Vegans and pets

[EcoTribalVegan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There's been a discussion on this elsewhere on the forum at:
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sea...searchid=80485

[EcoTribalVegan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!

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" I just feel strongly about this issue and I think it is worth some "debate".
spo

[EcoTribalVegan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Great posts Sylkan, Seaside and of course, Korn!
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Minoan Chris:

My remarks regarding domestic animals having a distinct genetic makeup are asinine ???
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

[Evilfluffbunny]

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?

I know what you mean and I'm sure there are vegans out there who think it's 'unvegan' to share your home with pets, however, by that logic it would also be unvegan to work in an animal sanctury, to go abroad and help rescue wild orangutans from poachers or to stop beside a field and stroke the horses or cows.

Maybe the examples I gave sound a bit extreme or 'nit picky', but that's how most vegans (myself included) would regard any vegan with that sort of attitude about pets. If it's wild-caught pets, animals who shouldn't be kept in a house (e.g. those idiots who keep 'pet' tigers, crocodiles and so on) or buying an animal from a breeder, then I could understand vegans having a problem with that because then there are welfare issues involved, but I can't see any logic behind thinking that vegans shouldn't share a home with pets simply because 'vegans avoid everything animal-related'.

So, in answer to your question - I think pet companionship is a human purpose in that we enjoy their company, but I don't think that looking after a pet which needs a home is a selfish or unveganly thing to do and YES, I think vegans can have pets and that pet owners can call themselves vegan!

[Evilfluffbunny]

Also, there are literally several hundred thousand animals destroyed every year because they are homeless (probably even more than that, I don't know the world-wide figures) and many of them end up in research laboratories.

Surely it's more vegan to rescue some of these animals by giving them a loving home, than to refuse to take one because you think pet ownership is wrong and unethical from a vegan viewpoint. (I realise you have pets Minoan Chris, I'm making a point about the anti-pet vegans viewpoint).

I think at it's most basic level, a vegan is simply someone who doesn't eat or use any animal products. Beyond that, I think it's a matter of debate and speculation. Some vegans might think it's terrible to keep an animal as a pet, but perhaps a Jain might look at them and think "You don't wear a mask over your mouth and you don't walk in bare feet or sweep the road as you walk to avoid harming innocent insects - How can you call yourself a vegan?".

I think everyone's entitled to their viewpoints and if a vegan feels it's personally wrong for them to care for an animal, then that's fine. It's just when individuals try to push their own viewpoints onto others that I get annoyed. I'm vegan because I don't eat, wear or use anything animal-derived and I try to live in as animal and eco-friendly a way as I possibly can. I would resent anyone claiming that I'm not vegan enough to merit the title simply because I look after rescued cats and fish.

[EcoTribalVegan]

I know what you mean and I'm sure there are vegans out there who think it's 'unvegan' to share your home with pets, however, by that logic it would also be unvegan to work in an animal sanctury, to go abroad and help rescue wild orangutans from poachers or to stop beside a field and stroke the horses or cows.

Poachers are the exploiters. As long as you rescue the orangutans and let them go, that's not expoiting them...that's helping them from human exploitation. People who make their pets required on them, as like my parallel to capitalism, could be considered exploitation.

Also, there are literally several hundred thousand animals destroyed every year because they are homeless (probably even more than that, I don't know the world-wide figures) and many of them end up in research laboratories.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Why are animals who live in the wild deemed homeless?? If anything that is their home, and we're taking them away from freedom.

My remarks regarding domestic animals having a distinct genetic makeup are asinine ???
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?

I'm in second year university, working on an undergraduate history degree. However, in my free time (when I'm not reading for classes) I like reading about science, philosophy, religion, etc. for personal interest.

But I guess natural selection allows us to cage animals...since it's for their own good? Look who made that theory! A human...his theories would obviously suit human need. But I guess I'm uneducated and wouldn't look into underlying factors .

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.

And it wasn't until the last few posts that people actually addressed what I wanted them to address...which is essentially what is classified as exploitation. Yet, nobody has explained why manipulating animals isn't exploitation!

