_____First things first - before posting I went five or six pages deep into the subreddit and I didn't find an identical or even related topic, so I decided to make one. I apologize if I overlooked something and this has already been addressed in recent history.
_____I have stumbled upon this subreddit a few times before, but I never bothered to read too many posts, let alone post anything myself. Today was different. A particular question occurred to me, so I made an account because of it.
_____Here's the deal. I first learned that I was - among other things - a zoophile some eight years ago, when I was thirteen. Since then, I've had on and off interactions with some 'communities' and people in general, but in the end, I have always been turned off by... varying levels of apathy towards ethics by most self-described zoos.
_____Yes-yes, there's the whole Bestiality vs. Zoophilia thing and the never-ending wars with abusers and fetishist and what not, but this is not what I am talking about in this post. One can find genuine zoos with relative ease. What isn't nearly so easy to find are... well... zoophiles, who care enough about ethics to be vegans. Every time this topic pops up in any 'community' I've been to, there's a wide-spread rejection of the notion. I find that terribly disappointing and it always makes me disinterested in the people in question quite soon.
_____I simply don't get it. To me, it was obvious. Soon after I discovered that I'm a zoo, a question of general ethics followed. I've always had an affinity for animals and I feel compassion towards them. And I - in the beginning, several years ago - naively presumed that most zoos would naturally see things the way I do. I couldn't imagine a person so hypocritical that s/he would be capable of a deep relationship with an animal, understanding how very much like us they are, while at the same time supporting their abuse and needless murder. But I soon learned that this kind of dichotomy is omnipresent among the zoos on the internet.
_____I have no problem interacting and being friends with regular omnivores, not at all. What I find bothersome, is to talk with those, who label themselves animal lovers - people, who won't shut up about their profound connections and relationships with animals - but who also support the animal agriculture. To those people in question: I believe you. I believe that you have very profound relationships with your horses and dogs. And I believe that you are indeed good people. I'm just bothered by your lack of moral integrity and apathy towards ethics.
_____And so I ask... are there any ethical vegans lurking around this subreddit? I am genuinely interested to know, because in my experience, this has been such a rarity so far. I think it would be nice to talk to someone, who shares some of my identity, but also my ethics.
Vegetarian for 30, vegan for more than 20 years now. I too can´t seem to get my head wrapped around zoophiles who still eat meat, for me it´s similarly weird as being married to a black person and still a member of the KKK, but I´m sure people will soon jump in, giving plethora of "reasons" why eating meat as a "zoo" is ethically unproblematic.
I feel relieved to see people of like mind. I kinda expected to come back to a thread spammed with the most stereotypical excuses for not going vegan. "Muh brotein", "too expensive", et cetera. Although in my experience, the most common excuse thrown around by self-described zoos is "muh circle of life", basically. Those peeps are so "at peace" with the "circle of life", it's really amazing - some zen-masters they are. ^ ^
Anyway, you do have some pretty great track record over there. Although if I were to listen to the internet, I'd have to call you a liar, since you should be thrice dead from a protein deficiency by now. :P
I agree; there is no legitimate reason for people eating meat. (Humans do not have to eat meat).
Minute I stopped living at home (18 yo) I started eating strictly vegetarian. I as well can't see why people who identify as zoophilic would eat animals, seems a little off to me.
It might sound like the most hippie, wishy-washy thing I've ever said, but I consider myself to be an opportunistic vegetarian.
I try not to buy or eat anything meat-related, but if there's no other option, I won't say no. Reason being, whatever it is, it's already dead, and someone else has bought it. Meat, to me, isn't that tasty anyway - it's the sauce and side dishes that give the flavour, the meat is just substance.
But hey, waste not want not?
Truly I see nothing wrong with this. I am sure there are many omnivore zoophiles who do go to great lengths to take into consideration of where or how the meat they do get is processed if they are meatatarians and those who do their best to be vegetarians to the extent of what they see morally acceptable by which animal/s they fancy as partners. Just as you have the very bad evil slaughter houses, you do have the small family run farms who do take great care of their animals and do their best that the animals live good lives and do not suffer when that time comes.
However, even if your 90 percent vegetarian and 10 percent meatatarian you are still rated as the lessor animal lovers/abusers/murders according to the "superior" ones.
That's why there's all kinds of meat substitutes out there, such as tofu, that taste like meat but are made from plants.
Same here.
I've seen /u/WarCanine post on /r/AnimalRights a couple of times, but paradoxically even there some people try to defend eating animal products...
Well ain't that just something. Not that I find it surprising. Many people are very... ceremonial about killing of animals. It has to be the right species, an individual raised specifically to be killed, preferably grass-fed, and killed in a special building by a special person. It's almost a cult, really.
Anyway. Nice to see a friendly face. ^ ^ Especially since there's an issue on both sides. Very few zoos are vegans, while simultaneously most vegans tend to be pretty vocal about hating zoos.
I don't remember anyone defending that at all.
I'm pretty sure everyone was against the idiot spamming: ''ARE YOU VEGAN?'' every 5 seconds like a spastic.
What bothers me greatly is that when a 'common animal' gets rescued they whine and call it speciesism. Because that's better than leaving them to die, right?
That's quite ironic, only the 'uncommon animals' are supposed to get rescued, huh?
What's even funnier, they apparently upvoted me because I said I was a speciesist. Apparently I got some praise for that...
I'm not going to that sub any more, don't wanna lose more of my precious IQs and smarts.
Yea, that "idiot" was there recently. He wasn't wrong, he was just an asshole.
But over the time I've been subscribed there (with another account) now and then people come and post stuff like https://np.reddit.com/r/AnimalRights/comments/34ynbz/we_can_be_animal_rights_activists_and_eat_meat/ and it's usually downvoted, but still now and then people agree...
I'm only really subscribed there because of curiosity what people post. /r/vegan is much better and of course there are other (sometimes) interesting subreddits like /r/AnimalIntelligence.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/vegan using the top posts of the year!
\#1: guess again sweaty x | 410 comments
\#2: TIL Jon Stewart is a vegetarian, his wife is a vegan, and they have a 12-acre farm for abused animals | 767 comments
\#3: when people assume you're healthy for being vegan | 482 comments
^I'm ^a ^bot, ^beep ^boop ^^| ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^^| ^Contact ^me ^^| ^Info ^^| ^Opt-out
Great, flashbacks from that other vegan thread from months ago.
300+ comments arguing and being off-topic, that was great.
I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian.
I'm a zoophile attracted to a specific group of animals. Not ALL animals.
Not saying I hate or don't like most animals, but I care less about some than some others.
There aren't really animals that are less important than humans (Or at least mostly, there's very few exceptions. Especially if you consider something like a tick an animal.), they're either just as important as humans or more important than them.
I've been a vegetarian two times in my life, short periods.
I also refused to eat some other certain animal products, but I wasn't really a vegan because I still ate some other things like cheese.
And very bad times in my life, too. I was weak because of it.
Why? I'm a very bad eater. A very, very, very bad eater.
I get sick very often and am a little too small for my age.
As a baby, my milk lasted for at least more than 5 hours. No kidding.
Of course you'd tell me to 'learn' to eat. But hey, what do you think I've been doing all these years?
I never eat fruit and I almost consume no vegetables compared to most people.
And not to mention the fact that I sometimes even have trouble eating meat too.
I don't eat any other animal than a cow, pig or chicken.
I also have to tell you that I don't eat meat for fun. There are some exceptions but the fact that it's an animal can sometimes horrify me.
And that exception is when eating with my bitch. She's a dog and that doesn't need explaining.
That's where I have another 'excuse.' If my bitch could, she'd be hunting animals for sure. Does that make it right? No, but it's a thing that is in dogs and we do things together which would include eating. And I just happen to respect a dog's nature, too.
I can at least understand the concern of me eating animal products, but if feeding my girl what she needs is wrong then don't talk to me ever again.
And lastly I don't think me changing my whole diet which is already small to begin with, will change anything. It's like voting for the next president: It's useless and one vote isn't going to do any impact.
Finally, I do support animal rights though. I am against things like fur farms, spaying and neutering, religious sacrifices, testing products on animals, having a right to choose certain things, hunting and some other things where animals are unnecessarily harmed and not needed for anyone's survival and do not have a choice. I would even stand up for the animals I care less about in these cases, because humans aren't really more important.
Yes, I said hunting. I know I just said I respect dogs for doing that but humans have fucked with nature enough. I think hunting is at least as horrifying as animals getting slaughtered for meat.
When humans hunt, I can't call it nature any more.
Two last things which don't really matter, but let's just be happy that I'm not like the usual human who thinks humans are better than animals. And I also defended vegans a few times, sadly they dismissed my opinion because I was a zoo.
I disabled notifications in this comment so I don't have to witness hell again.
I came here to discuss, of course. But I don't think I can keep up with the shit like last time. Probably why this feature exists.
Not need to worry, I don't intend to start a long argument with you. If you wanted to do this, you'd be trying, maybe asking for help and advice - reading your comment informed me that you indeed do not wish to change your ways and as such, trying to 'convert' you would in all likelihood be about as productive as hitting my head against a wall.
However, I will comment on a few things you mentioned. Funnily enough, I am actually not an egalitarian and I think you could easily call me a speciesist. And whatever other buzzword you want to conjure. In general I am very fond of hierarchies, since that's how the Cosmos operates. I see lesser men and greater men. Lesser species and greater species. However, to me, being greater than another creature means the duty and responsibility to be benevolent to that creature - as far as possible and practicable. It certainly doesn't mean to me the license to abuse those, who are lesser. There's nothing glorious about stronger men abusing weaker men, or more intelligent men tormenting less intelligent men. The same way with species. To me, humans are the greatest that Earth has to offer at the moment - and as such I see it as our duty to also use our superior position of power to the benefit of those below us. Whether it be great humans uplifting the masses through their leadership or inventions, or whether it be people helping animals.
I am sure I could elaborate further, but since nobody asked for that, I won't go down that road. Thanks for stopping by. ^ ^
The position that humans are "superior" could be viewed as a speciesist position. Humans aren't superior. Other species aren't "below" humans.
Though, the control humans have now, does give them a duty to be good to animals.
Pigs and cows have personalities and emotions like dogs. And pigs, cows and chickens are kept in massive cruel factory farms before slaughter; so perhaps you may want to reconsider eating them.
Humans don't need to eat animals to survive.
I agree.
I just checked in to see if I wasn't bombarded yet. Luckily I am not.
I know. Animals have feelings and are able to suffer as much as other species.
I know what happens and have seen footage of such things happening.
I also said I can feel bad for them.
But why do I still continue to eat meat?
Not trying to sound rude, but I thought I said all of that in my OP.
I'll disagree with you on the hunting part, but only because it's a literal necessity in many locations, as a side effect of human-caused natural imbalance. Many parts of the East Coast are generally devoid of predators, for example, so hunters are required to keep deer populations in check and prevent an imbalance. Likewise, there are national parks where regular hog culling is necessary. These are invasive species that were originally farmed pigs gone feral which need regular culling to avoid habitat destruction. Australia is another example, where dingos, rabbits, and other invasive species need to be culled at every opportunity because of the sheer amount of damage they can do.
What SHOULD be denigrated is big game hunting and other forms of hunting of species that are not in an imbalance, and more especially by those who do not have a need to do so.
It's also worth noting that any hunter worth their salt actually tries their best to reduce the suffering of the animal involved as much as possible. Which isn't every hunter, mind.
I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but rather pointing out that every rule does have specific exceptions.
Deer populations are often artificially larger than they're supposed to be. What I said in another comment:
So hunters don't need to hunt.
Hunting itself is still involves cruelty.
Animals hunt other animals. So your saying it is cruel for a human to hunt and kill a deer usually in one quick and painless shot, but that deer would be better off having a pack of wild dogs to chase it done, tackle it causing many wounds if not breaking a leg, then start chewing it apart before it's heart even stops beating is not cruel?
I was a vegan for a decade but since nothing I say is going to be "enough" ethically for you; I'll just say that I'd estimate that the number of vegan zoos is about double the normal population. Maybe more. Hopefully, you'll find some to chat with. Perhaps create a vegan only chat group on IRC or telegram? One of the reasons you don't see a lot of it on forums and such is younger folks, who are more likely to be vegan, seem to have moved beyond forums to microblogging, direct chat and occasionally here on Reddit.
No one would be particularly worried about you chatting here except for the "all non-vegans are ethically apathetic, hypocritical" rhetoric is bound to flair up into yet another cat-fight.
If people get their feelings hurt over me calling a spade a spade - and in no derogatory way either - then that's their issue, not mine. When I see a bodybuilder, who can lift 500 pounds, I call him stronger than a guy, who lifts 300 pounds. When I see a person, who chooses not to kill where it can be avoided, I call them morally superior to a person, who does the opposite. There's no malice in it, no desire to hurt. I know for a fact that many a man is much stronger than me, and I'm also quite confident there are those morally superior to me.
Other than that... yeah, thanks for commenting. Your assessment appears to be accurate to me and I find it helpful. Cheers. ^ ^
No, I changed my mind. You enjoy being better than the rest of us.
Well, no offense intended, but please explain to me what exactly is ethical about "loving" one animal, but killing another? Isn´t that "speciecism", one of the words flung around the community every now and then? If your animal of choice is a carnivore, then it has no choice but to eat meat. But you´re not, humans aren´t even carnivores..they´re frugivores and do have the choice to refrain from meat eating and all the cruelties it involves. You simply have to agree that "loving" animals while eating meat surely is the textbook example of hypocrisy. In the end, zoophilia is about equality, ending unnecessary pain and such...
Well, I´m not the type of vegan trying to missionise anyone, but stating facts should be allowed,eh? If you can live with the blood of endless numbers of animals on your hands, good for you. But the words of one Enumclaw eejit still resonate in my ears: "I want to get fucked by a bull, then kill him and eat him"...and I don´t know how exactly this is any worse than being a zoo and continue eating meat.
[deleted]
I've been vegetarian my whole life and I thought/read about the subject a lot as well.
I understand what you're saying, but in the same time I can understand the non-vegetarian zoos. I'll take my case as an example.
I have a strong attraction for canines, but feel nothing in particular for cows or pigs. What pushes me to be vegetarian is that I consider them to be other living beings who deserve to live as well as I do. But I don't really care for them the way I care for dogs, which makes the situation pretty similar to non-zoos'. They don't love them so they eat them without really thinking about it. Wether you're a zoo or not doesn't change anything in that case.
However, the problem definitely exists with zoos who describe themselves to be attracted to all animals and are still meat eaters. I find that very hypocritical.
First off what is ethical for one person is truly not for another. Isn't putting HUMAN ethics into the ANIMAL world in itself NOT ethical?
You have Herbivores, Carnivores, and Omnivores in the animal world. Yes, believe it or not, there is meat eating animals. And for you to say a canine zoophile is wrong for choosing to eat meat like his canine partner does naturally is just silly to begin with. Do you think if you wander into the woods and stumble upon a pack of hungry wild canines that you announcing to them your vegan will some how make them change their minds on eating you?
Humans are omnivores, our species was able to survive and eventually dominate this planet as we learned to hunt and eat meat along with fruits and other plants. Without this very important ability to find any food source to survive we very much likely would not have survived to this day to even be discussing the pros and cons of eating meat. Ironic isn't it? Such human thinking does not fit in the animal world in which humans separated themselves from, the same reason humans have a hard time understanding consent in animals because they are trying to find such consent as humans know it, ignoring the fact that animals do not think as humans nor show consent in the same manner. Heck even from one species to another the form of consent can vary greatly. So as such, animals do not care if your a vegan or not, they either see you as part of their herd or pack or as a predator or prey.
