Report Blog Entry
i genuinely have no clue what category to put this in, because it's about animals but it's also about people and culture and food, so... i'm just putting it in pets and animals for now, lmk if it belongs in a different category
warnings for mentions of animal cruelty/death, as well as racism/xenophobia (which i'm starting out with because yes, this does tie into race and culture)
food is culture. different cultures have different diets, and no one diet is morally "better" than any other one
why eat meat at all? because some of us want to, and it's just that simple
but it also goes deeper than that. just as there are what would be broadly considered vegetarian/vegan cultures, there are cultures where cuisine mostly revolves around meat that deserve the same respect. some of these cultures are ancient and they arent going to change their traditions just because you think it's cruel to eat animals. and frankly, how dare you suggest they should? who are you, their god?
there are places in the world where eating meat is literally the only option for survival. ever heard of a city called yakutsk in siberia? it's the coldest major city on earth, with temperatures regularly dropping below -50°F (-45°C) in winter. and there are over 350,000 people living there full time, some of them indigenous, some of them only coming in the last couple hundred years to mine for diamonds. the ground is covered in permafrost. some leave their cars running 24/7 just to keep the machinery from freezing and dying. outings need to be planned out well in advance. trips into the city for importing food and supplies require the same care. people in yakutsk wear several layers of wool and fur and other insulation, even indoors, so they don't freeze. where are they going to get vegetables locally? what sort of plants do you suppose they should try growing in the permafrost? do you know of many plants that can grow in permafrost and sustain 350,000 people, 365 days a year?
so what do the people of yakutsk eat?
mostly meat and dairy
yakutsk and the sakha republic as a whole were first home to hunting-gathering and herding tungusic and paleosiberian peoples. the turkic sakha people came later, and their culture is traditionally pastoral. these ancient cultures still reflect those lifestyles in their cuisine today. most of their meat comes from reindeer and horses. they also eat plenty of fish, and forage from what little survives in the siberian cold, as well as growing a handful of hardy plants during the short summers (when temps reach a whopping 70°F, or 21°C on average for a couple months). the rest is imported from outside the city
that's just one city on the planet
that's far from the only culture which mainly consumes meat. there are others that were (pre)historically hunter-gatherers and still are to some extent, to this day
from wikipedia, about the history of hunting-gathering: "Hunting and gathering emerged with Homo erectus about 1.8 million years ago and was humanity's original and most enduring successful competitive adaptation in the natural world, occupying at least 90 percent of human (pre)history. Following the invention of agriculture, hunter-gatherers who did not change were displaced or conquered by farming or pastoralist groups in most parts of the world. In Western Eurasia, farming and metallurgical societies gradually replaced hunter-gatherers, but dense forests remained their last refuge until Bronze and Iron Age societies fully overcame them."
(also please note [from the same article]: "Scholars like [M.] Kat Anderson have suggested that the term Hunter-gatherer is reductive because it implies that Native Americans never stayed in one place long enough to affect the environment around them. However, many of the landscapes in the Americas today are due to the way the Natives of that area originally tended the land. Anderson specifically looks at California Natives and the practices they utilized to tame their land. Some of these practices included pruning, weeding, sowing, burning, and selective harvesting. These practices allowed them to take from the environment in a sustainable manner for centuries.
California Indians view the idea of wilderness in a negative light. They believe that wilderness is the result of humans losing their knowledge of the natural world and how to care for it. When the earth turns back to wilderness after the connection with humans is lost then the plants and animals will retreat and hide from the humans.")
California Indians view the idea of wilderness in a negative light. They believe that wilderness is the result of humans losing their knowledge of the natural world and how to care for it. When the earth turns back to wilderness after the connection with humans is lost then the plants and animals will retreat and hide from the humans.")
so again i ask, why should something so deeply ingrained into the very histories of billions of people past and present across millions of different cultures around the entire fucking globe be changed just to satisfy your broken moral compass?
