View Full Version : Vegans and pets
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 26th, 2005, 04:33 AM
Is it okay for vegans to have pets? By most definitions of veganism it discusses the philosophy of no use of animals for any human purpose. Is companionship a human purpose? If there's threads on this topic delete/remove/move it; whatever is appropriate.
sylkan
Apr 26th, 2005, 04:59 AM
I have just decided to be vegan and I have no intention of telling my four cats that they are not allowed to live with me anymore because of it. My guys are my friends and if appearances say anything, they certainly think of me the same way. It would be cruel for me to give them away as though they aren't part of my family. I may be rationalising this, but honestly I can't imagine any animal having a better home than with someone who swears not to eat or exploit them.
Not to mention, my cats go outside every day and they choose to come back. I think that must count for something.
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 26th, 2005, 05:28 AM
I have just decided to be vegan and I have no intention of telling my four cats that they are not allowed to live with me anymore because of it. My guys are my friends and if appearances say anything, they certainly think of me the same way. It would be cruel for me to give them away as though they aren't part of my family. I may be rationalising this, but honestly I can't imagine any animal having a better home than with someone who swears not to eat or exploit them.
Not to mention, my cats go outside every day and they choose to come back. I think that must count for something.
I'm just saying, given a chance some animals would rather be free, and if that's the case you're keeping them against their will. Cats are especially prone to go wherever there is food, inside, outside, wherever; at least that's from my experience with them. Not to make pet owners (because I am one) sound psychopathic or anything, but isn't keeping a pet similar to kidnapping? I'm tryng to figure out whether you can technically call yourself a vegan and still have pets?
sylkan
Apr 26th, 2005, 05:51 AM
I'm just saying, given a chance some animals would rather be free, and if that's the case you're keeping them against their will. Cats are especially prone to go wherever there is food, inside, outside, wherever; at least that's from my experience with them. Not to make pet owners (because I am one) sound psychopathic or anything, but isn't keeping a pet similar to kidnapping? I'm tryng to figure out whether you can technically call yourself a vegan and still have pets?
But if they are happy with where they are getting food, then what's the problem? Considering that the 'humane' society would just kill them if they were there for too long...That is a prospect that I cannot even think about
I am happy to consider myself a vegan even as someone who shares her home with animals. Maybe if we are talking about animals like the exotic birds, lizards, and fish that are taken out of their homes in the wild and sold to pet shops around the world I wouldn't feel this way, but cats and dogs have been domesticated for years. They live where there are humans and are happy with humans so long as they are treated right. In fact, I would say that we have a responsibility to provide them with care because of their long-term domestication.
Seaside
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:42 AM
Posted by Minoan_Chris:
Is it okay for vegans to have pets?
According to strict vegans who are vegan because of the sheerly intellectual idea of having absolutely no involvement with animals at all, having pets is not vegan. In fact, I have found from other vegan websites that some vegans are actually afraid of animals. I think this is very sad. :(
I would not have become vegan if it had not been for my parent's love of animals. We always had a menagerie while I was growing up; dogs, cats, parakeets, goldfish, rabbits, guinea pigs, turtles, frogs, toads, etc., some our own "pets", some that just lived in the yard. I do not keep small caged animals anymore, but I do have cats and dogs. I learned to love all living things (even bugs!) from my early experiences, and it was this love that led me, all on my own as a small child, to decide that since they were my friends, it was wrong to eat them. My understanding of veganism is more sophisticated now than it was then, but I do not think that I will ever cease to want to share my life with animals. Many creatures today exist in symbiosis, which is a cooperative relationship that enhances survival for both partners, and results in mutual benefits for both. Hopefully some day the relationship between humans and the animals they have associated with will reach this beautiful state. I prefer to strive for this goal rather than the more lonely and fearful isolationist stance of complete non-involvment with other species. :)
spo
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:07 AM
Hi, Minoan Chris:
Both Seaside and Sylkan make very good points.
But also lets consider that veganism is also supposed to be a "compassionate" lifestyle.
Domestic animals in shelters, whether humane ones or otherwise, are hardly living a good, happy and psychologically or physically healthy life.
These are unwanted and unloved domestic animals. Do you think it is "veganly" or compassionate that we should not take them out of that situation and give them a loving home?