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?

No, trying to make an informed choice. If this is a vegan forum, I want to know how many people are actually vegans to the T . But getting informed is something an uneducated person would do I guess. Maybe you should stop implying about levels of education. You don't need a slip of paper to be smart...I'm only getting mine for my future career.

[Evilfluffbunny]

Poachers are the exploiters. As long as you rescue the orangutans and let them go, that's not expoiting them...that's helping them from human exploitation. People who make their pets required on them, as like my parallel to capitalism, could be considered exploitation.

I was just making an extreme example of the 'avoiding everything animal related because I'm vegan' attitude, I didn't mean it literally. I don't think there are that many vegans who'd refuse even to stroke a horse! Actually, I've never met any vegans who've had a problem with the concept of companion pets, at least not ones from animal shelters. I can understand them having a problem with breeders and pet shops, but not with giving a home to an animal which would otherwise be destroyed or kept in a cage for years. Whether it's exploitation or not to own a pet, I still think it's the lesser of two evils compared to the lives of caged shelter animals.

Originally Posted by Evilfluffbunny
Also, there are literally several hundred thousand animals destroyed every year because they are homeless (probably even more than that, I don't know the world-wide figures) and many of them end up in research laboratories.



This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Why are animals who live in the wild deemed homeless?? If anything that is their home, and we're taking them away from freedom.

They're not wild animals though, they're domesticated animals who have been abandoned or neglected, or they've been handed into shelters for various reasons. Even the feral ones who've spent all or most of their lives outdoors usually only exist becuase people don't bother spaying their pets and let them wander about and get pregnant/others pregnant. Fair enough if they were all living in some happy animal utopia, but what about the half-starved looking ones foraging for scraps of food from rubbish bins. They might be 'free' but what kind of life is it?

I'm sure most vegans, as much as we love animals, would love to see them all in the wild and free from human intervention, but that's not going to happen tomorrow and there are still thousands of animals in need of warmth and food at the very least. It's not ideal to keep them in human homes, but what's the alternative? Where could we put several hundred thousand animals in the 'wild' where they could be free but also fend for and feed themselves.

I don't understand exactly what you want to know, we've all stated that there's nothing 'unvegan' about looking after an animal and that many vegans don't agree with the concept of pet ownership but have pets anyway since so many of them are in need of a home. You already seem pretty convinced that it's exploitation and isn't compatible with the vegan ethic, so what else do you want us to say? If it really bothers you then why don't you just call yourself a vegetarian and then it won't matter whether or not you're a hypocrite for having pets. I'm quite happy to call myself vegan whether or not other people think I'm a hypocrite for having them.

[spo]

You already seem pretty convinced that it's exploitation and isn't compatible with the vegan ethic, so what else do you want us to say?

Does this finally answer your question, Minoan Chris?

If this is a vegan forum, I want to know how many people are actually vegans to the T

Well, this is a vegan forum. Why does this ^ interest you, unless you are trolling. I think you've been spotted.
spo

[EcoTribalVegan]

Well, this is a vegan forum. Why does this ^ interest you, unless you are trolling. I think you've been spotted.
spo

For a so called educated person you make many assumptions .

[spo]

For a so called educated person you make many assumptions .

No, I'm only making one "educated" assumption about you.
spo

[Seaside]

Posted by Minoan_Chris:

If this is a vegan forum, I want to know how many people are actually vegans to the T .

That's easy. Zero. Every time we inhale, we kill thousands of microscopic airborne critters. Every time we move our bowels, we flush thousands of beneficial bacteria down the toilet. And yes, there are all those insects which die when our vegetables are harvested. So no one is able to be vegan to the T.

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.

The vegan movement is not a contest to see who amongst us can be the most vegan. If you believe in the above statement and your lifestyle is consistent with it, "as far as is possible and practical" you can consider yourself vegan. Or not. It is up to you.