(what is morality, anyway? subjective, that's what)
now let's get into the meat (lol) of it. the blog title. animal rights vs animal welfare
animal rights definitions, according to different sources:
from thehumaneleague.org: "Animal rights advocates believe that non-human animals should be free to live as they wish, without being used, exploited, or otherwise interfered with by humans."
from google: "rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans."
from wikipedia: "Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings."
from PETA (lol prepare for the guilt-fest): "Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—consideration of what is in their best interests, regardless of whether they are “cute,” useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all. It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation."
(i'd like to point out that animal rights are not a thing. like, legally, [most] animals have no constitutional rights. some cultures/religions imply rights onto certain animals— from wikipedia: "Cultural traditions such as Jainism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and animism also espouse varying forms of animal rights."; however, also from wikipedia: "As of November 2019, 29 countries had enacted bans on hominoid experimentation; Argentina granted captive orangutans basic human rights in 2014." [emphasis by me])
animal welfare definitions:
from worldanimalprotection.ca: "Animal welfare refers to an animal’s quality of life, which is usually determined by how well an animal is coping with their environment. It is rooted in the rationale that animals are sentient beings, have agency over their own lives, and that consideration should be given to their well-being, especially when they are under our care."
from woah.org: "According to the Terrestrial Code, animal welfare means ‘the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies.‘"
from wikipedia: "Animal welfare is the quality of life and overall well-being of animals."
from wildwelfare.org: "The ideology of animal welfare is based on a responsibility which humans have for animals under their care, and for them to be treated well, with the intention of giving them a good quality of life. Welfare is also evidence-based, using a scientific approach to its measurement."
(unlike animal rights, animal welfare is something that is held to standards by law in the united states as well as many other parts of the world)
what is the difference between animal rights and animal welfare?
from worldanimalprotection.ca: "Animal welfare and animal rights differ based on one key aspect: Animal welfare is a scientific approach to our relationship with animals, whereas animal rights is a philosophical approach."
from PETA (oh boy!): "Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing,
entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as
long as “humane” guidelines are followed." (lmfao @ the scarequotes around humane)
from wildwelfare.org: "Another way to differentiate the two concepts is to look at their focal species. Animal welfare is animal-centric, focussing on how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives, whereas animal rights (and the ethics associated with it) is more human-centric in its philosophical approach."
(basically, if you ask me, animal rights is a moral circle-jerking neverending philosophical debate whereas animal welfare is something with actual science-backed substance that can therefore be put into effect. but you decide for yourself)
can animal rights coexist with human rights?
a resounding no! (and all you have to do is think about it to come to that conclusion!)
not if you value human rights, at all! and those are being violated around every turn as it is, so how the hell can you possibly concern yourself with the rights of animals? honestly. look around you
give nonhuman animals the right to life, and you take away humans' right to life. it's as simple as that. if that wild boar has a right to live, then that family or community that relies on food they hunt to survive is fucked. you kill that boar for food, that's murder now
if that raccoon has the right to kill all of your chickens, then you don't have the right to protect those chickens. you have no right to those chickens if the raccoon wants them, because it has the right to take what it wants to survive. even at the cost of your chickens' safety. your chickens risk life and limb for that raccoon and you can't do anything about it. even at the cost of your livelihood, if you rely on your flock for food and/or income, you're fucked in the name of a raccoon who is going to come back with friends for an easy meal
that coyote is coming back for your sheep. that cougar is coming back for those newborn calves. electric fencing will only keep them out for so long. livestock guardian dogs aren't foolproof. if it comes to it and the last option you have to save your livestock is to shoot, you're shit out of luck
if your dog has the right to not be forced into a life of domestication (we are SO beyond that, be for fucking real), if that dog has the right to roam free and get itself hit by a car or attacked by another dog or other animal or poisoned or diseased... huh? what are we talking about again? animal liberation (a major sect of the animal rights debacle)? wow, sounds fucking great! slash sarcasm!
come to think of it, if animals gain the right to life, and you hit a deer with your car, that's assault/manslaughter. you're going to jail, or at least paying a fine. for hitting a fucking deer. or a possum. or a toad. or a spider. or an ant
do you not comprehend how insane and out of hand it could get? that's because it is backed by NOTHING but human-centric, human created morals and ethics. meanwhile, animal welfare is backed by, what? science!
don't even get me started on animal rights activists "speciesism" argument. we all know those rights aren't going to end up extending to insects, arachnids, myriapods, most crustaceans, or any miscroscopic animals like certain hyperparasitoid wasps, or tardigrades, and what is that? speciesism! the very thing they claim to be against!