Now, to get to the stray domestic animals who live in our urban or suburban neigborhoods: These animals roam in dangerous and deprived circumstances and live very short lives that often end violently or cruelly: such as car accidents, poisonings and victimization from sadistic people. They have no real access to the things an animal in a true rural setting would have: like plenty of prey, access to natural shelter and freedom from technological or human dangers.
These two situations: adopting domestic animals from shelters, or rescuing stray or feral animals seems very consistent with the vegan ethic of compassion to me.
spo
Geoff
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:34 AM
There's been a discussion on this elsewhere on the forum at:
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=80485 :)
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:14 PM
But if they are happy with where they are getting food, then what's the problem? Considering that the 'humane' society would just kill them if they were there for too long...That is a prospect that I cannot even think about
I am happy to consider myself a vegan even as someone who shares her home with animals. Maybe if we are talking about animals like the exotic birds, lizards, and fish that are taken out of their homes in the wild and sold to pet shops around the world I wouldn't feel this way, but cats and dogs have been domesticated for years. They live where there are humans and are happy with humans so long as they are treated right. In fact, I would say that we have a responsibility to provide them with care because of their long-term domestication.
So the length of domestication of a certain species is what creates the guidelines if it is okay to keep them domesticated? Well if the humane society didn't kidnap them either, they'd much rather be free. I mean animals seemed to be doing fine long before human intervention. Almost all domesticated species that are here in North America, have been brought here by settlers (look up more on the Columbian Exchange if you're interested in that).
According to strict vegans who are vegan because of the sheerly intellectual idea of having absolutely no involvement with animals at all, having pets is not vegan. In fact, I have found from other vegan websites that some vegans are actually afraid of animals. I think this is very sad.
I love animals too. I also have guinea pigs who I have wept over when they were sick. I don't know many people who have the same empathy and compassion for animals (except maybe on this forum, but I haven't been here too long) as I do. I'm going by the intellectual/philosophical idea of becoming a Vegan as you describe. I'm just wondering if I ever have pets can I be technically classified as a vegan?
There's been a discussion on this elsewhere on the forum at:
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/se...?searchid=80485
Thank you. I tried searching, but maybe I was being to specific or something. Maybe a Moderator can merge these two?
These are unwanted and unloved domestic animals. Do you think it is "veganly" or compassionate that we should not take them out of that situation and give them a loving home?
I think the most compassionate thing would be putting them in an ecosystem where they feel at home, far away from human involvement. Why MUST they live in captivity?
Now, to get to the stray domestic animals who live in our urban or suburban neigborhoods: These animals roam in dangerous and deprived circumstances and live very short lives that often end violently or cruelly: such as car accidents, poisonings and victimization from sadistic people. They have no real access to the things an animal in a true rural setting would have: like plenty of prey, access to natural shelter and freedom from technological or human dangers.
Unfortunately human involvement does awful things to animals ecosystems. I would like to go to a more agricultural based society, eliminating hazardous situations for animals.
sylkan
Apr 26th, 2005, 07:01 PM
I love animals too. I also have guinea pigs who I have wept over when they were sick. I don't know many people who have the same empathy and compassion for animals (except maybe on this forum, but I haven't been here too long) as I do. I'm going by the intellectual/philosophical idea of becoming a Vegan as you describe. I'm just wondering if I ever have pets can I be technically classified as a vegan?
If you have already decided to be vegan and share your home with animals, why argue semantics?
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 26th, 2005, 08:10 PM
If you have already decided to be vegan and share your home with animals, why argue semantics?
I'm saying not eating meat and animal products and owning pets, if I still would be a vegan. If not that's the way I'm going to go. Just wondering if that's in the definition of a vegan. I personally am not too fond of labels, which is why if I'm going to label myself I want it to be correctly.
sylkan
Apr 26th, 2005, 11:42 PM
I'm saying not eating meat and animal products and owning pets, if I still would be a vegan. If not that's the way I'm going to go. Just wondering if that's in the definition of a vegan. I personally am not too fond of labels, which is why if I'm going to label myself I want it to be correctly.
that seems to be rather contradictory--to not like labels but be very particular about the labels you apply to yourself...i realise that comes across as critical, sorry, I'm just curious about your motivation
spo
Apr 27th, 2005, 12:10 AM
I think the most compassionate thing would be putting them in an ecosystem where they feel at home, far away from human involvement. Why MUST they live in captivity?