True, animals do not consent to being farmed by humans, but then the wild zebra out in the planes of Africa does not consent to the lion hunting it down and killing it either. Us as the human race, being the so called civilized species on the planet, should indeed take more time and concern into making sure the animals are well cared for and do not suffer when that time comes. But also we can not turn our heads away at how the act is carried out in the wild, sometimes in very gruesome ways. So are we to go out and de-fang and de-claw the wild animals out there who do eat meat and force them into vegans as well because how dare nature not be human like us?
I think it is very hypocritical to start claiming what is acceptable for a zoophile to eat without regard to what animal or animals they might find a connection to when you yourself find it wrong for the “normal” world to come in and tell you who or what is acceptable to love. Only time I see any ethical question here is if you claim to be an equiphile yet you have no problem eating horse meat. Or your love and devotion is to a cow yet you still eat beef. Or you are sexually attracted to deer yet you still go out and hunt deer. These in my eyes would make you sort of cannibalistic and hypocritical being your able to eat something you do see as mates and claim to love. Yes, seeing something as food which you also see as a possible mate is very wrong but also we should not forget that some animals you might see as a possible mate will just see you as food themselves.
Do you for some reason forget your actually a human, an omnivore animal, and feel your maybe a herbivore animal of some sort reincarnated as a human? What about all the meat you ate before you decided to stop eating meat yourself? Doesn't this make you a hypocritical vegan since you where not born one and only decided to be one latter on in life? Wasn't that YOUR choice, the same as it was your choice to love the animals you do? Why does your choice have to belong to everyone else? Isn't this like saying all “normal” animal lovers should also have sex with animals because I do? Or that a zoophile is only a zoophile if they have sex with every animal?
What about the plant lovers out there. Isn't eating plants then very immoral as they are eating something they love? Do you hate plants yourself because your a vegan? Some consider plants to have life and be living things, so as a vegan, your still killing and eating something which was living.
Do we need to go into all the “animal” products you use every day? Like leather and tack for your horses, the same leather used in shoes on your feet or your belt around your waist? The cotton in the clothes you wear or in the bottle of pills you bought? What makes tape sticky? Where does glue come from which is used in the manufacturing of furniture among many other things? Ever used an envelope or use a stamp to mail anything? Oils and greases used in everything from cars to computers. Heck the base ingredient of Jello. Where is it any different using products made from animals in some way ok? Or products that might not be made from animals now but their existence is based on a product which did originate with an animal? Heck what about the animal remains which end up being fertilizer for the very plants which grow vegetables and grains? Pretty much the only way you can guarantee anything you eat or own is 100 percent animal free is if you grew it and made it yourself. So really, claiming to not eat animals does not make any difference as the world around you has thousands of items made from animals in some manner which you use. Very hypocritical to say someone can not be a zoophile because they eat meat and say they have blood on their hands when you yourself use items made from the death of animals is it not?
I accept the fact I am human and being a zoophile has and does affect greatly what I eat and how I live. It also keeps my mind more open to accept not everyone is going to think alike or see things the same especially when it comes to ethics. But to judge another because of such trivial things is hypocritical to say the least coming from a group of people who don't want to be judged themselves or ridiculed by the world around them for their inter-species love. I am in no way going to tell one zoophile what they should or should not eat just as much as I am not going to tell them which animals they should or should not love. These are their choices and they themselves have to live with them, not me. The only thing that should be of importance is the welfare and care of the animals in question whether they are raised for human use or as pets and very particularly those we confess to love and cherish more deeply than the rest of the world can understand.
However, humans do not need to eat meat.
What happens in the wild is very different than the horrible factory farms killing billions of animals. Humans can choose to not kill animals.
Humans don't have to force non-humans to not eat meat, but they can change themselves.
Not as immoral as eating animals (animals can feel suffering, and have a nervous system).
It does make a difference; it means less support (financially) for those who kill animals for food
True, humans do not need to eat meat nor do any other omnivore animal, yet they do.
So because humans can chose not to kill other animals, then can it not be said animals also can chose not to? No think hardly on your reply here because this whole issue of animals being able to chose and consent to have sex with you will come into question next, oh wait, it is the very ethical question constant asked any zoophile from the outside world.
And again, this change can and will vary greatly from one to another, who are you to say those who do chose to eat meat are wrong any different than the outside world telling you having sex with animals is wrong?
So then your saying that humans attack and start eating an animal before it is dead since it some how can feel this? True some of the ways they are barbarically slaughtered is disturbing but int he animal kingdom many are killed even more barbarically as sometimes the animal is still alive when the predator starts chewing and ripping it apart.
And I find it funny how you do not want to support (financially) those who kill animals for food yet are oblivious that not all the animal is used for food as its non-edible parts are used in making many items which YOU use every day. From the house you live in to the car or bike you drive right down to the very computer you are using to access the net to be able to reply to this reddit. Kinda leaves you with no leg to stand on at all to try and tell someone your better than them just because you stopped consuming meat yet still buy and consume all the other products which contain or use animal by products in the manufacturing process.
One does what they can; for example, I don't use leather. The fact that I don't use leather is better than if I did use leather -- so that is a step in the right direction.
Very true and should it not be considered that we all deal with this dilemma of what is write or wrong in our own way? We should not judge each other by what each individual is able to see as their good deeds when non of us are perfect. Just as the vegetarian does not like seeing animals abused so does those who see meat consumption as normal do also understand and wish such animals are not abused and at least brought to an end humanely, or I would hope so. Why is it us as humans will give those put on death row for mercilessly killing other humans that decent end of not suffering yet we do not give the animals that are produced for food better living conditions and at least the same painless end? Lets face it, the only reason we have an issue with death is because we know all life at some point will die. We are cursed with this knowledge of knowing our end will come. The majority of the other species on this planet do not understand death.
I myself hate the idea of horse slaughter, but I am not so blinded to not see the purpose of it being there. I gave up hunting years ago when I found myself having the much deeper connection with horses. This was my choice and for me to tell someone who hunts that they are wrong is wrong in itself unless as mentioned they are a deer zoo yet going out to hunt dear. Ironically though this reminds me of a video I watched some years ago of a guy who I believe was a sniper for the armed service who joined up with the Bureau of Land Management to control the over population of wild horses in the US. This guy claimed to be doing it because he loved horses and figured it was more humane for him to go out and shoot them down, killing them in one shot as they run from the helicopter he was in rather than some rancher to just chase the herd of a cliff and let them fall to their death, many of which might lie at the bottom of the cliff for hours holding onto life till some predator starts pecking at them or chewing on them alive. Though at first I was appalled by this, I mean I could NEVER do such a thing myself. I dread just having to be the one to pull the trigger should I have to end the suffering of one of my horses rather than let them lay there in pain till a vet can come out and euthanize. I questioned how this guy could even dare call himself a horse lover to begin with even though I could see where his thought was and it was a way of dealing with something no one else wanted to. Something that, as much as I love horses myself, I could never do. But unfortunately I can not save every horse in the world because money doesn't grow on trees and I just cherished the few I am able to provide a good home to till their last breath.
As mentioned before, I would indeed love to see a world where humans are not killing each other and perhaps where we can ALL live in harmony with the other animals and nature, but there is far more deeper things which need to be attacked and fixed which I doubt sadly will ever happen since this would take humans acknowledging that they are not more important than anything else on this planet.
Funny how everyone in the world claims to want peace yet it still does not exist as you will always have those who hate. Why must we join that hate by not just accepting that we are all different and we should not be judging each other when us as zoophiles hate how the world judges us? I believe I read somewhere on a Vegan thread that it is not so much about being 100 percent vegan as it is not supporting the abuse the animal receives prior to its demise. Wouldn't it be a step in the right direction for someone to not buy meat from a farm which keeps its cows in small paddocks and up to their knees in their own filth and mud but only support those farms which you can drive by and see cows grazing in acres and acres of green pastures?
I myself do my best to buy my fruits and vegetables from a local farmer rather than from Wally World for this very reason because big businesses such as these are ruining our society with their cheap crap not to mention you have no clue where the food your buying is actually coming from, regardless of it being meat, fruits, or vegetables!
This depends on whether one considers the act of killing a cow (in and of itself) as inhumane. Meaning that no matter how nice they live prior to being killed, they're still killed, and that's the issue.
It would be like a human being killed and saying it was justified because it was done in a "humane" way. (This actually does happen in some situations, such as end-of-life euthanasia).
Yes, it is still being forcibly killed, just as the same cow was forcibly produced by humans and brought into this world. I mean can it not also be argued that us humans should also not force animals to mate to make life? It could be said that the reason why cows still exist is because they found a purpose in the human world. If you think about it, many of our domestic animals benefit from being useful to humans because the existence of their species along with them spreading all over the globe is due to the fact of them having purpose in the human world. From the wide diversity of dogs, horses, cows, and cat to just name a few is all because humans stepped in and produced and refined them for what ever reason. So yes, cows could have very well gone extinct like the many other animals which where hunted for food by humans did, but perhaps their somewhat willingness to be domesticated insured their continued existence even knowing with such domestication meant sacrifices. Animals are not as dumb and helpless as you want to believe.
True there is humans killing other humans but it is not really the same since one human does not "produce" another for the purpose of eventually killing them for harvesting.
It is weird that humans can not accept someone choosing to end their own life to the point that the one wanting to die got to almost go out and kill another human to get it done. Very well aware of the "right to die" issue which has been on the scene since Dr Kevorkian.
[biasing language removed for clarity]
One way in which it's different is that you get to watch/feel yourself get eaten until you eventually die.
Imagine a slave owner realized it's wrong what he does and gives the salves freedom and doesn't own slaves anymore. Would you say he is a hypocritical non-slave owner since he wasn't born one and only decided to be one later on in life?
Did you know that vegans try to avoid animal products in non food items too? It's not always practical, but many of the "small" uses are just waste from the animal industry anyway. Nobody has a farm full of animals just to create glue for stamps from them. The goal is to kill off the main meat/dairy/egg industries, then all of those waste products will be naturally replaced by plant based or synthetic alternatives.
I was very confused, so I googled it, but I'm still confused. What about cotton indeed?
Nope, not ironic at all.
If the thought that if you don't have to kill sentient beings, you shouldn't do it, is "too human" for you, then yea, we're not on the same page. Personally I'm absolutely convinced that in 20-30 years people will feel pretty stupid about how fervently they defended killing sentient beings. There's a reason why viewing the eating of animals as barbaric is such a common trope in science fiction. People know that it has no future in our society.
Good point on the slave owner thing. I will retract my comment of someone deciding to be vegan latter on in life as being hypocritical.
I do know what vegans try to do but what gets me is the ones who want to point fingers and call another evil just because they see fit to eat meat. As stated before, your ethics are yours to bare and yours only. If your going to start bringing in the question of what someone chooses as acceptable in their lifestyle then are you not any better than those who find our choice of mates as zoophiles unacceptable? And as mentioned previously, unless your willing to give up all things which are made with or with the use of animal by products then what makes you better? What gives you the right to say someone who might be a canine zoo who wants to share a meal with his canine counterpart which does consist of meat is morally or ethically wrong?
The cotton thing was meant to be wool. Yes I am human and to err is human. Realized what I typed there long after I posted and went on my marry way to work.
For such a world to exist where there is no need of "killing sentient beings" would be disastrous since us humans already screwed up the world to much. We would have to go backwards in time and return allot of land back to nature to allow nature to function again properly as it should. So lets say we stop hunting for instance. What will happen with the already over populated deer areas where man has killed off or chased out the predators to provide safety for their children to play in the back yard? Just to pick a small area as an example, Northern Baltimore county in Maryland, USA is so over run with deer that they were issuing hunting licenses to allow someone to kill 40 deer in one hunting season. The deer population was so high that the dear where destroying crops grown for human food. Would this be a have to kill issue or do nothing and let things get worse?
Just for instance, if you want to stop horse slaughter, then as a zoophile you should have no real need to breed horses when so many horses are sent to slaughter each year which could have been given a better chance in finding a home with you. But why are horses produced still when the economy is low and there is no need for them? The show or competition industry feeds the need for that perfect color or confirmation so the humans can win that trophy. But if horse slaughter did not exist, where would all these horses go when there is no need for them? If your going to start attacking the ethics of animals grown for food and for a purpose then why are the ones produced for sport and pleasure allowed? Why should it be OK for someone to participate in or support animals being exploited in such a fashion? I myself gave up working in the horse industry for this very reason because I think it is very wrong and irresponsible to allow horses to be bred for money or sport let alone support training horses for such sports. Am I in my right to say "I do not understand how someone can call themselves a zoophile yet support the exploitation of animals for sport in which the majority of owners only see the animal as an investment and object that can be out grown or just sold for a new one so they can move up in some competition level." Throw any animal you want in there that is bred for showing. How many of you who do have dogs went out to buy a puppy rather than go to the local pound and save a dog from being eventually euthanized? OK, admittedly a bit off topic subject wise but fits into this thread of "ethics" non the less.
We sadly do not live in that world where animal are at all thought of as nothing more than just mere objects nor do I see it any time in the future as humans become more and more removed from nature and animals themselves.
The world where we do not use animal by products in any form would not be the same world we live in today. I am sure there will be many things in which we may not find a comparable synthetic replacement for. But also keep in mind, is this new world going to be void of predators, you know, those sentient beings that are killing other sentient beings? We live in a world made up and Herbivores, Carnivores, and Omnivores. Nature has existed with these groups for thousands of years. Is it right for humans to step in and play god if you will and change what nature has already had set in motion long before we ever existed? "too human" sounds allot like, "I am Man, created by god to rule over animals and change the world to be as I want against what is natural." Does it not? Man has failed miserably in just getting their own crap together, what makes it right for him to start stepping in and changing the natural order of things? You talk about a future society. I believe our future is not as bright as you want to believe considering all the damage man has already caused by trying to play ruler of the world. I believe we will be lucky as a race to even survive the next world war and the nuclear fallout which will most likely follow. So perhaps we should be living for today and stop thinking there will be even a future for us to change in the first place?
For every science fiction reference to the eating of animals being wrong I am sure I can find one to show the differ. And only "people" who can claim to "know" this is only those who "believe" it. Just as society out numbers us zoophile hundreds to one so do those who see no problem with using animals as objects to harvest for food and to make their modern life luxuries outnumber those who do have a conscience about how the animal meets it's end.
Probably for this very reason I would feel much safer leaving modern society and taking my horses and me to some place to live more in tune with nature, to hopefully be far away enough from humans when some appocolypse happens where my horses become food in the eyes of the Zombies! But sadly you need money, Also some of which is made with animal by products, to pay your taxes or it no longer is yours, not to mention the tools and what not needed to just do every day farming chores. Pretty much the only way you can become animal by product free is to strip naked and walk into the wilderness and start from scratch with your animals lingering behind you, assuming they will willingly give up their lives of ease and follow you. My horses are spoiled so I doubt they would be so willing to give up their daily apple which comes in a bag produced with animal by products. Funny how the animals do not really care do they? But that is another topic.
It's not about who is better.
It could just as well be one of the many commercial vegan AAFCO approved dog foods. And since they're easy and practicable to obtain, it should be.
