This is been on my mind a lot and its making me and my friends feel anxious non-stop.
For those who might not be aware of this movement, it is about the abolish of companion animals, meat, breeders and animal products in general. They have gained popularity over the years and its getting me and my friends concerned.
I wont judge who they all are, but most of them act much like a cult. They try to act all moral and ignore all facts in favor of what they think is right. They refer to us as rapists and say animals Don't consent, even though they have no evidence to back up their claims.
I have had sexual intercourse with my dog for 3 years now (when she is in season). She is the most happy dog Ive known and loves cuddling and is right with me now beside me giving kisses. I have studied dog social behavior for a long time, and she never shows any signs of stress, depression or anger.
me and my friends are very scared of these people. Even though most people are anti-zoophile, these people want to abolish our pets completely. I would kill myself if that were to happen.
If you guys can clear up my anxiety from these people who seek to take away our right to have animals, then that would be great! Ill tell my friends too about it.
I am a vegetarian (30 years), but I know what you mean. I would call it something like ecocentric regressionism (moving back to a state where the environment is the center of attention). I value the environment, but do try to be realistic about my views. I understand the eating meat has been a thing and many animals have grown to eat meat.
There is or was a problem in the pet community, which could be called the Lassie Effect. Now, there are quite a few people wanting to keep undomesticated animals as pets (foxes, raccoons). (I am one of those who wants a fox.) Granted, it can be done, but it is a lot of work and money. I think most of the efforts from ASPCA and PETA is directed towards stupid people. And I mean stupid people. If you are smart enough, you can keep an intact male or female, but the stereotypical stupid pet owner won't know the first thing to do.
As far as the moralizing goes (e.g. zoos are rapists), I think they are trying to appeal to American emotions. Americans see pets as children. Have you seen all the food choices for pets now? Dogs will happily go through garbage, but, no, owners will say, "I only give him the finest steak dinners."
I wouldn't worry too much. As long as you show your community that you are a responsible pet owner (not having your dog roam), I don't think they will care much.
Remember: If all dogs (cats, etc) were neutered/spayed, they wouldn't exists anymore. You need at least some intact dogs to keep creating puppies. I highly doubt eradicating the world animals is the what PETA or the ASPCA would truly want.
Studied everything you said there. Yes PETA does direct to the most stupid people. All PETA does is post shocking old pictures and videos of animal abuse and spread their vegan propaganda that humans are herbivores. Everyone feels so shocked and think that they have good motives, which they don't. They kill many more animals than they rescue.
However, the last part you said is exactly what vegans want. They seek to bring domestic animals too extinction. I looked at all these vegan websites and /r/vegan and none of them support breeding even if its not for profit.
I am a vegan and I do not want domestic animals to become extinct. Actually, not even one other vegan I know wants that. Maybe you should stop visiting so called "vegan" sites and start living your life regardless of what "the internet" says...
I´d appreciate it if you could just quit the generalisations about vegans. Not everyone abstaining from animal products is PETA or for "animal apartheid"...
I have found many vegans whose stated goal was to eradicate domesticated animals from houses. They are not a concern because they are so few of them, but if they were more than a handful they would be really cumbersome to society and animal lovers at large.
Yeah, there are some nutjobs out there, definitely. But most vegans I know are for peaceful and non exploitative coexistence and not for erecting ghettos. I hate to admit it, but caikgoch has a point in saying that the natural habitat of domestic animals (you know, like in the latin word "domus" which translates to "house") is in company of humans.Gonna have to try that one the next time I run across one of the animal apartheid fanatics. I like this term of animal apartheid because the reasoning behind this perfectly matches that of South African apartheid..."We´re only separating black and white/animals and humans to prevent harm and suffering."
That's not all they do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/pets-shelter-euthanization-rate_n_6612490.html
The source of the criticism of course being Nathan Winograd, one of the three notorious sources something like this comes from. The other two are the center for consumer freedom and since recently Heather Harper-Troje.
Look it up whenever you come from an article like this and you can be 99% sure it will be promoted by one of these three.
The thing is, I find neither of the three very convincing. That's where serious journalists, which huffington post isn't really, would have to investigate. How many of the animals were euthanized because of old age or incurable disease at the request of their owners, how many adoptable animals were redirected to other, real, shelters? Without more information the criticism is quite meaningless.
Why is he notorious?
I didn't look at much in that link apart from the fact that one shelter in Virginia killed 2000/3000 brought into the shelter.
Edit:
Ah I see. I agree it needs deeper review. Although the statistics available paint a bit of a picture to me that isn't the work of a great organization, by their own standards.
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/euthanasia/ if this site is against PETA, everyone is. They don't show statistics (why would they hurt themselves?), but... Ech...
I mean I don't really have an issue with euthanasia, honestly. I was just replying that to the video mentioning their "rescuing animals day and night" when it appears they really just euthanize most of them so IMO it's pretty misleading/doesn't tell the full story.
My opinion on euthanasia is basically, if it's painless and they give a sedative to reduce any stress, the no other animal/person is deeply attached, then I'm not necessarily against it.
You should try becoming vegan. That is you want to reduce animal suffering. Though, I don't know, maybe you own your own cows and chickens and you get milk and eggs in a humane way. If so, kudos for you.
For you obviously mentally challenged person: becoming a vegan does not in the slightest reduce the overall suffering of animals. Stop spreading stupid bullshit that has been debunked a long time ago. If you harvest crops, multiple animals die by being run over by the harvester. Every farmer knows that.
And stop portraying veganism as the diet of the saints, ´cause it isn´t. By abstaining from meat consumption, not one slaughterhouse had to shut down...no, reducing the local meat demand only led to exporting the meat that won´t be eaten by first world inhabitants to the third world, causing the local agriculture in many lands to be eradicated and thus increasing dependence of the third world countries to the first world. Look at Northern Africa, where the agriculture of entire countries broke down because of that. As a vegan, you´re also causing suffering...it´s just a different kind of sufferance. And being a vegan won´t make up for what you do, Aluzky, for your obvious attitude of animals being YOUR sex toys you can fuck behind their owners´backs. You may be vegan, but you´re still an ugly specimen of bestiality.
I'm not even going to even read your comment because your first line is not only an insult to me but also disrespectful to the mentally changed community. Is not the first time you are disrespectful to me and other nor it seems it will be the last... until you get banned.
Oh, is it winter already? I thought I saw a snowflake...
Funny how you place more emphasis on words I type instead of looking into your portfolio of advanced stupidity. Disrespectful to you? That´s a remarkably audacious claim for someone who has filmed and uploaded vids of himself rolling around in dogshit...To be disrespected, you first have to have respect for yourself...what obviously is missing in you entirely. Please don´t embarrass yourself even more than with your vids and bold claims and don´t play that stupid SJW card of "oohh , he mentioned the mentally challenged"....should I ask some of the mentally challenged what they think of you, Aluzky, the well known dogfucker and Mr Rolls-around-in-animal-feces? I bet most of the mentally challenged would agree on my "insult".
[removed]
Nice burn 😈
Because most of us are sick and tired of you.
Not my problem and that is not a valid excuse to break forum rules.
[removed]
You're one to talk. Didn't you mouth off to one of the mods?
If I did, why I never got a warning or a ban? And using "mouth off" is not a rule violation.
Mouth off definition: talk in an unpleasantly loud and boastful or opinionated way.
You can be "mouth off" without being disrespectful or without using personal attack's.
You've gotten close. Considering the fact that your very presence causes threads to burst into flames, we've certainly considered it.
Same can be said about everyone who has not crossed the line. You either cross it or don't.
I'm pretty sure that the people who reply to me with insults and false accusation are the ones responsible for the treats "bursting into flames" so, you are blaming the victim (me) as I remain polite and mature 99.9% of the time. You can't blame me for the other people immaturity and impoliteness.
I hope you are doing your job of warning them or banning them for acting like that. Instead of blaming me for their rule breaking behaviors.
If you remove someone from the conversation and suddenly it becomes more peaceful, that means they're likely to be part of the cause of the conflict.
I agree. And who started the conflict back then? Answer: NOT ME. Back then, I could not make a single on topic peaceful comment on any thread without them making off topic comments just to insult me and throw false accusations about me. They where the ones instigating conflict, not me.
They are not off topic. People wants to show analogies, show how the same mechanisms works in different situations to highlight an issues. You often treat those analogies like completely separate comments and this is when it starts to be offtopic.
They where of topic. To the point where the treads got locked because of all the drama that I didn't started.
It doesn't necessarily matter who starts what sometimes. If one man is destroying the world because of how other people react, it's easier and safer to remove the one than everyone else.
Consider, too, that exile may be a mercy for a person of that sort.
I disagree.
Let me ask you: If homophobes act violent and cause problems because homosexuals exist, and if it where easier and safer to just murder all homosexuals as to appease the homophobes? Would you do it?
Again, you are blaming the victim. Doesn't matter if removing me is the easier or safer option. You are removing the victim and rewarding the bullies. And you know it. And some one who does that is not a good person (I assume you are a good person as I'm still here and the people who has harassed me are getting chastised for their misbehavior)
Mercy for who?
You are not a population that comprises 4% of the human population. You are an individual. I specifically stated one man for a reason. I would remove the one man if things reached a breaking point without hesitation, because maintaining the health of the community is my prime objective. Not only do you attract the ire of people within this community, but your presence nearly doubles our workload because of the attention you bring to /r/zoophilia; Every moment that we delay in getting those problem posts addressed decreases the quality of everyone's experience. In cases like this, the existing structures of enforcement are untenable and only cause more harm when followed to a T.
Consider how witness protection programs function. It's easier and ultimately more effective to isolate the ones in danger than it is to detain each individual that may threaten their safety or the integrity of the communities surrounding them. These people being protected are effectively the ones being detained despite being, ostensibly, the innocents... because it works. They aren't necessarily at fault, either.
As a moderator, I'm not here to be good, nor even always just. I'm here to be effective.
Literally just look up in the comment.
Then why was I never at the verge of being banned, then?
What drama you attract is manageable and what drama you cause is not excessive. You don't cause any problems 90% of the time anyway. Aluzky consistently provokes flaming.
Not wanting to defend the thing, but rather reason.
So, from what I've seen others constantly seem to target him out of the blue. Can't exactly call it fair...
And manageable? The others don't seem to agree.
Oh look at Mr. Luxury, I mean 30-30 whoops haha, who has proven this by accusing me of getting a lot of drama here.
Regardless of how many people agree and what 30-30 thinks, I'm a moderator and know how much it adds to my workload. You make worlds less work for us than Aluzky does.
And 30-30.
I don't know how that makes any sense, because I attracted a whole lot of humans a few weeks ago. You had to ban a lot of them.
But okay.
Aluzky was part of that too.
Oh I don't even remember that one bit. Must be the brain and memory damage, haha.
Correct. Zoosexuals are more than 4% of the human population.
Today is me, tomorrow is some one else. That happens when you don't draw a line and ban people on a whim without following guidelines.
Again, blaming the victim instead of the bullies. Your job is to remove the bullies, not the victim.
Only form like 6 people. And if the mod do a good job at regulating them, then they would stop their rule braking behaviors. And problem solved.
Is that a bad thing? More people coming here = more chances to educate them. And if they only goal is to insult, do you job and ban them.
Work harder or hire more moderators.
But I'm not in danger. And you can easily "detain each individual" with a click. So, your analogy does not apply.
Read above, your analogy is fallacious.
Well, you are admixing to be ineffective to the point where you want to ban victims along with the bullies. If you alone can't handle the job, then hire more moderators and problem solved.
The health of the community is contingent on needing less enforcement
It's easier and ultimately more effective to isolate the ones in danger than it is to detain each individual that may threaten their safety or the integrity of the communities surrounding them.
It's also once in a blue moon that someone like you appears. You're a very big, very rare, very damaging exception, whether you think you are or not.
Most of the people's upset with you aren't bullies and won't be banned any time soon. You bring out the worst in people, and removing everyone that has disdain for you would mean silencing a third of the community.
You make "educating" that much harder. You end up cultivating hatred in them. First impressions are everything, and you're a terrible first impression.
I really hope you don't think arguing with a moderator helps your case.
how so?
I will say it again, your analogy does not work, you can ban anyone in here with a click if they break the rules.
I'm very damaging to bigots.
So, who is upset with me who is not an actual bully? NAME ONE.
I bring their true colors. And if a 3rd of the community breaks the rules, you should punish them or warn them so they behave properly.
How so?
How I'm a terrible first impression?
And my case is what? And, You are the one arguing with me, I'm just replying to your comments that you made directed at me. If you don't talk to me, I won't talk to you. You are free to stop arguing with me at any time.
Our rules reflect what a perfectly healthy community avoids organically.
That harms the integrity of the community. This isn't black and white, which is what you don't seem to grasp.
You are not. You encourage them.
The entire mod team, rannoch, onzaz, caikgoch, yearningmice, kynophile, silverwolf, and those are off the top of my head.
The true colors of people are not sanguine hues
That damages the health of the community significantly, is what you fail to understand. You're more a provocateur than a victim.
Making them upset makes them into opponents. There is empirical evidence that it's harder to convince them that way. You need a gentle introduction... And you're about as gentle as a baseball bat, honestly.
You embody the concerns that people have about zoophiles. Whether you agree or not, people are concerned that zoos want to have sex with their pets the same way people are concerned pedophiles want to have sex with their kids. You're sexually liberal to a fault and when you already have a difficult to swallow sexuality, you're making a recipe for disaster.
