• PixellatedDave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Pick a lane. Convenience does not equal cruelty.

      On being able to comprehend, there are human conditions that are beyond my comprehension. I mean as an intellectual thought process I am aware why some people do certain things but it is so far outside of my experience that I could never truly comprehend why.

      • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It doesn’t have to, but in the case of eating animals it does equal cruelty. For what other pleasure than taste would there be this much bickering when the price is an animals life?

        Let’s stay with the dog in the picture, would it be cruel to stun it with a bolt gun, hang it upside down and slit it’s throat? Not out of neccesity but because you like the taste?

        Edit: Again, downvoting won’t change this :)

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Bolt guns are used primarily because they’re not cruel. The animal doesn’t suffer, it’s like flipping a switch. Penetrating bolt guns don’t even stun, they instantly kill. I don’t have an issue killing an animal for meat, as long as it’s done quickly and the animal doesn’t feel pain. Animals eating animals is part of nature, and we do it a hell of a lot nicer than any other animal.

          • weastie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I’m a vegan and I actually partially agree with your sentiment about “quick death + no pain = maybe not too unethical”, and that’s actually the justification I used for a while to defend why I wasn’t vegan.

            Just know that this view is not inherently incompatible with veganism. Go vegan because of the way the animals are treated while they’re alive. Also, most animals are not killed without suffer.

            Cows for meat are possibly the only animal we eat that actually sometimes get decent treatment, if they’re pasture raised with no growth hormones. But non vegans act like this is significant. Only about 3% of cows get to live their entire lives on a pasture. I would commend someone if they actually held a strict rule that they only ate pasture raised beef, but I’ve never met anyone like that. That would mean you could never order beef from a restaurant, you could never eat beef your friends made, etc. unless you’re 100% sure it was pasture raised. Because just about every other cow had to live it’s entire life in a space so small it can’t even turn it’s head and doesn’t get to see outside.

            That being said, virtually every other animal product does not have that going for them. Chicken is never pasture raised (too expensive), their lives are absolutely atrocious and the vast majority of the time they are killed by being hung on an assembly line upside down.

            I’m not going to go into all the details but just know that, even if you do hold the belief that it’s okay for an animal to die if it is quick and painless, that you can still recognize that veganism is correct.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            Deutsch
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You didn’t answer my question. The dog in the picture, if someone came over and instead of rescuing it would have instead stunned it and slit its throat. Again, not because of hunger, just because of taste preference, would you call that cruel?

            Oh btw. something being part of nature surely isn’t justification for humans to do it. Animals mate without consent in nature and I hope you are not a proponent of that as well.

            And bolt guns specifically stun their victims, they don’t kill. For the bleeding out to be quick and efficent, the heart of the animal has to be beating still. I’ve been to slaughterhouses and I’ve seen it.

            • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Is it their dog? Is it raised for food, or would the person otherwise starve? If the answers are yes, then no, I don’t find it cruel. I might find it distasteful, but not cruel. Does that answer surprise you? Good. Maybe you’ll start to see that morals are not universal and not everyone has to conform to yours. That’s the kind of thinking of a child.

              Also, penetrating bolt guns are a thing and yes, they do kill.

              • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                Deutsch
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Also, *penetrating* bolt guns are a thing and yes, they do kill.

                Nope, they stun as well.

                The bolt penetrates the skull of the animal, enters the cranium, and catastrophically damages the cerebrum and part of the cerebellum. Concussion causes destruction of vital centers of the brain and an increase in intracranial pressure, causing the animal to lose consciousness. This method is currently the most effective type of stunning, since it physically destroys brain matter (increasing the probability of a successful stun), while also leaving the brain stem intact and thus ensuring the heart continues to pump during the exsanguination.[2] One disadvantage of this method is that brain matter is allowed to enter the blood stream, possibly contaminating other tissue with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, colloquially known as mad cow disease).”

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol

              • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                Deutsch
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                Lol you are changing the hypothetical cause you know exactly that this would be cruel and that you would try to stop it if you saw it happening. It’s so dishonest.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      IMO, not being able to comprehend cruelty makes someone an ass. The dude in this story could have been kind, polite… they could have helped mow the lawn of their elderly neighbor that’s no longer able to do so themselves.

      Regardless of how otherwise good you are treating a pet that you’ve accepted responsibility for and who, potentially, fully trusts you as family like this… that makes you an ass.

      Anyways I think my only real objection to your original statement is that I don’t think veganism is relevant to this story. I’d say that vegans are more likely to treat their pet well but it’s not a guarantee - even among vegans that made that choice for an ethical reason there are still assholes.

      • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Vegans might be nicer to animals but in my experience they’re generally trash to other people. Also a vegan owning a pet is hypocrisy in the finest form.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Eh… they often are abrasive but it’s because most of them genuinely believe that consumption of meat is unethical. I certainly don’t appreciate being on the receiving end of their criticism but I can respect that it’s at least logically consistent.

          A vegan owning a pet isn’t hypocritical to most of them - PETA was anti-pet for a while but it seems they came to a better comprehension https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

          In general, though, vegans are against using animals for their matter and animal mistreatment. Ethical omnivores often refuse to eat animal products from factory farms due to the excessive cruelty involved in that process and vegans do take it further (I’ve always been a bit weirded out by their refusal to eat non-meat products like cheeses and the like but I do understand the logic).

          Inviting a pet into your life, if you provide a loving home for them to be in, isn’t against mainline veganism - though people keeping pets they can’t properly care for usually is. It’s all about making sure animals are treated well.

          Some vegans just get hyper violent about it though.

          • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            “tHe peT cAnT coNsENT to owNeRsHIp”

            Is the argument I get when I troll c/vegan

        • weastie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Please don’t let your experience with vegans push you away from it. There’s plenty of reasonable, kind, and understanding vegans.

          Also btw, rescuing a shelter animal = vegan, buying a bred animal = not vegan.