Unfortunately human involvement does awful things to animals ecosystems. I would like to go to a more agricultural based society, eliminating hazardous situations for animals.
Hi, Minoan Chris-
Where in the world, nowadays, is there a place that is "far away from human involvement"? If there are some places like that, do you think we could re-locate all the domestic animals in "captivity"?
You're right, here, human involvement causes animals some of their biggest problems! It is, for the time being, and the foreseeable future, totally impractical to get our current world to return to a "more agricultural based society", IMO.
Most of the domestic animal guardians (notice I keep using the word "domestic"), on this site, have acquired their animal companions from shelters and rescued situations--which means the animals were in trouble from our urban and suburban world. You did not really address my points about car accidents, poisonings and sadistic humans? Shouldn't we, other more compassionate humans, intervene in these circumstances-- to help fix the mess that our uncaring fellow humans have created?
BTW, humane societies Do not kidnap domestic animals--they acquire them because people who find injured or abused animals, or are unable to care for an animal, bring them to the humane societies. They are literally overcrowded with animals in distress. :(
Believe me, they are not looking to "Kidnap" them!! :mad:
Hey, look, Chris--you are entitled to define your "veganism" any way in which you feel comfortable. But, I'm just pointing out there is no "vegan bible" and there are many points to consider in this issue.
For many vegans, like myself, compassion is the reason for our veganism and helping domestic animals, whose lives were "messed up" by humans is our definition of compassion.
Since you did have companion guinea pigs, I'm sure you know that our animal companions love us, too and like our company and loving care!! ;)
Please don't take my remarks to be "snotty" :o I just feel strongly about this issue and I think it is worth some "debate".
spo
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 27th, 2005, 04:24 AM
that seems to be rather contradictory--to not like labels but be very particular about the labels you apply to yourself...i realise that comes across as critical, sorry, I'm just curious about your motivation
No, I'm nothign yet. But if I'm going to be SOMETHING I want to make sure I follow to philosophy correct. I reread what I wrote and it sounded like jargon, I apologize. I was in the midst of studying for exams
Where in the world, nowadays, is there a place that is "far away from human involvement"? If there are some places like that, do you think we could re-locate all the domestic animals in "captivity"?
Like I said...animals habitats are being destroyed and transplanted, and relocation would probably kill more of them. But if it's feasable and safe bringing them back into their natural environment would be optimal.
You're right, here, human involvement causes animals some of their biggest problems! It is, for the time being, and the foreseeable future, totally impractical to get our current world to return to a "more agricultural based society", IMO.
Well I'm not here to discuss politics, but we could very well likely if you wanted to change the topic. Politics are a bit of a forte for me. I just said what I did to show my care for the environment.
Most of the domestic animal guardians (notice I keep using the word "domestic"), on this site, have acquired their animal companions from shelters and rescued situations--which means the animals were in trouble from our urban and suburban world. You did not really address my points about car accidents, poisonings and sadistic humans? Shouldn't we, other more compassionate humans, intervene in these circumstances-- to help fix the mess that our uncaring fellow humans have created?
I did...I said human "advancement" kills them off. I don't know anything about hte percentages of animals who die from those incidents...maybe you'd like to propose some numbers since you would like them further addressed. We can find the primarily problems and attempt to solve them.
BTW, humane societies Do not kidnap domestic animals--they acquire them because people who find injured or abused animals, or are unable to care for an animal, bring them to the humane societies. They are literally overcrowded with animals in distress.
Believe me, they are not looking to "Kidnap" them!!
And do you think those abused animals would have had a desire to be kept in domestication to begin with. Then someone mentions putting them down. Sounds like human societies aren't that nice. Not all animals in a humane society are somehow injured. Many would probably be able to live in their natural environments.
Hey, look, Chris--you are entitled to define your "veganism" any way in which you feel comfortable. But, I'm just pointing out there is no "vegan bible" and there are many points to consider in this issue.
For many vegans, like myself, compassion is the reason for our veganism and helping domestic animals, whose lives were "messed up" by humans is our definition of compassion.
I'm not defining it...someone else has...long before you might have changed its definition to suit your needs. Maybe as "vegans" you can all change the term and meaning itself. I'm looking at a definition as we speak right from a Vegan society (in Britain) that made me inquire this.
Since you did have companion guinea pigs, I'm sure you know that our animal companions love us, too and like our company and loving care!!