I'm afraid you misunderstand the situation here. I have a personal obligation to answer replies concerning rules and enforcement as a moderator. You on the other hand are free to stop.
I don't think that's how things work on Reddit.
You were warned.
You can't. Sure the people you seem to enjoy picking a fight with may not be civil towards you(not that I blame them) but your not saint either. You told Sith that you hoped his friends children died but that's primarily because you hate people and because the children couldn't go vegan.
I have never been warned for breaking any rules.
Subjective opinion.
I do blame them, they are immature and irrational.
Citation needed that I ever said that.
You were warned because of you constantly cause drama. Yet you place all the blame on others like an immature brat.
Only according to you.
More immaturity from you Aluzky. Everyone is irrational yet you're the one who is supposedly free from such things.
/u/AlphaOmegaSith did Aluzky at any point say that he hoped your friend's children died due to not being able to go vegan?
Oh yeah. /u/Aluzky actually said this.
Of course he did.
And as always he goes right to denial.
I never said that I hoped your friend's children died due to not being able to go vegan. You clearly, don't remember what I said, either on purpose or because of your bad memory. if I really say that, why don't you link the comment in here? Why didn't I got banned for wishing death to others (which would be hate speech) why don' you find that comment and report me if you trull believe I said that? Your one and only chance to get me banned, don't waste time. or maybe, I never said that and you know it.
Because I never said that. I have no problems with admitting to stuff that i have actually said.
/u/peacheslala97
I never said that.
You linked me to some site where you posted the first few replies I ever made to you. In which you asked why I couldn't go vegan, then you proceeded to trot out every strawman imaginable when you couldn't prove I was lying about it, then you asked about family and friends and I have a similar answer to varying degrees about their reasons for not being vegan and after that you said you hoped my friend's son and daughter would die for eating meat. So you can deny and lie all you want Aluzky.
What are you talking about?
I did asked that.
Got proof that I have ever used straw man fallacies?
Is not my jot to prove that you are not lying, is your job to prove that your claim is true. You never provided any scientific evidence that you have some medical issue that stops you from having a vegan diet.
AKA: You claim that they can't eat a vegan diet because they can't. Circular logic at his finest.
Feel free to quote that text and prove that I said that.
Sorry, but it is you who is making false accusation and lying. The accuser side is the one that needs to provide evidence for their accusations. Innocent till proven guilty and you have not show any evidence that I have said the things that you claim that I have said.
I find it amazing that you're still lying about this. I mean I guess you would because you're a coward. I mean what kind of pitiful creature wishes death upon kids?
You have not provided evidence that I'm telling a lie. You have not provided evidence that your claim is fact.
Not a crime to be a coward and me being one is not related to your claims or my claims.
Answer: not me.
Go through your comments. Dating back to the first time I called you a dog rapist. It was sometime last year right?
Oh but it is indeed related. Keep dancing little monkey.
Not my job to prove your claims. You got no evidence to support your accusations and you know it.
PROVE IT.
I'm a human. Sigh.
So why so concerned all of a sudden?
Oh I thought you were a parasite /s.
Got proof that I'm concerned? Concerned about what?
You just went back and deleted your comments. I went back through your history(should've gone back 10 months like I did last month) yet curiously your activity before then has been deleted.
Something you didn't want me to see?
Sorry Mr.paranoid, but I don't delete anything. If comments have been deleted, then a reddit admin did it in my place, or some error on the reddit servers happened.
Oh how suddenly convenient /s.
Super convenient that every accusation that you and your irrational friends make about me can't be supported with any actual evidence. Now you are accusing me of deleting comments and again, you can't prove anything.
Yet... I'm the compulsive liar? What a joke you are.
Uh-huh sure. I'm wondering if I should take screenshots of your comment history just in case your other comments "suddenly" go missing.
Feel free to do it. Though, like I said, I delete nothing, if comments go missing, some one else delete them.
Bullshit
Call it bullshit all you like, everything I say is bullshit according to you and your other irrational "friends."
Where is your proof that I'm irrational exactly? Come now provide the proof Aluzky. You made th claim now prove it.
You thinking that I called you irrational when I didn't do it is proof that you are also irrational. Did I called you irrational? NOPE. I only called your friends irrational.
Also, you calling my statement bullshit is irrational as you have no evidence to think that it is bullshit.
No I'm referring to the last time you called me irrational.
Yet now the comments you made were gone because you deleted them.
I delete nothing. If comments are gone, some one else delete them or they never existed.
Liar
29/9/2017 I Just deleted a thread. First time ever deleting something on reddit.
Baseless accusation unless you can provide evidence. You can call me a liar, a robot, a chicken all you like, that won't make it true, no matter how many times you say it.
Sure that's the first time. It's ok I believe you -__-
I have not been warned and I was not the one causing drama. Other people where the ones posting offensive comments and off topic comments. They where the ones creating drama.
Correct. And unless you can prove it, your claims will be just subjective opinions. Not facts.
How I'm being immature?
Not everyone, some people is very rational.
Because of my high intelligence, I'm VERY RALLY irrational. i have never said that I'm immune to be irrational.
How many lies are you going to tell in order to hide this fact?
Loaded question fallacy. Who says that i have said any lies at all? Where is the proof that I have lied?
you're a mentally challenged person?
or, you feel your mental challenge is obvious?
What?
i'm sorry, i don't know how to make this simpler for you. maybe your caretaker can rephrase it using words you're more familiar with.
Maybe if you write using basic english grammar I would have no problems understanding your comments.
okay, /u/Aluzky, i'll try harder in the future to rise to the strict quality standards of a dog fucker.
I can't criticize that logic at all; evidence suggests you are 100% accurate there. (Edit See Aluzky's post history as reference)
It does though, reduce that count by at least 1. Not every vegan believes in such pie-in-the-sky fairy tales that they're not responsible for any suffering.
How is a vegan responsible for the export of meat? By that logic, you are responsible for terrorism, if you don't buy up all the guns, ammo, bomb materials, and religious books created in the first world countries, they will get exported. That responsibility lies entirely on those who are creating such materials, meat or guns, and not on those who are not consuming them. If there were no profitable market for them, be it guns or meat, both would cease to exist as an incentive for those in the first world to produce such goods. Fault the manufacturer.
Guns and bombs have no feelings, animals have. That breaks your comparison.
Weapons are a product that is distributed an used. If the manufacturer sells them to the government, the government distributes them to the police, and some gun ends up in the hand of some evil police protection racket, the ultimate responsibility of what is done with that gun belongs to the corrupt police forces. Same idea applies to office supplies that are used for evil - the supplier can only be held responsible if he knew where the wares were going to end up. I think it is important to point this up, because I see lots of campaigns booting up lately trying to blame suppliers of stuff for what their customers do.
On the other hand, if we assume that slaughtering and processing animals for food is inherently evil, then the industrialists involved are automatically performing evil deeds, not because they are selling to bad people, but because they are involved in evil activities. In other words, they are evil regardless of the actions of their customers.
I said nothing about animals, the discussion was about meat, which last I checked had no known capacity for feelings. They are both marketable goods, which was my point.
Meat unfortunately won't cease to exist. There will always be meat eaters either human or animal. That's harsh reality of life.
Yes but /u/Aluzky doesn't care about human suffering.
From an subjective emotional or moral point of view, I don't give a fuck. From an legal and objective point of view, I do give a fuck.
Objectively speaking, I'm against human suffering for personal convenience, if human suffering becomes legal or acceptable, it means that I can become a victim of some one that is looking to cause human suffering on me and there would be nothing i could do to stop or punish that person. Thus, I support laws that punish people who abuse humans, because those laws will protect me from human abusers.
Yeah we know. If you had your way you'd probably kill humans with no remorse.
What's the catch?
Spoken like a true sociopath.
But not out of a true sense of empathy. The only reason you empathize with dogs is because they're your preferred fuck toys unless you find a gay man that's desperate enough to find you appealing. I wouldn't be surprised if you've killed a person just for the sake of killing a person. You certainly seem the type.
Yea, I would do that to some specific humans.
There is no catch.
Sociopath definition: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
I don't have antisocial attitudes nor behaviors and I do have a conscience. If I didn't had one, I would go around raping dogs, eating meat, killing people, stealing and so on.
I'm speaking rationally and with objectivity which is different from speaking like a sociopath.
I don't feel empathy for humans just like you don't feel empathy for the animals that you eat. In case you are a vegan: I don't feel apathy for humans just like you don't feel empathy for a mosquito that is sucking your arm blood.
I have empathized with dogs even before I enter puberty, back then I had no sexual interpretation. I was a child. I empathize with dogs because they are innocent, they don't do evil deeds, they don't lie, murder, back stab, steal, torture and so on. They have all the good qualities of a human and none of the bad ones. Is hard to not empathize with dogs when humans are so despicable.
I would not kill a human just for those reasons.
Now I'm wondering if you kill snakes at your job if they are hurt just because they're predators.
You are free to have deluded though.
Wouldn't shock me if you did
Like I said: You are free to have deluded though.
You're the deluded one
Feel free to prove it with evidence. Else, your belief is only true in your imagination.
Believing in conspiracy theories, being so stupid and hateful of carnivorous animals that you would rather see them killed than properly cared for or nursed back to health(such a great vegan you are), complaining about people who don't have sex with animals and being so irresponsible and completely irrational than you went to an extremely hostile sub-Reddit to argue in favor of Pedophile Rights and your right to sexually use any dog that you happen to see despite already having a dog.
So much straw man. Just debate about each other points even if you get insulted (and insults are not points that need to be debated)
Yours truly, a pretentious rando
Sorry who are you exactly?
[removed]
Debunked? Yeah, obviously nobody can be perfect, but when we choose to feed on the crops instead of feeding the crops to animals before feeding on the animals significantly less death and suffering happens.
Quite doubt that the tens of millions of people choosing to be vegan don't actually matter when it comes to the whole supply and demand thing. Just like I doubt that if everyone capable of going vegan would do that, that the overall well-being of human animals wouldn't be higher considering all the excessive harms animal agriculture is causing. With the environment problems for the people relying on it, further socioeconomic problems as a result, public health risks, dangerous factory farm jobs, wasting our resources...
Sorry, but narrominded perception of reality and theoretical masturbation. In the 80s, I became a vegetarian. The number of veggies was somewhere around 0,1 - 0,2 % of Germany´s populace. I became a vegan in the 90s and vegetarianism became "hip" , "in"...the numbers of people abstaining from meat and other animal products rose...but so did meat consumption, slaughterhouses and large meat farms. To be precise: NOT ONE animal less has died although there are roughly around 10 % of Germans who abstain from meat and/or other animal products. The rates of killed animals rose! So, would you please explain to me how this connects to your bold claim? Or could it be that you are just viewing the world through an infantile, simpleton mindset, pretty much comparable to those potheads who claim that "globally legalising hemp instantly would bring us world peace". Fact is, your and my veganism hasn´t made any change, meat still is produced and sold at such cheap prices, it really doesn´t matter if supermarkets have to throw half of their meat in the trash bin every day. The profit is still being made, the animals still slaughtered.
Although I do agree on better usage of resources as a means to fight world hunger and uneven distribution of food, I don´t see it as the lapis philosophorum to forcibly turn the whole world into vegans.
Plant agriculture also isn´t the solution. Entire landscapes turned into monocultures, vast usage of GMOs and chemicals poison our global environment...fact is, there are way too many humans living on this planet. We already would need 4 earths to sustain us and to distribute even what we harvest in total would also use vast amounts of resources for transportation. It isn´t so friggin´ easy as you like to portray it. There´s no single action like quitting meat to solve all the problems. The world isn´t linear, it´s connected, intertwined. The militant vegans wouldn´t be the first ones to offer a simple solution for difficult problems and miserably fail once their "vision" is actually applied to the world.
As a longtime vegan who probably hasn´t eaten meat and animal products for longer than most of you are alive, as a vegan who also believed in this simpleton bullcrap agenda and threw stones at some local butchershops´ windows in his youth, I have to say that none of our actions, none of our smug self perceived moral superiority has decreased any animal suffering.
Today, I would be totally fine if meat would just return to its former status of a luxury product the average consumer can only afford once a week. As a longtime vegan, I have understood that I´m not a saint for abstaining from meat consumption, I too cause environmental problems. The soy and other crops that are grown to feed "meat animals" surely cause huge problems, but these problems won´t go away as they still have to be grown in such masses even if the whole world turns vegans tomoorow morning. Pesticides are still used, killing entire populations of bees, monoculture landscapes will still be what they are, the destruction of natural habitats for vast species of animals. It isn´t so simple.
Trying to make 30-30 see reason and logic, good luck, you will need it.
At least /u/30-30 isn't annoying and actually exercises common sense. More than can be said about you.
Now don't you have antis to harass and animals to advocate killing?
[removed]
Even if they did gain momentum, they would need to get enough support for congress to ban pet ownership. It simply isn't likely and the most restrictive legislature you're likely to see is mandatory vet visits as far as I'm concerned.
Honestly I'd be in favor of mandatory vet visits, especially if it went along with universal pet health care.
That said, we're a long, long ways away from either of those things.
I am strongly against that sort of thing. It gets cumbersome very fast.
