I know I know… “obligate carnivore”

  • cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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

    • galanthus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • galanthus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            , 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.

            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

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

        • flerp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        10 months ago

        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

        • Dashi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            10 months ago

            paying them as indirectly as you are supporting the animal abuse indirectly.

            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.

            • Dashi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              10 months ago

              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 (?)

                • Dashi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I try giving people the benefit of the doubt but yea pretty sure they are trolling.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                we made milk before we had money. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                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

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            10 months ago

            You pay the store for the milk, the store pays the wholesaler and the wholesaler pays the farmer who is committing “animal abuse/ rape”.

            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.

            • Dashi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent.

                milking isn’t rape, either.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer.

                the. store makes their own decisions. I don’t decide for them

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.”

            • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

            • flerp@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              These mitts were made for murderin and that’s just what they’ll do

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

            • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      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!

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

        • Beaver@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

        • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

            • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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

  • Machinist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    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

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Much better than sourcing animal products from the supermarker. Still worse than being vegan

          • [Xe] 4f14 5d4 6s2 @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Definitely, because the idea that humans can survive and thrive eating their biologically adequate diet from ruminants that graze on grassland instead of fueling deforestation and ridiculous carbon footprints to be fed an unnatural diet that requires supplements and insane anthropogenic change in the environment is… too stupid to even argue about.

            Why don’t you at the very least try? I mean, it should be much easier than just giving me a canned response, right?

              • [Xe] 4f14 5d4 6s2 @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                10 months ago

                You’re unfortunately deviating the argument to industrial agriculture used to (force-)feed animals, which is not what I was talking about. I literally said “graze on grassland” but you decided to respond to something else. But the fault is mine for trying. I’m not sure what I was thinking, this never leads to anything meaningful, just defensive bullshit.

                If you want to educate yourself, feel free to investigate how grasslands work, how most of them cannot be used for anything else other than grazing (not arable), and maybe think about how ruminants actually lived and roamed the land before we started industrial/intensive agriculture and feedlots.

                Interesting comment there at the end. English is not my first language and I’m just trying to use the words that best capture the meaning I’m trying to convey. But you do you, you must feel pretty good about yourself.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Fellow unashamed omnivore. The vegans have the moral high ground. I hope one day to become one. No need to shame or be ashamed of eating meat though. Changes to society take a while, shaming and blaming rarely improve the situation. It often makes things worse.

    • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think your mentality is great. I’ve heard people say, “Sure I’ll eat a burger, but what kind of psychopath wants to kill an animal themselves?”

      I don’t know, what kind of a psychopath pays an industry to do it for them so they don’t have to feel bad about it? Look, I get it, I don’t hunt. But I respect the people who respectfully end the animal’s life themselves. Only they can really understand the cost. We just throw away some old chicken we forgot to cook while passing judgment on who we paid to get it for us and how they did it.

          • Machinist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yah, I was pretty insulting. Removed for lack of civility. I enjoy venting my rage at holier-than-thou vegans. They hate the religious and fanatic comparison. I’ve dealt with a lot of religious bullshit in my life, so someone judging me by their religious standards tends to put me in a vengeful mood.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

  • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        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…

        • Rooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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 ).

    • rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      A vegan that keeps cats allows 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.

    • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah c/Vegan had mods removed by a Lemmy.world admin because of controversial posts and opinions on a vegan diet for cats.

      The removal was justified because that constituted animal cruelty, but it was reversed because scientific evidence was provided for the possibility of a vegan cat diet.

      The vegan community I think said they were going to move to hexbear or some shit, lol.

      • cheddar@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah c/Vegan had mods removed by a Lemmy.world admin because of controversial posts and opinions on a vegan diet for cats.

        Lol, after years of reddit and other big websites I forgot that admins can also get involved in dramas on their platforms. Reminds me of the internet 15+ years ago.

      • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Gotcha, ty (seems someone is going thru and downvoting everything lol)

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The vegan community I think said they were going to move to hexbear or some shit

        Ooh, yes, please, that would be great!

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Some people say you can feed your cat vegan food like you can with dogs. Others say you cant.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Dogs also suffer without taurine or while on high carb diets, and dogs also cannot digest many fruits and vegetables: grapes cause kidney failure for example.

  • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t have any skin in the game as I am allergic to both cats and vegans.

    However, I think this is kind of interesting because it is going to be one of the first major pieces of Lemmy Lore that a large amount of the userbase is aware of.

    In a weird way it means we are forming the bonds of a real community, and even though this is clearly an antagonistic topic it is going to be a lasting piece of history that for better or worse defines our culture.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        This one never got traction but it was a personal favorite: https://lemm.ee/comment/1808516

        This was in response to someone considering getting a donkey.

        I grew up on farm & we had two donkeys, Honeybun & Buttercup. Buttercup was older & eventually passed away, leaving Honeybun solo amongst the chickens, cows & horses.

        Honeybun became ornery as all get out, just mean as hell. He’d started to bite anything close enough to be bitten. These weren’t little nips for attention; he’d draw blood given chance.

        It got bad enough my grandfather carried a potato soaked in hot sauce to deter the donkey from biting. Grandpa would try to shove the potato into the donkey’s mouth when Honeybun went in to bite.

        I know some donkeys get along well with horses. Honeybun did not. He bit those horses, went after chickens that wandered into his area, & likely would’ve done the same to cows if we’d let him.

        I don’t have any specific advice for you, but I do believe donkeys get lonely & need some measure of companionship.

    • VolumetricShitCompressor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      it is going to be one of the first major pieces of Lemmy Lore

      Yeah that’s what I wanted to comment as well. I love that Lemmy now starts to get it’s own inside jokes and stuff. Dunking on overzealous vegans is just the cherry on top lmao

      I will never forget omega fart in r/leagueoflegends, truly magical moment.

  • MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ve heard some pretty weird ass views from vegans about the diet of Indigenous people who’ve traditionally relied on hunting and trapped.