Umm...ok...like I said...many animals go wherever there is food, not that they really want to be with us (although many put up with us for the sake of food). But that's just from what I've witnessed. Not to mention Guinea Pigs are native to South America so they're already force migrated.
Please don't take my remarks to be "snotty" I just feel strongly about this issue and I think it is worth some "debate".
I feel stongly about this issue too. And when I proposed it I was moreso looking for written evidence from vegan societies that state specifically if owning pets allows you to be vegan. As it is the definition of the British Vegan Society, as well as the philosophical general definition, that brought this issue up.
sylkan
Apr 27th, 2005, 05:28 AM
And do you think those abused animals would have had a desire to be kept in domestication to begin with. Then someone mentions putting them down. Sounds like human societies aren't that nice. Not all animals in a humane society are somehow injured. Many would probably be able to live in their natural environments.
I'm not defining it...someone else has...long before you might have changed its definition to suit your needs. Maybe as "vegans" you can all change the term and meaning itself. I'm looking at a definition as we speak right from a Vegan society (in Britain) that made me inquire this.
Regarding your first point here--Can you describe for me the natural environment of the domestic cat and domestic dog and then give me specific areas on Earth that fit that description?
As to point #2--The moment we try to pin down a defintion that speaks to the identity of others we edge out the periphery. Nailing down the category of vegan for whatever purpose is inevitably going to leave people out, people who do not conform to 'ideal veganism', whatever the exact defintion of vegan as outlined by X group might be. These people may practice the principles of veganism to the best of their abilities, but will not be welcome due to some arbitrary idea of what vegan means.
I can liken this to something more concrete: I know a woman who went to a gynocologist and filled out a questionnaire. One of the questions regarded her sexual orientation and she responded that she was a lesbian. When her doctor reviewed the questionnaire in her presence, he asked how long it had been since her last sexual encounter. She said that it was six months before and with a man. The doctor crossed out lesbian and wrote in bisexual--no consultation, no hesitation. She was livid. She is a lesbian, but because of one encounter, this man had effectively rewritten her identity.
Why are we so obsessed with fitting ourselves and other people into little boxes? I realise that there is a political urgency to define what is vegan, but why not start a new trend and allow for the grey space in-between when defining what amounts to a political identity? Straight people can be politically queer; White people can be politically Black; men can be politically women. I live with cats and I am a political vegan.
Seaside
Apr 27th, 2005, 06:05 AM
Posted by Minoan_Chris:
I don't know anything about hte percentages of animals who die from those incidents...maybe you'd like to propose some numbers since you would like them further addressed. We can find the primarily problems and attempt to solve them.
Why are percentages necessary? One animal killed is one too many.
Posted by Minoan_Chris:
I'm not defining it...someone else has...long before you might have changed its definition to suit your needs. Maybe as "vegans" you can all change the term and meaning itself. I'm looking at a definition as we speak right from a Vegan society (in Britain) that made me inquire this.
Living with compassion for animals as spo and many others here do does not constitute changing the definition of the word vegan to suit our needs. But if calling myself a vegan requires that I ignore the suffering of the domesticated animals I encounter right now, and try instead to treat them according to a utopian principle that may exist in some future ideal world where there is plenty of room for everybody to just ignore each other, I guess I'll have to stop calling myself vegan at least until the shelters are empty of animals in need of care.
Do you know any dogs or cats? I have lived with them since I was a child, and I work with them too. I have two dogs and three cats right now, and they are bonded with me for many reasons other than food and shelter. Animals do have emotional lives, and mine are bonded with each other as well as with me. They groom each other (I'm talking about the dogs grooming the cats, and the cats grooming the dogs, and both trying to groom me sometimes too!) they cuddle up and sleep together in the same bed or on the same couch, and they play with each other. The cats seem to love the dogs better than they love each other. None of this has anything to do with food, as the dogs and cats are not feeding each other.
The dogs I take to the park each day love to run, chase balls, wrestle, meet new friends, but if I have to leave the park for a few minutes to get something from the car, all the fun comes to a grinding halt as each dog waits anxiously at the gate til I come back. I am bonded with them as the leader of their pack, in spite of never feeding them, and they will not continue their activities until I am back amongst them. They also have many opportunities to run away from me when it is time to leave, but they never do. In spite of how much they like it at the park, they will not stay if I am leaving. I have not trained them to be this way, as I am not a trainer. It's just how they are.