A big problem with mandatory things is that they easily turn into government monopolies. "You cannot have a pet unless you get a yearly permission from somebody who paid me in order to extort money out of your pocket... if you refuse we take your pet away"
Interestingly enough, this sort of thing is what is making me harder to get vaccines and other supplies. They make them mandatory, then the vets of pharma stores are required a license in order to sell the supplies, then a pet owner needs the supplies and can only get them through this Mafia.
That's why I said "especially if it went along with universal pet health care". The issues of extortion and paying out of pocket become complete non-issues, since vet care would require no money to change hands, and would be paid for through taxes (like other universal health care systems).
I'm not suggesting a health care mandate (I.E., similar to what the ACA uses) which is susceptible to those issues.
Actually, universal pet health care is the ultimate extortion monopoly in the field :-) Tax funded services are just services you are extorted into purchasing regardless of your intention to use them. The extortion is not over because regulators are the ones performing it. With universal vet care, you are forced into getting the supplies from a firm called "Government", which happens to be the firm that sets the prices and conditions (gasp!). Without universal vet care, you are forced into getting the supplies from people who was extorted into getting the required permits.
Most importantly, under none of those models you can walk into the store and get a box of vaccines or dewormers without filling 5 forms, being placed on a queue, and paying premium for the privilege of complying with the terms of the Mafia. And that is my main problem. They are making it harder to get the services you want and expensive to get the services they force you to buy.
It can be argued that you can make things mandatory without turning them into these sort of messes. However, when you make a complex thing mandatory, it is usually required to comply with a set of standards. Otherwise there is no point in making it mandatory. The person setting those standards has no reason not to abuse those standards for his own benefit.
i think your talking about a small subsect of vegans, the abolitionists. most other vegans (including me) love pets and although we do advocate for better breeding/stricter pet laws in some areas, we dont want to outright ban them. The main goal of moral veganism is to reduce animal suffering, not to keep animals and humans separate
that being said, the vegan movement as a whole has very little influence at the moment. even if we wanted to abolish pets, we couldnt, and probably will never be able to.
Would you be in favor of banning snakes as pets? People feed them live mice, chicks, kittens, puppies and so on. Having such pets is pretty much supporting the unnecessary murder of other animals. Snakes are not domestic animals, why keep them as pets at the cost of the death of other animals?
How about birds as pets? They end up in a tiny jail for life.
I can see some valid arguments to ban some animals as pets. Else, you could even have a polar bear as a pet in your backyard.
the really simple answer is yes. the REAL answer is that its complicated and we need to pick our battles. i think live feeding should be banned, and if that ban makes owning a few animals impossible, then so be it. At least it will do away with most of the killing fetishests. pets are a luxury, and other animals (which could easily be pets to other people) shouldnt have to suffer to support that luxury.
Not always, and birds seem to do great without complete freedom.
Cool. That we agree.
Sorry for being vague, yea, I suppose some birds would works as pets. I'm not a bird expert, but some are clearly not happy with being jailed 24/7. I say this from canaries I have see in legal conditions that are still deplorable in my opinion.
people tend to be really broad with any animal group aside from mammals. Birds are incredibly diverse and theres not much you can generalize with them. some might like captivity and easy living more than being free
It won't be long until carnivore animals can be fed with lab grown meat anyway.
Analogy: Would it be OK to let people rape children because it won't be long till realistic child robots will be invented?
Lab meat doesn't exist yet (at least not on a production scale that makes it relevant) So, why say that? Are you defending the act of feeding live animals to pets?
The production cost is already down to like 3 times the conventional meat price. Take away all subsidies from the meat industry and put it into lab grown meat, make the meat producers pay for all the environmental cost and you have yourself a competitive product that can start mass producing.
The real problem right now is that they need to replace the nutritional base they grow it on.
It is still inefficient, more efficient to just eat plants or bugs.
Would you like to back up that claim with evidence and reasoning or are you the type to just throw out your baseless opinion as fact?
I know the answer, so not sure why I asked.
I do, but many others do not.
And we are still not entirely sure whether plant based vegan cat food can be really ideal or remains just "good enough". Lab grown meat could be a good basis for that and for food for all carnivore animals we have to feed.
With your logic carnivores should extinct. If yes, then my answer is of course not, they shouldn't be banned. If no, then explain it to me.
I don't see how that would be my logic. Those wild animals can still eat meat in the WILD without human intervention. The problem is when humans are involved in killing extra animals to feed wild animals that they took as pets. Human involvement is the problem.
You can't be in favor of humans not killing animals yet be in favor of humans killing animals to feed pets. Makes no sense. Double standard.
It's not a double standard. Humans can survive without meat, many pets are primarily carnivores and will be in poor health if they don't consume flesh
Not that Aluzky cares.
I do care, that is why such animals should be illegal to be keep as pets.
Or killed because you disagree with having carnivorous companions.
And as LadySaberCat said you also want them to be killed.
That's exactly why his logic leads to mass extermination as soon as we would be able to keep environment working after this catastrophe. Carnivores eat animals ^ eating animals is bad ^ carnivores can not survive without eating animals => lack of carnivores is good. This scenario is terrible, but please, stay rational. The only way I can see to refute this conclusion is by rejecting "eating animals is bad". We cannot argue that unnecessary killing every carnivore is bad if we don't reject this sentence, because in thousands of years it will be meaningless, it would save much more lives. So what in my opinion is bad about eating animals is keeping them in poor conditions. This claim makes previous conclusion rubbish, because there is just a better option.
Aluzky will of course argue with me that we cannot be involved in changing nature etc, but... really? Why? We can improve it, why shouldn't we? I don't get it.
I have a better one.
"Moral standards must be maintained as long as you can sustain self-defense".
Explanation: Life sucks and you cannot sustain your existence while being perfectly moral. For example, if killing animals was universally bad, you could not treat yourself or your loved ones against parasites that are animal in nature. If harming humans was universally bad, you could not defend yourself against some ruthless satanist who wants so sacrifice you in the altar of the Prince of Darkness. The solution is to invoke an exception: killing animals or harming humans is bad but it is permissible to do so in order to sustain your own existence or the existence of your beloved ones.
That is what happens with carnivore pets. Eating animals sucks, but they they do it to sustain existence.
But there is an issue: We are not them. We don't have to defend ourselves in this situation, so a whole thing comes back to moral standards.
You will notice that I have included "your own existence or the existence of your beloved ones". This little clause is there because clan or family defense is acceptable. And pets are part of the family, aren't they?
...They are, sorry, I somehow skipped it, argument valid.
I don't want animals in the wild to be exterminated, that is not my logic. That is your irrational logic.
Tell me of a single case where humans involved in nature had positive effects in nature.
The most humans can do is fix the shit that they broke in nature in the first place.
It is, because the person would be against needlessly killing animals and yet supporting the needles killing of animals.
Which is why pets that can't live on a vegan diet should not be allowed to have as pets. If a person is against animal murder and yet he has a wolf as a pet, it is clear that the person has a double standard.
How killing in wild is better than killing in some facility? Ok, living conditions of animals kept for food are mostly worse than natural, but not everywhere. Let's stick to your snakes, it's even easier to make sure mices for them had a good life because keeping them is cheap. You can breed them yourself. I don't see any problem if someone have a carnivore pet and cares about "food's" life quality. Especially when it is considered to improve meat's quality as well. So you take care both of prey and predator, for me it's clearly better than in wild. What we should do is improving living standards, not banning carnivores.
Well... Thank you. I have never thought about this problem before.
If the killing is done by humans, none is better.
Irrelevant because animals still get murdered without their consent. Analogy: Hey, if I keep humans in nice conditions and then murder them humanly to feed them to my tiger, would that be OK?
Again, the human would be responsible for the unnecessary death of those mice. If people keep snakes as pet, the snake population increases and the demand for food for them increases and the unnecessary killing of more animals increases.
Analogy time: I can breed humans myself, I don't see any problem if someone have a carnivore pet and cares about their "human" life quality before feeding humans to them.
No matter how much you improve their living standards, you still have to murder animals to feed those pets. AKA, unnecessary murder just for the luxury of owning a pet snake.
To me, it is no different if some one feed mice or humans to a snake. Unnecessary murder is murder.
Mice have different needs and are happy in different conditions. 8 mice can live in a 15*15 inch cage for their whole life and be perfectly happy. 8 humans can't live in a single room and be happy.
If you could raise a human in perfect conditions, them being none-the-wiser to their impending death the entire time, they didn't have any bonds with other people who'd be effected when they died, then no. Raising and killing humans wouldn't really be wrong. There is a lot of "ifs," which would be pretty damn hard to achieve when raising a human. Not so much when raising mice.
My above comment applies to this as well. if you could give a human an excellent life, if you could remove their death's impact on others. Then it wouldn't necessarily be wrong to kill them painlessly, and without their knowledge that it was going to happen.
You can satisfy the needs and desires of mice and give them a pleasant existence way easier than you can satisfy the needs of humans.
It isn't ultimately unnecessary if they're killing the mice to feed their snake.
Again... IRRELEVANT. As long as they are being murdered against their will, it doesn't matter how happily they lived.
So, I could find a homeless person and blow up his head with a shotgun and you would be Ok with that because nobody had any bonds with him? Congratulations, you just supported the humane murder of homeless people without relatives.
It is as wrong as raising and murder any animals for an unnecessary goal.
Again. As long as they are being murdered against their will, it doesn't matter how happily they lived. Murder is murder.
Indirectly, you keep supporting the needles murder of homeless people who have no relatives. Or straight abandoned dogs. Or orphans from war. And so on. Sorry, but your logical reasoning doesn't work, it leads to violation of human and animal rights.
They have no need to own snakes as pets, so the murder of mice is in the end unnecessary.
Why does it matter that they're killed against their will? Given the criteria of their treatment until death. They won't experience any suffering in death. They're just ... dead. No enjoyment or misery, happiness or sadness. Just nothing. Neutral, if you will. As you've claimed in previous posts "neutrality isn't bad" and I think it applies to this even more. True neutrality. Not just perceived (by a third party) neutrality.
Well. The fact that they're homeless shows a degree of misery in their lives, so if you raised them like that, then it would be wrong. If the death was painless and they didn't perceive that it was going to happen (i.e you did it in their sleep) then I see no issue in the simple death of them.
Define "unnecessary." I can say that your home, clothing, shoes, your plentiful food, clean water, whatever is unnecessary because you don't need all these things to survive. But life is about more than survival, isn't it? [And even more, the way these resources came about almost certainly induces suffering to wildlife, the environment, and other humans]
What is murder to you? Why is murder wrong? When you get down to it, my question is, what makes death wrong?
Uh, no I don't keep "supporting" that. That's your bastardized interpretation of what I'm saying. Orphans, homeless people and people with no relatives aren't mice. You aren't raising them; breeding them, and you aren't fulfilling any of the criteria I pointed out in my original comment.
Again, how did you determine their "need?"
Fun add on: Why are carnivores allowed to kill in the wild? Why isn't that wrong? What separates us, from them? Why can't a human go out and hunt a deer or rabbit, or whatever? Why can't a human raise a mammal, completely humanely (a better situation than they'd have in the wild, certainly) and then kill it for food?
Do you care if humans are murdered against their will? Most people do care. Same way there is people that care when animals are murdered against their will. We care because murder is wrong, murder is harmful to the human psyche, murder begets murder and causes chaos in society.
I don't know about you, but most humans won't like to be murdered even if the death was painless and quick. Same goes for animals. They don't want to get murdered just to satisfy a human luxury.
You would still end up in jail for murder. Even if you see nothing wrong with murder. And a lot of people would dislike your actions.
Grab a dictionary and read the word definition. Use that definition.
Try living in Antarctica without clothing. Or in a desert without clean water. Depending of location or situation, all those are necessary.
You tell me.
Not wrong if those resources are obtained for NECESSARY REASONS. Plenty wrong if those resources are obtained for unnecessary reasons.
Nothing wrong with death, plenty wrong with murder. Murder to me is the broad dictionary definition of murder (made broad to include non-human animals as victims of murder by human hands) Murder is wrong because life has value to those that posses it. I assume you consider your life valuable, which is why you have yet to kill yourself. Which is why you avoid dying. As such, humans see the unnecessary taking of some one else life as something wrong. Because you are taking that being life away. Also, how long before that murderer moves to other targets? How long before that target is yourself? This is why we make murder illegal, to be able to punish murder, so less people do murder, so we all have a better chance of not being a victim of murder.
I could easily have a human slave farm in some remote corner of the world where nobody would find out and feed humans to my pet tiger. And while humans are not mice, HUMANS AND MICE ARE BOTH LIVING BEINGS. Murder is murder regardless of who gets murdered.
No human has a necessary need to own pet snakes.
They don't have mesn rea.
We have mens rea.
Same reason you shouldn't do that with humans.
The reason I consider murder to be wrong isn't because they didn't "consent to be murdered" lol
I've already said this I believe. If a human is murdered, there is usually impact on society as a whole beyond the potential impact in the moments before death that the murdered perceived. If you breed mice humanely, and then euthanize them it's not the same as just going out and killing a human
Then that's a reason not to kill other members of your own species. But I am entirely unaware of any evidence that euthanizing a mouse to feed another pet, after raising it in the best of conditions causes "chaos" or is "harmful to the human psyche."
You aren't grasping the concept man
You're just appealing to authority. Taking a card from your hand: 'So by your logic you're saying that because something is legal, it's moral? So if I make murder legal it's moral? And vice versa' 'If I make sneezing illegal it's immoral?!'