[EcoTribalVegan]

That's easy. Zero. Every time we inhale, we kill thousands of microscopic airborne critters. Every time we move our bowels, we flush thousands of beneficial bacteria down the toilet. And yes, there are all those insects which die when our vegetables are harvested. So no one is able to be vegan to the T.

I thought bacteria didn't count. Since the they aren't even animals...

The vegan movement is not a contest to see who amongst us can be the most vegan. If you believe in the above statement and your lifestyle is consistent with it, "as far as is possible and practical" you can consider yourself vegan. Or not. It is up to you.

&

No, I'm only making one "educated" assumption about you.

Maybe I should explain myself before I get more slanderous assumptions. Intelligence and trolling; that's two...however I might give you the benefit of the doubt on the prior. But when someone brings in levels of intelligence into an argument, you usually imply a superiority/inferiority complex.

I'm of the far-left on the political spectrum. To me, animals as a whole can live equally and free from exploitation (of a capitalist system, where even pets are commodities to be bought and sold). Most exploitation applies to both humans and animals. When I mentioned this topic to begin with, forcing someone/something to be reliant on you is a form of exploitation to me (as I've illustrated before); but I'm debating that as I have animals myself whom I try to treat as well as I possibly can. Domestication of formerly wild animals (and I'm appaulled to see that people think the length of domestication makes it okay) is much like capitalism too. Humans haven't evolved to be put in cubicles and stare at computers hours on end, just like animals haven't evolved to be caged either. However, in my case, like many others, Cavies would die in the wild where I live since HUMANS forced migrated them to make exotic pets. I'm relatively young I guess compared to this, since I have a condescending nurse trying to insult me (I think I saw you write that in another topic spo), but I'm still sorting out my own beliefs, trying to make the most educated and FACTUAL choice possible. If you need more clarification on anything I've said, don't hesitate to ask.

[Korn]

Hi Chris, veganism is about not harming/killing others, and about respect: not only respect for other animals' right to live, but also a respect for their freedom and for their wish not to be hurt emotionally or physically. Sometimes, having ie. cat means saving it's life, or saving it from having a bad life, in other situations, keeping a pet means harming it.

You seem to have got the answers you need already...? When you registered you told us that you were planning to go vegan, but one thing is sure: whether you define keeping your pet as 'exploiting' an animal or not, keeping that pet doesn't mean that you can't avoid using animal products as much as possible ie. for food. Since you indicate that you are not vegan, but plan on going vegan... what is holding you back?

[EcoTribalVegan]

You seem to have the answers you want already, Chris... why does this interest you (except that you find it 'interesting')?

Moreso to see what vegans claim as exploitation. But I don't have all the answers or why would I be here?

[Korn]

Why do you 'want to see what vegans claim as exploitation'? Even if I or anyone else have a different definition of exploitation than you, why would this hold you back from going vegan instead of just planning it? You wrote that 'if I'm going to be SOMETHING I want to make sure I follow to philosophy correct.' You also say that you are far left politically - wouldn't that imply that you most of all should be true to your own opinions and afterwards check if that fits in with a label (if labels are interesting) instead of following a philosophy? Why follow a philosophy at all?

You wrote that cavies would die in the wild, so it's rather obvious that keeping them would save their lives instead of harming them... wouldn't it? Now if some vegan would tell you that you would have to let go of your cavies if you should call yourself a vegan, you wouldn't let them die anyway, right? Don't focus on labels. Do what you think is right. As you now know, there are vegans who have pets and vegans who don't.

But I don't have all the answers or why would I be here?

OK... next question, please? I'm sure you are too intelligent to think that '(some) vegans are against having pets + I have a pet = I'm not a vegan... therefore I'll continue to consume dairy products'....!

[Seaside]

Posted by Minoan_Chris:

Moreso to see what vegans claim as exploitation. But I don't have all the answers or why would I be here?