The question is why people think this is a good system in the first place. The government gives permits to masses of private citizens who then go on to kill masses of random animals. Imagine all the combined effort that goes into killing those animals - the time spent by those people, the weapons manufactured and sold, etc. etc. Literally billions and billions of dollars spent. Imagine if all of this combined effort was spent on researching sterilization methods for wild animals instead...
Yes.
I don't know, but I prefer to think about what I can do first, instead of pointing towards other issues.
Well, we've had always food to buy at the local supermarkets. We've had always clean water delivered right to our houses. We have homes that we can heat and cool so we don't freeze to death. When we are sick, we can go do a doctor who will be able to cure many, many diseases. Several of the worst diseases have even been completely eradicated. Sure, we need to make sure that all of this is getting more sustainable in the short term until we have the technology to reverse the damaging effects to the environment, and we also need to get this standard of living over to the so called third world, but all in all we've done really well.
I don't think there would be humans today if everyone in the past had thought like that.
It is about who is better when the OP as well as a few other vegans came out to pretty much question someone being a zoophile who might see eating meat as a natural thing. Especially since he claimed he did not want to even bother discussing it because he was right and everyone else who thought differently was wrong.
I did not way it was a good system, but ask yourself. When or at what time does killing off a population of deer which begins to over run the world because we as humans already killed or chased off their natural predators becomes a "have to" thing? As mentioned I do not hunt and the reason why the deer populations in some areas are out of control is because the humans who live there also do not hunt. Do we wait for the deer population to finally outnumber us and eat or destroy all the crops we rely on for food? Remember we as humans have messed up this planet so much that there is no balance left except maybe in very remote areas. Nature created the circle of life, each animal from predator to herbivore is equally important to keeping nature balanced, then came humans who threw a wrench into the balance.
There also would not be humans today if our ancestors did not adapt to eat meat and take over the world either. You know, kill off many predators that might eat our young so we can still produce like rabbits with no natural predators to keep us under control. Oh wait, we have ourselves and religion for that I guess. I guess it is a good thing that we can not seem to accept that we all are different and ones persons views are no more write or wrong than another and go to war because of it. We can not seem to be able to live and let live in the least amount of effort because how dare your ideas and thoughts not match those of mine or vice versa!
Bringing up slavery again, if a non-slave owner centuries ago had criticized a slave owner, would the non-slave owner be justified in doing so? Because the slave owner would've said "it's my choice to own slaves". So can those who eat meat still say it's their choice knowing the moral issues with it?
One could say that keeping animals confined to buildings until they're slaughtered is a kind of slavery.
It would not be disastrous, and humans would adapt. With regard to deer, the deer problem is part of hunters own making -- that is, deer are allowed to overpopulate just so hunters can hunt them. Feed plots are put in the wild so that the deer population will grow, so that hunters can hunt them.
Overpopulation alone is not a reason to kill sentient beings. For example, humans are overpopulated, but that doesn't mean people start eliminating them (though there have been "birth control" debates). Similarly, if deer overpopulate, that doesn't mean people should kill them.
Yes, using animals for sport can be considered as a form of exploitation.
The way things are done in slaughterhouses, such as taking calves from their cow mothers, is not "natural".
The closer one comes to being product-free (animal products), the more ethical it is -- at least, that's the argument.
I did not bring up slavery. But also you might want to understand what slavery actually was and why it did exist in many cultures throughout human history. Not all slaves where victims. Sadly our schools rather not teach such things and people seem to want to get hung up on the bad rather than accept the fact not all slaves where treated badly and often where treated as part of the family. Take the civil war for instance. Research to find out how many black slaves, specifying color as we should not forget that slavery also existed where you had slaves of many skin colors in various parts of the world and many of whom where slaves of people of the same skin color, actually did go into war and fight for the southern cause. Just as we are always looked at as bad animal sex freaks is because only the bad of us is ever seen in the news. Humans have a very keen way of ignoring the good in something and only pointing out the bad since it is the bad that draws attention more. But to give you a bit of incite of what the purpose of slavery was. Slavery was in a way set forth to support the lower classes. In some cultures you sold yourself into slavery to put a roof over your head. It at one point was sort of like our modern well fare system. Every country at some point in time went through the phase of slave ownership being moraly acceptable until they advanced enough to realize such was not needed and taxes and such where set aside to support that lower class. Slavery would have eventually died out and ended in the US just as it had done so in every country prior. I believe you bible thumpers would know for a fact slavery was not looked bad upon as back in the old testament you where instructed by the god of the bible that you where to take care of your slaves and treat them just as justly as you would a family member. If I recall properly, you sold yourself into slavery when things got tough and you where not able to support yourself or family because of some drought or what not. But every ten years or so the Leviticus law granted back to you the land you once owned and considered your debt to your "owner" paid in full and you where free again to try your chances at supporting your family and yourself. So yes, slavery at times has been a very moral thing and not everyone enslaved was abused or treated like animals. You can not call everyone bad because of those who where immoral no different than calling all animal "owners" as immoral because of those animal "owners" which do abuse and neglect their animals. Should we stop marriage because of all the abused spouses?
One might also argue the same about us animal "owners" as the world sees it. You know, we take animals out of their natural world and domesticate, enslave, them to live with us and those animals born into "slavery" where never truly free to begin with. Whether you like it or not, they are "trained" to live in our world and I am sure many if given the chance to run free and be with their own kind would do so. Not saying this as there does not ever exist those bonding connection between animals and humans but just as most humans rather be with other humans so do most animals rather be with their own kind. But because we domesticated them, we know they would have a very little chance if any to survive in the wild hence forth us keeping them "contained" for their safety and well being.
Not to mention domesticated animals do live allot longer than their wild counterparts do since we nurture and care for them well into their senior years. Heck I got a friend who's gelding turns 43 this year where in the wild a horse is lucky to see 15-20. Kinda makes you think then, if a cow who naturally would only live maybe 10 years in the wild, hypothetically using this number since I am not a cow expert in the least, Is it wrong to give the domesticated cow at least that long to live a good care free life and a humane end for human use? I would say if given a humane end rather than some predator tearing it apart before its heart stops beating indeed would be a much better life. Heck I know myself I do not want to be left dying slowly on my death bed and would hope by then i would have the right to end my pain and misery when I know there is nothing left than waiting for that end. The very same choice i would make for my horses rather than see them struggle for that last breath of air should their time come or something happens to them in which there is nothing that can be done to prevent the inevitable. Would I be not a zoophile then because I chose to end one of my horses' life rather than see them die suffering?
With regard to cows, one could say that the act of killing a cow is itself an inhumane act.
That would be your decision, but a cow that is going to be slaughtered did not decide to be slaughtered, it is forced upon them, and it should not be.
That is something to consider if they have lived out their natural lifespan, or have a terminal illness.
True, many things humans do to other humans is inhumane as well. And not at all am I saying it is a good thing, but sometimes the bad is a necessity for the better of the good. Our modern world was built on death. You know we have religion to thank as humans where torn apart while still alive because they did not agree with the church. The barbaric torturing devices to make someone confess and repent before death are behind us knowing so much about the human body. Yet, people still think religion is a good thing, which I guess it is as through those humans who did not have a choice to be ripped apart came our modern knowledge of what is inside our bodies and how it functions, sorta.
True a cow is forced into being killed, but then was it not also forced into being born? Because quiet frankly that cow bred for food would not exist otherwise.
To me, I feel it is wrong for someone to hold onto and let the animal die a drawn out death rather than end its misery. But this is MY choice and I will never condemn someone who chooses to hold onto something they love till the very end either. I as well as many others here most likely have had to deal with that choice, it is not at all a pleasant place to be. Who are we to say it is wrong for someone to humanely kill an animal for food since they are an omnivore when at times some of us are left with that choice to humanely bring our loved ones life to an end. One could say the act of me killing my horse because I chose to not see it suffer is also inhumane rather than let it lay there and struggle for its last breath as if those last few minutes or hours of barely alive or in pain are worth living. I have already planned that if I am alive long enough to see modern society collapse to the point that the safety of my horses are threatened by those who want to take them for food I would indeed rather humanely end their life myself and discard of their remains rather than seeing them dragged off to be butchered. Obviously not doing this unless it becomes clear I am left with no other options and not able to protect them any further. So would these choices be inhumane? Would doing this make me a murderer?
As long as what those who eat meat do is done humanely and non abusively then I have no beef with them for their choice to be what us humans are, Omnivores. Yes the awful conditions animals have to go through at slaughter houses NEEDS to stop. There is no reasons animals who exist because they are PRODUCED by humans for food can not have a very quick and humane end.
Interestingly, scientists are working on how to create synthetic meat from cells, meaning there would no longer need to be slaughter.
I have herd of this, but from what I seen in the cloning thing it sort of makes me cringe. Most of even the grains and plant products we consume is already tampered with and many question whether this is doing us more harm than good. Kinda like how just recently I heard they finally realized bringing kids up in a germ free environment is actually bad because they do not build up an immune system. So how healthy could it be that we are being more dependent on human made synthetic foods rather than that which we can grow naturally? Also makes you wonder what would happen should society and the modern world collapse and no one knows how to even grow food or worse yet, we replaced everything with our synthetically made products and those plants which sort of relied on us to keep planting and harvesting them die out leaving us with nothing at all to fall back on. Bad enough we are already loosing farms and those with the knowledge of farming to modern society and development.
This has long been known...
In the future it will be very healthy, because the plants will be genetically engineered to give optimal nutrition to humans. Vaccinations will be improved to optimally train our immune systems and to prevent autoimmune diseases and allergies. Hopefully in the not too far future.
That's one of the reasons for many projects to create seed banks. If society collapses we have to hope that there will be enough resources left to distribute and grow the first new generation of crops.
Yes, long been known by us older ones who did actually live as children. But many of your "modern" day children, or millennials I believe they are called, which are brought up in our technical world very seldom even play outside. It was only in the last five or so years that I heard via the news that scientists finally came out to admit germs are a good thing after we have gone through the whole "Kill every germ, at least the 99.9 percent that Clorox wipes could get!" Phase in the 90's. Heck even today you still hear the argument of how bad it is for you to go mouth to mouth with a dog as its mouth is full of germs. Or worse yet a horse, since horses are looked at as livestock in which some think they are even more dirtier animals because they can not live in the house with us as pets. Since I lived with horses pretty much my whole life I guess I am very disease ridden and not just from kissing them, just dealing with the average cuts in which I end up getting their blood on me.
As humans remove themselves further and further from nature with their synthetic man made products our immune systems are suffering, not getting any better. I do not remember so many people having allergies and sickness let alone food based allergies. But then it has been proven our synthetic man made food is full of chemicals and by far not at all healthy for us. Then you get those who fall for the whole “organic” fad, another way big business uses wording to make you think it is more healthy yet can charge you more for it. You would think if it is made with out the use of chemicals and such that it would be cheaper since there is less money involved. I mean stuff grown “naturally” pretty much requires much less human involvement. Funny how I can remember at one time bottled water was free or at least half the price of soda, now water cost the same if not more. Heck there are diseases which have long been dead yet if they came back, we are doomed because we have no immunity to them anymore.
Then we got the modern day influenza which luckily so far has only been able to transfer from birds to humans and not human to human. But in trying to understand how to prevent it from getting to that stage they reproduced the long dead virus which caused the Pandemic of 1918. In doing this they found out the modern day influenza is only one mutation away from becoming transmittable from human to human. But let us not forget we have to thank those animals used for testing for the modern medicine we have today. As much as we all hate it, this is done why? Because no human will step up to the plate and offer their life in place of that "guinea pig" which is bred and grown for such testing. So yet again, another thing which was made from the use of animals which vegans readily will partake of when their own lives are threatened by disease or pain. And it is not only for humans that such animals where sacrificed, also the many medicines and inoculations for our own animals where derived from those animals which where not given a choice of volunteering. If you think about it more, our modern day medicine caused more suffering to animals than the slaughter houses do. At least the slaughter house kills the animal even if not done as quickly or humanely as possible where testing on animals by injecting diseases may put the animal through days of agony and pain and very possibly a long drawn out death if the vaccine does not work as planed.
And yes, I do know of these seed banks along with the many other things stored in case of some major disaster. the issue is not so much having the materials available, even though humans have caused some species of plants and animals to go extinct already, as it is having the knowledge and skill passed down from generation to generation. Humans once where hunters, the very reason we spread over the whole planet from our trek out of Africa was because we followed the migration of the animals we hunted. Eventually we began to advance more and they figured somewhere by the time we reached the European continent we began learning to farm. This was not a just one day planted a seed and magic happened, farming is a skill that was learned over many decades if not centuries of pot luck and failures. And during these times of learning to farm, we survived on eating animals. Already many other crafts and skills which humans once knew have been lost due to our so called modern world. Humans if anything have gone backwards as we rely more and more on technology. So yeah, we will have all the tools to continue living. But unless those humans with the needed skills to use such tools survive, then it is a crack pot at best if the human race will survive.
I use to be heavy into blacksmithing years ago, once farrier turned artist blacksmith, and I remember reading this article where a bunch of the worlds leading top blacksmiths were trying to reproduce this strange square chain in which the links fit so tightly together it worked very much like a bendy straw. There was a short length of the original someone found in some small out of the way farm community in Europe and it was used in some way for connecting a horse or donkey to a cart. But sadly, the last person who actually knew the skill on how to make it was a very old woman who passed on without anyone ever picking up the skill. Many modern blacksmiths have replicated the chain by looks easily enough but non have ever made one that functioned exactly the same in having all the links so snugly fit together to not have any play yet bend so easily in any direction then return to its original smooth bar like shape when straightened back out. So we are left with something we know exists and can be made, yet no one has been able to reproduce it.
Just like this, some skills are learned only by being taught by hand, reading from a book by far does not keep these skills alive and this is just one of thousands of things which are being forgotten along with the many crafts which are at risk of being lost because the modern generation does not want to get out from behind their TVs and computers and go outside and learn them.
Literally everything is made of chemicals, including the food itself.
Here in germany many people will just drink tap water, because it's extremely safe to drink and super cheap. A massive improvement over "natural" water sources that often contain a lot of unpleasant things.
Of course not, just as you would not refuse (hypothetical) medicine that was tested on nazi concentration camp victims. There's no point in not using the knowledge if it already exists.
I just don't know about animal testing. You have to ask the questions: Are they cruel? Would you be convicted of the crime of animal cruelty if you did the exact same things to the animals at your home? And then you have to draw your own conclusions what that means.
Well maybe not all things are made of chemicals but I can agree that chemicals are used to extend the shelf life of much of our food.
And yeah. . so far tap water here int eh states sucks, I only use it for cooking, can not stomach it to drink plain so I buy bottled water for just drinking.
And yes, as mentioned in another of my posts, Animals used for testing go through much much more pain and suffering than any animal going through the worse of slaughter houses. At least at the slaughter house they are not lingering in agony and near death for days or weeks as those being injected with something and left alive for as long as they can live to see the effects of what ever disease or drug is being tested. And true, this same testing done at your home turns from testing into torturing according to the law. But, your choice to humanely euthanize an animal is not cruelty nor is considered such even if the reason has nothing to do with ending the animals suffering. Though when I have heard of these odd cases, the vet asked to preform this task would question why and many times offer to take the animal themselves and make effort to find it a good home. But this is usually the "normal" animal owners of the world as I do believe all zoophiles would make that life long commitment to the animals they obtain and not unnecessarily end the life of one of their own. But then also, I have known some who call themselves zoophiles that could easily just sell that horse that they could no longer afford because of poor "family" planning or taking on more than they where ever able to handle in the first place. But that is another topic on ethics all together.