Unnecessary for WHAT? Survival? Reasonable quality of life? You fail to grasp my question, dude...
You missed my point again. But anyway. You don't live in Antarctica, or the desert. Why do you have clothes? Why does anyone wear clothes when they're not necessary for survival and the production of them brings suffering? Why do you live in a home that dozens could take shelter in when you could survive in something a tenth of the size? Especially considering the vast impact that just the land a home takes up has.
You tell me.
DEFINE 'unnecessary reasons' lol
Life has 'value' which ends with death, as does any other perception. Being dead is the same as not being born. It's nothing. It's Neutrality. I haven't killed myself as I'm not miserable. Suicide would probably not be comfortable. I avoid dying because the moments before death would be miserable. Being euthanized in my sleep by someone else, I wouldn't even be aware of it at any point and no suffering would be brought upon me.
That's a silly slippery slope fallacy. We're talking breeding mice to feed a snake
You're twisting my words even more here. I never advocated slavery. I argued you were likely incapable of breeding humans in a way that met the criteria. With mice, you can meet the criteria...
Your assumption is that euthanizing a mouse after providing it will all it's necessity for an enjoyed experience is the same as going out and "blowing off a homeless person's head." So I take it you do everything you can not to kill parasites in your body? Bacteria? All living. lol
I take it you mean sentient. Their sentience ends when their death begins. Death is not perceived. It's nothing. It seems like, again, you're saying that if x breeds mice humanely and euthanizes them to feed to a snake it's a slippery slope and will develop over time into them being a serial killer killing humans willy-nilly lol
No human has a "necessary need" to post on reddit utilizing the Internet, using power from coal burning power plants, in their home and on a device using minerals mined with actual slave labor all of which contributes to environmental havoc and suffering.
Uh...so you're saying that it's a crime because they know it's a crime? I wouldn't feel particularly guilty breeding mice and giving them a good, enjoyed life and then painlessly killing them. It mustn't be wrong, then.
So a wild, lone deer has a social network of close friends who will be impacted by their death?
If this is just killing, then yes, I do care. But if it's needed to do something, feeding your pet for example (which is not excuse, it only makes us wanting to fulfill second condition) and you significantly improve the life of killed animal as a reward then it is not bad. Because otherwise you wouldn't want to improve it's life that much and your pet would die, or other sometimes even wild animal (I'm sure you have heard about rescuing some carnivores, they needed food for some time). So both sides gains something.
Hey, hey, hey, it means that we shouldn't punish them for this. Not that we shouldn't prevent hunting. Meteorites also don't have mesn rea, but it doesn't mean we should sit down and do nothing when one of them is on collision trajectory with Earth, so find better explanation please.
Man, if someone gave me a choice to have a life without any fear, in conditions better than I would ever be able to achieve, but in the average death age I would be shot in head and became a food to your tiger, then fine. I agree. But notice one thing: a human being can provide way better conditions himself than any other animal. That's why it's that hard to make it moral.
Those animals and humans will all agree that being murdered is SUPER BAD, regardless of how much you improve their time when living. You are not letting them die of old age, you are killing them before for a selfish reason (just to feed a pet that you don't need to have)
Correct. That is why they can murder aether animals l all they want without being punished or stopped by humans. They are free to do as they want without our involvement.
Are you saying that we should stop all animals from hunting other animals in the wild?
I think you mean to say meteor. Anyways, that is an inanimate objects, they don't even have the capacity to have mens rea, they are not sentient. So, humans are not forbidden from dealing with them. Specially if not dealing with it, leads to suffering of animals.
Mice and other animals are not asked if they agree. Not the same thing. At least humans can give informed consent to being killed.
Make what moral?
No, I say I can conclude that from what you have said.
And here you have just said I'm right.
Therefore we should decide about this ourselves. If this deal is acceptable when we think from mice's perspective, then I think it is fair to make it happen.
Keeping humans for food.
I have not said that. I don't see how you can conclude that from my comments.
You are right about what? About dealing with meteor? Yea, we should deal with them.
Is never acceptable to get murdered. Those mice will never agree to be murdered.
Unless the human gives informed consent to be murdered, it will not be acceptable/moral. This is the problem with keeping animals in nice conditions to then murder them, they will never agree to that.
Again, you are supporting unnecessary murder of animals. You are supporting animal abuse.
Do you understand logic operators? (A=>C) ^ (B=>D)=>(A=>D) Maybe that will be an easier way to communicate, because you clearly have problems with context.
No and I doubt it.
I have problems with context when people don't give proper context.
Sorry, maybe I will find out how to speak with you, but I can not do that the way I have tried. Take a look at logic operators, you already use very similar language and they are not that hard to learn. One week should be enough.
How about using english with basic grammar while making your sentences with proper context?
That is how the majority of people communicate with me and I have no problems in understanding them.
Why do you respond after 12 days?
Busy doing other stuff. I also debate on youtube. I also play videogames, work, do home shores, do gardening and so on. I come here to reply to comments when I feel like doing so and when I have free time.
Oh look, I'm replying after 20 days. I still have comments that i need to reply that are almost 6 month old.
I wish I could reply faster than what I get comments, but that seems impossible. At least not unless I spend 24/ of my free time replying to comments in here and I won't do that.
If you are a snake, the death of the mice are necessary.
But I'm not a snake. Neither is the snake owner. Your point is moot.
[deleted]
Well, you kept telling us that the death of the mice was unnecessary, and I have explained that it is not universally unnecessary.
Sorry if I was not clear. I mean to say that the death caused BY THE HUMANS are unnecessary.
I know that in the wild, snakes have to hunt to survive, that is necessary and not a moral issue that humans should be concerned with (assuming that the snake is living in his/her natural habitat)
And again. Humans are no snakes, we don't need to kill mice nor to own snakes as pets, so doing it is unnecessary and animal abuse. (Owning the snake is not animal abuse, but feeding the snake is)
do you need a snake in order to keep living? no? then you keeping and killing mice to feed that snake is not necessary.
yes
Aaahh, the batshit crazy "animal apartheid" loonies...nevermind them, they will never gain enough momentum and power to push their ideas into the public; normal people love their pets way too much to let this apartheid ever happen. It´s rather interesting these radical animal -human separation ideas are promoted especially by young folks who only recently became vegans/vegetarians...just like with the Westerners converting to radical Islam, demanding to conduct a suicide bombing the next day to prove their deep devotion to these idea, this animal apartheid vision only serves to make others believe you´re "number one hardcore"...not one person in his right mind would actually believe in that extremist rubbish, vegan or not.
Talking to these folks also is an experience worth having once in your life; when I pointed out there´s another solution to the animal exploitation and mistreatment problem, namely that of peace- and respectful coexistence and even symbiosis (just think of those guide dogs for blind people...are these extremists gonna take away the dogs from the blind , too?), they just turned deaf ears.
I guess, any rather good basic idea can get distorted and turned into something nasty...
Don´t let those people freak you out, they don´t even have big support WITHIN the vegan/vegetarian community...and if I were them, I would rather worry about whether this planet will grant mankind its survival...
But, folks, ideologies like "animal apartheid" could only spread from the few loonie lone wolves in the 80´s via the internet; before the net, those idiots were isolated...legitimately isolated...today, they can vomit their brainshit into the net and no matter how batshit crazy their ideas might be, they will always find fanatics who believe even in the most far fetched rubbish, the most moronic "easy solutions for difficult problems" approaches...that´s what the cost is for our modern time "informational freedom". The internet is like a Petri dish...it nurtures and nourishes every germ, good ones, but especially malignant ones....
I´m usually not that type of guy having any sympathy for the NRA, but when these animal apartheid assholes should ever try to take away my mares from me, probably the best kept and cared for horses within a 100 kilometer radius around my farm, horses kept in an almost natual habitat (they have 24/7 access to large parts of their pasture, only in winter, when snow and ice are posing a possible danger for them, I prefer to keep them inside), I will only reply "From my cold, dead hands...."
[removed]
Yes, there are radicals that want total animal liberation, and they do have a particular hatred of sex with animals. A couple of them, Carol J. Adams and Piers Beirne, have written long, detailed arguments on their positions, including why they think sex with animals should always be considered sexual assault. Their reasons pretty much boil down to treating all cases the same as rapes resulting in physical injury and treating pet ownership as similar to slavery, invalidating any claim of consent due to inherent differences in societal power.
The first one depends on ignorance of the issue, while the second depends on a form of feminism that ties individual consent to societal power structures which are difficult to demonstrate at best. Their ideas are cookie cutter Marxism applied to animals, and like all Marxism, they dismiss the rights of individuals in favor of winning an idealized class struggle, resulting in even more suffering by almost everyone they claim to be helping.
In short, their view of the world is fundamentally warped by ideology, and as a result does not have the mass appeal needed to effect real change. They cannot succeed without becoming totalitarian rulers, and while things have been getting more chaotic politically in the Western world, they have not fallen apart to that extent, nor will they as long as people continue to call out their stupidity and cruelty.
Yeah as much as "most of them are a cult", "ignore all the facts", and all those other lovely things that are definitely true, you really don't have to be worried about pets being abolished or becoming extinct. I mean vegans already have a mighty difficult time just trying to influence people to stop supporting slaughtering animals for their convenience, but most people don't even care to not do it as much.
While a big portion of vegans don't see (m)any issues with pets either, not to mention the animals to save the lives of some humans. And most have enough problems how PETA goes about things and being inefficient to not support them even though they also do actual stuff to benefit animals ...such as providing more humane methods of euthanasia to animals that would otherwise be killed using more cruel techniques, and exposing many extreme cases of animal abuse and succeeding in getting legislative changes and criminal prosecutions as a result.
Tell your friends to relax.
Definition: Veganism 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.
Just like any other way of living, is something you chose to have, not something you force others to follow.
Of course, they can try to make laws and force you to comply. But you can fight back those laws if they become unreasonable. Though some laws are totally reasonable, so, good luck fitting back to defend the indefensible.
Strange, I'm vegan and i have yet to see this cult. Maybe I'm out of the loop?
Vegans by far are more moral than non-vegans. And you are doing a hasty generalization fallacy, not all vegans ignore facts.
Good for you two.
Abolishing non-domesticated animal as pets seems right. Take for example people who own snakes, I have even see videos of people feeding puppies to them. LIVE PUPPIES. The snake is a wild animals needs to eat live prey (most of the time) a human keeping such animal as a pet is just fomenting unnecessary animal abuse.
Maybe keeping some pets that are omnivorous (like rabbits) is more right than a snake or a tiger. Because you could feed them non-animal products.
If you don't own wild animals, I don't think you have to worry. If they call you a rapist, hang in there. All unrightfully hated groups gets accused of something.
...says the one exploiting animals for his animal porn...
Like I have always said, I have no problems with animals being exploited as long as they are not being harmed or made to suffer. Owning a snake and feeding them live pray is inhumane even if it is legal. Owning a canary in a small jail is also inhumane even if it is illegal. Several animals that are legal as pet, should be illegal to own just because the humans can't provide what the pet needs or because the human are require to kill other animals to feed the pet.
So, by supporting veganism some pets have to be banned.
Funny because you exploit mares for your sexual and emotional satisfaction, you are in no place to judge me.
Funny because you don´t seem to be able to get the difference between exploitation and love. I hardly believe that you are able to love...those who claim to love "all" dogs, women,whatever are usually those who don´t feel love for anybody or anything but themselves and their own sexual and emotional gratification.
I am exactly in the place to judge you and your despicable actions, especially as you´re one of the top morons trying to force their twisted beliefs and fake ass justifications into the public. I´m also in the position to call you out on your bullshit regarding your support for paedophilia, the rancid form of self serving "arguments" you always sport, but convince no one, actually making it even harder for real zoos to gain understanding, your "I sucked a human cock for dog cock" bullshit and your general attitude you seem to have borrowed from porn stars and prostitutes. You don´t understand shit, little boy; and taking the certain style of your debates you have into account, I´d even say that you´re a rather good example for connections between mental dysfunctioning individuals and bestiality. Your delusions are reaching Trumpesque levels.
Go and make another film showing how you roll around in dog feces...that´s as much as someone needs to know about you.
[removed]
You're also not a fence jumping piece of garbage like Aluzky. Don't forget that. Nor are you a fake Zoophile.
Thank you for your support.
Having read one of Aluzky´s recent posts in which he confesses his inability to connect to humans, I´m now convinced that Aluzky is suffering from a mental disorder located in the autism spectrum. Not mild autism, but full blown autism. That would at least explain his robot-like discussion style, the self perceived grandezza, his total and complete naiveté , his inability to understand "metaspeech", taking everything literally, his obvious problems to understand the moral implications of his fencehopping actions and many more of Aluzky´s trademark "perks".
I told him the first time he appeared in here that I think he should consult a professional...but that was just a gut feeling I had when confronted with Aluzky´s weltbild for the first time, but now I´m quite sure there is some fundamental issue with him, strongly pointing to APD (autistic personality disorder).To "use", to "exploit" is his only way of interaction, he doesn´t even seem to be able to grasp the concept of deeply felt love due to his emotional numbness that is quite typical for non mild autists.
