FortyTwo
Custom Title
It also makes me wonder why he hasn't done it yet, if the issue is really as simple as he is outlining it to be.
Maybe there's a little bit of recognition there?
Is it vegan to have companion animals?
- Thread starter Clueless Git
- Start date
It also makes me wonder why he hasn't done it yet, if the issue is really as simple as he is outlining it to be.
Maybe there's a little bit of recognition there?
OP
OP
It's not a case of whether I meant it, or not, Amy.
It was purely a statement of mathematical fact expressed ironicaly.
Neither mathematical facts nor irony are against forum rules at my last reading of them.
Possibly posts trying to divert attention from the topic into a rally against a poster are against forum rules though.
Either way we have a forum staff member lurking in the background enthusiasticaly 'liking' every attempt to do exactly just that.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Oops, Sorry, no longer lurking.
Now actively trying to divert attention off topic and onto the same poster too.
I have no idea if that tactic works as well here as it did (does?) on VB, FortyTwo.
I don't think I ever really thought about it. I think I'm missing something. Are you saying that rescuing/adopting animals in shelters results in more breeding?
OP
OP
Well ...
If animal shelters are lowering peoples resistance to serial animal abandoment, then yes.
This is simply because the faster animals can be abandoned then the faster those animals will need to be replaced.
So do I. The best answer I know of is to spay or neuter every single companion animal. Every single one. And outlaw breeding immediately. Ideally, in 15 - 20 years. there will be no more dogs and cats as pets. In just one generation, we can put an end to puppy mills and save millions of other animals whose fate it is to feeds our pets. Sure life will be different, but I do think that in an ideal world, people should not have "pets".
OP
OP
I'm really chuffed that someone actualy wants to think about this, btw.
It's useless discussing such thing with omnis, for obvious reasons.
Much harder to think things through alone for obvious reasons too.
OP
OP
I understand this reasoning though it would make me very sad.
But if no one had any pets I suppose I could adjust.
I wonder how feasible something like this would be...how many people would break the law and try to keep pets secretly.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
Some evidence suggests that wolves chose to start living amongst man.
In any event, if this dog-less world some of you desire comes about, I'll have to go live with a wolf pack somewhere.
In any event, if this dog-less world some of you desire comes about, I'll have to go live with a wolf pack somewhere.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
Same could be said of human children. Many are without homes and many live in abusive/neglectful situations. And you know the vast majority call dead animals food. We had better outlaw all breeding of humans.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
It seems that the debate is going on just finely around any off comments.
VB is a silly place, we mustn't discuss it.
Anyways, I'd contribute something useful but there's an issue, and that issue is the fact that I've had this discussion so many times that it's laughable. See also "why isn't honey vegan" and "why does milk hurt cows?"
I agree. I can't imagine my life without my animals but I think this is the best solution.
I've been pondering this issue since my last post and then I came across this story of a turkey on FB.
http://www.all-creatures.org/stories/a-Peeper.html
If domesticating animals brings out something in the animal, like the story about this turkey, something that most people don't realize or comprehend, why is it so bad? Isn't it better that the turkey was able to experience love and kindness rather than just be a wild turkey not experiencing the emotions? Or is it that we are we not supposed to transfer human emotion onto animals? I kind of feel like if the ability is there, why not nurture it?
Is it to try and save the animals who are being bred and tortured? Like we sacrifice the pleasure pets bring to us and vice versa for the ones who are suffering? The whole greater good?
Lots of questions, I know. This upsets me. The turkey got to me.
http://www.all-creatures.org/stories/a-Peeper.html
If domesticating animals brings out something in the animal, like the story about this turkey, something that most people don't realize or comprehend, why is it so bad? Isn't it better that the turkey was able to experience love and kindness rather than just be a wild turkey not experiencing the emotions? Or is it that we are we not supposed to transfer human emotion onto animals? I kind of feel like if the ability is there, why not nurture it?
Is it to try and save the animals who are being bred and tortured? Like we sacrifice the pleasure pets bring to us and vice versa for the ones who are suffering? The whole greater good?
Lots of questions, I know. This upsets me. The turkey got to me.
OP
OP
OP
OP
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm a nice person ...
Omni argument;
1. We can't all go vegan because there are food animals already in the chain.
2. If we did all go vegan we would have to mass murder in the most gruesome of ways/set loose to starve in the wild/<insert apocalyptic nonsense of choice here> all those animals.
3. Ergo veganism would be a disaster for animals and all vegans are muddy b'stards.
Mischeif argument;
1. We can't all give up owning animals because there are animals already in the chain.
2. If we did all give up owning animals we would have to mass murder in the most gruesome of ways/set loose to starve in the wild/<insert apocalyptic nonsense of choice here> all those animals.
3. Ergo ending ownership of animals would be a disaster for animals and CG is my favouritest poster on this board.
Please refer to Poppy's post, and subsequent replies to it, for further clarification if needed.
I've been pondering this issue since my last post and then I came across this story of a turkey on FB.
http://www.all-creatures.org/stories/a-Peeper.html
If domesticating animals brings out something in the animal, like the story about this turkey, something that most people don't realize or comprehend, why is it so bad? Isn't it better that the turkey was able to experience love and kindness rather than just be a wild turkey not experiencing the emotions? Or is it that we are we not supposed to transfer human emotion onto animals? I kind of feel like if the ability is there, why not nurture it?
Is it to try and save the animals who are being bred and tortured? Like we sacrifice the pleasure pets bring to us and vice versa for the ones who are suffering? The whole greater good?
Lots of questions, I know. This upsets me. The turkey got to me.
The turkey got to me too, it was a wonderful story and I think he had a wonderful life. I can't see anything wrong in saving or helping any creature who is already here, in fact, I think it's our duty to do as much for animals as we can. But it's our innate (?) belief that we humans are entitled to do whatever we choose with animals, whether it be to eat them, wear their skins, take the milk they produce for their own offspring as our own, or keep them as pets to entertain and enrich our lives, that creates suffering in the long run.
thefadedone
Needs a life
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- 4,829
I really wish there were laws in place that enforced these thing, as well as banning the sales of all animals, domestic and livestock.
Ah, I get it. Adopting a homeless animal is exactly like buying meat, because the latter continues to make it profitable to raise animals for slaughter, while the former encourages civic minded animal abandoners to abandon more animals, so that the supply of homeless animals doesn't dry up. The two are also exactly alike, because providing a home to an abandoned animal is exactly like slaughtering an animal to eat her. Sort of like it's exactly the same whether you adopt a human child or kill him.
Thanks for explaining your "logic".