At least synthetic meat would not involve the cruelty and suffering of factory farms.
Yes, illuminating the cruelty and suffering part should indeed be the main goal as we all know there is ways to end a life humanely with no suffering.
True the synthetic meat thing does at least illuminate the ugly part of taking an animals life, even if humanely done. But still does seems very icky. Just trying to get my mind around some sort of meat blob hanging somewhere and growing sounds like a scifi horror flick waiting to be made. But if the end product looks and smells no different than what you see in the market then who would really notice the switch? Guess better than even cloned animals since even if cloned, it is still a living breathing thing.
Not as icky or horrifying as a slaughterhouse.
That's why it would probably be better than slaughter-made meat.
I would guess it would be one of those things which we won't know how it would work till it happens. But keep in mind it would only be effective if it was able to be produced in large enough quantities and still be the same price if not cheaper. But as we have seen, anything that has been made as being better or more healthy big business charges more for. So just as many are forced to eat junk food because they can't afford the healthy stuff so would many still eat that made from animals over the other if they can not produce it and keep the cost equal or less.
Starting off with moral relativism, I see. That's not an argument. An appeal to moral relativism can be used to justify literally anything, including terrorism, vivisection, and anal rape of little boys. You're obviously a person, who only cares about ethics, when it's convenient to you. That's a weak position.
Me, I don't care about your excuses. There's nothing to discuss here. You want to discuss things - and you're wrong. I do not. I'm not debating here, I'm really just informing you. It's simple. Being ethical is about doing the least amount of harm to others that you realistically can. Some harm cannot be avoided. Trampling little bugs while walking on grass, self-defense and so on. Having a steak and grilled cheese for a dinner can be avoided for all of us living in an agricultural civilization, where food is a choice and not a matter of day-to-day survival. Buying a leather jacket and woolen socks can be avoided as well. Et cetera. That's it. There's nothing more to it. I've no time nor patience for excuses and fallacies, mostly because - surprise-surprise - I've heard ALL of them before over the years. Just skimming through it, it's all the same. Old and tired excuses and fallacies. I couldn't be bothered.
Uhm. You are the OP right? Did you forget you named the thread "A question of Ethics"? You obviously cared enough about ethics to start a thread about them now you want to make it sound like I some how forced you into making this thread. Wow, which I knew I had these powers cause then I could make the world accept zoophilia as just a normal way of life!
Sort of the pot calling the kettle black there by saying I bring up ethics when it is convenient for me but lets forget the reasons why you brought up the question of ethics in the first place.
And I am wrong how? You claim to be vegan yet you yourself, I am sure, use many of the few things I have mentioned containing animal by products. Want me to go on and continue on how much animal by products encircle your daily life? I would think to come out and make such a claim of godliness above all other zoophiles because you are Vegan that you would have done your research and should have if anything known your logic was going to be questioned as you started firing your "opinions and ethics" on everyone else.
So. You just wanted to make your statement in a place for discussion yet have no one discuss your unethical thinking with you?
Well hell, two can play this game.
I am "just informing you" that your not god and your very hypocritical to say the least. Just because you got some bug up your back side one day to come out and state what you perceive as being a zoophile consists of is rather blasphemes to say the least. Funny how you couldn't be bothered for anyone to question your logic. Oh wait, you where bothered enough to start a thread to belittle those little people below your all mighty "ethical" views.
Excuses are indeed like assholes, everyone got them, including you.
He's right though that some things (like eating steak) can be avoided. Meaning the more they can avoid, even if not entirely perfect, the better.
Once again, you're dead wrong in the first few sentences. Read again the last paragraph of my OP. I came here to ask if there are any vegans here and that's a question of ethics of the people herein. I didn't come here to discuss. Nor did I come here to read a paragraph after paragraph of pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
Well then perhaps if you just came here to find those who share in your thoughts you could have just asked if there are other vegan zoophiles here. But no, you came in, posted your self righteous views of being superior because your a self-proclaimed vegan zoophile and pretty much called any other zoophile who does not share your views as being animal abusers and murders who lack any moral integrity and apathy towards “your” ethics. So what, you think you could just come in and step over all those you see as less superior to yourself and that no one should dare speak out to defend those you just pretty much belittled as zoophiles? Very cute how you do the whole, “Praise” everyone first in saying you do believe we are good people and believe we have a profound connection to our animals then attack everyone as being hypocritical and question how someone that eats meat is capable of being in a deep relationship with their animal, regardless of that animal being a carnivore or herbivore itself. Then you go on to say you can't stand us because we wont shut up about that profound connection which only moments before you said you believed. So to recap, at one moment we are good people, the next we are hypocritical self labeled animal lovers, animal abusers, murders, and people with no morals or ethics at all because we do not meet one of the criteria in which you believe a zoophile has to follow.
“ethical vegans” Funny you would use that when you so far only prove yourself to be a bigot with truly no true vegan ethics. Here, let me show you the definition of Veganism.
As per The Vegan Society, which coined the term, "[v]eganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or ANY other purpose”
Then came a bunch of little side names and branches of Veganism when the vegans realized, “Crap, Animal by products are used in and during the manufacturing of the many luxuries us humans take for granted every day.” Speak about changing the term “when it's convenient for you”.
A few wanted to bring up the whole, “Well humans do not need meat to survive.” Well, humans also do not need TVs, computers, vehicles, glue or adhesives, plastics, paintings, photographs, shampoo, leather, brushes, furniture, modern housing, or even clothes to survive. Yet I have yet to find one self-proclaimed true ethical vegan who has lived up to the definition of what the Vegan Society itself has defined.
I myself have nothing against Meatatarians, Vegetarians, Vegans, Pescatarians, Fruitarians, or any other 'tarians which might exist. I do not have anything against zoophiles who's animal partners are either Herbivores, Carnivores, Omnivores, or all of thee above. Nor do I hold anything against pansexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, or heterosexuals. Could care less if someone is religious or atheist neither. Because to me, these are all their choice and who am I to say what they CHOSE is wrong? What I do have a problem with is those who are bigots, demanding people to accept them as they are yet wont accept others for their choices, reminding them how immoral they are and what not for not sharing the exact same views or worse those who want to rub their self-proclaimed title in everyone's face as they are right and anyone with a different view or opinion is wrong.. You say you have no problem in interacting with and being friends with those who also eat meat yet you complain how you can not stand being near those very people because they “wont shut up” about the love for their animals. Do you think perhaps the reason why “Every time this topic pops up in any 'community'” you been to and “there's a wide-spread rejection of the notion.” is because people there find it “bothersome” to talk to you, a self-proclaimed vegan, who “won't shut up” about being a vegan who is above the “Lesser species “ yet is “so hypocritical” because you yourself are “at the same time supporting their abuse and needless murder “ by buying or using so many things which contain animal products or are made with animal products, the very animal remains from those sent to the slaughter houses? How many of those items I listed can your honestly say you do not have? I can say you at least have one of them since you are able to access the net.
But then, you made it clear you wont discuss anything which is not along your lines of thinking. So I will end with the best post I seen in this thread.
/u/yearningmice “No, I changed my mind. You enjoy being better than the rest of us. “
You're wasting your precious time here, I'm not reading it. I'm skimming through your walls of text at best. I couldn't be bothered. I don't need the validation of random plebs on the internet. My way is better whether anyone acknowledges it or not.
LOL
That's pretty funny indeed.
It's common that humans will flip their shit if somebody doesn't agree with their opinion that they're so 100% sure about. Especially online.
Kind of seems like an anti calling us rapists, no?
Sometimes it's just best to stand back and watch such people get pissed off.
There are objective standards of ethics, whether you acknowledge them or not. Those standards are what makes me - and others - right. Not your approval. Believe it or not, I don't care about your thoughts and approval. Only your actions. And I hate those, yes. Indeed. Nevertheless, I've no authority over you or others, and as such - for the foreseeable future - I can only inform you that you're dead wrong.
A lot of people think their opinions are final and say they're 100% right, and you're no different.
It's an obvious sign of having a big ego.
What I do is good. What I think is right.
What others do is bad. What others think is wrong.
Everyone, acknowledge how good of a person I am! Everyone, scold these evildoers!
I see this behavior in anti-zoos a lot, too. (And quite a lot of vegans, but I don't really want to discriminate against such a group as there's normal ones out there.)
One good example is when I was arguing with one he started ignoring everything I said. Later he made a thread ''Do you think bestiality is right?'' even though he was 100% sure that it's wrong. Anyone who tried even doubting what he said, was immediately attacked by him.
Having a big ego and all... Hating a specific group of people... Constantly reminding people he's right and the others are wrong...
But don't worry, I've got used to such behavior a time ago. I won't be bothered by the opinions of others any more.
And I have a similar thought like yours. Looks like we can agree on this, right?
Except I... actually would want to work together with zoos.
Or at least used to.
But looks like we can't, huh? Saddos.
Yeah. I so wanted to type a response but I was laughing to hard to do so!
I only have loyalty for my preferred animal species and I will not eat them, but tough shit for the rest.
Yes, because you care not for ethics - exactly as I said. I appreciate that unlike many others, you do not try to make-up excuses. Bad excuses are the worst.
I'm a vegetarian, if that counts for anything (to some vegans it does, to others, not so much).
It does. As the first step in the right direction. I also started that way. Many people did. Unless you'll remain forever comfortable with that being your final destination, it's fine.
I'm a vegetarian, and I agree with all of your points. People who call themselves "animal lovers" are yet eat meat are hypocritical and morally inconsistent. An animal's life should be considered valuable, and it should not be ended by a human.
Like you, I don't understand zoos who eat meat -- it seems hypocritical and morally inconsistent.
There is a pretty severe disconnect in modern American society (and yes, I am specifying American society) regarding the origin of foodstuffs. Many people are either willfully or unintentionally ignorant of the origin of their food and in general do not appreciate being educated on the matter. That said, I would not conflate ethics in regards to animals inherently with veganism. Veganism is simply one expression of said ethics. In many places, farm animals are considered a part of the family, raised carefully and intimately, named and loved. But when the time comes, they are swiftly and humanely put down, without mourning, and thanked for their gift. The fact is that many of these animals have grown and evolved through their domestication, and were their domestication to cease, their species would also cease, being unsuited to live in the wild. The best approach seems to be to simply give these animals the best possible lives while they are alive, and the best possible deaths when they die. The problem with being zoo and being vegan, in my mind, is in the ethical treatment of your own animals. Do you only keep herbivores? If not, if you have carnivores, do you feed them with food that contains animal products? If not, are you truly being ethical in denying them their natural diet?
Being nice to someone doesn't justify needless killing. Method of killing doesn't justify needless killing. The same goes for pretentious gratitude. "Gift", lol. How pathetically pretentious indeed. In case you didn't get the memo, gifts are given, not taken.
Fallacies and excuses, all of it. You're wrong and I couldn't be bothered reading the rest of it, because I've heard those same fallacies and excuses a hundred times before. Ethics aren't your opinion or mine, they are objective and lie in causing the least harm and acting in the best interest of others. That is not up for debate. Yes, I'm informing you of why I am right, not debating. There are two courses of action for you: 1. Acknowledge the truth. 2. Everything else.
Further attempts at "discussing" that, which is settled, will be successfully ignored by me.
LOL, it just keeps getting better!
So you didn't come here to have a serious discussion, but instead to preach to people who do not believe the same things as you do. And at any point, did you really expect people to take you seriously when you approached them with this attitude?
I didn't come here to convert anyone, nor did I come here to "discuss" or "debate" anything, especially not things, which are settled. I don't care in which light you see me - arrogant, insane, despicable, whatever it might be. I came here to do a minor survey to see if this particular subreddit is any different than the forums I have been to. I wanted to see how many vegans - or even vegetarians - are here.
However, the fact that I elaborated on my experiences in the OP apparently made some people think that I came here to "discuss" things. That was a silly move on my part and I made a mistake in that sense. I will not get carried away with providing "backstory" the next time around, it's extremely counter-productive, when all one is doing is a survey of sorts. I didn't put much thought into the structure and content of the OP - as relating to the purpose of it - and it blew in my face. How very stupid of me.
Correct; killing itself is wrong, therefore any methods done to kill something (even if they are "humane") are also wrong, with the possible exception of euthanasia.
You're correct that if one is to act in the best interests of animals, that means one should not kill them.
Not just a "possible" exception. Again, there is no debate here. If a deeply suffering person, which cannot be healed or helped, wishes to die, then it's ethical to kill them in the way they've chosen. Hence euthanasia, aka assisted suicide. If an animal is suffering and without any doubt beyond saving, then to kill them in the least painful and stressful way is also ethical. You can derive that from the "best interest" principle. All the idiots, who - for arbitrary reasons - deny sufferers the release of death are simply dead wrong. But, like most dead-wrong people, they pretend there's a "controversy" here that needs discussing.
Just thought that's an interesting parallel.
"If an animal is suffering and without any doubt beyond saving" ... But with this amazing ability to twist reality to fit effort-saving at all costs ...... human animals VERY easily will declare beyond saving even perfectly saveable beings.
Potential abusability is not really a counter-argument. Even the best ideas and inventions can be and have been abused by mal-intentioned humans. The same knife that cuts your carrots can - in the hands of a wrong person - cut your child's throat. Banning knives is not the solution.
If killing itself is wrong then let me see you walk up to a bear or pride of lions and tell them they need to stop killing. Let me know how that works out for you.
Death is a part of life. Long before humans evolved into existence on this planet every other animal accepted it's position in the circle of life for billions of years whether they be carnivores, herbivores, or omnivores. Even when humans appeared about 200,000 years ago even they accepted their place as being omnivores. Now in modern society, the last 100 years specificity, some humans decided they want to change what nature has set in place long before them. Funny that it seems to be more of the younger generation, the last 10 to 20 years, pushing for this change in the natural order of things. You do realize that after humans become extinct the rest of the animals will just go back to existing as they have long before humans once they recover from the mess we made out of the balance of things.
You want to keep claiming it being inhumane for omnivores to eat meat when it is not, omnivore means a species able to eat both plants and animals. That is what we are and it should be your choice which food source you decide dominates your eating habits. If anything at least us human animals have the ability to end life more quickly without pain rather than our more wild counterparts who kill much more gruesomely and without empathy. Heck some animals get swallowed or eaten alive.
Some can say it is inhumane to have sex with an animal. It can be considered inhumane for us to be involved in breeding and making animals, you know the very ones WE make for food or pleasure. Yes, we breed animals to be pets/slaves, beasts of burden, or for entertainment. Animals which would never have come into existence in the first place if not for human involvement. It can be inhumane to cage an animal or take it out of it's natural home. How many animals which are in zoos would still exist if they where not enslaved/protected? Ones which would be extinct if not for humans trying to save them, the very humans who eat meat as well.
Being a meat eating omnivore does not make someone evil or bad. Many meat eaters do hate the way animals are abused and how awful the slaughter houses are. Some who hunt deer might do so because they feel that to be more right because at least the deer can run away and live a free life where a cow is just kept confined and for the most part never expect the humans which have fed and taken care of it will one day end it's life. To me hunting done for food is not inhumane as animals hunt other animals all the time. Now someone who hunts just for a trophy kill, that I see as wrong. Or as said before, someone who might have sex with a cow then later that week kill it or send it off for slaughter is very wrong to say the least. Just as wrong as someone to have sex with any animal and just one day sell it or get rid of it. To me once you crossed that line with the animal you better damn well commit for life.