Of course I´m not a studied psychologist or psychiatrist, but I´ve read quite a lot about psychoanalysis and psychotherapy and recognise certain behavioural elements that definitely hint at what I suggest here. And that´s basically all that I have left to say about Aluzky. He´s a poor guy unaware of the fact he has this mental disorder. Promiscuity and mechanistical sexuality, not feeling any remorse for the owners whose dogs he fucks...it all points straight towards my diagnosis. Or in short "I fuck you to feel something instead of nothing at all" , as Dita von Teese had sung in Marilyn Manson´s song "Para-noir"... a poor soul stuck in an emotional deadend.
[removed]
Hey I'll always support you. Even if we may not agree 100% on everything at times :)
Could he also be a high functioning sociopath?
It also explains why he likes to brag to us about it, why he likes to brag to antis about it and why he goes to such lengths to justify his lying and manipulation of others. However I'm starting to see things from /u/LadySaberCat and /u/AlphaOmegaSith's perspective: Aluzky does seem to get bitten a lot by dogs doesn't he? Sure he has a job that puts him into contact with dogs and thus he's likely to get bitten. But given his habit of pulling down his pants whenever he's alone with a dog for more than two seconds or trying to finger every bitch he sees......I wager a lot of those bites are the dogs defending themselves from Aluzky's attention. I'm just saying here, doesn't that seem oddly suspicious? And remember how he's claimed that he's Zoo-Exclusive but admitted to also having sex with certain men but also said he wasn't gay? None of that adds up to his so called Zoo-Exclusivity. Essentially he sounds a lot like that Whitney Wisconsin girl who now has a warrant out for her arrest.
I'm no psychologist either but even I could recognize something is wrong with Aluzky on a big level. I just wish I'd seen it sooner. All those years ago I vehemently defended him against "close minded zoos" only to now realize they were right. They were right all along about him.
Sad but true isn't it? He doesn't even realize it. Also what do you think of his so called IQ being 134? Fake or real? Personally I think he's lying.
Regarding his IQ, I really can´t tell. Many people in the autistic spectrum do have high IQs...just think of Jim Parson´s character Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang theory, a brilliant scientist, but close to complete empathical and emotional numbness. Cooper also frequently brags about his "superior intellect" like our "zoo hero" here does...
I really just don´t know...but I actually believe, the more intelligent people are, the less they feel the need to tell other people how intelligent they are. At least that´s what I experienced with such individuals.
Regarding the dog bites: I absolutely agree. I work with horses for ages now, but besides the incident that led to my circumcision, I never had any major injury from horses. Sure, I fell off the saddle, like any rider does, mostly in the first few years when I learned the basics, but my martial arts experience and training ukemi , the breakfalls, protected me quite well. But other than that, I only got stomped on my foot by my mare once because I "surprised" her by walking in her box through the paddock while she was munching. She couldn´t hear or see that I was approaching, shied and did what all horses do when they are suddenly approached from behind, so basically and entirely my fault. I never got bitten, I never got kicked or anything like that.As a professional rider, this is quite rare, you know...all my colleagues have had at least one major "timeout" in the hospital in their carreers from getting kicked or bitten, some even had to quit their job due to their severe injuries. In Aluzky´s case, I just think he is suffering from the mentioned Dunning-Kruger effect, a self perceived grandezza that truly only serves to cover the fact that he has in no way "understood dog language". What also would perfectly fit into my diagnosis of clinical autism/Asperger syndrome. I´m not trying to belittle or make fun of Aluzky anymore, he seems to suffer from a real personality disorder and you don´t joke about that if you are a decent soul. I just wish he could see how detrimental his "zoo PR" attempts are to our cause, stop that and get professional help. Sadly, his mental disorder won´t let him wake up from his fantasy dream world.
If there´s one thing this entire Aluzky case teaches us, it´s the undeniable fact that a trench fight mentality , the common "us vs. them" isn´t going to bring us closer to our goal of tolerance towards zoophilia. You can see this case from the perspective of our "enemies" now, even if only in this case, and thats a good think, that´s progress. What our community obviously doesn´t want to realise is : we won´t be able to avoid compromises, including their side of view that often isnt as completely wrong as many of us desperately want to believe. "We are the good ones, they´re the bad ones" won´t work, there are toxic folks on both sides of the frontline and unless we finally start to acknowledge that, we won´t get anwhere with our black-and-white attitude. We really have to fully understand things and why they are how they are first before we can even think of changing anyone´s mind.
Some call me divisive , an asshole, but I honestly believe that we´re doomed if we don´t alter our attitudes, our minds, our entire way of thinking. That´s why I waste time in here I could spend with my mares, not because I want to be the "Big Boss of zoophilia". I really don´t want to fight in here, but what would you do when you realise you and your comrades are fighting a futile battle, futile because our basic tactis , our entire strategy is flawed since it was adopted some decades ago.
I truly believe the thing that really is breaking our necks isn´t the fact we love and have sex with animals. It´s the fact that we , our community, sadly like the so called "normal" world, also adopted what I call the "porn dogma", the already debunked "sexual liberation" crap from the 70s. Now, it´s en vogue to use your genitals before ever having used your brain to explore yourself and what your heart, not your libido , wants. The pornographisation of our society , the supermarket mentality of "Well, I´ll take a little bit of hetero, 100 grams of gay, then a bit of s/m ...and, do you have some "zoophilia" today? Yes? I´ll take some of that, too." But that´s just my theory, I don´t claim to bear the absolute truth...still, I know that the only way towards more tolerance for us is seeking compromises with society.Compromises that are suitable for ALL individuals involved, the zoophiles, society as a whole, the antis, the animals and even people like Aluzky.
So he could have an IQ of substantial number but it's all wasted on such a truly worthless specimen. However most things that an intelligent person would pick up on, Aluzky barely notices or he screams fallacy or subjective or facts at it hoping it goes away. Hence my doubts about his intelligence as he often sounds like someone who learns a "fancy" word and overuses it. If Sheldon were real he'd eat Aluzky alive. Hell, Penny could outsmart Aluzky.
Hence my doubts about Aluzky's supposed intelligence. If he was indeed smart he'd let his actions speak for themselves rather than posturing and rushing to prove just how smart he is. It also says he's insecure.
I've had my fair share of falls as well. As for bites, kicks or a well placed hoof stomp....I've been nipped once by Moose, I've been nipped by a couple of horses in the past but I learned for such experiences and learned to pay closer attention to dogs and horses as a result. A sad lesson Aluzky has not and likely will never learn, though I too am starting to move away from just insulting him. It's tragic really but it's something I've always wanted to avoid: being a Zoophile like him specifically.
You're correct. The us vs them strategy won't help anyone and neither will simply pointing at an opinion and screaming our objections won't help either. And we must do something to dispel the notion that comprise is a dirty word in our community.
If anything you seem quite level headed the vast majority of the time. Passionate, direct, too the point, a tad abrasive in some cases but levelheaded nonetheless. Your heart is certainly in a good place and you don't give the impression that you're trying to be the leader of our odd little community The King of The Zoos in the style of The King in The North. Which is also good. I'm not seeking to be a leader either. I just worry about our fates as zoos.
I admit, I was once a heavy consumer of "beast porn" and was a member of a couple of well known websites(earliest of which I lied about my age) and would watch videos and chat with members. It I've drastically cut back on my viewing to the point that I don't consume at all. While people ought to be free to pursue such interests(as long as there is no abuse) the realm of animal "porn" is a rather dark one which very little ways to tell if there's abuse happening as a dog or horse or pony or cow can't exactly call the police and say their employer is forcing them into sex acts they don't like or beats them if they don't "perform." But once you take that position you tend to divide people up, from the bestialists that are looking for a cheap thrill of the taboo to the people who claim to love animals so much that they allow roaches to live free range in their house. Yet all in all SOMETHINGS gotta give.
Me being a worthless specimen is a subjective opinion.
I don't hope they go away, I hope to get a rational intelligent reply but I get the opposite. I hope that the person learns his mistake and i get the opposite. Is pity that majority of humans are irrational and unintelligent.
If you make a fallacious argumetn. I will point out that your argument is fallacious. That is the only rational and intelligent thing to do.
You are oblivious that I have been "eating" all of you alive. Every time I have debates with you and others. None of you are on my intellectual level. And I would not mind being "eating" by some one who is more intelligent than me as that means I would get to learn from my very few mistakes.
Again, I don't go around bragging about my IQ. I go around correcting people who claimed FIRST that I have a low IQ by informing them that my IQ is around 134. Also, even if a person of an IQ of 160 goes around bragging about his IQ, that doesn't proves that he has a low IQ. His IQ is still 160 even if he brags a lot, because bragging about it is not a sign that he has a low IQ.
I correct people false claim. If some one claims that I'm handsome, I will correct the person and tell them that I'm average looking. Does that means I'¿m insecure about being average looking? Does that means I'm bragging about being average looking? NOPE AND NOPE.
I'm not insecure, is just my thing to correct people false claims.
I know dog language, as much as I know that, my job involves doing stuff that dogs don't like and i have to do it where ether the dog wants it nor not. Try shaving a dog face when the dog totally despise it and bites anything that gets near his face. Try cleaning a dog teeth without being biten when the dog hates it. And no, drugging the dog unconscious to do those is not as safe for the dog, the dog could never wake up again, I rather end up bitten than with a dead dog.
At least you acknowledge that all this time you a have just been insulting me like an immature child. Yet I'm the insecure one? How insecure you are that you have to recur to insults?
Just be yourself. Same advice I gave you before (and other gave you the same advice) be yourself and don't give a fuck about other opinions. As long as you are not abusing animals or doing crimes, you are not doing anything wrong.
No subjective when you prove said opinion to be fact.
Actually you do.
Because no one takes you seriously.
Yes the mistake of not sucking dog cock. Believe it or not Aluzky not everyone is as obsessed with dog dick as you. Even other Zoophiles, not that you'd notice.
Oh no, the majority of humans aren't like that at all. Except for you.
Actually you've done the opposite of that.
They need their eyes checked.
That's being too generous.....
You go whining to every mere mention of your name. Either you're an attention whore or you're very insecure. Or both.
Which false claims exactly?
That's a surprise.
Oh actually because those insults turned into facts. So if I call you stupid I'm not just being rude.
Which one of us goes running to anyone and everyone who mentions their name?
How insecure are you that you have to lie to people just to get your dick wet?
Unless you're not a Zoophile and don't want to have sexual contact with an animal. Then you must change.
Again coming from the person who got mad at AlphaOmegaSith for not fucking his dog -__-
You're literally doing most if not ALL of those.
Anecdotal fallacy.
AND FYI: I dont' go around telling people how intelligent I'm, i go around CORRECTING people when they claim that i have a low IQ.
I have never been bitten by a dog because I try something sexual. All bites have been work related. Or me petting strange dogs that where unfriendly.
Is called LUCK. Same way some heavy smokers live to be 100 and healthy.
Correct, is called luck.
cITATION NEEDED THAT I DON'T KNOW DOG LANGUAGE. or that I suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect or from self perceived grandezza.
You can't give a diagnosis, you are not a doctor. You deluded humanoid.
I don't have any personality disorder, you are trying to make fun of me with these comments.
Citation needed. What fantasy world? What mental disorder?
Because you LITERALLY are.
Then do your mares a favor and don't come to this forum anymore.
Got proof for this, or is it just some "subjective opinion" that is irrelevant and can be ignored? Its also absolutely adorable you try to call out a logical fallacy on something he specifically states is a "belief". You fucking dumbass.
Although I have to say these two people's account of you is chillingly accurate. You should seriously consider some of the things they've said.
Why not ask me? NO, I'm not a sociopath, I can feel emotions. No, I'm not autistic, while I have a couple of traits of them, I don't have enough traits to be diagnosed with Asperger.
Where I have ever bragged about anything? You are confusing the correction of some one false statement with bragging. And I have not lied or manipulated others.
Where you get the idea that I do any of those?
I work with dogs. Bites happen from time to time.
Correct.
I have never been bitten by a dog as a way of the dog saying NO to my sexual advances. Dogs usually use other warnings that what I'm doing is not welcome, as such, it has never got to the point where I get bitten because of me doing a sexual advancement. But with my job, i have to do the job even if the dog hates what I'm doing, that results in bites.
That some one that works with dogs 24/7 gets bitting by dogs? Not suspicious at all.
I'm zoos-exclusive and I'm not gay nor straight. Same way that heterosexuals who work in gay movies are not gay.
Doing gay sexual acts doesn't change ones sexual origination. Sexual orientation is defined by sexual attraction, sexual fantasies and emotional/romantic attraction. So, a stray person who has sex in porn movies with guys because he gets paid a lot of money, he is still straight because he is still emotionally, sexually and fantasies thinking about women.
Me having sex with humans for personal convenience (getting accent to dogs or money) does not make me gay or straight. I still only have emotional attraction to dogs, sexual attraction to dogs, and fantasies of sex with dogs. I'm 100% zoosexual.
Because you don't understand what a sexual orientation is. You probably think that gays who married to hide their gayness are straight and that straight actors in gay porn movies are gay.
I'm way more intelligent than her. So, how in hell I sound like her?
This made me snicker.
Oh so you're fuck human women too?
You're both on the same level.
Delusional, stupid, believes herself to be some great intellectual, also was a fence jumper like you, believes child porn should be legal, etc
You are not a doctor. And I have been with psychologists and I have never been diagnosed with autism.
Pretty sure that is cased by me having a high IQ. Take for example the Big Bang Theory states how Sheldon acts, his acting is imitating the acting of some real life intelligent people.
Sorry, but if you see "grandezza" in me, that is your imagination.
Subjective opinion unless you can be more specific and give evidence.