I think it is safe to say that most of the vegans who have debated with you here do not consider domestic animal guardianship as exploitation. Those of us here who do not eat animals or animal products, and do not use clothing, personal care, or other items of animal origin, are vegans. Many of us do care for domestic animals. However, we here at this forum are not the final authority, and I don't know if any of us even want to be in the position of defining for you what animal exploitation is. Why do you need someone else to define animal exploitation for you anyway? If you search longer, you may eventually find a group of vegans who will say "No, YOU cannot call yourself a vegan if you keep your cavies. You must wait until they die, or give them away, before you can call yourself a vegan." If that is what you are looking for, I don't think you'll find it here. But if you stay, you're bound to learn lots of other things about being vegan.

[EcoTribalVegan]

Ok domestication is not exploitation. You'll here no more arguments from me...I guess my definition of exploitation makes me a troll.

[Korn]

If someone registers just to ask theoretical questions, and have no real interest in going vegan, they'll be considered trolls on a forum for vegans and people who consider going vegan. But your definition of exploitation doesn't make you a troll.

Besides, there's no official statement from anyone that domestication never (or always) is exploitation. I agree in many of the things you say, and am curios to hear about your other questions.... (Maybe you can answer mine too?)

[EcoTribalVegan]

Your definition of exploitation doesn't make you a troll. But if you registered just to ask questions, and have no real interest in going vegan, you'll be considered a troll on a forum for vegans or people who consider going vegan.

Besides, there's no official statement from anyone that domestication never (or always) is exploitation. I agree in many of the things you say, and am curios to hear about your other questions.... (Maybe you can answer mine too?)

Well I'd like to think I base my beliefs on as much fact as possible. But how is keeping a pet cat any different than keeping a pet hen who lays unfertalized eggs. I mean is that exploitation to eat the egg which no longer has a purpose? Which is why I'm confused about how domestication in some cases is acceptable, well others isn't.

First thing holding me back: I don't buy my own groceries. Secondly, when I wake up most mornings, my Aunt has already usually cooked me something (bacon, eggs in some situations), and to me wasting the animals death at this point is worse than not eating it. Thirdly, I will also be going to Spain this summer, and have heard bad things about some host families (like an acquaintance from Mexico being kicked out by his host for insulting their food). I'd rather not be put in a situation like that. However, I was planning on it about a month ago (or whenever I first posted after I had done a lot of research), but I don't think it will be plausable until I live with my girlfriend (although she'll be eating meat, I'll be purchasing groceries) to become a vegan. That is my plan. And I'm sorry if my delay makes me a troll.

Where there any other questions? I really don't want to continue this thread this longer since the accusations continue to come at me. So if there are I could clear them up quickly or in private conversation.

[Korn]

Well I'd like to think I base my beliefs on as much fact as possible.

I'd go further than that, and not even try to establish a 'belief' that I decide to stick to. Isn't it better to base your actions on what you know, feel and think? If you are against keeping a cat, don't keep a cat. If you think your cat would die of you let it out in the streets, don't let it out in the streets.

But how is keeping a pet cat any different than keeping a pet hen who lays unfertalized eggs.

There are several differences, for example how humans (in most cases) treat animals kept for food vs. how they treat their pets, another one is that inviting someone to live with us as a friend is very different from inviting someone to live with us (in a not very cozy guesthouse) to work for us for free. Also, we are not eating animal products as a result of keeping a pet. But I agree that forcing an animal that wants to live a wild life to stay in your house only for your own pleasure is exploitation.

I mean is that exploitation to eat the egg which no longer has a purpose?

Are we seeing a trick question here? You want to claim that keeping pets is not OK just to make some vegans go 'yes, it is', just to bring up the egg discussion afterwards? We have a thread about eggs here: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1370.

First thing holding me back: I don't buy my own groceries.

I didn't either, when I was 16, but I refused to eat animal products, so my parents had a choice between allowing me to get the ingredients I needed or let me starve to death (but did not give me a hard time with me decision to drop animal products). Since I'm still around, you know what they decided to do...

Secondly, when I wake up most mornings, my Aunt has already usually cooked me something (bacon, eggs in some situations)

Believe me, she would stop doing that if you didn't eat it!

wasting the animals death at this point is worse than not eating it.