The only thing we as a Zoophile community should be concerned about is the abuse and neglect of the animals in question, particularly those who we see as our mates. Outside that we need to respect each other's choices and understand that just because I feel this way does not make me right or better than any other zoophile. I'm sure we all have made life changing choices when we found certain animals meant more to us than just mere pets and we all delt with these feelings differently and many still continue to do so as they see fit being the omnivore animals we are.
To clarify, I was saying that killing of something by humans is wrong, because they know things (such as ethics) non-humans don't.
Humans can go beyond "set boundaries" (such as omnivore) and choose to not eat meat.
The thing about zoos (and aquariums) is that they imprison large animals (and are viewed as objects). True, some endangered species can be revived, but others don't need to be there.
Hunting has its own issues with cruelty; for example, some deer are injured by hunters but escape, and they slowly die due to their injuries.
Non-humans don't think in terms of what is moral and what isn't whereas humans do, so humans (for that reason - their awareness) should not kill other animals, even for food, as they can get it from plants.
"set boundries" Is that saying animals do not have the ability to chose or think outside these "set boundries"
You do realize there is animal species out there that can and do have morals. Take dolphins for instance, they even acknowledge death and can commit suicide. The sometimes chose to help other species yet they eat fish. Dolphins share many similar traits to humans like self awareness, abstract thought, the ability to solve problems by planning ahead, and the formation of cultural communities. Dolphins routinely show love for species not their own. Several dolphins have practiced random acts of kindness by rescuing swimmers from hammerhead sharks. A few generous dolphins have even guided stranded whales back to sea. But the cetaceans save most of their goodwill for others in their pod, just like humans, they have a you-scratch-my-nose, I'll-scratch-yours ethic that demands routine kindness and generosity. Yet they eat fish, wow, how cruel of them.
Not a canine expert, you know, horse person here, but I remember reading something somewhere that some canine experts realized that canines need to have raw meat for a healthy digestive system, and even more particularly rotting raw meat. Because in the wild canines are more scavengers than hunters and much of their diet is that of rotting corpses they find, hence their very keen sense of smell. What I also found interesting in the article was how the canine teeth are designed. They possess no molars for being able to actually chew and break down the much harder to digest plant fibers. Feeding canines anything that is vegetables or fruits is pretty much nothing more than filler as they are not able to benefit from such. Their jaw and teeth where designed for ripping off flesh and swallowing, not taking something into their mouth and chew, I mean outside chewing on a bone and what not for the marrow. Also found it interesting that bears, although very canine like, developed actual molars so they are able to eat plants, making them omnivores. Just thought this was a bit of interesting info I had stored in my noggin.
Also another funny story to show how far from nature and how little knowledge modern humans know about where their food actually comes from. An old farmer I use to by my hay from once told me that he use to have chickens and would set up a stand at the local market to sell his eggs. He had this regular costumer who came by frequently to pick up eggs. One day she brought along her grandchild she was watching for the weekend. The kid ask him which store he got his eggs from. When he explained to the kid that his chickens laid the eggs the kid didn't believe him. So he invited the grandmother to bring the kid by the farm so he could show him. Needless to say the child actually learned something that day in which the school nor his parents taught him!
Also I always laugh when someone finds out where mushrooms come from. Seen soooo many that love to eat mushrooms then the day they find out they are simply a fungus that grows on horse manure, they never touch one again. Many times I gone out to the manure pile and picked them. . . Oh wait, Am I an abuser because mushrooms come from horses?!
Yeah, it's that disconnect between food and origin that's probably the cause of many of the issues with modern American agriculture. I wouldn't disagree with anyone that there is a significant difference between factory farms and, say, Polyface farms (the latter being both more sustainable and better for the animals and the land), but to pretend that food appears out of thin air... and again, it does appear to be a uniquely American problem.
That could be considered an unethical act. That is, the act of killing the animal (if the animal is healthy) is inherently wrong.
They would not cease to exist; they would continue living on as pets or companions.
So long as they aren't killed for human exploitation (i.e. meat) and if they die naturally.
So you are against control of pests, such as rats, cockroaches, and other disease vectors, to improve the overall health of the population? Most arguments against the killing of animals tend to only be against killing "cute" animals that aren't an immediate nuisance. The only people I'm aware of who fully commit to this ethical stance are Jainists, and I'm not terribly aware of many vegans who wear veils and carry brushes to avoid accidentally killing insects. Further, it can readily be argued that death before old age is a natural part of the animal's life cycle (as that is their natural state), and that forcing them to live to an old age to suffer from prolonged pain for years at a time is in fact the unethical choice.
Funny, I don't see many people keeping cows, hogs, or other food animals as pets. And don't point at miniature pigs, those are a distinct species from those under discussion.
Torn to pieces by predators, got it.
True, but the conditions animals go through in factory farms and slaughterhouses are not "natural". For example, calves are taken from cows at a young age in order to be exploited; this is not "natural".
Nobody is defending factory farms here. There is more than one way to keep an animal. Further, other than the instant, humane killing of the animal at the beginning, the slaughterhouse has little to do with how animals are treated while they are alive.
It is entirely possible to be against animal abuse and still ethically and responsibly consume animal products, and stating otherwise is either disingenuous or the product of shallow thinking.
Isn't consuming animal products a form of exploitation though?
When one consumes animal products (such as meat), they are supporting abusive practices such as slaughter.
Then you should give up driving your car or using your computer and the many other things you use every day. Just because you are not eating the animal, you still are consuming it in the products and luxuries you take for granted in the modern world. YOU by just making that post on your computer ARE supporting abusive practices such as slaughter. As said before, humans DO NOT NEED computers to survive either. So why is it OK with you to argue with someone who might eat meat when you still use a computer or the many other items around you in the modern human world which use the by products of those animals that went through the slaughter house?
Again, slaughter is not inherently abusive if the animal has been humanely put down.
Killing is inherently abusive if the goal is exploitation.
I like how you keep saying you hate the killing yet have commented on your reasons for using the very products you use which are derived from said killings. What makes you any better than someone who eats meat when you yourself still benefit from the death of animals in your every day life? You yourself are killing animals just by existing in the modern world. Kinda like saying to others do as I say but not as I myself do.
It is a matter of degree: not eating animal products is closer to being ethical than eating them.
Uhm, in the wild it is often the very young or old that are taken down by predators more so than the full grown healthy animals unless there is some genetic defect that makes them weaker. Natures natural selection to keep the species healthy and thriving.
well, I'm sort of never-finished vegan, because I don't eat meat, milk, eggs, etc, care about lesser consumption, and so on ...Just ...How to say, I come to zoophilia via animal rights, and this 'interest' in animal rights was result of personal run-in into dolphinarium system. So, in last ....11? 14? depend from what date you start to count ...from my dolphinarium first days (and next to conflict and quite downward, hope-wise, from there to now) - years I had all this 'question' of ethics in very acute form inside myself. Yes, by personal experience now I can say even not so developed physically human can live quite good on meat-free diet (some products I eat periodically may contain some milk-derived ingridient traces, so no 'purity' here, nor purity is my goal ...). For at least 10+ years (since 2005). Does this really matter for me now? Not as much as before ....I mean, I hate regressions, so I hopefully will stay this way until something really serious changes me back. But my main problem now not all those vegan questions, petitions and stuff ... I (laughable) still feel I have bigger unsolvable problems to solve ...and this is not fun at all.
Non-hypocritical synthesis of farest-end animal rights (considering now even whole idea about 'rights' as way to formulate problem rightly criticized!) and zoophilia seems even more impossible after reading some threads below this one,, where humans quite happy to live in animal-exploiting world as long as 'world' leave them alone (fig. speaking!). Again, I come to simple and sad conclusion most humans can be 'deviant' mostly in one direction, not in many (even interconnected ethico-logically). Yes, some zoos are vegans, and some vegans are not just ones who read about animal exploitation stuff from booklet. Yet.....I found depressingly low number of humans who actually can stand their ground ......if pressured by some ...friend, society, group, etc, etc ....
Ah, my male dog eat meat. But this is not biggest ethical problem I have right now in my mindview..leash and all this animal ownership, because I really practiciate in something I internally disagree, yet I can not live different live...
Well...and one I think useful mindtrick ...each time you have something consuming your mind, be it forum, or other stuff ...try to stop yourself and look at your dog (or whoever you have and care about), and even if s/he sleeping or otherwise in no need for attention - just spend little more time reflecting on him/her/them, before returning to some other task....prioritize your life in non-anthropocentered way .....
after some hours I figured out it might be useful to explain bit about leash a bit more. basically, this is physical violence. Daily. Normalized, Of course heavily justified not just by ideology, but very real experience ( for first 1.5 years I was walking with my dog off-leash. Few memorable incidents put end to this practice ...none was physically harmed, just...I now much bigger problem freeing my dog, even if we walk at night, with little chance to run into anyone.). And here I am, talking about ethics and stuff. Unable to find solution to well-understood problem (yes, I try to minimize , sigh use of this glamorized rope. Yes, i try to minimize conflicts - different schedule, different path out...my dog is not so bittier, just barky. Once he run into ..like five street dogs, poor pack I somewhat recognize but not truely interact with...my personal dog cleaned space around me from all unwanted dogs quite boldly....in the beginning we had different company, and I got him as my room-living dog due to some chain of events started from attempting too rescue another street dog, so at those initially 1.5 or so years we stabilized into some strange four-some dog-dog-dog-human combination ..all males..haha....then two other dogs disappeared, rumored to be killed, Grey stayed with me, and ..not quite liked any other dog we had around, at least not like he will connect to/accept as friend another dog from simple common walk...well, back to conflict..he run into poor five dogs, fived dogs barked a lot, he failed on his back, and promptly returned to more ...upward position..yet, it all confrontation ended with no blood, dogs departed after such 'win' over him, yet he was one who returned with his tail up to me, with my end of leash still in hand ...he broke it instantly in very good speeding up towards ;intruders'...yet, strret dogs never turned real ;assholess;, at least not at level humans tend to imagine when they heard about animals. Yes, they defended themselves quite vocally, yet they not acted with full brute force , even if they had bigger number of bigger bodies....like, it was mutual ethical animal win, in sense my dog felt like brave chaser of foreign dogs, from his return, and those dogs were still holding their face, just moving' away. And other street dog conflicts I saw while walking with my dogs also..had this tendency. Sure, conflict is negative stuff, yet, even real physical bite is not real reason for dog for becoming full-blown-awaay ....ass. Sure, dogfisghts named like this for reason, some conflicts can be fatal, etc, etc. yet .. dogs live up to their ethological description as agressive-self-controlled beings ....humans ...run-amok variety of animal. in this regard (well, this is not absolute, may be real dif just like 51% vs 49%, yet ...it feels differently. violence in all forms hard to measure, humans heavily use symbolic/language-carried violence, it hits also quite real ....but often not as obvious as physical act. Other beings ...do a lot of things not so easily observable, both positive for them, universally positive, negative, relatively negative .... eh! Life is complex!
Anyway, I meant to say my life with my dog is by itself real example of failed after some time attempt at living my choosen ideals. And I have very sad thinkfeeling this is not just my personal fault, it much more universal....humans fail, collectively speaking, even if individuals stay up right until death. And whole trajectory of humanity, and this part of it concerning dolphins, cetaceans and other ..non-humans ...it all tend to fail much better than recovery.
So, if any practice can reverse this trend even locally? I can't find anything working.
But...trying to be real positive ..may be zoophilia as ethical movement of individual humans will make some progress in next 20 or 50 years. It seems to be new enough field of thinking for being revolutionary for some more time....at its leading edge. Internet as phenomenon of global intercommunication can happen only once - and it already happened, for most humans. A lot of things now typed in and searchable, making connection between seemingly-different fields (of experience) become ....easier ...for all those who can. Next wave ..may come or not, like artificial telepathy, for example. So far all those technical innovation were unable to solve most fundamental problem in humans ...yet, I type this msg for people I had no chance to meet before. So, in this sense this is progress. What next wave of technoprogress will allow? I hope something ....strange bit of hope, but I'm allowed to have it..once in a week ...
Progress is dependent on people coming out of the closet to defend their rights, and right now nearly all zoos are in the closet. Right now in the U.S. alone, there are 5 anti-zoo bills (in 5 states) all happening at the same time, so zoos are (legally) losing.
Anti-bestiality laws. Would think it would be obvious to not link Zoophiles to those who where caught because of exploiting animals for porn or fence hoping and raping animals which these laws where made against. I have yet to read any article that comes out and say someone was arrested for saying they love their animal. All the reasons given for the need of these laws are the very things us Zoophiles also are against, animal abuse and exploitation.
Zoos who have sex with an animal (in a way that is ethical) can fall victim to these laws -- these laws prohibit ALL sex between humans and non-humans, which is wrong.
First, like how you want to say having sex with an animal is ethical, something that is unnatural in the eyes of the world, but an omnivore eating meat is non-ethical, something which is natural.
And why is it so hard to call the laws what they are, Anti-bestiality laws. If you keep going about and saying I am against this law or that because it is anti-zoo you are saying that us zoos are in favor of the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and trespassing which these laws where also written up against. Go read any article on these laws and the reason why they come into a need, it is those abusers who made the news because of raping someone else's animal, training animals for sex toys, breaking a the chickens neck while having sex with it, fence-hoppers, and the ones who have sexually abused children or their spouses who also where doing the same thing to the family dog.
Personally for me, these laws will not affect me. Why? Because I will go on living as I always have. I see no need of me to go announcing to the world my sex life. What happens in the barn, stays in the barn just like any human relationship, what they do in their bedroom stays in their bedroom.
I never said that. The problem is that these laws prohibit ALL sex with animals, regardless of conduct, meaning that they affect zoos who have sex with animals in an ethical way.
Then again, they are Anti-Bestiality laws. They where made against those who sexually abused animals which made the news. I myself am all for these laws because I would hate for someone to have the right to jump my fence and violate my horses or worse. I am highly against those who profit from sexually exploiting animals, the making of porn and the training animals for sex. And very much against those who have sex with the animal then kill it in some sick perversion of erotica.
And they do not affect any zoophile who has sex with their animals in an ethical way because, just as we all have been doing since we found out our deeper connection with the animals in question, we are no more willing to announce to the world what we do in the privacy of our love lives anymore now than before. If you truly are a zoophile, you make sure your animal partners life comes long before your own, to the fact that if you can not be 100 percent certain you have privacy for an intimate moment you DO NOT DO IT, period. Those who fall into being caught are those who only got the animal for sex and would be damned if they can not just freely bang it when they want to.
Bestiality: The act of having sex with animals.
Zoophile: One who has an emotional connection to animals which can/may lead to bestiality.
As far as I have read, non of these laws are against someone who has an emotional attachment to animals at all. SO calling them anti-zoo laws is highly in accurate.
You should be against these new anti-zoo laws because laws dealing with animal abuse already exist, and so these new anti-zoo laws do nothing to protect them. The scenarios you mentioned could all be punished under separate animal abuse laws. And as I said, anti-zoo laws wrongly treat all people who have sex with animals the same.
There are various ways such a person can "slip up". Doing something behind closed doors (privacy) is not foolproof. For example, perhaps a friend or significant other knows one's activities, and they report it. Or what if a veterinarian somehow finds out.
Not always; people who have done it in an ethical way have been caught as well.
Unless a zoo abstains from sex (with animals), then it is accurate to call it an anti-zoo law.
Pardon my late response.
It's discussed quite frequently, but much more often in comments than in topics dedicated to it. This community is pretty stable as it relates to our readers, so we don't have to reiterate too much.