What the hell is that?
Because everything should be taken as parody or satire? Sorry, but if you are going to use parody or satire, you have to specify that you are doing those, else, people will take your comments literally. POE's LAW. (google it)
What problems? I'm against fence hopping and i have never fence hopped because I understand that it is unacceptable to do that.
Again, l you are not a doctor, you can't diagnose people over comments and IO have been with psychologists and i don't qualify for any disorders or autism.
False attribution fallacies.You are making a version of me in YOUR IMAGINATION that does not correspond with the REAL me.
And this is why you are not a psychologist or psychiatrist. You suck at it.
Again, I have been with psychologists and I have never been diagnosed with autism. I have been diagnosed with depression and attention deficit disorder (caused by the depression) in my younger years and that is all.
Because doing those are crimes? Face it, you have a problem with sex and you are trying to blame me for stuff that is on your side. You are a sexual prude. And we don't have to be like you, we will have fun being the opposite of you, if you don't like it, cry me a river.
Remorse for what? Is not like I'm raping/abusing their dogs.
Your non-medical made up imaginary diagnosis.
Except 30-30 did. It's just the definition of fencehopping, whether you like it or not.
Ok a one time fence jumper versus a life long fence jumper. Either way I'm still saying /u/30-30 is still the better man here. While /u/Aluzky if off floundering and spazzing out on other sub-reddits.
I have never fence jumped. So, it is a alleged I no longer do fence jump but I did in the past VS me, some one who has never done fence jumping and is against doing it.
That is your subjective opinion, not a scientific fact.
So what if I leave comments in other sub-reddits?
They see your post history and come here, which makes my job harder.
Oh, so we're not allowed to post certain things in other subs in that case? What a rule.
Sorry about that but I can't control what other people do.
PS: Have you consider hiring more moderators to light up the load of work?
You can control what you do, to prevent that from happening.
If it comes to pass that we need more moderators because of what you attract and provoke, then you'll definitely be banned before we get around to choosing.
I don't think that there is anything I can do to stop them from doing that. Unless you are insinuating that I should stop making comments on reddit. That won't happen.
And banning me will stop people from coming here? NOPE.
PS: May I remind you that there is no rule in this forum forbidding people from leaving comments on other places in reddit? If you ban me, you will have no valid reason for doing so.
Then you aren't thinking very hard about it.
It stops the people you talk to from going here, and everyone that sees you, for that matter. Regardless of what you think, your presence is the most volatile one here.
We enforce rules and act to maintain the health of this community, per our own discretion. You can consider our discretion an extension of the rules. If you're found to be at the root of an increase in problem posts, that's where our discretion comes in, and our discretion on bans is considered quite valid, you'll find. It's not in the rules page because A. it isn't common enough to notarize, and B. the rules page only allows for 10 rules, which we've exhausted. Creating an exhaustive list of every tiny rule is frivolous, scary, and ultimately unnecessary when we issue warnings in advance anyway. Consider this your warning. Tread lightly, or tread elsewhere... And if you can't figure out how, then you will find yourself having to choose between this community or those.
What there is to think about?
If they want to pester zoosexuals they will find this place and come here anyways. That has happened in the past before I was here and will continue to happen with me or without me.
And like I said, banning me won't stop bigots from coming here. And if you think you have too much work, just hire more moderators. Hell, if you want, you can make me a mod, I will gladly help so you don't have to work so much.
It's genuinely not difficult to figure this out. If you need my help with this, it wouldn't reflect well on your inductive reasoning.
At their convenience. They dont actively seek out this subreddit for the most part. Out of sight, out of mind is a very real thing. When they look into your profile, which they will, they see this sub and start displacing their disdain from you to the community at large. Many aren't aware of this community.
It would. Not all of them, or else you'd already be banned, but enough.
I don't think you understand the situation right now. The reason this is a public, not nsfw, not quarantined, and not banned community is because /r/zoophilia doesn't tear reddit apart enough for the admins to care. More moderators can't prevent that, and avoiding a quarantine is crucial to this community's health and status.
The entirety of this community and reddit at large would crucify us for this, possibly literally. This would be a catastrophic, suicidal decision that would consign the entire community to banishment. The fallout from such an awful decision would completely end our presence here. I'd rather not have to choose between the people that think I have sex with dogs and the friends I have here to nail me to a post.
We use the democratic process for moderators anyway.
I need your help. I will ask again: What there is to think about?
Again, proving my point that they will come here where I exist or not.
Same can be said about post made by everybody else. They will read their history and come here too. You know what, why don't we use your nuke logic and ban everybody? if you ban everybody, you won't have any comments to moderate. problem solves.
Or you could work harder or hire more moderators instead of blaming the victims/innocents.
Exactly my point. You want to ban me because you can't keep up with the job or because the lack of moderators. You know how to solve that problem? Work harder or hire more moderators.
Banning/threatening users who have not broken any rules just because you can't do your job properly is not acceptably moderator behavior.
I don't even understand your comment. What you mean by: /r/zoophilia doesn't tear reddit apart enough for the admins to care.
"More moderators can't prevent that"←Prevent what? A quarantine? What does that has to do with me? Do sub-reddits gets quarantined if they get brigaded by bigots?
"and avoiding a quarantine is crucial to this community's health and status."←Again, how I'm related to that?
Quite the exaggeration.
Then hold an election and chose more mods. Clearly this place needs them as you are complaining about too much work.
How to distance what you say here from what you say elsewhere.
When you're reaching "well, technically" levels with a point, your point is moot.
Community health. People come here through you because you make them angry. Everybody else is much less provocative. Even I don't attract people here when I post elsewhere.
These are unspoken rules that needn't be notarized. I already explained this.
The more drama a subreddit causes on reddit at large, the more likely it is to be enforced against by reddit admins. I've seen it happen. Quarantines and subreddit bans are there to save face.
They get quarantined when they have negative influence on reddit at large, or when they get enough reports. Zoos stand to lose a crucial foothold if that happens, and given that Reddit is bound to AWS's EULA, this community is still here because of their good graces. They'll side with the majority if public outcry reaches a fever pitch.
The heat you attract brings in more subreddit reports. The more reports the admins get on this communoty, the more they'll consider 1. Divulging the information on this community to law enforcement when asked, and 2. Issuing enforcement actions against the subreddit.
It's hyperbole, though the parts pertaining to reddit are undoubtedly true.
Or instead of that, we can remove you. Again, I'm not going to elect more mods because of one person
The life long fence jumper is you. After all you fuck dogs that don't belong to you. You abuse your potion as a vet tech to get to dogs and you use your job as a groomer and dog walker to get dogs.
Do you have scientific evidence that I have ever fence jumped? If not, your accusation that I'm a fence jumper is bullshit and not a fact.
That is not called fence jumping. Fence jumping involves trespassing private property to have sex with animals. I don't do that and you have no evidence that I have ever done that.
Yea. So? I like dogs, is that a crime?
You use that position to get at vulnerable animals. You probably also kill people's pet snakes as well.
Snakes used in snake charming performances respond to movement, not sound.
What you mean by VULNERABLE animals?
And I probably also invented the cure for cancer and I'm immortal.
You know exactly what I mean.
If I know I would have not asked. So, are you going to answer? What you mean by VULNERABLE animals?
Right now you are playing dumb. You know damn well what I mean by vulnerable.
I never play dumb.
I don't know, that is why I asked. I can't read your mind. I don't know what you mean by that.
You really are milking this dumb routine aren't you? You suddenly can't understand serious questions? I don't buy it, you're playing dumb and also telling more lies.
Because of you we're getting brigaded heavily. You even had the nerve to go to /r/The_Donald of all places and try to start shit there!
Me? I have not asked anyone to come to this forum.
AlphaOmegaSith has been posting my name all over that place and several other places. If anyone is bringing haters to this forum is him and not me.
Oh boo hoo so sad someone mentioned your name.
My point is, 30-30 is still a fencehopper. That's what I mean.
It's sad that you and other zoos fall for his shit. You all seem to condone what he did, but not other fencehoppers.
His excuses are absolute shit. In fact, Aluzky can exactly use the same excuses he did, as he also does not know what he is doing wrong.
I wonder, why do you despise Aluzky for fencehopping and not 30-30? So what if Aluzky has done it more?
I don't see the logic here. Do you only despise humans that killed only like five animals or more and don't despise humans that only killed one animal?
Then again, fencehopping isn't unethical nor does it harm anyone. Why are you crying and whining about such an unimportant thing? I see why we zoophiles haven't reached far yet, despising others for doing nothing wrong.
I can see why you would dislike Aluzky for the other shit he says, though.
Fair point. I guess because 30-30 has been a bit vocal about others NOT repeating his mistakes. Aluzky on the other hand would still go after someone's dog even if the dog actually spoke and said "Dude not interested."
I'm just trying to be not too divisive or perhaps play Devil's Advocate.
Yet he's done what he's done. I find it hard to not judge 30-30 and judge Aluzky for the same deeds.
Aluzky did it more, but that doesn't mean 30-30 hasn't done anything ''bad'' (as I'm not entirely against fencehopping) either.
I'm not sure what you mean, I wouldn't really expect him to actually rape an animal. I'm pretty sure he'd do it without knowing, really.
He does seem like someone who wouldn't leave such a dog alone and would basically sexually harass a dog. He did say that a dog not interested in having sex with you would not be normal, so considering his behavior (although I have no evidence of it) he might want to change that dog by sexually harrassing them.
But you know, that's my point: We don't have much evidence other than his behavior.
Can we get suspicious? Rightfully so. Can we accuse him of things that he hasn't done? Not really. Do I care? Only if everyone is treated equally because I'd... well, I guess I can't make threats to Aluzky because of the rules. But what I mean is, 30-30 should also be recognized as fencehopper. Of course, he should be treated differently because he's done it only once, but the facts prove that he's a fencehopper and it must not be ignored. Don't need no excuses.
He's certainly stupid enough. I've seen him criticize people on gaybeast claiming they were raping their dog when in fact they were not.
I've hardly seen anything consensual on gaybeast, it's not too far fetched. He probably has that strong "alpha male" shit going on.
Aluzky actually said the alpha male thing was a lie.
I've seen a fair number of videos that were consensual but I stopped going to gaybeast because a lot of the videos appear to be anything but. Including videos of animals that are obviously dead.
What do you mean he called the alpha male thing a lie?
I think we're both talking about something else here. If he was talking about dogs having that ''alpha male'' stuff going on, it's indeed a lie, or rather a myth.
I was talking about the fact that he wants to be better than others. That's why he accused others of rape.
And of course, it fits with his other behavior. He lies about his IQ being high every damn time and says that everything he says are 99.99% based on facts.
Not to mention he refused to give me certain information for a certain thing just because he doesn't like me. It's funny, because he says every pet owner should give their animal sexual attention.
Well, that's exactly what I need help for. But then again, zoophiles acting fucking retarded isn't exactly new to me.
Yeah I mean he called The Who notion of a pack of dogs or wolves having alphas a lie.
Cuz it is.
No alpha BS in wolves n dogs
I know
NO YOU DON'T. You claimed that I was wrong for stating the fact that there is no ALPHA dog or wolf. Your claims about your dog being an alpha or becoming an alpha are lies.
Prove I don't know then.
Because dog whining in pain and trying to run away and being forced to say is not rape?
No these were on videos that didn't feature screaming or clearly distressed animals you imbecile.
I have never fence jumped... Do you people only have like one neuron or what?
And what evidence do you use to get the idea that i would do such a thing?
THE FUCK? I have never said such a thing.
Yes you have. AmoreBestia already beat you in that argument and has proven this.
You don't understand the word ''seem''.
The idea comes from your behavior.
Yes, it's spelled ''behavior''. Cool huh?
Maybe if you went to school you could've learnt that. I guess you were too ''smart'' for that huh, too, bud?
And Aluzky just lied about never claiming that there's something wrong with a non-sexual dog.
/u/Aluzky you have a lousy memory.
Have I ever told you how annoying you and the Omega guy are?
I'm simply replying to Aluzky because he was replying to my comments, but you both revolve your life around fucking attacking him constantly.
How many times have you mentioned Aluzky by now? You've surely set a record there. If not, the Omega guy probably has you beat.
Like, that's your thing but you're all so overdoing it that it's not even funny. I'm not even defending Aluzky, as I still daydream of aiming a revolver at his genitals from time to time.
But that's rather because he's annoying like you, but also because of extreme envy and him being fucked in his head.
I don't even want the upvotes or anything, it's just that what you do is so useless and just bothers me.
You've been acting like you're all a friend of me in some sort of way too.
I'm assuming you're not aware of my ethics, then. Hopefully this'll change your mind:
I'd kill to have sex once. In fact, I'd go on a fucking killing spree even if it involved my family. And guess what? I've changed my mind about fencehopping and am not really against it anymore.
Now what, are you going to stalk me too and whenever something happens you mention me too, now? I'm not your friend, I'm not anyone's friend and I never will be. Or hopefully have killed myself before that happens, even.
Doing so would be rape, I'm against rape and I don't rape.
Nope, you are just being irrational by having a double standard.
Says the kiddy rape supporter.
I have never fence jumped and I will never do it.
Is a crime. Animals have die because of it. Humans have die for trespassing and getting shotgun to the face.
Yes you have.
AmoreBestia already beat you in that argument and has proven this.
So is bestiality.
Look up the definition of ''crime'' before you deny it again.