(in reality, it's just being rational. but according to their own logic it's speciesism)
what about animal rights and environmentalism?
sure, if your version of environmentalism is based in fantasy (or racism, already touched on the concept of "wilderness" + veganism [sometimes referred to as white/western veganism, it's a new concept that, surprise, did originate with white british people lol, and is technically different from cultures that avoid animal products for religious or spiritual or whatever other reasons] being racist/xenophobic etc)
but if your version of environmentalism is fact based and science backed then it's pretty obvious that freeing all of the domesticated livestock would wreak havoc on the environment, allowing any animal to roam and fornicate and multiply endlessly would be devastating for the environment (we've already fucked up on this account many times over, but also scientists and indigenous people and impacted communities have been working to make- it right- many- times- over), you know, common sense sort of stuff
what to do with the livestock then? just entertaining the thought, eradicating all of them would be the only truly sensible option. all things considered. mass castration/contraceptives and waiting for all domesticated livestock to die out, just as an example, isn't plausible. plus, doesn't it go against their right to reproduce? what about agency over their own bodies? oh, but eradication would go against their right to life, too. seems we're at an impasse. what else could we do? just release them all (no, we already discussed the many ways which that has historically gone wrong...)! so they'll keep talking in circles over philosophy and ignore science
tbh at times like these i like to whip out a quote from the man himself: "Sometimes scientists change their minds. New developments cause a rethink. If this bothers you, consider how much damage is being done to the world by people for whom new developments do not cause a rethink." — sir terry pratchett, the science of discworld
is it cruel to hunt? is it cruel to breed and raise animals?
no, no and no
sure there are dumbasses and cruel people out there who torture animals. that shouldn't reflect on hunting and husbandry as a whole
in the united states, at least, there are strict hunting regulations (for the general public— tribes on govt recognized tribal land have their own laws around hunting etc). when, what, where, and how you hunt are all law-locked. in my state it's illegal to go deer shining. not even hunting, but shining
hunting is necessary. when white people came in and killed off a bunch of wildlife, especially the predators like wolves and cougars and bears, prey populations exploded. until we can agree nation-wide that the reintroduction of said predators is a net gain (as it has been in yellowstone and on isle royale, for example), hunting is the only way to control prey animal numbers
people against breeding animals period honestly just dont know how much goes into ensuring healthy progeny. reputable breeders don't just go for looks, they keep detailed breeding records complete with genetics info like illnesses, deformities, etc. they don't breed from animals that produce unhealthy stock, and yes, sometimes that means they need to cull said unhealthy stock to remove them from the bloodlines. this isn't eugenics, it's being a responsible breeder and ensuring that all future generations continue to be healthy and strong
what about the meat industry? *smug*
yes, meat industry bad, nobody is arguing about that, dont even need to add a link because we all know about the horrors etc etc (if you want to know more, do your own research. there's too much misinfo/stuff blown out of proportion for me to want to sort thru, but yes, meat industry cruel and bad)
is agriculture any better?