On to your question of ethics, I immediately observed a gross generalization. To paraphrase, you mentioned that the people here claim to love nonhuman animals, but still support nonhuman animal agriculture. Well, consider that zoophiles are rarely so general as to love 'animals'. One may have affections for several species, but the odds of being attracted to every insect, fish, mammal, reptile, and so on is simply unlikely. I think it's fair to say that in the average person's head, human animals are more distinct from other animals. It doesn't necessarily reflect a bias in favor of humans, but most of the people here are probably very good at parsing information about humans, as compared to other animals. If they tried it with a snake or some other species they aren't knowledgeable about, then it likely wouldn't be so. They would be able to apply certain generalities to their understanding of the snake's posture and behaviors, sure, but not enough to have an authoritative understanding of the snake's emotional or physical state.
Instead of thinking about this in terms of human animals and nonhuman animals, let's look at this by merit of species or breed. Humans are attracted to humans predominantly, that much is clear. We can narrow it down to individuals, too, of course. The average human values human life over nonhuman life, they may value the lives of their neighbors or compatriots over that of foreigners, and likely value their friends more than their enemies, and value their partners and family more than those outside of their family. At its narrowest, you're looking at individual value("the one"), at an intermediate level, you're looking at proximal and familial value, and at its widest, you're looking at phenotypic value. These, of course, are usually in descending order and as far as I know only apply to humans in this capacity.
Point is, though, we don't look at another human and call them an animal, or even a human for that matter. We're more inclined to call them a woman, or a man, boy/girl, young/old or even identify their race alongside their gender because they're individually distinct to the average person. We may even begin speculating about their careers, interests, and lifestyles, not just because we can, but because of that individual distinctness, looking at clothing, hairstyle, demeanor, and so on. Sometimes, you can even identify certain mental traits at a glance, like whether they're on the autism spectrum or suffer from a sleep disorder. Generally speaking, you can tell who a person is, and their differences with another person at a glance. We're very good at that, and that's why it's pretty hard to pass yourself off as another person, even when you are very similar.
For a dog zoo, that same principle likely applies to dogs for them as well. They're individually distinct and are likely more precisely profiled by that individual, but they may still struggle telling cats apart. They don't look at organisms separate from dogs and humans the same way, and in alot of ways, that difference manifests itself in a lack of precision. So why, when they only have this interest in humans and dogs, or maybe exclusively dogs, or even, for instance... male border collies, and in many instances only the individual they're partnered with, would they default to wanting to protect everything? Assuming the very Freudian motivations discussed are valid, it would mean that zoos would have to interpret their partners as being part of this massive, indistinct group rather than grouping them by their precise phenotype, or it would necessitate a latent attraction or sexual philosophy that is all-inclusive in order to have a positive effect on veganism in zoos to the extent that you originally expected. At the end of the day, it won't have the impact that you expected because you're framing the issue differently than many zoos do internally, as it's something that is different for everyone, however slight... so you're not wrong in your reasoning, but by other peoples' reasoning and perspective this issue isn't so relevant as you believe.
This is simply a side note, but I'd like to offer a reminder that moral relativity is an important idea to keep in mind. It's the concept that there is no universal truth as it relates to morality, and that the issue of right and wrong is predicated on the individual, and in many ways, the circumstance at hand. Around the world, there are astoundingly diverse interpretations of what is moral and what is not. Even the study of ethics, tapping into many scientific fields, is marred with -- necessary -- moral evaluations.
Also to note that some of us have a much easier time understand the animals we find a connection with than our human counterparts. I can look at a horse and for the most part get a feel of their personality and tell if they look healthy or in distress just be looking into their eyes. I can read them much easier than I can read another human. Plus to me, horses are pretty honest in how they feel, you do not have the head games as much with them if at all as you do with fellow humans. If a horse does not like you, they show it where as when a human does not like you they can be nice to you up front then stab you in the back as you turn around. But yes, I can easily tell one horse apart from another even if they are the exact same color and body shape but dogs or other species all look similar to me unless there is a very distinct color or feature that would make them easily stand out or better yet, a name tag! Actually on a funny note, I have worked in the horse industry as a farrier and I could never remember the name of the horse's owner, the very one who wrote the checks, but I could remember every horses' name with ease.
This type of thinking is speciesism, and it is a prejudice people should not have.
It's about being compassionate with regards to life itself (human or non-human); and not "picking and choosing" some lifeforms over others.
It ought to be relevant, because the choices people make can affect non-humans negatively. (Which is another reason people should stop using animal products).
It's not, really. It's an issue of familiarity.
Recall that OP's question is essentially "If you're a zoo, then why aren't you vegan?". I'm explaining it, and what you gave isn't a reason for a zoophile to do it, it's a reason anybody on the planet would use to justify veganism.
Again, less relevant than you think. That heirarchy I mentioned generally places companion animals far above that of farm animals. It's unlikely that poor treatment of farm animals being allowed would change anything about the circumstances of pets. As the conditions for farm animals have deteriorated, the worlds pets receive more and more luxuries, and of course, the field of veterinary medicine continues to advance, largely in favor of pets. You can give a dog that lost a leg prosthetics, and nowadays, people will pay. Less than a century ago, pets weren't even allowed in houses, generally, and now they're sleeping on peoples beds. There's really no chance of that trend reversing.
I tend to think that most zoos aren't vegan for the same reason most non-zoos aren't vegan: if 4% of all people are vegan, then that is probably true for zoos as well (however, the number may be higher for zoos due to their desire for animals).
Farm animals can feel emotions and suffering just like pets, therefore they should be viewed as the same (morally).
That's a statistical approach, but not an approach of 'why'.
Ethically, not morally. Morally, you're looking at a ten dimensional Shrodinger's cat. Not fun. It's moral, relative to you and people that agree with that philosophy. I'm ambivalent, myself. I understand the sentiment, but I also understand why people would continue to eat meat... especially given the sometimes contradictory diet discoveries that crop up every decade or so.
A huge fallacy right there. One's personal preference has zero impact on the understanding that other beings are also conscious and feeling - an insight that comes much more easily to a zoophile. Furthermore, a personal preference has absolutely no relevance to ethics whatsoever, it cannot justify murder. It also has nothing to do with attraction. Again, that's just nonsense through and through and a misrepresentation of my point. Here, I'll spell it out for you, because I feel like it: An average omnivore - among other excuses - justifies needless killing of animals by asserting, the old and tired fallacy of "They are just stupid animals, they don't feel and think like us, it's okay to kill them." - this view is widespread. A woman will love her dog, but think this way of cows and pigs. Many people think that way of all animals. A zoophile can much more readily understand how much like us higher non-human animals truly are. A preference has nothing to do with it. My most major preference is for equines. Nevertheless, my deeper-than-normal emotional connection to other animals - like cats or rabbits - allowed me to see just how very much alike other animals are. Chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, ... et cetera. That's the entirety of my point - the ability to see the "soul" in animals, which is much greater among zoos. I takes a truly ignorant person to see this in few animals, but to not recognize it in all of them. And it takes an extraordinarily cruel person to see this in animals and still support their needless abuse and killing.
Other than that, I'll tell you the same I told to others. I didn't come here to "discuss" ethics, because they don't need discussing, much like the heliocentric model of our celestial system doesn't need discussing. I am not interested in pseudo-intellectualism, excuses and fallacies. I came here to inquire about the number of vegans frequenting this subreddit.
This is assuming that I was arguing in favor of their logic on the matter, it seems. But, I wasn't. I wasn't arguing for anything, really. Just stating a, not necessarily rational, occurence within this zoophile community, as I've observed it. It's no coincidence that our dog zoos have a huge interest in dogs, and that our horse zoos have a huge interest in horses.
You assume it comes more naturally, this panfaunal empathy. It needn't be so, and it needn't be so general. It's not hard to say "dogs are the exception" to oneself, especially when it really feels that way, when abuse of other species will make you sad, but hearing about an abused dog will ruin your entire day. Also of note is that many are aware of this but decide against it for reasons independent of that understanding. Reasons that you'd be vehemently against.
Who said anything about justification? We're talking about the why of your unmet expectations. I gave you the best why possible, nothing more, nothing less. I never pushed an opinion on it. Just explained the phenomena. I pointed out a generalization in your post, but I didn't ever attack your stance on ethics, nor did I ever bring up ethics other than discussing moral relativity.
There's evidence that it does. 30-30 can tell horses apart and read them at a glance, and other horse zoos can do the same. Most of those horse zoos, however, don't have that same ability with cats, dogs, etc. That's what I'm talking about. They're distinct, recognizable, and for a reason that ultimately is rooted in their attraction, in large part. Horses are special to them, whether you agree with the morality or logic of it or not, and you've seen many people here attest to that phenomena. This phenomena is also present in experts on individual species.
As I understand it, your point is that zoophiles should, statistically, be much more vegetarian/vegan than they actually are. Again, I explained why they don't meet your expectation, that's it.
Doesn't apply here, though. Most if not all of the people here recognize intelligence in other animals pretty handily. It's not why they aren't vegetarian.
And that's reasonable, it doesn't take a zoophile to make that connection, though, and it doesn't mean they'll be more motivated to become vegan just because they're attracted to a nonhuman animal themselves. Again, what they're attracted to is generally special to them.
It's not really that much greater. If you said it ten years ago, or even five, then sure. But, not now. And of course, this is more assumed than known. An individual zoophile may not even pay any elevated thought to nonhuman animals other than their partners.
Not really. You don't see an animal getting slaughtered, nor do you do the slaughtering in a supermarket. You get a conveniently packaged slab of beef, and walk away. If you tried cooking a live lobster, though, then it really hits home. It's detatchment from the experience.
In hindsight, I ended up not really talking about ethics at all in my comment... you did, in your reply...
Actually, there have been some fascinating revelations about the movement of our solar system and how it relates to long term climate patterns, but I'll play along with your statement.
Again, I didn't excuse or justify anything... if anything, you did the justifying. Which is fine, I'm pretty ambivalent about how people handle themselves in conversation, generally.
I'd like to clarify some of the concepts I used to articulate my initial reply. First, was the familiarity heuristic, or familiarity bias. This is essentially the idea that you're more inclined toward that which you know best, and in alot of cases value it more, it probably explains itself, but it doesn't hurt to do it here. There are several other concepts I referenced as well; the baby schema(aka the 'cute effect'), and some principles of classical conditioning(association, pretty much). Also referenced was the beauty bias, which is best described in this literature review published within a peer reviewed journal(beauty being defined roughly as attractiveness).
Fuck me. So I decided to write a proper, non-asshole response to you and it's too long to be posted in one piece. How typical of me. Anyway, here's the first piece and I'll post the second one as a reply to it, I guess. Or the several other pieces... whichever will it be. -.-
Alright, so far I wanted to stick to short replies, since I didn't want to get bogged down in nonsense as it always happens in these threads, but I am actually going to make an exception here, since you seem reasonable enough and I actually care about the way I present myself to you and don't want to be misunderstood, as has already happened. Just like I misunderstood you. That's in stark contrast to many other posters, in the case of which I don't even try to be understood. So yeah, let's get to it.
Fair enough. I get it, you were trying to explain the reasoning others use - but that's kind of redundant, since I for the most part understand it at this point in life - I apologize if my OP mislead you in that regard. The only real point of disagreement we seem to have is this: my reasoning is that zoo should naturally have easier time finding empathy for animals. You apparently don't think so. That's what it boils down to. Which is fine, this actually is a discutable matter and I will inevitably keep touching upon the subject further in my response. (Spoiler Alert: I actually do reach a kind of resolution eventually.)
Me:
You:
I apologize for my poor wording - again, I didn't try to be understood, I didn't care. I'll explain now.
I shouldn't have used the phrase "zero impact", since that's patently false. Here's what I meant: Preference is not a prerequisite for the ethical treatment of anyone. It's not even a causal factor, empathy is causal in this case. In terms of many people, preference may indeed be the cause of empathy in the first place, but that's an extremely shallow approach that in itself isn't supported by ethics.
To put it differently, I was attempting to say that preference is not an ethical argument one way or another. Nevertheless it gets used that way and you are correct in pointing that out, yes.
Yes, that's what I called 'apathy towards ethics' and 'hypocrisy', et cetera. Those are the people I refuse to even debate on the subject. I simply call them out.
Me:
You:
Well, I did. I wasn't implying that is necessarily your position (of which I wasn't sure either way), only re-affirming the fundamentals of ethics. Again, you may notice that's the common thread under this OP of mine. Me not bothering with others, simply throwing the fundamentals of ethics in their face, and going to another tab in my browser. This whole asshole-ish attitude doesn't feel particularly great to me, but I have specifically chosen it for this thread for practical reasons. On several occasions in the recent past, I've spent whole days of my time writing essay-long posts for discussions like this - going to the lengths of providing links and sources and what not - only for ignorant idiots to successfully keep ignoring all of that, ignoring the points of theirs that have been fully refuted, completely misrepresenting what I've said, et cetera. In short, I have always been the person to spend dozens of hours on long posts, but in this thread I have decided not to be. Such was my intention even while writing the OP, I just wanted a survey - not a discussion - but I was stupid enough to get carried away with the OP to the point, that it gave people the idea I want to discuss things mentioned in the OP. A really bad move. Nevertheless, you managed to convince me to write a really long one.
Yeah, that's where you sadly misunderstood me. My expectations used to be unmet in the past - nowadays I expect zoos to be more or less as apathetic to ethics as normies are, because most of them are that way. Even though I still suspect that zoos might have slightly more vegans and vegetarians than normies. I think that it should be easier for zoos to find empathy towards animals - if you can establish a connection with one animal or one group of animals, it should be easier to extrapolate from such vantage point, than it would be to find empathy without it.
Me:
You:
Again, we're talking about different things. Which is - once again - my fault, since I used extremely careless wording, as I... well... didn't care. Now I do. So yeah, I get what you're saying, I understand the mechanism. And it has little to do with what I am saying, which is that attraction or special affinity or any of that business is not a requirement for the awareness of and the application of ethics. (Once more, that would be empathy.) Some people use it that way, yes. And I don't care about that. There are wrong ways of arriving at the right conclusions and this is one of them. Here's an example: the correct conclusion is that horses must be treated ethically. The correct way of arriving at that conclusion is as follows: They are conscious, autonomous, thinking and feeling creatures and therefore they need to be respected as such and their best interests served. The wrong way to arrive at that conclusion is: I think horses are awesome and therefore they must be treated ethically!
There being a wrong way of deriving ethics is possibly something that I might not be able to explain to you, since you seemed to defend moral relativism, but I will try. Again, I dunno how much you subscribe to it and how much was it just you talking about it, so pardon me. I'm genuinely not doing it to 'preach' to you, not this time - I am only trying to explain my position in a hopefully sensible way, even though it might not have that much relevance to the primary topic. Sometimes, I call myself the master of tangents - and for a good reason.