Evidence needed.
And humans have died because over a game.
Doesn't make games bad either.
Move on, dumbo.
Again, I HAVE NEVER FENCE JUMPED IN MY LIFE. And I don't intend in doing that in the future. You and nobody has any evidence that i have ever fence jumped and nobody will ever have such evidence because I have never done that and I don't intend in doing that ever.
Better man how?
So all the dogs you use sexually are yours then?
He can be left alone with someone else's mares without immediately trying to stick his dick in them for one.....
I have never fence humped. If anyone is closer to be a fence jumper that would be 30-30.
Are you saying that I'm faking being a zoophile? Because there is plenty video evidence that I'm one.
Says the person who only uses other people's dogs
And routinely fucks human men.
Subjective opinion, not fact.
Not my problem.
You are not, you exploit animals as much as I do. You judging me for it is like a rapist judging some one for raping.
Rule 7 violation and subjective opinions. You got nothing constructive to say.
Feel free to do so and USE EVIDENCE to prove your claims.
Haste generalization fallacy. You not being convinced is not = to everyone not being convinced.
How so?
I have never done that, so, you are the one stating bullshit.
I borrowed nothing from them (not that there is anything wrong with being a prostitute or porn star)
PROVE IT.
Citation needed. What delusions? What mental dysfunctions? Where is the evidence that i suffer from any of those?
Never done that and I have no interest in doing that.
As always, you only know how to be rude.
Says the lying sack of worthless shit. Last I heard /u/30-30 doesn't exploit the trust of those around him just so he can help himself to their mares. Last I heard he didn't get a job as a groom, or a dog walker or a vet just to get to other people's animals despite already having an animal. So yeah /u/30-30 has PLENTY of room to judge your sorry ass. I'm not surprised your still up to your old habits of being an overall disgusting human being but then acting like a victim.
[removed]
Citation needed. I have lied about what? Where is the proof that I have lied about that?
He did fencejumping in the past. And even if he doesn't do it any more, just fucking his own mares is also exploitation. Again, he is in no position to judge me or anyone for exploiting animals as he is also doing the same.
I didn't got those jobs to get laid with dogs. I got those jobs because I like to work with dogs.
And you don't know if 30-30 got jobs with horses in the past to get laid with horses. So, don't talk as if you knew everything about him.
NOPE. As I already explained, he is judging me for something that he is also guilty of doing.
Subjective irelevant opinion.
Where is the evidence that I'm acting like a victim? If I'm indeed acting like a victim, where is the evidence that I'm not an actual victim?
Judgement exists independent of guilt.
And is highly irrational. Like a rapist judging some one for raping.
Judgement begets action. Society has reached this point because of these kinds of judgement. Judgement of others, of the like, and of the self.
Yea, judgment that came from people who WHERE in position to judge. Like I said, a rapist judging a rapist is in no position to judge. Same goes for 30-30 judging me for something that he also does.
I disagree. The slothful can judge the slothful best because they know them best. Being party to them, understanding the inner machinations of their actions, and knowing what in yourself brought out that very behavior allows you to refine your judgement, not invalidate it.
30-30 can't see how hypocritical and irrational his argument is. And you are saying that he is the best to judge others? Really?
Sorry, but I can't agree with that.
Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate criticism, saying otherwise is an ad hominem attack. I'm simply saying that the people best suited to judging you about something are the ones that share that trait with you because they understand that part of you better.
His arguments being irrational does invalidate this argument. Me mentioning that his argument is hypocritical is a bonus to that.
I will disagree, I don't need to be a rapists or murderer to be best suited to judge rapist and murderers. On in the case of 30-30, judge people for using their pets when he himself is also using his pets.
Ekhem, "citation needed".
You can go ask him personally or read his post history and find a couple of comments where he admit to that.
I don't have the time to a look for those citation. If you don't want to trust my word, fine, don't trust it.
The funny part about Autizky: He himself insisted on fencehopping to include hopping over a literal fence. And now, he calls me a fencehopper when in fact I never had the necessity to hop over any fence.
To address the main issue that blatantly displays Autizky´s schizophrenic approach and SCP´s envy because he can´t insert his dick into his dog (SCP... mene mene tekel upharsin):
When I was a teenager , I had my first coitus with a mre that was not my own. But she was abandoned by her owner and given to the riding club I was a member of in order to sell her to a new owner with the necessary time to take care of her. My riding instructor asked me to take care of her until she would be sold. I had done such temporary jobs before, but it never clicked with the horse I had to take care of...until I met her, a beautiful Haflinger/Arab mix mare. I already knew her a bit from taking her out to her part of our pastures every morning. I fell in love with her by spending time with her and ended up sleeping with her , the first time ever I slept with a mare in my entire life. I slept with her about 3 - 4 times in toto and she got sold and relocated after only about 2 months, leaving me very desperate and heartbroken. I tried to buy her myself although she definitely was too small and the wrong breed for dressage, but failed to gather enough money to buy her in a very short span of time. I never jumped a fence, I was literally her substitute owner for the 2 months...don´t know whether this fits into the definition of fencehopping, because fencehopping demands an owner whose trust in you is betrayed. Plus, this was in ´87/´88, a time when I had no contact to other zoophiles due to the simple fact there wasn´t an internet and literally had no idea about zoophilia, fencehopping, animal pornography, ethics and morality. ´87/´88, an era most of the users in here weren´t even a honey thought of their fathers.
The other questionable incidents happened in a time when I was my riding club´s riding instructor and had short affairs with some of my schooling horses. All people referred to the horses as mine, even the chairman of the club, then my boss. Everybody called "Your horses, Herr beep" - "Which one of your horses do I ride today?" etc...and another very important fact might be that at this time, I already was identified as a "man who loves horses a bit too much" by almost everyone in the riding club, but no one ever interfered or walked in on me when I was sleeping with a mare I felt in love with although they had every possibility to do so. I took that as a silent agreement between me and the others in the club and on my last day as this club´s riding instructor, the chairman took me aside to hand over my papers to me, followed by honoring me for my good work. And as his last sentence, he told me "I know you love horses. Not only in a platonic way, but also in a physical way. I knew it since your first year as an apprentice here. Although I don´t understand that, I always protected you from any trouble and appreciate what you did to improve our club. I wish your mare and you nothing but the best in your new working place and hope we see each other once in a while on tournaments in our region." Sounds like the club´s chairman as the legal owner of the schooling horses gave me kind of a "post mortem" absolution of what I did with the few mares I had affairs with plus his approval of my relationship with my own mare while she was boarded in this club. This very chairman was the one who signed the buying contract of my Hannover mare, the love of my life. He knew it, everyone knew it...but no one interfered. Sounds like fencehopping, eh? /s
It all ended when I first helped unload a new schooling horse in ´92 , if I remember it correctly. I opened the trailer and untied this lovely Hannoveran mare that became my very first own mare and my longtime partner for more than 22 years. Since ´92, I never had sex with another mare than my own. Now you decide whether that qualifies as fencehopping yourself...I only have to add that in my function as a riding instructor, I stopped some fencehoppers who tried to have sex with my club´s horses, all violent attacks on the animals and I even got attacked several times, one guy even had a knife on him, but didn´t manage to pull it out quickly enough before I broke his jaw as a response to his first punch towards me. Even if my deeds from nearly 30 years ago, in an era I had no resources like you youngsters have today, do qualify as fencehopping, I kinda made up for that with playing the nightguard for a combined total of roughly 10 years, sometimes even risking my own life stopping persons, among them an individual well known for his long register of acts of physical violence who was forcefully trying to touch a gelding´s penis and kept cornering him although the poor horse clearly showed his total discontent.
I´m not at all proud of the phase of my life before I met my mare and am happy I left this era far behind me. And when I heard about fencehopping and all the other issues involved in zoophilia for the first time in the beginning of the nineties, I wasn´t exactly happy what I had done ´cause I understood the set of moral values, I understood why fencehopping and doing it with animals not your own is reenforcing the picture of zoophiles as reckless, egotistical animal rapists who know no boundaries and respect nothing but themselves and their sexual gratification. When I first heard of fencehopping and got educated by the fine real and genuine zoos I had the luck to meet as a newbie on Lintilla and Sleepy´s, I immediately ceased anything that could possibly be seen as fencehopping.
And now you tell me whether what I did is comparable to what our infinite wall of text producing "zoo hero" does, doing it with random dogs behind their owner´s backs, even tricking them into giving him access by "dogsitting".
PS: Take a guess what horse I wore for nearly two decades as a tattoo on my back until I got the tattoo covered when I got my backpiece as a part of a horse themed bodysuit. Yup, my first mare...the beautiful and gentle Haflinger/Arab lady, a very shy , but self conscious madame I could not avoid falling in love with due to her character and natural grace.
Estimates suggest that there are around 60 million horses in the world.
...and more than one million living in Germany alone if the newest numbers are correct.
It looks like you asked for more animal facts! The sloth has very long, sharp, and strong claws that they use to hold on to tree branches. The claws are also their only natural defense against predators.
well, I found it deeply ironic (in sad way) how most interesting bits of stories come out after major provocations/insults ... :/
I was about to say "please be more careful with misuse of logic as weapon", but ...not like warning like this will do any good.. :/ But may be whole idea about trying to use logic less as weapon, in more .. gentle way is worth consideration..for all those past and future internet 'discussions' .
I'm not tricking them, It is part of my job and I do dogsit them.
I actually agree with you right now.
You're the only who sees 30-30 does what he actually does.
Yeah once and he didn't do it again. And YOU, you massive hypocrite continue to target dogs that don't belong to you in the slightest and lie about it to the owners. And might I add that younalso keep a dog as a pet, so there's more hypocrisy on your part!
Yeah I'm sure you did /s.
True he could be lying, but right now the only liar I'm talking to is you.
He can in fact judge you because he has outright said he would never do such a thing again, even if he strongly desired the mare.
You keep repeating this to anyone who dares to stand against you. Almost as if you thinks it's a magic spell.
Your constant whining about being persecuted and slandered and how you are unfairly labeled. You're not a victim Aluzky.
Let me just answer to the accusations from Aluzky:
I do not lie in here. I try to write as close to the actual truth as possible, the only thing I do is altering information that could identify me or my horses. Regarding the fencehopping accusations, I can only say I wrote the story down in this thread and everyone can decide for themselves whether that was fencehopping or not.
After I was finished with school, I decided to become a riding instructor although my grades would have allowed a career in science, I always wanted to study chemistry or pharmaceutics. I did not decide for the job that is lesser paid and hard physical work because I had no access to horses otherwise, I became an apprentice in the same riding club I was a member of for some years. I could have studied , but after my instructor said that I had a natural talent for riding and handling horses, she literally talked me into this, a job that´s badly paid, includes a lot of hard work and is a 24/7 business, not an 9 to 5 job. I would have had the same access to horses without this job. I had to go through 3 years of getting up at 4:30 AM, shoveling manure, endless hours of cleaning the club´s pathways of leaves and horse droppings, working other people´s horses , giving lessons etc., not finding enough time for my own mare before I fell into my bed every night at 10:30 PM. I know that BF user Svadilfari, the one we always made fun of in Lintilla and a Swede, actually went over to New Zealand just to meet with another BF user named Poneze and fuck his "zoo friend´s" animals, but does anybody really think I took the hardship of three years being an apprentice upon me just to have access to horses? The same level of access I already had? I could have been a chemist working for a German company like Behringer or BASF, I could have been a pharmacist with my own pharmacy by the age of 25-30, making way more money than I actually did with the job as a riding instructor. I could have spared myself from many experiences like taking a good look behind the tournament equestrian facade or having to assist euthanisations of horses , some of which still haunt me in some nights.
The decision to become a riding instructor gave me nothing except more time alone with my own mare...and a possibility to influence the methods of riding that are usually taught and still see whips and spurs as a valid means of "communication" with horses. I probably saved a few horses´ lives by showing its owner it isn´t "unridable" or a "mean bastard of a horse". That´s why I chose this job, not for anything sexually motiavted. Surely something else than dogsitting, especially when no dog is safe from you once the owner has left the room, don´t you agree?
Going down the other path by attending university ,I probably could have been able to afford my own farm ten years earier...
You have every right to want a certain level of privacy in your life.
Hence why I'm going to refrain from comparing you to Aluzky. It would be rude of me to continue doing so.
Yes, don't compare me with 30-30, gross.
No I mean it would be rude to /u/30-30.
How many times he did or if he stop is irrelevant. Fact is, he is accusing me of doing something that he sis also guilty of doing.
Do you have scientific evidence that I'm a hypocrite? Or you are spreading made up rumors?
Do you have scientific evince that I lie to the owners? Or you are spreading made up rumors?
I don't understand. how is me owning a dog = me being a hypocrite?
But I did. I worked at other stuff before and I didn't like it and I switched jobs to something that I actually like.
You have not once presented evidence that I have lied about anything. Calling me a liar 1000 times won't make it true by magic.
lol. As much as a rapist can judge a rapist for raping.
His was judging me for "taking advantage of animals" and not "fence jumping" him fence jumping is irrelevant, he owns animals and fucks them so he can't judge me because he is taking advantage of animals by just owning them. He is literally doing the same thing as me.
No. Only to people who brings irrelevant subjective opinion.
have I been unfairly slandered, persecuted and labeled? Yes. How exactly I'm not a victim of those? You in this post alone made 2 false accusations against me.