Thousands of years ago dogs and cats probably did begin associating with us for the food benefits, but it has gone way beyond that now. We are the ones who have made dogs and cats dependent upon us for way more than just food. We have bred them to like people and to want to be around them, and it would be cruel to just dump them somewhere after hundreds of generations of companionship. The motivations for the companionship could stand some change, but not the companionship itself.
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 27th, 2005, 07:50 AM
Regarding your first point here--Can you describe for me the natural environment of the domestic cat and domestic dog and then give me specific areas on Earth that fit that description?
As to point #2--The moment we try to pin down a defintion that speaks to the identity of others we edge out the periphery. Nailing down the category of vegan for whatever purpose is inevitably going to leave people out, people who do not conform to 'ideal veganism', whatever the exact defintion of vegan as outlined by X group might be. These people may practice the principles of veganism to the best of their abilities, but will not be welcome due to some arbitrary idea of what vegan means.
I can liken this to something more concrete: I know a woman who went to a gynocologist and filled out a questionnaire. One of the questions regarded her sexual orientation and she responded that she was a lesbian. When her doctor reviewed the questionnaire in her presence, he asked how long it had been since her last sexual encounter. She said that it was six months before and with a man. The doctor crossed out lesbian and wrote in bisexual--no consultation, no hesitation. She was livid. She is a lesbian, but because of one encounter, this man had effectively rewritten her identity.
Why are we so obsessed with fitting ourselves and other people into little boxes? I realise that there is a political urgency to define what is vegan, but why not start a new trend and allow for the grey space in-between when defining what amounts to a political identity? Straight people can be politically queer; White people can be politically Black; men can be politically women. I live with cats and I am a political vegan.
Probably a forest or something for dogs. Cats maybe a field with mice to catch. But like someone else said...making them domesticated is okay if it's been done for a long time.
To you're other point...having sexual encounters with both males and females makes her bisexual. Unless she had sex with the man before she ever had sex with the woman. There's terms for all that stuff...Bi, bi-curious, or like I said, plainly homosexual if she no longer had contact with either sex if she is committed to one.
Well I'd just like clarification on the pet issue. Other that that what a vegan is, is pretty straight forward. Yet no one has used evidence from vegan societies where I got the definition that sparked this thought (even though that is, as I said, what I was hoping for).
Why are percentages necessary? One animal killed is one too many.
I don't know...ask spo why he asked me to elaborate on it. Yes I know they died...what else am I supposed to say??
I agree one is too much...and I say I want to live in an environmentally friendly commune, and people say it's impossible...yeesh!
Living with compassion for animals as spo and many others here do does not constitute changing the definition of the word vegan to suit our needs. But if calling myself a vegan requires that I ignore the suffering of the domesticated animals I encounter right now, and try instead to treat them according to a utopian principle that may exist in some future ideal world where there is plenty of room for everybody to just ignore each other, I guess I'll have to stop calling myself vegan at least until the shelters are empty of animals in need of care.
Animals being domesticated is part of the problems that leads to their suffering. If they've been domesticated their whole lives, they go outside, and are frightened, because the inside is all they know. But who said anything about ignoring suffering? Human contact is what has caused that suffering in most cases.
Do you know any dogs or cats? I have lived with them since I was a child, and I work with them too. I have two dogs and three cats right now, and they are bonded with me for many reasons other than food and shelter. Animals do have emotional lives, and mine are bonded with each other as well as with me. They groom each other (I'm talking about the dogs grooming the cats, and the cats grooming the dogs, and both trying to groom me sometimes too!) they cuddle up and sleep together in the same bed or on the same couch, and they play with each other. The cats seem to love the dogs better than they love each other. None of this has anything to do with food, as the dogs and cats are not feeding each other.
You're right...some dogs do form loyal companionships. But the cats at my parents house go to whoever feeds them...often like dogs too. With dogs it can often be related to the Alpha male complex, where it recognizes you as its leader because you provide for it. Especially as puppies whoever has the food gets the attention. It's what they're trained to do.
You spoke about something of the Alpha male complex in the following paragraph:
I am bonded with them as the leader of their pack, in spite of never feeding them, and they will not continue their activities until I am back amongst them.