Anyway. The mistake that many people make is to assume that what is ethical is decided by the 'active element' in the equation, by the doer. That a killer decides, whom is it ethical to kill solely based on his reasoning. That's how one gets subjectivism and relativism - and that's how one ends up being wrong about ethics. Ethics are always about those being acted upon, which often includes the active element itself, since it can act upon itself, or others and itself - in addition to only acting upon others. Not to mention all 'elements' are both passive and active relative to each other. (is that relative enough for you? ^ ^) That depends on the situation. You cannot even arrive at conclusions like "murder is wrong", "rape is wrong", "torture is wrong" if you use the 'active perspective', because the doer can always find an excuse. The objective criteria is to assess whether the best interest of a 'passive element' has been served. And this can be but isn't necessarily connected to the passive element's perceived best interest. A cat may fear the veterinarian and resist being taken there, but the human knows it's in her best interest to be taken there. In other words, it's all about objective benevolence to the one being acted upon - in the realm of practicability. Every other way of deriving ethics is inferior, because it's not universally applicable. I don't care what cultures or individuals think is ethical - this is the best way, the objectively superior way, because it serves everyone in the way most appropriate to them. The moment you acknowledge subjectivism and relativism, you find yourself on the slippery slope of being able to justify just about anything one way or another. In the worst case scenario, you will have to tolerate that, which you know is abhorrent to you, as is currently increasingly the case across the Western world infested by moral relativism and multiculturalism. In the best case scenario, you will end up in a 'might-makes-right' situation. Either way, it'll be a mess.
I should also add that a wide adoption of objective morality would actually eliminate the unnecessary persecution of zoos, since as long as the animal's best interests are served, the code is not broken. But who am I kidding - most self-described zoos would rather have their bacon and just avoid the law, than to be vindicated at the price of having to abstain from animal products.
Actually, I am not sure about this. As I've said, I mostly just expect apathy at this point, yes, and I know it's more or less for the same reasons that apathy exists among normies. However, at the same time, someone else ITT pointed out that in his estimation the percentage would be about double among zoos. Me, I simply don't know. I'd need some genuine statistics on this. The upvotes on my OP go from 40 - 60 percent, usually staying around 50 or slightly lower, so there seems to be greater-than-usual sympathy towards the cause, but it doesn't actually say how many of the upvotes are fully on-board and thus representative, et cetera. Overall, I think the percetage of vegans among zoos is somewhat elevated and my reasoning for that I have already mentioned - an easier vantage point for gaining deep empathy towards non-humans. It's okay that we disagree on that. It's something that could only be confirmed or denied by genuine statistics based on larger enough sample. Like a survey of several thousand zoos. Funnily enough, I might make an actual survey later down the line and post links in various places, to get a decent sample. That could be interesting.
Intelligence probably isn't the best word to describe this. It's more about general sense of worth. And you can readily find this attitude among zoos. "[My favourite species] is special, screw the rest" is the attitude you yourself have pointed out. Those are child-level ethics, if you can even call it that. And I have already addressed the rest - it takes great levels of either ignorance or cruelty to be aware of the individuality of animals, and to keep supporting the animal agriculture.
Yes, it doesn't take a zoophile, exactly. It doesn't take attraction or preference or any of that. What it takes is empathy. Empathy towards animals is easier for zoos, since they will inevitably be empathetic at the very least to their favourite species, wheres many - if most - normies aren't truly empathetic to any. Finding empathy for one species - even for one individual - is the very first step in gaining empathy for many. It's a staircase to be climbed - it's just that some people choose not to climb it for their various reasons. Nevertheless, if veganism is the step number 78, then a person, who is by default on the step number 14, will still have an easier time reaching 78, than a person, who is by default on the step 8 or 9 - close they may be. That's about the entirety of my reasoning. Again, disagreement is fine, we'd need some statistics first.
However, however, however! You have managed to change my mind to some degree. You see, since the time I've found I'm a zoophile myself, I have taken that term very literally. As in "animal lover". A genuine one. To some degree, it was probably a subconscious thing, a perception modeled after myself. And I am beginning to think I should change this. I don't think I should view zoophiles in general as simply "zoophiles" anymore, but rather as their subcategories, since that rings the most true for most people, it seems. I think my basic premise was off in that most so-called "zoophiles" aren't actual animal lovers at all, as it seems, which both makes sense and means that I don't have much in common with them at all, hence why I always drifted away from the "communities". That makes their positions less hypocritical, but still unethical.
Well, not directly, only implicitly. The whole point of your post was to explain why self-described zoophiles don't care about ethics as much as I suggested they should. In other words, you explained the excuses they use. But again, you shouldn't take this remark of mine as addressing directly something you've said, because it's not.
Hang on, that's actually kinda wrong. In the end you went on for one paragraph about moral relativism and how it's an important thing to keep in mind. Which is exactly one of those things I have little sympathy for and won't concede any ground to. I don't care whether this culture thinks it's ethical to mutilate children's genitals, or whether that person thinks shooting animals for fun is ethical. Their opinion does not matter. Because if it does matter, then so does matter an opinion of a serial killer or a war criminal or any random dude on the street for that matter. To only way to get anywhere is to follow standards larger than any single individual, which is why pretty much all functioning societies follow certain basic objective standards like "stealing is bad". Without them you're fucked.
The previous statement of mine was made with the premise that the given person actually knows how the industry operates. If s/he does not, then it's the case of extraordinary ignorance instead.
Aw, c'mon, that's not what I meant. ^ ^ I was only referring to the "geocentric vs. heliocentric" paradigm. As in, which one is at the center of our local system - the Sun or the Earth? If you want, another alternative is... is the Earth a spheroid or just flat? Inb4 Flat-Earthers flood the comment section, lol.
Me:
You:
Except for justifying moral relativism as useful concept, you mean? Don't get me wrong, this comment was - again - more general then specifically targeted at what you said, but it still applies to some of what you said. Moral relativism is pseudo-intellectualism, is fallacious and ultimately is an excuse for the abuse of others. Universal standards are necessary.
Anyway, thanks for helping me realize one thing in particular: that I've been subconsciously taking the label of zoophilia literally, when most zoos probably are no 'animal lovers' per se. And thanks for the conversation in general.
And here's one last bonus. Since I always ramble on about ethics - yes, 'tis no secret that my treatment of many a poster in this here thread has been rather unethical, as it would be in their best interest for me to actually have a proper discussion with them and what not. Yes, I'm am sometimes a dick. No, I'm not proud of it. Hey, it's not a murder. ^ ^
Why do so many people refuse to acknowledge that eating animal products is wrong, even though they know about the horrors of factory farms? Why are so many people apathetic about it? And why is it that when they are confronted, they come up with all these flawed reasons to defend what they do, like "it's natural" or "it tastes good" or "it's OK because it happens in the wild" or "killing can be 'humane'" (reasons that are shallow or unsophisticated).
Why do people keep eating meat, even knowing the moral problems with doing so? Why do so many people not have empathy for animals? And why do a significant number of zoos lack that empathy?
Part of the problem: speciesism.
(By the way, if they're not aware of factory farms, then they're ignorant, as you said).
While pointing to the factory farms is a good argument - especially since they are absolutely necessary to provide the sheer quantity of animal products to supply our huge populations - I am convinced that it is necessary to put more emphasis on general, fundamental ethics, than to focus on the specifics. People will always find their way around specifics. You say factory farms, they say small family farms. And so on and so forth. It's an endless struggle, because it makes excuses easy. I am convinced that the best way is to bypass this struggle is to go straight to the fundamentals. You can really boil it down to a question like: "Do you think that avoidable and needless killing and abuse is acceptable - yes or no?"
As for your questions in general, I will simply take them as rhetorical.
What about those who say that killing an animal (for example, on a small farm) can be done "humanely"? I've never agreed with that argument. In my opinion, there is no such thing as "humane" killing of an animal (an animal which is to be used as food).
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that you are using by products from those very animals in your every day life with which you have yet to answer for outside "I do my best". Does not matter if your using 1 ounce of an illegal drug or 12 pounds of it, your still a drug user and guilty according to the law. One whole cow had to be killed at some point to get the very small amounts of stearic acid for the rubber and plastic components in your computer which is used to stabilize them against heat, just like in tires. So to me it is very hypocritical for all of you who are going to come out and question someone eating or consuming animals when you yourself are consuming those very animals in the very products you refuse to give up so you can live comfortable lives.
As I said, it is a matter of degree, and not eating animal products is more ethical than the alternatives.
Saying that things like computers may contain animal products should not be an excuse to continue eating animal products.
Ah. So double standards then. How dare you kill an animal to eat it. But it's ok to kill it when it improves the quality of my life with modern luxuries. Gotcha.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Happens to me too, though not often so... early in a discussion.
Well, perhaps not reasoning, but something precursive to reasoning. It was more an exploration of subconscious phenomena, if I had to say. That's not to say that there aren't people who do it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a fair number of people might not immediately make that connection.
Yeah, I kind of suspected it was hyperbole at first. Interestingly, empathy isn't necessarily ethical. Empathy can provoke as much as stimulate one to nurture and protect(ie empathizing with a victim may encourage a person to inflict violence upon the assailant). Empathy can also lead to unfair judgement in favor of those which one is empathizing with, as well, which can sometimes result in unethical behavior in itself.
Yeah, Reddit's one of the best public forums for civil discourse, but you quickly come to realize that it's still setting the bar pretty low all in all. I've the good fortune of being incredibly patient, at least.
Well, that, and I've found it most effective to keep the situation defused. A heated discussion ends up burning up any possibility of legitimate progress.
I think it's kind of something that isn't concluded, at least at first, if that makes sense. It goes back to the idea of preferences and preferential treatment for specific species and phenotypes preempting reason.
I do understand what you explained. Since the uncertainty presented itself, I'd like to clarify that I do have a personal ethical philosophy and can still disagree with others about certain elements of ethics, but will only do so on a personal level. Moral relativity helps me to better my understanding of other people free of any preconceptions and helps me keep a level head and remain understanding and patient with them in circumstances where ethics are concerned. That, and a few other things. It's all automatic for me now which is pretty helpful and lets me approach a lot of things impartially. I'd like to say it also helps me avoid getting preachy. But that's just me, of course. I've got some pre-existing circumstances that may make this approach more effective for me than others.
If I had to say, as it relates to meta-ethics, I subscribe to non-reductive ethical naturalism when considering meta-ethics, I take notes from state consequentialism, consequentialism, deontology, and postmodern ethics when considering normative ethics(though I do observe stoicism in some capacity on a strictly internal basis and don't let it affect my external decisions), and in place of personal morals I attempt to implement guidelines from several areas of applied ethics in as many of my decisions as possible -- panbiotic ethics, utilitarian bioethics, and the principles of bioethics are pretty important to me, and consequently include environmental ethics(ergo climate ethics too), and ethics of care. Beyond that, I adapted a few principles from various other fields of ethics, particularly within the area of professional ethics.
... Eugh, I swear it's less convoluted than it looks.
There is an ethical uncertainty to consider. We don't have any empirical evidence that directly supports bestiality as being in the best interest of nonhuman animals. I'm not well rested at all right now, so you'll have to pardon the short response here. If my explanation isn't sufficient, I can explain further tomorrow.
This is pretty much me once a week on here. There's never enough science available on this stuff. ;c
I feel it worth clarifying, though you're probably aware, that I don't disagree that these people exist. I don't think they're overwhelmingly common though, and I think that the effects of zoophilia likely have little statistical significance compared to locality on vegetarian/veganism.
To clarify, I was talking about meta-ethical moral relativism -- that is to say, simply the idea that a moral system isn't right or wrong by a (quite literal) universal standard, and that people disagree about what's right and wrong. In some ways, it's the idea that moral and ethical systems simply are. It's a principle that anthropologists keep in mind especially while studying other cultures and societies, so as to remain objective and impartial in their observations, which is my motivation for using it. A moral dialogue during fieldwork can cause biases in a researchers' data that could be devastating to the integrity of their study. Meta-ethical moral relativism doesn't make any recommendations to individuals beyond that idea, though, and doesn't demand tolerance(that's left for normative moral relativism). Often , people seeking to incorporate moral relativism into their philosophy only seek out parts of it, or a degree of it.
I personally find it unnecessary to identify something as good or bad universally, though on a local and even global scale it can be useful. The incarnation of it that I'm subscribed to identifies the lack of literal universal truths regarding ethics and morals, but recognizes and gives weight to the fact that by a statistical metric, some things are likely more often considered right or wrong than others, which does have a bit of weight and can be used to sculpt the standard that is enforced at that time(ethical standards and moral relativism aren't incompatible, mind). It comes with the acknowledgement that statistical perception of rightness or wrongness might shift, of course, and still needn't necessitate any tolerance on anyone's part. While I recognize a biological basis for morals, I also recognize the possibility that on a literally universal scale, natural selection may trend toward favoring very diverse moral standards. My interpretation of moral relativism, however, does trend toward moral universalism when you begin looking at smaller and smaller closed systems wherein there exist moral organisms, as it would be likely that they would become more and more morally homogenous. I suppose it could be said that we're looking at a spectrum between moral relativism and universalism in alot of cases.
I guess the point is, like most codes of ethics, I take a page from it but not the whole book.
As I suspect getting into the fallaciousness of it will bring about unneeded salt, I won't get into that. The wall of text above this quote kind of already addresses this, but it doesn't hurt to give this the attention it deserves. The people that would try to use the existing framework of moral relativism to justify abuse are overlooking the fact that aside from normative moral relativism which has a limited following, there isn't anything saying anybody should be tolerant. It just makes it easier to do.
Likewise, despite the uh... rough start. Heh.
Oh, and sorry if some parts seem messy. I'm finishing this comment at the end of a 21 hour day. I do not recommend. Especially if you have dry eye.
I think you might have a little bit of confusion going on here. So I'll just dissect this. First off, empathy by itself is nether ethical or unethical, it's not an external action, it doesn't affect anyone or anything - all it technically is, is the process of understanding the experience of another. It's essentially just a process or switching perspectives. A thought-process. And thoughts aren't ethical or unethical - to suggest so would be to go into the much-dreaded area of thought-crimes. What empathy is, however, is the prerequisite for the recognition of ethics. I am not one hundred percent sure about this, but I am also not aware of another process, which would facilitate the same. (I am not counting completely arbitrary way of deriving ethics, where the 'reasoning' is "because I say so") However, if there is another such process, then we can simply say that empathy is one of the possible prerequisites, not the prerequisite. Now onto what you described - which are all individual's reactions to the process of empathy. Yes, it is most definitely true that a person can choose both ethical and unethical action as a result of employing empathy in the given situation, but that has nothing to do with empathy itself being ethical or unethical. Suggesting so would be the same as suggesting that the knowledge of how to make fire can be ethical or unethical based on it's application.
'Tis true and I am grateful for that. Patience is the virtue I often lack. Overall my impression of you so far is overwhelmingly positive, and definitely not in the immature sense of "Yay, here's someone, who completely agrees with me, I love them!" - it's just the conduct and intelligence that I appreciate.
Moving on. I'm glad you thoroughly addressed the whole idea of moral relativism. I now finally have a good idea about where you stand and I find it well within the boundaries of what is acceptable according to the principles I follow - or so it seems. Different, but acceptable. To give you a better idea of my initial perception... the reason I so far so relentlessly bashed every single mention of moral relativism simply comes down to the fact that... well, it comes down to more things than one. For one, since we're discussing very specific ideas pertaining to our everyday lives, I wasn't at all thinking in the "grand scheme of things". Only in terms of the issues that we are facing here on Earth and can realistically face the future. But more important is the fact that in my experience so far, I have only really seen one prominent real-world application of moral relativism - that is, to justify and promote tolerance of blatantly unethical things. Like old men marrying ten or twelve year old girls against their will, circumcision and especially the female variety, honour killings, et cetera. The whole "it's just their culture!" deal. And of course, it's also one of the most common omnivore excuses - "morals are all relative so it's okay for me to have my steak". Your explanation and application I can understand. I especially appreciate the whole "a page not a book" remark. That's a wise approach in general, yes.