You turn everything upside down! The reason the animal IS dead is that you accept to eat it! If you refuse to eat a chicken tomorrow and say that you intend to continue doing that, they won't buy/kill a chicken for you on Monday!

Thirdly, I will also be going to Spain this summer, and have heard bad things about some host families (like an acquaintance from Mexico being kicked out by his host for insulting their food). I'd rather not be put in a situation like that.

Hmmm, now you are really setting new definitions for when exploitation of animals are OK, and when not. If you are think it's OK to kill and eat and an animal because you don't want a food discussion with your aunt, or because you want to have an easier life on you summer trip, your questions about whether it's OK to have pets or raise chicken seem somewhat misplaced. If someone kicks you out of their house because you refuse to kill/eat animals, you shouldn't have moved in in the first place, if you don't want to support exploitation of animals! If you are forced to live such a life and kill/eat animals in order to go to Spain, why go to Spain in first place? Why not go to a place where they kick you out for eating meat instead?

Your dedicated interest in not supporting any form of exploitation doesn't go well along with arguments that 'the animal is already dead, so why not eat it'...

There's no need to insult someone or their food. If you plan to go vegan, you simply need to get used adjust your plans and your life to your own philosophy, and stop adjusting your actions to other peoples viewpoints. This is much more rewarding and interesting than it is difficult.

No accusations here, I'm just trying to help you see that it looks like you are discussing with your own principles, somehow – which I, by the way, find natural in a period of change.

[Seaside]

Posted by Korn:

Why not go to a place where they kick you out for eating meat instead?

Where is it, Korn? I wanna live there!

[Evilfluffbunny]

The term 'vegan' was invented by the founders of the Vegan Society (by taking the first and last letters of 'vegetarian'), so if anyone should decide who can and can't call themselves a vegan, then it's them. Since they think it's acceptable for vegans to care for rescued pets, then there's no reason to feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

If there are vegans out there who think pet owners aren't 'true' vegans, then perhaps they should invent a new name for themselves which is more in keeping with their own ethics rather than those of the Vegan Society.

[EcoTribalVegan]

The term 'vegan' was invented by the founders of the Vegan Society (by taking the first and last letters of 'vegetarian'), so if anyone should decide who can and can't call themselves a vegan, then it's them. Since they think it's acceptable for vegans to care for rescued pets, then there's no reason to feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

If there are vegans out there who think pet owners aren't 'true' vegans, then perhaps they should invent a new name for themselves which is more in keeping with their own ethics rather than those of the Vegan Society.

That was the original point of this thread. Since my interest was peaked by a definition. I was thinking mainly about this since I'm aware that some major communist activists actually want to change the name of that.

I'd go further than that, and not even try to establish a 'belief' that I decide to stick to. Isn't it better to base your actions on what you know, feel and think? If you are against keeping a cat, don't keep a cat. If you think your cat would die of you let it out in the streets, don't let it out in the streets.

Well we all believe something. Whether it's biassed or not is the point. Which is why I try ot use fact. Society forces us to have beliefs on issues. Even not caring is still a belief. At least that's what we're told in history...all of history is subjective.

There are several differences, for example how humans (in most cases) treat animals kept for food vs. how they treat their pets, another one is that inviting someone to live with us as a friend is very different from inviting someone to live with us (in a not very cozy guesthouse) to work for us for free. Also, we are not eating animal products as a result of keeping a pet. But I agree that forcing an animal that wants to live a wild life to stay in your house only for your own pleasure is exploitation.

I'm not speaking about eating the chicken! Talking about turning things upside down!! My family raised chickens purely for eggs, and only put them in the coop for their protection. We actually let them out all night a few nights, but weisels, coyote, etc would eat them. We never ate them. Eventually we had more roosters than hens anyway. But I mean why can't you keep a pet chicken? Why is it automatically classified as livestock? I find it similar to the way people classify dogs and cats as domesticated species.

Are we seeing a trick question here? You want to claim that keeping pets is not OK just to make some vegans go 'yes, it is', just to bring up the egg discussion afterwards? We have a thread about eggs here: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1370.