ok ive been working on this for waaaay too long
tldr veganism is a disease, animal rights are a joke, eat what you want but do make an effort to educate yourself on where your food comes from and make more sustainable choices where you can, and practice and promote animal welfare <3
Comments
Displaying 8 of 8 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
GOAT
i v rarely weigh in on srs topics but
yeah, i agree entirely. the meat & dairy industry and its conglomerates are incredibly inhumane but they are not the only option on the table. there is still the alternative route: going with locally sourced meat and dairy, where animal welfare is taken seriously, where the farmers aren't in the pockets of conglomerates - this is a more ethical approach and also helps support the local economy
sadly, that route is thinning out and its harder to get locally sourced but there is still some agricultural trade that refuses to give in, choosing to stand their ground and fight against the rising tide, and that's admirable in and of itself
tl;dr supermarket convenience makes it very difficult for people who enjoy meat and dairy to go elsewhere (myself included) but wherever possible, always support your local and independent trade <3
growing up, at my grandparents old house, there was a family down the road with a little boy who had gastrointestinal issues so he had a lot of dietary restrictions. so since they had the land and the money, they started raising goats for milk and once a year they would buy a beef calf, raise him, and then butcher him for meat. the meat they got off each steer lasted them all year and they even had enough extra to sell locally to friends and neighbors
my cousin and i would frequently go over there to hang out with the little boy and his sister, and we would play with the goats and the calf out in the little pasture and in the swampy area behind the house, and those animals were very well cared for
the parents didnt want us bonding with the calves at first (because we were like, 7-10 at the oldest when they started, and they were worried we'd be upset when they were butchered), but it didnt bother us. i think we named one ground beef and another one roast beef LAWL. we all loved and appreciated those calves and gave them a good, happy life while they were here. and yes, the meat was delicious
there was another neighbor and friend who had a dairy farm. it was a long time ago now so i cant recall clearly but im going to guess they had 100-200 head of cattle at most at any given time. there was one big barn for the milk cows and heifers that was cleaned every single day, a barn for the bull(s), a barn for the newborn calves, a barn for the older calves, one milking barn with space for 4 or 5 cows to be milked at once, and a huge pasture. cows were never over-bred, sick cattle were treated accordingly or else put out of their misery with a single shot to the head (because chemical euthanasia is expensive, and you also need to pay to have the body safely disposed of that way. with a bullet to the brain you can bury the dead cattle or let it decompose in the open air without chemicals leeching into the earth). because that farm was literally their job and their entire livelihood, they took excellent care of those cattle. they couldnt afford not to. that family lived (and i'm assuming, still lives) below their personal means so their cattle could thrive. most family farms do the same
as a (very small scale) backyard chickener, i know exactly how much research and care goes into giving your livestock the best life possible. i didnt go into it lightly, even though my chickens were kind of sprang on my family and me as a surprise, i IMMEDIATELY buckled down and started learning about chicken husbandry. my girls are healthy and give me delicious and nutritious eggs becauase i take amazing care of them. like if you tried a store bought egg, and then tried one of my girls' eggs, youd shit yourself at how good they are in comparison
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
ashton
the day spacehey gets a science/stem/ecology scction is the day i can rest
that would actually be really nice
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
me and a few of my mates really want a science section because talking about invasive species in the animal and pets section might not go down very well lol. its dissapointing there is no broad science section
by ashton; ; Report
chaysemustdie
vegetarian here, I dont eat meat because its just my family morals and meat today is just barely even meat. filled with chemicals to enlarge chickens, placing them in a coop where they can BARELY move. inhumane and I would not want i have on my plate suffering like that. although me being a vegetarian or not does nothing to the meat economy, it doesn't change my morals.
idgaf if u eat meat but its just not for me. meat economy is disgusting today imo.
by chaysemustdie; ; Report
and i have absolutely no issue with that
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
Ugly Has To Walk?
Has the animal rights activist flailing around in the comments of this blog considered ethical cannibalism? Let's get all the angles here.
I'M GOING TO BURY YOU
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
Those rugby players that crashed up in the Andes were real problematic for resorting to meat. Have we considered that too? Since this is a deeply serious and important conversation.
by Ugly Has To Walk?; ; Report
i'll resort to eating your meat
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
I'm just a meat hog to you. You only want me for my pork.
by Ugly Has To Walk?; ; Report
im in love with you
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
kayden
I completely agree, most meat eaters aren't huge advocates for the meat industry or anything, but not everyone has the money to drive out of town to a local farm to buy 60 dollar meat. and vegan food isn't any better with how much it takes to create those alternatives.
in the end its a personal choice and taking away the choice to eat whatever the hell we want cuts into our basic human rights. vegan = animal rights = fuck humanity and fuck autonomy. a vegan world could only ever be dystopian because that would mean forcing people to live a certain way whether they want to or not. the world is not going to gradually go vegan. it just isnt. no matter how much they want it to, it isnt going to happen, and they can shit their pants and throw it at me all they want in protest, but that isn't going to change a thing
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
xX_Dyrk_Nyte_Xx
i was vegan for 4 years- learned how stupid it was. i was criticized in the community for eating my chickens eggs and local honey. its a joke. I focus on "cruelty free" (my own personal feeling of it) over cutting out animal product.
