For those of you who don’t eat eggs or drink milk because you consider it to be “exploitation”, what is your opinion of the following?:
Training dogs to help blind people avoid becoming human roadkill
Training dogs to sniff out drugs/explosives and chase and take down criminals
Horseback riding
Falconry (People still do it, believe it or not.)
Do the aforementioned activities constitute exploitation?
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
I’m not a vegan myself, RoboDude, but maybe I can forestall yet another screaming, furious vegan thread :rolleyes: by answering your question.
The answer is, “Yes, vegans who believe that eating eggs and drinking milk is actually exploiting animals would ALSO believe that all the things you list are exploiting animals.”
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
hmm im gonna train me a falcon to hunt down some vegans
Hey folks,
Carrot Juice Is Murder
has some salient points for vegans et al. to consider. Thanks to The Arrogant Worms for finally speaking loud and clear about this terrible slaughter.
V8’s Genocide!
Jai Pey
I know a lot of Vegans have pets. Query: why isn’t this exploitation?
Cue YosemiteBabe!
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
yeah, and why is it ok for animals to kill other animals? 
But I’m not a vegan, I’m an ovo-lacto vegetarian…
There probably isn’t a monolithic “vegan” attitude about things like aid dogs and pets. The only vegan I knew well had cats and cheerfully fed them fish (although not any other kind of meat.) He said it was okay for them because they are designed to eat only meat, as opposed to humans, who have other choices.
Now that I think about it, all the vegetarians I know have cats. Hmmmm.
While I was not party to or witness to the previous thread in question, I really wonder at the utility of a thread which is, seemingly, intended to do nothing more than point accusatory fingers at the potential hypocrisy of some people by others who are, no doubt, tangles of contradictions themselves. No one person is completely consistent; all should simply attempt to make the best and most moral decisions that they can.
I was a member of another board for a time that had a lot of vegetarians, vegans and people who were into organic food. It made me very curious, so I started surfing the web and also looking at some recent findings on free range farmers and the organic food industry. The truth is if we all spent a day touring a slauterhouse I don’t think too many of us would want to go out for a steak that night. I also discovered that in many instances people are getting bilked by the industry which claims to be “free-range” or organic. I stopped reading about how chickens, pigs and other food animals are raised and slaughtered in this country. Can’t help it, I like a nice thick cut boneless pork chop now and then.
Needs2know
GIVE ME A NICE T-BONE OVER ONYTHING VEGEN ANYDAY!!!
P.S. I don’t feel there is such a thing as a true vegan. Also if cows were not eaten what purpose would they serve?
Anyway to each their own but try to take my steak away from me and you may end up with a fork stuck on the top of your hand. spanks much!!!
I do not think that this thread has to be as negitive as all that, pldennison, although it seems headed that way. For whatever reason there is this cadre of people who seem to get no end of enjoyment out of baiting vegans. Such people are best ignored. However, if one wants to construct an ethic around the principle of “no animal exploitation” or “absolutly minimimal animal exploitation” there are grey areas that arise-as in any ethic. Were I a vegan, I would be interested in exploring those gray areas in order to develop a better understanding of and become a better adherant to my own moral code.
Obviously, people who do not adhere strictly to thier self-professed moral code no more invalidate that moral stance itself any more than a self-proclaimed Christian who steals or murders invalidates the principles of Christianity. So anecdotal evidence has no place here.
It seems to me that pet ownership in general is inherently exploititive: the animal is artificially constrained in a situation where it has little say (because of an inability to communicate, if nothing else), no control, and no rights. This is true even if the pet owner is as good a pet owner as could be: however much the pet owner may think or hope they are effectivly interpreting the communications of the pet, the owner cannot be sure that all the pet’s needs are being met. Slave owners often thought their slaves were happy, because the slaves understood that to appear less than happy could lead to punnishment or death. This may not be the case wiht pets, but it is ompossible to prove. Furthermore, all pet ownership is ultimitly selfish–an animal is being kept captive to provide compainionship, and has no choice in the establishment of that relationship.
That said, an interesting problem arises if one feels that death is worse than exploitation (this is not necessarily the case). Under those circumstances it might be a moral imperative to adopt pets who were destined for death–one day outside of the gas chamber, so to speak. However, in such a case one would have to avoid using any products produced by the pet industry–an industry that blatenly encourages the indiscrimanite explotaion of animals as pets. Using the “death is better than exploitation” arguement again, I think that vacinations would be exempt from this, athough one would have to avoid using commercial vets as much as possible. Pets would have to be fixed, of course, to prevent future victims of exploitation.