Not a trick question...just what I see as logical fallacy. But I'll check out the thread.

I didn't either, when I was 16, but I refused to eat animal products, so my parents had a choice between allowing me to get the ingredients I needed or let me starve to death (but did not give me a hard time with me decision to drop animal products). Since I'm still around, you know what they decided to do...

You seemed to figure this out earlier than I did then. My mom said she would help me out, but obviously when I'm at school (for 3/4's of the year) I'm not living at home.

Believe me, she would stop doing that if you didn't eat it!

I'm sorry do you know me? My Aunt has cried because my cousins wouldn't eat her food...

You turn everything upside down! The reason the animal IS dead is that you accept to eat it! If you refuse to eat a chicken tomorrow and say that you intend to continue doing that, they won't buy/kill a chicken for you on Monday!

Honestly...I planned on ending this argument...then you keep provoking me to respond! No I personally didn't accept to eat that animal that died. The butcher (at the slaughterhouse) assumed someone would eat it. Not eating it would be wasteful...How the hell is that turning everything upside down. Do you know anything about the capitalist system? They overproduce, cutting out losses, assuming people will buy most of it. The same practice is used in the capitalist farming industry. Only unlike a car (for instance), food goes to waste. That's the suplpy and demand...I said I would like a rural DISTRIBUTIVE society so there wouldn't be waste. Yet some jackass said that was impossible. I'm tired of even trying to be polite anymore.

Hmmm, now you are really setting new definitions for when exploitation of animals are OK, and when not. If you are think it's OK to kill and eat and an animal because you don't want a food discussion with your aunt, or because you want to have an easier life on you summer trip, your questions about whether it's OK to have pets or raise chicken seem somewhat misplaced.

No...There are different levels of exploitation. I still believe domestication of animals is exploitation, but I ended the argument because people are being rude to me. Kind of like you. Like I said...I have Guinea Pigs, because they're already transmigrated from South America, and to me, it's less exploitive to keep them in a place where they'll get attention rather than in a pet store where they probably will receive slim to none. That's a step better (IMO) because they obviously aren't in their natural environment.

If someone kicks you out of their house because you refuse to kill/eat animals, you shouldn't have moved in in the first place, if you don't want to support exploitation of animals!

I'm sorry but I don't get the choice of who I live with if I go to Spain. But once again I'm going to ask, do you know me?

If you are forced to live such a life and kill/eat animals in order to go to Spain, why go to Spain in first place? Why not go to a place where they kick you out for eating meat instead?

Because that's what's available to me for education purposes. I'm spending ~$6,000.00+ to go. I don't want to get kicked out. I'm sorry if you can't grasp that.

Your dedicated interest in not supporting any form of exploitation doesn't go well along with arguments that 'the animal is already dead, so why not eat it'...

Why would I troll on a vegan forum? I plan on becoming vegan (or at least not eat or use meat or animal product). Whether the people at this vegan forum follow the exact guidelines or not. You've helped me out for all I needed to know.

I think that's it. I'm tired of taking crap from people like you. Thanks for the help. I've already got the help I need from this pseudo-vegan forum with regards to the nutritional aspect. I highly doubt I will return. Thanks for making my experience so welcoming.

[Seaside]

But I mean why can't you keep a pet chicken?

You call us pseudo vegans for keeping dogs and cats, but you want to keep a "pet" chicken?

I'm sorry do you know me? My Aunt has cried because my cousins wouldn't eat her food...

Which is more important to you, your Aunt crying or stopping animals from being killed for you to eat?

I'm sorry but I don't get the choice of who I live with if I go to Spain. But once again I'm going to ask, do you know me?

What's more important to you, going to Spain or stopping animals from being killed for you to eat?

Because that's what's available to me for education purposes. I'm spending ~$6,000.00+ to go. I don't want to get kicked out. I'm sorry if you can't grasp that.

What's more important to you, money or stopping animals from being killed for you to eat?

I think that's it. I'm tired of taking crap from people like you.

What is more important to you, other people's opinions or stopping animals from being killed for you to eat?