lifes so much better this way lol.
so many animal products are essential to a healthy ecosystem. also who cares what other people eat. people can eat what they please. doesn't bother me
thats my very shallow basic and drunk take on this blog i enjoyed it. I always learn so much from you jovi thank u <3 I really love how insightful and well researched your blogs are and youve really changed my perspective on a lot of things in life!
lets frolick
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
OwlLipgloss
This is one of the reasons why I struggle to go vegan. I am willing to reduce my consumption of meats like beef and cow-related products, I just feel like a lot of it is guilt-tripping by the bad apples that accuse you of being sadistic and enjoying the unethical acts of the meat industry... just because you eat meat. News flash, you can still enjoy meat and animal products without supporting factory farming and all those unethical practices.
I see nothing wrong with being vegan, especially if it's a lifestyle that works most for you. Do not expect the rest of the world to feel the same. There is no such thing as "a vegan world".
I've had my food from independent resources, and damn, are they good. I had neighbors who had a bunch of chickens in their backyard. They were fun to watch. The family would also bring us their eggs and they're insanely good. It tastes better knowing that it is from a happy animal who is loved and cared for.
Animals are not above us, but we are also not above them.
i think as a concept, at its core, veganism was broken before it was even finished baking. and it's clearly still broken, the way we have lunatic animal rights activists acting like youre the spawn of satan if you enjoy a nice steak every once in a while
i think not wanting to eat any sort of animal products doesnt need its own special label, if the entire point of that label and the message it likes to convey is that people who eat meat are evil. if you dont want to eat animal products, dont. you very rarely see vegetarians act like toddlers the way vegans do
my first run-in with a PETA-backing vegan was when i was a kid, and my uncle was dating a legit fucking animal rights nut. we were having burgers at a family gathering. this cunt pointed at my burger, said, "do you even know what you're eating?" and before i could even get out the words, "yes, i like hamburgers", she had taken it and thrown it in the trash. she then proceeded to microwave me a fucking boca burger
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
That's really awful, I'm so sorry that happened to you. Waste of food and also a waste of what was an animal's life.
I wouldn't doubt there's a lot of issues with veganism. I understand there are positives from PETA, it's just hard to not look at their very bizarre way of going about with activism. It honestly feels like a cult in a way. It always felt like fear-mongering and shoving shock content in your face just to prove a point. It ends up being a lot more disrespectful in comparison to what I assume they were trying to go for. I see it as even more disrespectful towards the animals.
by OwlLipgloss; ; Report
the problem with PETA is they talk out their asses. while they preach against animal cruelty, their practices are cruel both behind the scenes and in the open. they put the philosophy of animal rights above the actual needs of the animals they claim to advocate for
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
BIOHAPHAZARD
this is the most incoherent piece of antivegan writing i have ever seen and i have a friend who listens to joe rogan. oh my god, this is glorious. please never delete this.
i would write something new under here but fortunately for both of us, i have a job. here is the things i have written, under a blog whose replies you did not bother reading.
anyways,
"but indigenous people/ remote communities"
pasted from here. "the argument of the native people's animal product consumption. here is where the principles of possibility and practicality come in. this bit can really apply to any group of people that live in rough conditions and wouldn't necessarily be able to adopt both a vegan philosophy, lifestyle and diet, not just certain communities. often the people that are brought up by non-vegans when talking about veganism are the inuit. they mostly live in arctic and sub-arctic regions of canada and greenland. due to such conditions, they have to rely on hunting animals to sustain themselves. this is where i also want to draw the distinction in vegan philosophy: it doesn't necessarily oppose the death of animals, although that's a big part of it. veganism as a philosophy opposes the needless exploitation of animals for human convenience. obviously, if a vegan and a cow are stranded together on a desert island, the vegan will probably kill the cow to survive, but that's only because there's literally nothing else that can be done. i'm not going to go up to inuit communities with my iphone 14 and a plant burger in hand and tell them to just work around their climate and eat some beans. if hunting is an absolute necessity for a group of people to survive, then so be it. i don't see why it would be morally unjust. the key things to consider when talking about specific scenarios are the possibility and practicality of living by a vegan philosophy. is it possible and practicable for the inuit to live purely off plant-based food? in most cases, no, but that really depends on if they live in a food desert or not. it's the same thing with people that have certain GI and health conditions that need animal produce to live. is it possible for that person to even live off meat or eggs to begin with? i cannot speak on the experiences of ethnic minorities with veganism since i'm white, and because of my limited experience with cultures outside my own, i won't speak on this issue too broadly. but nonetheless, i do still think that, unless it's necessary, meat and animal products should not be eaten just because it's tradition or convenient."