Since you so thoroughly described the schools of thought you subscribe to - which I appreciate and have to admit that you have the ability the sound much smarter me ^ ^ - I will also further present mine.
Or maybe I won't. I'm not sure. I did a few attempts and now I am reconsidering. So far I've talked about this topic in a completely secular way and I can do that, but the truth of the matter is that while I am not a part of any religion or cult or anything of the sort, I am very much a spiritual person and understand the world through these lenses. Metaphysical approach is where I am very much at home. To give you an idea, I'm currently reading Julius Evola and will probably have a look at some Vedic scriptures or their derivatives in the future. And I am not sure whether that in any way interests you or has any relevance to you, so I will refrain from going into details. I will only mention - for the sake of clarity - that I do not subscribe to what you mentioned as the "literal universal morality" - in the sense of some sort of omniscient and omnipotent entity dictating what's "good" and "bad", et cetera. Just so that I don't give you a bad idea by using words "spiritual" and "metaphysical". With all of that aside, what remains of the doctrine I follow and promote is basically what I have already mentioned a few times in this thread. You probably have a very good idea by now.
Yeah, you're good at not being preachy. ^ ^ Me, I am the preachy type, very much so. It's just a part of my personality, really. And don't get me wrong, I'm not the type to go up to random people and just start telling them these things. I don't even bring it up in conversations with people of whom I am not certain whether they are interested. However, if someone does bring these topics up, then yeah - I can get very preachy and authoritarian about it. Especially on the internet.
Right you are. I agree that these are murky waters. Especially since the standard of best interest I myself have laid down changes the game from the mere idea of consent to something much more fundamental. So far the best I can do is to say that it's highly case-specific.
Just to be perfectly clear, this is indeed very... theoretical for me. I've never even had sex with an animal. I don't even get to be around horses and even if I did, I only consider sexuality a potential byproduct of a relationship, not a goal in itself.
Yes, I take full responsibility for that. I dunno, I sometimes can't resist being a dick, but I always fucking regret it in the end, every single time. Even in situations, when I am objectively in the right, I always regret being a dick about it. Hopefully it's one of those things I'll grow out of - I mean, I'm still in my early twenties, I have a whole life of learning in front of me. Unless I get my face murdered or something.
Don't even worry about it. It's all fine. More than fine. Have a good one and take it easy.
I know what empathy is and how it relates to ethics, mind. Even in the absence of affective empathy(being affected emotionally by empathy), ethics, if one is observing a set of them, can supercede desire. They're more like sets of rules or laws, and if you understand ethics as such then it's possible to observe ethics in the absence of empathy. In the interest of creating an example, I would advocate for aiding alien life that is under duress even without any context. I'd simply do it, not even for personal reasons, but because the principles of biotic ethics would demand it. It's like the dichotomy between motivation and discipline, I suppose, respective to empathy and ethics. So, lawfulness can be an alternate prerequisite.
Some of the greatest minds in science are also spiritual. Even among atheist researchers, there's a good 20% that are spiritual, so spirituality doesn't speak ill of your approach, to be certain. Theism need not apply, as you said yourself.
Tis' the living affliction to be a dick and obsess over them. It's gotten through discipline, though. Age helps, but at the end of the day you're most tempered by experience and building a conscious awareness of your mental and emotional state. Well, that, and a touch of utilitarianism I suppose. A "what can I do to maximize the benefit of this conversation?" kind of approach. Really helps me stay level headed and keep both sides' heads in the game in a heated discussion.
The problem with your advice: discussions about vegetarism/veganism have no benefits that could be maximised. People this thread turned into veggies: 0 Veggies turned into meat eaters : 0 Increase of awareness: 0 Time and words used in vain: pleeeeenty...
This is why I never debate about my eating habits. In the end, it only matters for me and my consciousness. I don´t hate anyone because he/she uses animal products, but I also don´t stay silent if I can see that someone just needs a little push towards veganism. I´m a longtime veggie and was eager to "convert" folks when I was young...but I never turned someone into a veggie with words. Later in my life, I just stopped caring about other people´s eating habits and all of a sudden, many of my friends turned veggie...only because I was living proof that you can survive without Schnitzel and Bratwurst. Being veggie should be like being in fight club....and we all remember fight club´s first rule, do we?
Maximizing benefits also includes damage control, mind.
I originally wanted to partially dispute this point, but then I thought about it more and realized that I actually agree with that claim, since it most definitely makes sense within the framework I use. More on that later.
Fucking kek. :D
Other than that, yeah, I get what you're saying and I'm aware of that. I know precisely where the issue lies. Sometimes I simply have troubles taking a step back. It's about losing mindfulness. Getting too engrossed in things, getting too... personal. Getting too identified with the ego is probably the best way I can describe it. From the spiritual perspective, I tend to call it 'losing touch with one's divinity'. Ego is the one, who gets so engrossed in meaningless distractions that it growls at a loved one "I don't have time, leave me alone." - the 'divinity' is the mindful presence, that can take a step back instead and take it easy. People tend to do things they regret, when they are not in touch with that mindful state. I am no exception.
And speaking of spiritual things, since you aren't put off by that, I can give you a basic rundown, then. While I am not an egalitarian, the most fundamental spiritual worldview I subscribe to - and which is central to objective ethics as presented by (not only) me - is the doctrine of underlying unity. That is, that all beings and things are derived from the same metaphysical source, that we are all expressions of the same primordial cosmic principle or force. Thus, even though we aren't necessarily the same or equal, we share the same fundamental nature and origin. If one uses this perspective as the vantage point, compassion and empathy both come easily and make perfect sense.
Beyond that, I subscribe to the traditional concept of "Natural Law" or "Cosmic Order" or "Dharma" as the Vedic sources would call it. According to that general doctrine everything in the universe is governed by certain laws, of which the physical laws known to us are a part of. Every being is seen as having its rightful place and purpose in the order, et cetera. In this sense, ethics are all about what is in harmony with the Cosmic Order - which in itself is perfect and perfectly harmonious in essence - and therein lies their universal and objective character. Unethical actions promote discord and dysfunction in the order of things. They sow chaos. Which can always be demonstrated. In this framework, it's never about arbitrary "good" and "evil", only about function and dysfunction. That's why I said before that I don't subcribe to the "literal" objective morality as you put it - it isn't written anywhere, what's "good" and what's "evil", that is indeed subjective. Order and chaos, on the other hand, can be observed and assisted or opposed. Abusing others promotes dysfunction in them and thus sows more chaos. Animal agriculture is also discordant on every level - from the environmental impact to the consumers. The same for petty Machiavellian wars. And so on and so forth. You get the point. It's a concept that relies on identifying the actions that promote harmony and prosperity across the board and promoting them. That's the rough, general idea anyway. And it doesn't allow for the usual grey areas and justifications of: "Let's commit a bit of 'evil', because it will ultimately serve the 'greater good'.", because the aim is not for the 'final balance' to be 'positive', but rather for every step of the way to be aligned with the 'Order'. That is the ideal one tries to get close to.
And this is where the previously mentioned concept of lawfulness comes into play. In my own framework that I use, it would probably be possible to be entirely ethical without any sense of empathy and purely on the basis of lawfulness. Even from an entirely selfish perspective, if one thinks it through, a benevolent action is ultimately more beneficial in the long-term. Rip your customer off for the extra buck and never see him again, treat him fairly and see him return - that sort of thing. So yeah, I do agree with you. Even in my own framework, being lawful in terms of the Transcendental Law is a perfectly sufficient prerequisite for being completely ethical. Even though you can reach the same conclusions just by being compassionate and intuitive. It's basically intellectual and emotional path to the same destination. Masculine and feminine approach, as one could call it. Anyway, now you know where my preoccupation with 'objective morality' comes from and why I'm (over)zealous about it.
Well, that's about all I can think of right now and certainly way more than you asked for.
All animals (or at least, all "higher" animals) should be given consideration and empathy, in a moral way, regardless of whether they like a specific species (like dogs) more than others.
The detachment is itself cruel, because it means people are apathetic about the suffering of others (animals).
And how is this relevant? I never talked about 'should' in that comment, and I'm not going to indulge someone derailing the objective nature of this line of discussion.
You know that a person who will gingerly carry insects out of their home instead of killing them, and that is kind to every living animal they come in contact with isn't cruel without the introduction of rhetoric.
Love the big "discussion" paragraph you post first then the small one telling us you did not come here to "discuss" using your pseudo-intellectualism, excuses and fallacies.
Why do you keep discussing then if you do not want discussion?
Posting doesn't equal discussing or debating. Towards you, I am simply asserting things, because I don't care enough to put more effort into it. Towards several others, my attitude was the same. To actually have a discussion, I'd have to produce big walls of text like you did and I simply am not up to that with you or most of the other posters. Because I consider it a waste of time, the same reason I didn't even read most of what you posted. Short posts like this one, I don't mind. Other than that... to discuss and to debate is to entertain various ideas in search of resolution. Whether unnecessary killing and abuse is ethical or not is about as settled as whether the Earth is flat or not. Which means that it's not up for debate and I'm just gonna keep repeating it to you.
But the poster above you? AmoreBestia? I wanted to leave it at my usual dismissal, but I've changed my mind about him. I'm gonna make post a proper response to him. Or her. Towards you, my stance hasn't changed.
Uhm, you just again repeated. And I could very well see you as one of those back then that fought tooth and nail that the earth was flat because you got that mentality that once you believe something your mind shuts down to the possibility of there being any other options out there.
Look here's the deal. I find the tone I've used in this thread towards you and others regretful - I don't pride myself on being a cock and it doesn't feel good to me. Nevertheless, I do not regret the essence of what I've said - only some of the forms used. Because the truth of the matter is... you want me to concede a fundamental part of my values, which I simply cannot do. Your views and mine cannot coexist and cannot be reconciled. We are ideological enemies. Not personal enemies, mind you - I've nothing against you as a person. For you, reconciliation may seem easy - an omnivore has no issue with others eating plants. But it doesn't work the same way the other way around. Your actions violate my fundamental values - for you to ask for plurality here is the same, as if someone, who violates your most basic values, demanded plurality of you. It just doesn't work. A compromise is impossible.
My whole family are blatantly hypocritical omnivores, who couldn't kill a cow or a pig themselves if they tried and absolutely love animals, but who won't change their ways. I love them, yes - on the personal level. But our views cannot be reconciled and they are dead wrong to me. In some ways, they disgust me. I wouldn't concede a millimeter of ground to them if we were to talk about these things. It's similar with you. I think I should have been more respectful about saying so, but the truth remains. Which is that there is no point in us having a long conversation. It cannot and will not lead anywhere. I cannot concede, because if I give others the license to do things that I find abhorrent, I might as well do them myself. And you will not convert. Thus, all paths forward are sealed shut. We can tolerate each other, but that's about it.
This is probably the best I can do. Have a good one. Which I do mean, I do not wish an ill fate upon you.
No, I never said you had to concede nor have I ever planned to convert you to my views. I respect your values and your views. The issue arises when you speak in a down grading way to anyone who might not share your views. It is not about who is right or wrong as it is more about respecting those who might see things from a different point of view. If your able to at least acknowledge the fact we are omnivores and what each of us chooses to eat does not make us any less zoophile then truly there is no argument to be had. In your mind your right because you are living by what you believe is true to you. I would never call you wrong for doing so because as I mentioned before, everyone has the right to have a different view of ethics and many have come to those on their own terms, not by someone beating it into them. Simple as that. Just as I have mentioned many times, we as zoophiles are constantly dealing with the outside world questioning our ethics of the animals we love and I just see it wrong for us to be judging each other the same way the outside world is also judging us. Simply put, if you want someone to understand your views you need to also understand theirs, doesn't mean you have to share in them. Just as we do not want the world to be all zoophiles, we just want them to understand our views and love for our animals even if they might not agree with it themselves. These are choices of the individual and for one to call another wrong is indeed the pot calling the kettle black. I am sure what we eat is greatly affected by the animals we find a profound connection with and being each one might have one or many various animals in which they share such a connection so would be their views and choices of diet.
To me you should not judge others less you be judged yourself. All the words you use to describe and attack someone else can easily be reverted back to you. Sometimes it is best said that if you have nothing nice to say then you should not say anything at all. Just as you have mentioned to many as being dead wrong, they to can easily see you as such. What flares things up is the name calling or outright calling someones beliefs wrong rather than just saying simply, “I do not agree with your views but can understand your choice and respect it as such.” It is all fine to come out and say this is what I believe, nothing against those who might not. Sometimes we got to agree to disagree. Does not make either party a bad person. You will end up finding good friends in those who do share the same views and just know the others as acquaintances at best who do not. Kinda like how I always seem to find more in common with fellow equine zoos than canine zoos. I myself can not understand what about canines they like but does not mean I am going to call them wrong for liking them. That is their choice and their decision. Heck there is many zoos of various animals out there which I was surprised to learn of, but hay, to each his own right? This bad habit of humans wanting to attack others rather than try and understand is what has lead to many wars, particularly over something as simple as religious beliefs. Just because two people might not agree does not mean they can not find common ground and just learn that some subjects are best not to be discussed between them!
I would not say our paths are sealed shut, unless you believe so. I myself hold nothing against your views and opinions outside the way you refer to those who do not see things as you do. What caused me to speak out is when you came in and seemed to attacked others for their own choices and beliefs, pretty much saying if you eat meat then your a bad zoophile and have no excuses for it. There are many things I will defend even though I myself do not do them just on the bases of me feeling it is the others right to choose their own path and the way you came off was like some religious zealot who came in here to convert and praise those who had your views and call the rest evil for not seeing the light. Not calling you this but just saying what I took from the way you worded things. One reason I am not at all religious because of one group thinking they are better than everyone else and refusing to see that they themselves are still imperfect humans as well. I researched and studied the bible for a few years trying to find out where or if I belonged to any, eventually this studying lead me to be non religious myself. I often will look at things from all sides, research and read up on things and many times in doing so I find the bad as well as the good. And with a very active mind I can very quickly find loopholes in just about anything to show one is no better than the other. I am very factual in my thinking though very open minded to new thoughts or ideas even if I might not fully share them. I have a bad habit of speaking out for those who are being attacked unjustly just because their views are different but otherwise are good people. I guess if you threw me in a herd situation I would be the horse jumping in to defend the horse being ganged up on because of my strong beliefs that we should all put our differences aside and just get along, perhaps the horse with the stripes lol. My only concerns are outright animal abuse and exploiting animals for sex and porn in which I have no tolerance for and how we hold ourselves as zoophiles in the eyes of the outside world because I highly believe how we act is under constant scrutiny by the “normal” people. I myself do not see humans as anything more than animals and equals on this planet so I see the act of one animal eating another as just the way nature has done for billions of years, nothing more. Heck in nature sometimes an animal eats one of it's own species, nature can be a very confusing and gruesome place indeed but who are we to judge or change it? We all find our own way of living in this crazy world and the only thing I see wrong with humans is this odd way of wanting the world to be as they think it should rather than just live in harmony with it. But so is the ever expanding mind of man.
Again, non of what I just posted here is meant to convert you in any way, but maybe just to open your mind to the way I, myself, think. And yes, it is safe to have an open mind and still hold tight onto your values and ethics.
So likewise, no ill fate upon you either and as Jerry would say, “Touche pussy cat.”
(PS: The quote as from the Tom and Jerry cartoon, sometimes us older ones forget just how old we have gotten. . . .)
Agree with everything you said.