Why wait for some time in the future when it will be more convenient for you to go vegan? Being vegan involves many hard choices and sacrifices. If you truly believe in vegan principles, the time to put them into action is now.

[Korn]

I'm not speaking about eating the chicken! Talking about turning things upside down!!

I'm not talking about eating chicken either –I'm talking about eating eggs, which are considered an animal product, and not ie. a plant by most people...

My Aunt has cried because my cousins wouldn't eat her food...

Many kids are trained to eat animal products, ever forced to do so, because their parents or other adults they live with are insisting that they should, and by using various methods to make their children follow their ideals (which they again were forced to follow when they were young). Since you say that you are planning to become a vegan, I'm just saying that this implies that you stop doing what people around you suggest that you should eat. It might be parents or other family, waiters at a restaurant, somebody who invites you to visit them or live with them or anyone else you come across. Being vegan doesn't mean to stop eat animal products only when the people around you support your viewpoints. If you're a vegan and go to a place that doesn't serve vegan food, you don't eat animal products just because they want you to. As a vegan, one of the most important means you have to influence people around you, is to keep insisting that you are against killing animals and don't want to eat them even when they insist.

This isn't anything special for veganism; they same goes for any viewpoints: if you are against killing humans, for example, you don't kill a human even if your aunt cries if you refuse to, to use an absurd example. Vegans don't think humans are equal to other animals, but are still against killing an animal for food even if someone around you tries to manipulate you, because, from a vegan point of view, to avoid killing an animal is more important than to please a human being that wants to decide what you should eat. If someone cries because someone you don't want to kill/eat an animal, they have a problem, not you. By seeing this, you might actually help her becoming into being a more accepting person in the future. By killing/eating animals to please her, you don't help the animals, you don't help yourself, and you don't help her in seeing that she needs to accept that ie. a university student, like you, have the right not to be forced to eat meat – or that an animal has the right not to be killed for food.

The butcher (at the slaughterhouse) assumed someone would eat it. Not eating it would be wasteful...

If a cannibal that didn't know you killed another human because he assumed you would eat it, would not eating it be wasteful too? No: you and I don't consider humans food. I don't consider animals food either.

Following your logic, everyone who is presented with a non-vegan meal should it eat it. In a society where for example 97% of all people eat animal products, we are potentially served animal foods everywhere. Butchers are slaughtering animals all over the place. They produce meat because they assume people will eat it, but they will also stop producing meat if people won't buy it. If a 19-year old person who lives with his family stops eating meat, whoever shops food for that family will buy less meat in the future. If one thousand less people will buy meat in 2005 compared with 2004, the butchers will slaughters a lot less animals in 2006. They overproduce, but they'll still reduce the long term production according to the demands: A decrease in meat consumption simply means that factory farms need to adjust their assumptions about how many animals to raise and kill for food.

An argumentation that insists that we should eat animals because factory farming exists/the animals have already been raised/exploited/killed for food is actually as far away from a vegan way of looking at this as you can get.

Let's say that you and I are siblings, living in a 'primitive' family of hunters. Our father kills four birds every day, one for each family member to eat. One day, I say that I'll stop eating birds, because I don't consider birds food anymore. Now, you might insist that I should eat it, because it has already been killed; everything else would be wasteful (well, if you were a vegan, you wouldn't). Maybe our father will agree, since he killed the bird assuming that I would eat it. He'll maybe even kill another bird tomorrow, assuming that I will change my mind. If I would eat the bird just because he killed it and not say anything, he definitely would kill another bird tomorrow. But at some point, if I keep insisting that I won't eat birds, he will begin killing only three birds instead of four, pr. day.

Maybe your philosophy is to eat the bacon that you are served today, but to send a mail to your aunt's butcher letting him know that you won't eat bacon tomorrow? Well, that's not how our society works. They overproduce, but they will reduce the production of anything if the market slowly but consistently will go down. A capitalist society doesn't work like an over-eager room service person at a hotel, calling you up every morning in your bed asking if you want bacon or a vegan meal for breakfast. Our ways of influencing the amounts of meat they produce is to stop buying/eating meat! Yes, it is sad that an animal is killed for food, and in a way I understand that you think it is wasteful if nobody eats it. But you don't help yourself or that animal by eating it: you're only pleasing a few human beings. Pleasing isn't always helping.