"why should something so deeply ingrained into the very histories of billions of people past and present across millions of different cultures around the entire fucking globe be changed just to satisfy your broken moral compass?"
because things we now consider abhorrent and immoral were at some point moral. dog fighting was considered moral. then it wasn't. this is due to the concept known as "time" passing.
"but animals kill animals"
also pasted from here. "...other animals eat meat and kill their fellow animals for it, so why can't we? and there's a simple answer to this: animals don't have moral agency, but humans do. a lion cannot morally reason: it feels hunger, sees a gazelle, and chases it down for a meal. there isn't a thought in a lion's head as to why it does what it does. but humans, due to having the ability to reason, also have the ability to establish personal morals. if you can recognize a certain attitude, practice, or opinion as moral or immoral, then you have moral agency. i won't blame a lion for having to eat. in nature, the food chain can and should be upheld for ecological stability. but humans have surpassed the food chain. we no longer have to rely on the ways of our distant ancestors to feed ourselves...
...animals are given moral consideration because they're sentient, but humans are held up to moral standards because we're sapient. a wolf cannot understand why it has to eat a rabbit, but a human can, because they know what a carnivore is, and acknowledges the wolf's obligation to eat meat. if a person kicks a dog and the dog bites the human back, nobody is going to say, "well, they're both in the wrong because they both hurt each other". a dog doesn't have a firm grasp on the concepts of right and wrong; it's operating purely on instinct and emotional reaction. but the person that kicked it does understand what right and wrong is. they easily could've just walked past, but decided to kick the dog anyway, either out of sadistic desire or as a way to relieve anger. holding both the dog and the human to an equal moral standard is dishonest...
eating meat as a human in the current day and age, at least in my view, is immoral because it is an unnecessary action that costs another living, feeling being its life. if a human has the ability to reason and understand their own existence and the existence of others around them, then they can understand that, to have a piece of steak with their meal, they have to financially contribute to an industry that slaughters billions of animals each year. not only is having that bit of steak unnecessary as far as nutrition and health goes, but it simply cannot exist without taking the life of another living being. if you live in an environment where plant-based food is available and equally as healthy, but you opt in for consuming food that requires the death of a fellow sentient being, then it is morally unjustifiable. there is no requirement or necessity for you to eat a product derived from something dead...
...animals do not have moral agency the same way humans do. in fact, their understanding of morals, if it even exists, is extremely limited. while animals have been shown to display empathy towards their fellow creatures, the origin of that empathy is thought to be based on purely instinct, as most animal actions are. i sincerely hope that no average vegan is irrational enough to unironically claim that a bear should be held up to the same moral standard as a human. they cannot comprehend veganism as a philosophy because they can't comprehend neither the language with which we communicate or the concepts of philosophy, ethics and morals. it's the same reason why animals have not (to date) been recorded to commit suicide. to do so, an animal would need to understand the abstract concepts of self, mortality, the future, and have the ability to weigh multiple options on how to move forward during a certain event in their lives.
humans are special. our intelligence is unique. but with that intelligence comes great moral and ethical responsibility. if someone is severely cognitively impaired, so much so that they might not even be able to read, talk or communicate, then we wouldn't hold them to the same ethical standard as your average, run-of-the-mill joe carnivore who intentionally eats extra steak to piss his vegan sister off. we have created the moral rules which we abide by. the fact that humans are especially intelligent is the very reason for why veganism as a philosophy exists. we no longer have to rely on or obey by the rules of nature. we have the ability to defy our biology and simply stop consuming animal flesh, and thrive without it. the technologies we now have give us the ability to live our entire lives without ever directly contributing to mass animal slaughter. there are vegans that i know that have been vegan for longer than i have been alive. that very fact defies the idea of our obligation to be omnivorous and sets the moral bar higher than it has ever been before."
