As you say, when the completely reasonable position of reducing suffering is used to excuse animal commodification it’s reprehensible, not because humane slaughter is reprehensible, but because the regime of animal commodification is.
This puts it pretty well, thank you.
Once revolutionary veganism has taken hold, the unpalatable task of slaughtering the global herd must be undertaken and in victory over animal servitude humane slaughter will not have any detractors.
What the fuck is this last sentence though lmfao Most vegans do not want to slaughter the global livestock population in an ideal liberatory outcome.
Check out animal sanctuaries for animals liberated from factory farms. It's wholesome and good brain bleach when capitalism has got you feeling down. :vegan-liberation-rad:
Sorry if I misunderstood your last paragraph btw, appreciate the discussion.
No, you wouldn’t release them to the wild anymore than you would a dog or cat. You are absolutely right that they have been domesticated to the point in the imperial core where that is infeasible. Sanctuaries would require further land, but spreading out the impact would actually be less harmful for the environment on the whole.
You could convert currently empty urban spaces into sanctuaries as a part of ecological renewal programs. There are a lot of very sustainable ways we can handle animal liberation.
Animals do not produce milk passively and egg laying animals lay far less eggs when those eggs are not taken from them daily. So much of this comes down to compassionately managing the remaining generations of these animals and could be achieved in a relatively short timespan.
On the whole I do believe there are ways for us to coexist with many animals which have been domesticated such as dogs and cats. That would require a total revamp of how we approach this. This last take has mixed support in vegan circles because of how fucked up the capitalist machine around dogs and cats is.
Hmm? No, I'm just articulating that the idea of "compassionately" mudering anything is a bit of an oxymoron, especially to vegans.
If someone wants to spend the time to be more "humane" than fine, but you can't expect a vegan to support that when we don't think it should be happening in the first place lol
I'm kind of confused how you jumped to that from what I wrote, but okay :shrug-outta-hecks:
Huh, til knocking a chicken out and exsanguinating it is the same as feeding it feet first into a wood chipper, who knew?
To a vegan, yes.
Is how I got that out of what your wrote.
I understand your position but it's pure ideology and lacks any kind of nuance.
Not supporting efforts to reduce suffering is a real "throwing the baby out with the bath water" take, and an extreme level of callous cruelty from someone who purports to love animals — that if the end result is "an animal dies", it doesn't matter if it's done in a manner that inflicts more suffering because the end result is the same.
yeah, but I can't convince you of it. It would be the same for humane animal slughter, you can understand the words I'm saying and my reasoning, but I can't make you see it my way without trying to change your entire world view. And that's hard and not really what I'm here to do.
Once I'm dead whatever, but I've got real explicit EOL care and in the event that I'm imminently going to die anyway, that includes things like palliative measures and dr assisted euthanasia with medication, and does not include pulling my toenails out one by one or throwing me into a wood chipper
Anyone unwilling to make the distinction is eating out of the garbage can of ideology
That term is not differentiating anything.
deleted by creator
To a vegan, yes. Think about the arguments that proponents of capital punishment make for different methods of execution.
When you view the lives of other animals as something that cannot be commoditized, than any justification for doing so seems inadequate.
deleted by creator
This puts it pretty well, thank you.
What the fuck is this last sentence though lmfao Most vegans do not want to slaughter the global livestock population in an ideal liberatory outcome.
Check out animal sanctuaries for animals liberated from factory farms. It's wholesome and good brain bleach when capitalism has got you feeling down. :vegan-liberation-rad:
Sorry if I misunderstood your last paragraph btw, appreciate the discussion.
deleted by creator
No, you wouldn’t release them to the wild anymore than you would a dog or cat. You are absolutely right that they have been domesticated to the point in the imperial core where that is infeasible. Sanctuaries would require further land, but spreading out the impact would actually be less harmful for the environment on the whole.
You could convert currently empty urban spaces into sanctuaries as a part of ecological renewal programs. There are a lot of very sustainable ways we can handle animal liberation.
Animals do not produce milk passively and egg laying animals lay far less eggs when those eggs are not taken from them daily. So much of this comes down to compassionately managing the remaining generations of these animals and could be achieved in a relatively short timespan.
On the whole I do believe there are ways for us to coexist with many animals which have been domesticated such as dogs and cats. That would require a total revamp of how we approach this. This last take has mixed support in vegan circles because of how fucked up the capitalist machine around dogs and cats is.
deleted by creator
So because we can't switch the entire world to a vegan diet overnight we may as well feed chickens feet first into wood chippers
: :very-smart:
Hmm? No, I'm just articulating that the idea of "compassionately" mudering anything is a bit of an oxymoron, especially to vegans.
If someone wants to spend the time to be more "humane" than fine, but you can't expect a vegan to support that when we don't think it should be happening in the first place lol
I'm kind of confused how you jumped to that from what I wrote, but okay :shrug-outta-hecks:
Is how I got that out of what your wrote.
I understand your position but it's pure ideology and lacks any kind of nuance.
Not supporting efforts to reduce suffering is a real "throwing the baby out with the bath water" take, and an extreme level of callous cruelty from someone who purports to love animals — that if the end result is "an animal dies", it doesn't matter if it's done in a manner that inflicts more suffering because the end result is the same.
If someone was killing you, would you mind if they also violated your corpse? I personally would.
Me personally? No, not really. I'm much more people concerned with my existence ending
You're internally consistent, I can't argue the case further.
I mean, I get why it would bother somebody else
yeah, but I can't convince you of it. It would be the same for humane animal slughter, you can understand the words I'm saying and my reasoning, but I can't make you see it my way without trying to change your entire world view. And that's hard and not really what I'm here to do.
Once I'm dead whatever, but I've got real explicit EOL care and in the event that I'm imminently going to die anyway, that includes things like palliative measures and dr assisted euthanasia with medication, and does not include pulling my toenails out one by one or throwing me into a wood chipper
Anyone unwilling to make the distinction is eating out of the garbage can of ideology