Interestingly enough, the ultimate result of this policy, were it universaly adopted, would be the extinction of many domestic breeds. Although the “all extinction is wrong” position is commonly seen amoung animal-rights activists, I do not think it applies here–after all, such extinction would be a belated reparation for the truly attrocious exploitation of selectivly breeding freaks out of wolves.
I am a pet owner and I know there are alot of of pets that would prefer to stay with their owners. 2)what about cases where the dog ran away and came back after long absences. 3) My dog is a german shepard/wolf mix and she has been a picture perfect dog for 13 yrs. NOT A FREAK!!! anyway in a world where space as a whole gets smaller every year we need good homes for domesticated animals that would not survive on the streets.
the most humane thing you can do for domesticated animals is spay or neuter your pets.
lastly educated man may have a choice regarding meat/no meat but humans are humans not animals. animals eat what they eat largly due to their species not by choice but by instinct. we as humans actually have a choice. that’s what seperates us from them.
people may not like deer hunters but if you did not hunt them they would over-populate and die in the woods.
I will give that this scenerio is due to man’s handiwork but this is currently the only solution. plus I like deer meat. also if noone ate red meat the food chain would sooner or later colapse thus ending life as we know it forever.
OK i know i’m rambling but with the rare exception most vegan’s I talk to are hipocrites saying “I don’t eat meat” but then see them chowing down on mcdonald’s 2 day’s later.
Take that, vegetarians! :rolleyes:
Brian, when you say
I assume you meant “if no other species was carnivorous?” Because if humans stopped eating red meat, I don’t see how the food chain would collapse. Else how do you explain life before humans evolved?
If you look beyond the word “freak”, Manda Jo, in my opinion, is correct in much of what she says. Many species of purebred dogs have health/personality problems. From a wolf to a chihuahua, there is a huge difference. Not to slam chihuahuas, but they were obviously created by extensive cross-breading.
I could see a justification for pets in your argument “if we didn’t have pets, those species might die due to lack of habitat”, but I don’t many people that say this is a good thing.
Oh, I forgot to answer the OP.
My answer: yes.
I thought that they typically died in the woods from mixing alcohol and firearms. I’ll look for a cite.
Arnold:
Why would this be a bad thing? There is no habitat for domestic pets because they have been bred to the point where they are unsuitable for any habitat. If one takes the posistion that “all animal explotation is bad and must be avioded as much as possible” then the only course of action is to support those domestic pets currently living, dening them the chance to reproduce, until they die out. Mankind has created breeds that cannot exisit without being exploited. Letting them quietly cease to exist is the only morally acceptable possibilty. Any other course of action is to perpetuate this crime for selfish pleasure. In any case, no “species” is being elemenated–dogs are still wolves, genetically. All we are doing is allowing genetic mutations that should never have been successful (because they prohibit an animal from surviving in its habitat) to die out. The only reason these mutations reproduced themselves is because we artifically supported the carriers/expressors of these genes in order to use them to pursue our own desire for work or compainionship. It is not extinction of an independent lifeform-- rather, it is the elemenation of a terrible abberation that we caused.
Manda JO, what I meant was
“keeping dogs is good because wolves might do out.” or “keeping cats as pets is good because wildcats might die out.”. I would agree with BRIAN BOVOLD that if one had to choose between
a) no wolves and no dogs, or
b) no wolves, but still have dogs
I would prefer choice b), but I think the best would be to try and keep a habitat for wolves.
I think the problem is man is greedy. Just like animals we have a suvival of the fitessed instinct just like animals. the difference is that we don’t need it like animals do thus grabbing habitat needed for any wild animals survival.
in minnesota PETA tried to get these wild wolves free at the como zoo. The problem came when the wolves did not want to leave.
Another radical animal rights group trashed labratories at the U of M and destroyed years of reseach on alzheimer’s . I don’t much like the fact that animals get used in horrifing ways but I don’t like to think that some family out their is missing grandma who left one day and never came back.
my point is for some unkown reason we are human who have animals at our disposal. we can eat them cure diesies with them. both are good. but I digress, we as humans who use these animals also have a responsibility to balance the ecology between humans and animals.
getting back to the subject that means if you eat red meat you should educate yourself (even a little) to know where your food came from. I have and still will not give up my steak. HMMMM-maybe I am a greedy human?