writing about the work that animal rights activists put into setting up animal welfare standards and actually getting researchers to look into animal sentience and cognition would require me to put in effort. this post is so ass it would be a waste of breath for me to bother. here is everything that peta alone has done. they are also abolitionists. it's not hard to understand that you can both want the animals currently alive not to excessively suffer and still believe that there should be no suffering at all. i'll give you this though: i cannot fucking stand welfarists lol.
"if that raccoon has the right to kill all of your chickens, then you don't have the right to protect those chickens. you have no right to those chickens if the raccoon wants them, because it has the right to take what it wants to survive."
what the actual fuck are you talking about? what was this entire section for? nobody is advocating for animals to have equal legal worth and responsibility as humans. nobody is putting you in prison for fucking up a raccoon in self defense. in what line of reasoning does outlawing the usage of animals as commodities end in people getting life sentences for accidentally hitting a deer? do you genuinely, truly, in your heart of hearts, think that there are animal rights activists out there putting coyotes in handcuffs for eating bunnies? if a human attacked you, and you killed them in self defense, you would not go to prison. same thing would happen with an animal. it is that simple. come on now.
"not if you value human rights, at all! and those are being violated around every turn as it is, so how the hell can you possibly concern yourself with the rights of animals? honestly. look around you"
oppression olympics. you can care about both.
"if your version of environmentalism is fact based and science backed then it's pretty obvious that freeing all of the domesticated livestock would wreak havoc on the environment."
i am convinced that you are being intentionally dense out of spite. this is not something that any vegan activist is advocating for. literally just making shit up to be mad about. again, this isn't even what joe rogan ever said about veganism and the guy's whole job is pandering to carnivores. if people go vegan, it will be gradual. that means that with each passing year, there will be less and less farm animals being born to meet the dwindling demand for animal products. the goal here is to not bring any new farm animals into the world to begin with. it is also why all rescue farm animals get neutered and spayed immediately upon arrival.
and i do not know how to tell you this, love, but you are contributing to agriculture too. animals actually have to eat in order to be alive. and someone has to grow the food they eat. very scary link here, maybe it's best if you leave it blue.
i cannot believe that you were so pressed about my blog that not only did you stalk my profile and comment under a completely unrelated post of mine, but decided to type all of this out. how did i make you this damn mad? does the concept of not wanting animals to be viewed as property and resources make you angry? mind you, i already replied under your original comment and you did not even care enough to read it.
and you keep dodging the question i have asked you multiple times already: how do you, YOU justify eating the things you eat? not the remote communities, not the impoverished, not the people with health issues. how do YOU justify unnecessarily taking the life of an animal purely for the sensory pleasure of meat, eggs and dairy? i am asking YOU. it is really as simple as just saying "i do not care" and moving on because at least that's honest. quit trying to grasp at straws.
... nah, you come back when your arguments are scientific and not moral. yeah, i'm not going to delete this blog because it's sensible and logical, while your veganism and animal rights blogs are all emotions based lol
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
Man, not even touching the vegan/animal rights shit but "stalking my profile" is hilarious. Someone reading your semi-public writing is not stalking.
by Ugly Has To Walk?; ; Report
trvke or whatever the kids are saying these days
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
Forgive me, but accusing Jovi of being the angry one while there is very obvious fuming from this comment alone.
by OwlLipgloss; ; Report
RIGHT like i wasnt even angry when i decided to write this blog..? i was maybe exasperated at the stupidity being displayed but not angry. someone is projecting
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
do you guys... read? hello?
by BIOHAPHAZARD; ; Report
that's all you can come up with?
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
https://i.ibb.co/xSTmKfM3/biohaphazard-shit.gif
by ♡ jovi 🐹; ; Report
Yes, I did read. I just think it's hypocritical you're accusing Jovi of things so you can have the moral highground.
by OwlLipgloss; ; Report