Forum menu
Again for clarity:
This ‘argument’ (in the debating sense) identifies the ‘enemy/opponent’ as the alleged contradiction in vegan philosophy?
“If you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking*, you just don’t understand it yet.”
– Anthony Weston, ‘Rulebook for Arguments’
*In the debating sense. ie again I’m not suggesting anyone here is literally attacking someone’s person or their feelings etc.
‘How can vegans care about domestic animals, if vegans also want to make domestic animals extinct’?
Domestic animals are created by humans. Their ‘extinction’ wouldn’t be a disaster or damage the world in any way. It’s stupid anyway as no one is talking about extinction, just reducing their numbers by 99.9%.
as the contradiction in vegan philosophy.
There is no contradiction. Vegan philosophy is focused on one thing, which is eliminating the cruelty and suffering perpetrated on non-human animals by humans. In actual fact the liberation of domestic animals from human exploitation would be good for those species. Those that can survive in the wild would prosper and evolve like any other species. Those that can’t would naturally die off. Vegans are against human inflicted suffering, not evolution.
In actual fact the liberation of domestic animals from human exploitation would be good for those species.
Firstly, whether your personal view is representative of ‘vegan philosophy’ is a question that springs to mind?
I would never voluntarily remove my care from other animals within my care unless
1. I could no longer care for them
or
2. I genuinely believed that they would suffer less without my care/without their family.
I would fully support their not being bred but I wouldn’t throw our rescue dog out into the street or woods to fend for herself and ‘evolve or die’. Neither our friend’s rescued battery hens and sheep. They are ‘captive’ on account of their welfare. Our rescue dog was literally scooped by Mrs P from inbetween passing vehicles as she (the dog) had been abandoned by leaving neighbours in the street as a puppy covered in cigarette burns and dog bites. She was enormously timid and took years of care to make her even slightly trust people (she would always have a harder time trusting another dog, unsurprisingly after being used/abused as a ‘toy’ for the prior ‘owner’s’ bigger/vicious dog)
Please clarify your position? Are you suggesting that ‘vegan philosophy’ is to release all domestic animals into the wild and if they thrive so be it, and if they suffer and die before finding a mate then they don’t get to ‘evolve’? Because that’s how your statement reads to me?
I very much doubt dazh is suggesting that humans abandon their domesticated animals to fend for themselves. I might be wrong.
I would like to see a world where animals are free from human interference and are free to live their own lives. But that could only be achieved over decades or centuries.
Helping a domesticated animal that needs help is a good thing to do but it would be better if that animal wasn't in need of a person's help, having been firstly created and then abused by other people, in the first place.
I actually really struggle being in charge of or a leader to my dog. I want us to be equals or even her in charge of me. But she lives in 'my world' so I have to be in charge of her. I really wasn't in charge with my first dog. And that was a terrible mistake. I took this one to a behaviourist and discovered that if she was going to be happy, then i had to change. Nothing major but little but important things.
Sigh. No I’m not talking about abandoning domestic dogs and cats, surely that’s obvious? p7 I’m getting a strong pedantry vibe here. I’m talking about a potential future where ex-domestic species could exist as wild animals. Some would be fine (domestic cats for instance), others not. FWIW we have 3 rescue cats. Over the past 30 years we’ve had about a dozen. The standard approach is to neuter them so they can’t breed and allow them to live out their natural lives. If everyone did that they would disappear quite quickly and the small number living in the wild would continue to do just that. Problem solved.
I very much doubt dazh is suggesting that humans abandon their domesticated animals to fend for themselves. I might be wrong.
Hence why I asked him rather than assume. They also (unwittingly) highlight poly’s good questions about what is ‘vegan philosophy’ , if there is no set rule-book (I paraphrase) then any old thing that is done or said or suggested in the name of ‘veganism’ can be claimed as ‘vegan philosophy’ (by detractors or supporters)
*edit
p7 I’m getting a strong pedantry vibe here.
I’m frustrated that you’re getting ‘pedantry’. My intention was to take time and care to clarify/expand upon what you meant as opposed to myself or others risking attacking a strawman version of your/vegan/philosophy. Maybe I rather took it for granted that you would see that? That explained, hopefully the twain can now meet?
Sigh. No I’m not talking about abandoning domestic dogs and cats, surely that’s obvious?</blockquote</>
No? It wasn’t immediately obvious and neither specified. It may be to me, but that’s irrelevant for the sake of the debate.
But now with your updated clarification we may have avoided pages of misunderstanding and strawguments? Is that not obvious? (no sarcasm intended, I’m beginning to think I really can’t make myself understood!)
See above on vegan philosophy. It’s really quite simple.
The reason you sound pedantic is that you’re trying to deconstruct and question something that is incredibly simple. By all means disagree but don’t try to use silly edge case arguments to discredit it.
I think poly's idea of logging out permanently, or at least out of this thread, is a good one.
I think poly’s idea of logging out permanently, or at least out of this thread, is a good one.
Maybe, but I have endless stamina for refuting silly arguments and the veganism issue brings out the silliest, as we’ve seen once again in this thread. It’s comical really. In all my decades as a vegan I’ve never been criticised for denying unborn animals the right to life. I told mrs Daz about this one and she thinks it’s hilarious.
See above on vegan philosophy. It’s really quite simple.
The reason you sound pedantic is that you’re trying to deconstruct and question something that is incredibly simple.
Obviously the question of rewilding domesticated animals is not ‘simple’ to everyone. Not to ton(?), not to poly, not to millions of people who think that vegan philosophy has some big old contradiction.
FWIW we have 3 rescue cats. Over the past 30 years we’ve had about a dozen. The standard approach is to neuter them so they can’t breed and allow them to live out their natural lives. If everyone did that they would disappear quite quickly and the small number living in the wild would continue to do just that. Problem solved.
That makes perfect sense.
I’m sure many would agree that
In actual fact the liberation of domestic animals from human exploitation would be good for those species. Those that can survive in the wild would prosper and evolve like any other species.
Is much more difficult to understand without further clarification. A lot of people don’t know the difference between domestic animals and domesticated animals, let alone what ‘liberation of domestic animals’ actually looks like.
Maybe, but I have endless stamina for refuting silly arguments
Likewise. But play the argument not the person. It took poly’s balls (!)/persistence to get to the nugget of the argument? And my ‘pedantry’ ball to tease out a clarification from a vegan.
Whether the ‘final score’ of ‘Understanding VS Veganism’ has turned out to be a load of balls or a load of bollocks depends (as from the outset) very much on whether the OP had a ‘serious’ question or not.