Thousands of years ago dogs and cats probably did begin associating with us for the food benefits, but it has gone way beyond that now. We are the ones who have made dogs and cats dependent upon us for way more than just food. We have bred them to like people and to want to be around them, and it would be cruel to just dump them somewhere after hundreds of generations of companionship. The motivations for the companionship could stand some change, but not the companionship itself.
No...it's still for the food. At my parents there are cats we feed that live outside. They've come in sometimes but guess where they go? THE GARBAGE in search for food! But like I said, that's my own experiences and what I know of some animal behaviour. But I guess they come inside because they want our companionship?
Korn
Apr 27th, 2005, 10:25 AM
If labels will cause confusion or misunderstandings, it's better to avoid them. I have still not said 'I'm a vegan' ever, to anyone. If you want to keep your pets, which everybody understands that anyone with pets will do, keep the pets. If you want to eat plant based food and avoid animal products as much as possible, eat plant based food and avoid animal products as much as possible.
Many people who have pets go vegan, and I can't see how giving their pets to a meat eater or kick them out of the house would make them more vegan...
spo
Apr 27th, 2005, 12:14 PM
Great posts Sylkan, Seaside and of course, Korn! :D
I agree wholeheartedly with all of you -- they cover the points beautifully.
Thank you, all! :)
Some Vegan Societies define veganism one way and others, like PETA and Farm Sanctuary define veganism as including animal guardianship for shelter domestic animals and rescued animals and even, farm animals!
Also, do you realize that domestication began since nearly the time of the so-called cavemen? Consequently, our domestic dogs and cats have "domestication" built into their genetic makeup?
Let's forget labels: if you don't want to live with domestic animals, then don't have them in your life. But, don't try to "label" those of us, like Korn said, if we are protectors and family to domestic animals..
spo
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 27th, 2005, 08:14 PM
That genetics thing is rather assinine...I might agree with that for dogs...but have you ever met a wild dog? I can't say I have, but I hear they're nasty little things. Everytime we see an animal, especially a dog or a cat, we think it should be domesticated. I'd like to see some evidence for the genetics comment spo made. I've never heard of any domestication gene. To me all animals are capable of living in their natural environments (outside) and it's only training that they stay inside. We do breed dogs...but what you're probably thinking of genetic selection is just the agressiveness of the species. There are some dogs that are naturally less agressives than others, and you can create agressive dogs as well. You can also make non-agressive dogs agressive by training them as such. Animals are only "domestic" because we make then as such. Whether it was thousands of years ago, or more recently. No animal was created into our households, caves, huts, whatever.
Once again, nobody has adressed the issue I would like addressed, but thanks for all the arguments.
sylkan
Apr 28th, 2005, 03:44 AM
Once again, nobody has adressed the issue I would like addressed, but thanks for all the arguments.
Uh...I thought all you wanted was to know if the definition of vegan could include having pets?
We, as the ones who classify ourselves as vegans, do have a certain amount of power here in defining what it means to be vegan. I'm not talking about dictionary power; I talking about discursive power. If we all stand together and say that pets can be and are a part of a vegan lifestyle, then from the sounds of it you have your answer, which is a resounding YES!
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 28th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Uh...I thought all you wanted was to know if the definition of vegan could include having pets?
We, as the ones who classify ourselves as vegans, do have a certain amount of power here in defining what it means to be vegan. I'm not talking about dictionary power; I talking about discursive power. If we all stand together and say that pets can be and are a part of a vegan lifestyle, then from the sounds of it you have your answer, which is a resounding YES!
You've got it backwards. I want to know if people with pets can classify themselves as vegans. The definition for a vegan leaves it open to speculation. I mean a self-claimed vegan might not actually follow the definition of veganism, and therefore have wrongly classified themself. Just like people wrongly classify themselves in politics, gender orientation, etc.
Seaside
Apr 28th, 2005, 04:48 AM
Minoan_Chris, can you find a statement from the British Vegan Society that states unequivocally that people who care for animals in their homes are not to be considered vegan? I looked at a few websites and was unable to find anything that clear.
If I were to approach any official Vegan Society with rules and regulations and such, and said "I have dogs at my house, can I still join and call myself a vegan?" and they said, "Sorry, no.", it would have zero impact upon my life. I would continue to refuse to eat meat, dairy, and eggs, I would continue to refuse to use leather, silk, wool, etc., and I would continue to treat all life with as much compassion as I am able to do in the real world in which I must live. I guess the bottom line is that I wouldn't care what someone else decided to call me, in fact, I don't generally allow others to define me based on what they may or may not know about my lifestyle. I'm vegan enough for myself, and if that isn't good enough for anyone else, I really don't care.