Imagine that someone is giving you a gun as a present. Producing that gun would be a waste of money, labour and resources if you would just put it in a locker and not even tell anyone let anyone know that you have it there. But that doesn't make it right to shoot someone with it. 'Wasteful' is better than 'keep causing losses of lives' from a vegan point of view.

I'm sorry but I don't get the choice of who I live with if I go to Spain.

We had a discussion here earlier about people, for example nomads, that settle and establish a community in an area where there isn't enough plants to eat. From a non-vegan point of view, it would be right for them to kill animals for food, because 'they don't have a choice'. From a vegan point of view, they wouldn't settle in such an area at all, because they are against killing animals for food. By choosing to settle in an area where plant food isn't available, they have already declared themselves non-vegans. Now, you are not a vegan, but if you would have been one, you just wouldn't spend your money on a trip where you would be 'forced to' kill/eat animals, just like I assume that you today wouldn't spend money on going to a place were you were forced to eat humans.

I'm using this example just to let you see that when it comes to humans, you'll probably and hopefully agree immediately that going to a place where human beings would be on the menu is totally out of question, because you respect their eight and freedom to live. From a vegan point of view, choosing to go to a place where you are forced to eat animals is also out of question. This doesn't have anything to do with whether I know you or not, it has to do with the definition of vegan. A vegan simply doesn't order meat at a restaurant – even if they have no other options: if he did, he just wouldn't be a vegan. The word simply has another meaning.

If he would be a vegan, he just wouldn't eat at a restaurant that only offered meals with animal products in them, just like he wouldn't go to Spain for a year if that implied being forced to eat or kill animals. He would plan his life differently. Or he wouldn't, but then he wouldn't be a vegan –*just like a pacifist would not be a pacifist anymore if he decided to join an army and used 'they would kick me out of the army if I refused to kill' as an excuse to murder other humans.

I don't want to get kicked out. I'm sorry if you can't grasp that.

I can grasp it, I'm just assuming that if your only choice for education purposes was to go to a place where eating human meat were the only option, you would look very hard to double-check if there were other possibilities.

I've already got the help I need from this pseudo-vegan forum with regards to the nutritional aspect.

Dear Chris, if you think it's right to eat an animal that someone offers you just because it's dead, it's a bit early for you to define what 'pseudo-vegan' is... Anyway, welcome back if you ever agree that animals aren't food, and that vegan viewpoints aren't crap!

One more thing: don't interpret what I have written as accusations. Vegans don't expect that potential vegans get it all sorted out from the moment the decide to/plan to go vegan. I'm a good example of someone who have not been consistent in my choices in the past, even in situations that were less troublesome than you describe. I'm not at all judging you for 'not being perfect'. I'm only showing you other ways of looking at things, and I can easily see that this can be misinterpreted as accusations.

[Caitlin]

I think it is fine to have cats and dogs as pets as their are so many homeless and in shelters already. By ADOPTING them, your saving lives. Same with other animals. Obviously, as far as pet shops go, I do not support them in the least.

[ai4i]

If you "rescue" and maintain a carnivorous pet animal for ten years, how many other animals do you suppose you will pay to have killed to support your hundred+ pound soulmate? Does this weigh into anyone's equation? Much more consistent to keep a rabbit or omnivorous rodent, in my opinion.

[kelra]

I do believe research has shown that dogs are genetically predispositioned to live with humans. This is due to the fact dogs were domesticated soon after the last ice age, they have had time to evolve to the point that they are born ready to be with humans and to understand human language.

While I certainly don't want anymore wild animals domesticated. The animals that are currently domesticated are dependant on humans for shelter, food, and medical care due. Therefore, humans have an obligation to take care of them.

April

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.