this is so indescribable..I'm almost lost for words. Are you actually saying you'd make a cat who's feeding you are in charge of , eat a vegan diet/meat replacement which is completely and utterly unnatural for it, just to make yourself feel better? What the hell is wrong with you? You call that care? You call it love? Sorry, no.


What is "evil" about a cat eating what it has evolved to eat? It's a carnivore, it has to eat meat as this is what it's digestion has evolved for. Not tofu, not nuts, not mushrooms or modified vegan food grown in test tubes, MEAT, FLESH. Oddly enough, that's why cats who are fed vegan/vegetarian replacements don't like it much. They aren't supposed to eat it.


You blast me and others here for being comfortable with eating animals who's lives have been the best they can be in their situation, and have said that we/I cannot possibly love or care about animals if that is the case? Well sorry but forcing an animal to eat a diet that it's digestion isn't designed for, so you don't have to cry about it either eating some form of meat or killing something for itself, as is it's nature, is pretty hypocritical on the love and care front.

Since you're so fond of making comparisons to human situations, How would you feel if your mother made you eat nothing but raw steaks for the rest of your life from now on? Would your stomach be able to cope? No. Would you enjoy it? No. You can sit on your moral high horse and look down your nose at others all you like, but don't inflict your diet on animals who were never meant to share it.

You can't stop nature doing what it does because you don't want anything to kill anything else for food. It WILL happen in some form or another and will continue to do so long after you're gone. This non-death utopia fantasy land will not happen Saya. It really won't.

[JCC]

honeythorn;

It's not natural for a cat to eat processed genetically-modified food out of a packet. The cat will go out and hunt for its own food during the day, so feeding it a vegan supplement to be in line with your own ethical stance is no more forceful than 'forcing' your cat to eat Whiskas out of a tin.

[honeythorn]

You don't have to feed it food out of a tin. Buying humanely raised chicken or other meat to feed the cat is perfectly possible.

cats who are given vegan food with supplements

A cat does not require any sort of vegan food or supplement and their systems are not made for such things. They get what they need from meat, that is their natural diet.

I'm all for allowing a cat to hunt it's own, but having seen how thin some feral or abandoned cats can be when rodents and birds are elusive or scarce for whatever reason ( rodents in particular are most likely to be in shorter supply than birds as few people will tolerate those running round and invariably get the poison tin or call pest control out ) , espescially on housing estates, this isn't always possible. Obviously if you live on or near farmland the cat will have a better chance of catching something, but a large majority do not. What of them?

[JCC]

What's natural about buying chicken slaughtered on a human farm after being given a life of relative luxury and bringing it back home to your domesticated cat? It's hardly a primitivist hunter-gatherer utopia, is it?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by honeythorn

The stupidity of this is so indescribable..I'm almost lost for words. Are you actually saying you'd make a cat who's feeding you are in charge of , eat a vegan diet/meat replacement which is completely and utterly unnatural for it, just to make yourself feel better? What the hell is wrong with you? You call that care? You call it love? Sorry, no.


What is "evil" about a cat eating what it has evolved to eat? It's a carnivore, it has to eat meat as this is what it's digestion has evolved for. Not tofu, not nuts, not mushrooms or modified vegan food grown in test tubes, MEAT, FLESH. Oddly enough, that's why cats who are fed vegan/vegetarian replacements don't like it much. They aren't supposed to eat it.


You blast me and others here for being comfortable with eating animals who's lives have been the best they can be in their situation, and have said that we/I cannot possibly love or care about animals if that is the case? Well sorry but forcing an animal to eat a diet that it's digestion isn't designed for, so you don't have to cry about it either eating some form of meat or killing something for itself, as is it's nature, is pretty hypocritical on the love and care front.

Since you're so fond of making comparisons to human situations, How would you feel if your mother made you eat nothing but raw steaks for the rest of your life from now on? Would your stomach be able to cope? No. Would you enjoy it? No. You can sit on your moral high horse and look down your nose at others all you like, but don't inflict your diet on animals who were never meant to share it.

You can't stop nature doing what it does because you don't want anything to kill anything else for food. It WILL happen in some form or another and will continue to do so long after you're gone. This non-death utopia fantasy land will not happen Saya. It really won't.

If there is no farm animals, what am I supposed to do? I'm not willing to kill an animal so I can keep a cute and cuddly kitty in my house.

As for making my animals eat vegan food, like JCC said, we feed them crap anyway. Cat food has ASH in it, thats not natural for a cat to eat. And no, I can't feed her actual chicken she will ONLY eat dry cat food. We force already an unnatural diet on them. In cases we ran out of cat food and my roommate had to give her something like chicken, Lucy would lick it a bit and then happily starve until there was Whiskas in her food dish. So if a cat food was developed out of plants and Lucy would eat it and be healthy, why not?

As for feral cats, they are exactly that, wild animals. I do appreciate feral cat programs that trap, neuter and release, and even tame them again, and there's plenty of colonies that do well. Do you leave food out for racoons? Or are cats special cases because they are cuter?