EcoTribalVegan
Apr 28th, 2005, 05:06 AM
Minoan_Chris, can you find a statement from the British Vegan Society that states unequivocally that people who care for animals in their homes are not to be considered vegan? I looked at a few websites and was unable to find anything that clear.
If I were to approach any official Vegan Society with rules and regulations and such, and said "I have dogs at my house, can I still join and call myself a vegan?" and they said, "Sorry, no.", it would have zero impact upon my life. I would continue to refuse to eat meat, dairy, and eggs, I would continue to refuse to use leather, silk, wool, etc., and I would continue to treat all life with as much compassion as I am able to do in the real world in which I must live. I guess the bottom line is that I wouldn't care what someone else decided to call me, in fact, I don't generally allow others to define me based on what they may or may not know about my lifestyle. I'm vegan enough for myself, and if that isn't good enough for anyone else, I really don't care.
Good for you that you aren't hooked up on definitions then. I plan on keeping my pets too...but I want to know if that would technically make me a vegan...because I'll just say "I don't eat animals, or animal products"
However...the exploitation of domestic animals is a lot like the exploitation under capitalism. Both are given a "reward" in return for obedience. We are told we cannot live without money, animals are lead to believe they cannot live without our protection; which is asinine. That is why I would like to know what people mean when they say they will not "exploit" animals.
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/
That's where I got the quote from. However they might have changed it, the wording I originally read was:
The word 'veganism' denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, including humans and the environment.
Regardless it says basically the same thing.
Seaside
Apr 28th, 2005, 06:29 AM
I guess it boils down to a personal interpretation of what we think exploitation is. "as far as is possible and practical" is open to lots of interpretation, too. In my opinion, relocating dogs and cats into a wild area is not practical, and would be disastrous to indigenous creatures.
Many shelter workers would love to stop backyard breeders, but in a free, capitalist country this is not possible. We have not been able to make it a law that anyone who owns an animal must spay or neuter it, so the numbers keep growing.
Humans have directed the development of domesticated animals enough so that it will continue to be our responsibility to provide more "management" for them than is needed by wild animals. Expecting them to be able to be released into the wild to care for themselves is not realistic. Cats will be much more likely to be preyed upon than to become successful predators themselves, and though there are colonies of feral cats all over the place, the ones who are most successful at surviving are usually fed by people who have a passion for helping feral cats. They are trapped, brought to vets for care, spaying, and or neutering, and released again if they cannot be rehabilitated to live amongst people. Once a feral cat colony is discovered, it is rarely left alone to fend for itself.
Dogs who are routinely left behind when their families move and decide not to take them along are even less likely to survive than feral cats. In fact, though I know of feral dog packs in third world countries, I know of none here in the USA at all, which indicates to me that the dogs either do not survive as feral animals at all, or will not stay in the wild places in which they are originally abandoned, but immediately seek civilisation where they are picked up as strays and put through the shelter system.
I suppose it has to be up to each individual whether they view giving companion animals homes with loving people as exploitation, or the above alternatives as cruelty. Since vegans are not fascists, you are allowed some choice in determining your own lifestyle. The most important thing about being vegan is that you are not consciously choosing to harm or kill other living things whenever this can be avoided. :)
spo
Apr 28th, 2005, 10:52 AM
Minoan Chris:
My remarks regarding domestic animals having a distinct genetic makeup are asinine ??? :mad:
What level of education do you have? Have you heard of natural selection? Have you looked into the definitions of domestic versus wild animals, from the viewpoint of biology? Do you have any idea of what Darwin had to say about this?
Look, your discussion of this should remain polite and civil. Many of us here have advanced educations and degrees.
But look, nothing we say really has had any effect on you. We have all said the same things, over and over again, and this is getting ridiculous!!
You can call yourself vegan or not. We can call ourselves vegan, and have companion animals. You can believe that it is exploitation. It is clear, that a good number of us on this site, do NOT believe, living and caring for domestic companion animals, is exploitive.
Since you are engaging us in this discussion, I find it strange that you have yet to start being a vegan. Therefore, I just have one question for you: Are you a TROLL?
I intend to ask Korn to take a closer look at this thread. What do the rest of you, posting here, think?
spo
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.