So it's taking advantage when he does it but you own a dog but that's fine and dandy? Like I said you're a hypocrite. And you take advantage of animals hence why you groom and walk dogs and work as a vet tech. Because it's easier to get to them that way.
Taking advantage of animals is fine and dandy as long as no animal abuse is involved.
Saying it is not the same as having proving it. Wichout proof you are not stating facts but only stating IRRELEVANT opinions.
I have my own dogs, I don't need to do those works to get access to dogs for sex. I do those jobs because like to help animal and because I like spending time with animals.
You said you only had one dog and yes you got those jobs to get the chance to use more dogs.
Legally, I only own one dog.
You don't have any scientific evidence to support that accusation. I already told you that I got those jobs because I like dogs.
Using your irrational logic, every heterosexual men who is an OB-GYN got the job just to see and touch women genitals.
Wouldn't be the first time someone's done that. And prove that I'm irrational.
Your reply is proof of that. You are doing a hasty generalization fallacy. Assuming that because one OB-GYN gets that job to touch women, all of them must be doing the same. You also did that fallacy with me, thinking that because some zoosexuals gets a job with dogs to have sex with them, I must have done the same. Using fallacies is a sign that the person is irrational and unintelligent.
A rational and intelligent person is capable of forming rational non-fallacious though. You fail at doing this.
Aluzky please by all means prove every accusation that YOU made.
I take a bit of an issue with this argument. If I had a snake at home, it would eat meat. If I suddenly became concerned because my snake is causing suffering, and I released it in the woods, the snake would still be hunting and killing and causing suffering. That is what predators do for a living. Either you engineer a way for feeding it with cloned souless meat (in which case you MUST keep it in a domestic environment in order to prevent it from killing), or you remove the snake altogether. With an axe, for example.
Ultimately, banning snakes is a step towards reducing the number of snakes, that is, destroying predators to keep their numbers low. Which is precisely the sort of idea that makes some vegans look like nazis.
But it would not be YOU causing death and suffering. You have mens rea (a guilty mind, you know is wrong) the snake does not. Is OK for the snake to kill in the wild. Not Ok if you get involved.
Nothing wrong with that. Plenty wrong when you take such predators as pets and feed them live animals.
That you can't get in the present.
Are you suggesting murdering the snake? You can just set it free on the natural environment of that snake.
Snakes WILL STILL EXIST IN THE WILD. I'M NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO GO HUNT AND KILL PREDATORS IN THE WILD. Just don't have them as pets. Let them be free.
Seems that many people think that because they are not intelligent enough to understand the actual arguments that we make...
Captive raised carnivores are notoriously bad hunters and survivalists. Releasing them into the wild is just as good as killing them, a good amount of the time. Also, releasing a snake willy nilly is a terrible idea. It only takes two snakes released in the same place to allow a new snake species to run rampant and annihilate local prey species. That blood is on the hands of those that released their pets as much as it is on the pets themselves. It's important to think about the net effect and not just your direct impact.
If release is not posable, euthanasia is always an option.
I agree. I didn't say: Do it willy nilly.
Obviously, you have to release them in their natural environment.
I agree.
Then they're murdering their pets. Sounds more like a potentially lesser of two evils rather than a morally unambiguous decision. Release them knowing that your choice resulted in them hunting and maybe surviving, killing parents, eating baby animals, etc makes you no less guilty than killing your companion.
If they continue to own that pet, then 1000s of other animals will have to die. Euthanasia is the path that causes less harm.
In what capacity? Those prey animals they consume aren't just killed. They're fed, nurtured, allowed to live a life where worry of predators or food is a bygone thought, and the horrid consequences of old age that is common to many rodents which are a common choice for feed is averted through what we can consider euthanasia. They get it better than in the wild, frankly, and with few exceptions, they get to enjoy peaceful deaths. A rare commodity in the wilds.
Aluzky doesn't care because as AlphaOmegaSith put it, he hates carnivores. He hates what they evolved to do. The only reason he believes in feeding dogs or cat vegan food is because he hates the fact that they're carnivorous animals. It's also why he wants people to kill their carnivorous pets now. It's disgusting really.
The sad thing is, carnivores are what keep herbivores alive and happy. Herbivores left unchecked would starve themselves.
A fact that has been proven time and time again throughout history. Predators are a valuable and much needed species on this planet.
Nobody is against predators in here. (unless they are in the wrong place and out of control)
More lies! You just said that carnivorous pets should be euthanized no more than 10 hours ago!
It's also sad when people think about animals only in terms of population. Each member of those populations is an individual too. And those individuals that are killed by carnivores are not kept alive and happy by carnivores.
Obviously I don't have a solution, I just think that when we have the means to stop predators from killing animals in a practicable way without causing more harm, we should try to do it. And if not there isn't much we can do at the moment.
Wild animal suffering is a topic often discussed in vegan communities and you can find all sorts of view points there. Examples
I don't hate carnivores...
No you just want to kill them
I have never said that I hate carnivores. AlphaOmegaSith is attacking a straw man fallacy.
You are also attacking a straw man.
Again, straw man fallacy, I have never claimed that I hate carnivores.
If the pet can't be feed vegan, then it should be illegal to have such pets and those pets should be euthanized or at bare minimum be left to die from natural causes. Again, this if you care about not doing animal abuse and doing needless murder of animals.
More carnivore hatred
Translation: I don't like it so kill them.
Murder is still murder even if you where given a good life by the murderer.
If I rise you in good conditions and then murder you, that doesn't make the act of me killing you against your will an acceptable act.
If I don't have a concept of death and I simply cease to be, then fine. I would much prefer that over the alternative of getting eaten while I stand.
What you are suggesting is genocide.
If I nuke the earth to oblivion, horrible things such as pain, suffering and taxes will be gone FOREVER. It does not mean it is a sound moral decission to destroy all life on earth in order to prevent bad things from happening.
Yeah, very interesting paradox, don't you think? The only way to get rid of every problem on earth is unacceptable.
Again, that is the path that causes less suffering.
And you would be causing suffering and death to everything. That is not acceptable.
I agree. Which is why I have not supported the total destruction of life.
And that is why the OP started the thread to begin with. He is concerned about genocidal anti-pet maniacs. Thank you for proving his point right.
Unlike P##A, I don't want total pet obliteration. I want animal suffering to be reduced. Owning some species of pets obviously increase animal suffering. Is not acceptable to let people own such pets because it cause many more animals to suffer.
If OP defend the keeping of pets that increases animal suffering then he is the enemy of animals, not his friend.
Which point? Because he made several points, several of them do not fit with how I'm. And him making points doesn't mean all his points are factual or acceptable.
It is the path that causes less suffering.
Murdering everything causes suffering to everything, that is not the path of less suffering. Only in your imagination that would cause less suffering.
It is funny you say that.
If I commit genocice against everything, then I prevente every possible future suffering until the very end of time. The suffering I cause during the actual genocide is nothing compared to that net gain.
This is EXACTLY your argument for commiting genocide against pets. That killing some millions of pets is acceptable because it "saves" suffering in the long run. However, you declare that my variation is unacceptable. Do you know why? Because it is an absurd proposition, and this is just a reduction to absurd on the whole genocidal idea.
Kudos for this flawless execution of reductio ad absurdum.
Taking the life of everything against their will for no valid reason is not acceptable.
Those animals already have wild counterpart. You don't need to go to the wild and kill them too. And I rather is nobody gets killed, but it is the only path that causes less suffering (without mas murdering everybody)
Is damn obvius that mas murdering everything is not acceptable.
One that I didn't made. One that you made. So, thanks for admitting that your claim is absurd.
Wild animals are not pets, killing them all is not a reduction to absurd from my argument, my argument was only about HUMAN PETS. The moment you involved wild animals and even humans, your reduction to absurd became fallacious. You attack a straw man.
Help me understand this. You say we have three kinds of animal, wild animals, captive animals, and pet animals.
The pet animals should be euthanized because they have betrayed their wild roots and enjoy living with humans.
Captive animals should be allowed to live out their lives but not reproduce.
And wild animals should be simply left alone.
So what make the difference is the animals' feelings about humans?
His(Aluzky I mean)argument is very poorly constructed and is primarily based on his personal opinions and seemingly irrational opinions about animals. This isn't a logical debate, more of a case of someone trying to talk some sense into an irrational man that harbors a noted prejudice towards certain animals and the care of such animals.
It is my desire to be a voice of reason accessible to youngsters and str8s. Aluzky is what I sometimes call a "broken Zoo". The stresses on anyone trying to live with this "condition" are extreme. The effects can manifest in a lot of ways and some of them are in evidence on this blog.
All of us have our little quirks and preferences. But one of the major stresses is the fact that many consider our relationship (sexual or otherwise) with animals to be evidence of mental illness in itself. My opinion is that we are an evolutionary leftover from a time when understanding and working with animals was as valuable a talent as mathematics and logic are now. In any case living in a modern urban environment is not healthy for us.
An interesting position of yours.
What irrational opinions? And unless i say: IMO, then I was not stating opinions but facts.
It is for me. Not my problem if the other person is more interested in having an irrational debate.
There are wild animals and domestic animals. Then there are wild animals as pets and domestic animals as pets. Then there are animals that are carnivores and non-carnivores.
Not really. My problem is only if the pet animal is causing an increased on animal suffering. If you have a wild bunny, be my guess, owning that animal as a pet and giving him/her all that he/she needs is not an ethical problem.
Now, if what you have are cats that are allowed to roam free where they kill the local natural population of wild animals even to the point of making some species go extinct, I do have a problem with that. In this case, I would not ask for the death of the cats that are owned (sorry, but strays have to be caught and if not homes found for them be put to death) but for responsible ownership.
If the case is a snake, then I also have a problem with that because you need to kill mice, chicks, puppies, kittens, etc, to feed the snake. Keeping such animal as a pet increases the unethical treatment of animals. If the snake can't be freed in his natural environment then she/he should be euthanized as that is the most ethical option. IMO: Humans should not have carnivorous animals as pets.
With non-carnivores that works. With animals like carnivorous snakes, that doesn't work. Leaving the snake live till old age means hundreds if not thousands of animals must be murdered to feed her/him. Which is why killing her/him is the most ethical option, killing him/her is better than killing 1000s of innocent animals to feed him/her.
Preferably, yes, unless humans screw up something and we have to help them to fix something that humans started. Like a oil spill, forest deforestation or global warming.
What? NO.
OK, now I'm more confused. I get that it's carnivores that you are against. But why is it acceptable to buy meat at the store for your cat to eat and wrong to live capture mice for your snake? Store bought meat is coming from factory farms but captured mice are a natural prey species normal to the snake.
I'm not against carnivores. I'm against humans owning carnivore pets as it leads to more animal suffering, specifically, those that can only eat animal that can suffer. I have no problems if you have a tarantula and you feed her/him roaches. I have no problems with wild carnivorous animals either.
Both are unacceptable. I never said that one was acceptable and that the other was unacceptable. So, why are you making that incorrect assumption?
Not even by starvation? Then you are going to buy meat, raw or processed, from somewhere.
Cats can be fed a vegan diet.
No they cannot. Cats are obligate carnivores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligate_carnivore
That is real animal cruelty.
Obligate carnivore
To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject.
^[ PM ^| Exclude me ^| Exclude from subreddit ^| FAQ ^/ Information ^| Source ^] Downvote to remove ^| v0.27
Tell that to the people who have 10+ year old vegans cats that live indoors (aka they don't hunt living pray) if they can't live on vegan diet they would be dead a long time ago.
Ever hear of dietary supplements? You can supplement a cat diet to add what ever that he/she is not getting from plants foods.
Prove it. You will only be able to prove that unbalanced vegan diets are bad, you won't be able to prove that balanced vegan diets are bad. And guess what, I'm in favor of balanced vegan diets.
I did. Wikipedia is a simplified summary but they cite real scientific sources in some articles. Articles like the one I linked are handy as link lists. Take a look.
Nowhere in Wikipedia said that cats can't live on a vegan diet.
If you have evidence that cats can't live on a vegan diet, please, show me that evidence, be more specific about the link that you give and make an argument along with that link.
That's basically slavery it's illegal. Don't you mean domesticated pets?
If life continues on forever, then life has an infinite capacity to experience suffering. With enough powerful, simultaneous nuclear blasts, death for all life on earth would be entirely painless, as they would be instantly immolated.
That would still be murder on major scale. Are you saying that mass murdering everything is the right thing to do?
Whether it's right or not wasn't the issue. You said it causes suffering, but it would not. Future suffering is most effectively and assuredly reduced by destroying that which can suffer without inflicting more suffering, which a nuclear Armageddon can do extremely effectively. Please be aware of the context of my reply next time.
It is an issue. Doing what is right while causing the least suffering. A nuke causes a lot of suffering and is not right at all.
You think all life will die instantly. Think again.
The issue was and remains suffering. The issue of right and wrong is a philosophical issue with little agreement and little basis in fact.
Consider this. One person exists. Let's say they can experience 1 unit of suffering in their life. Now you have nine billion and counting. Every child adds to the world's capacity for suffering and the amount of suffering experienced constantly increases. We've already got hundreds of billions of these suffering units. If you end life, no more suffering can be added to that sum. It's the same issue that is seen with giving an AI a directive to end war and suffering. The most effective way is to remove what can suffer.
Death may not even be the right word. Solids are subliminated, fluids vaporized, so quickly that it can't even be percieved. It's as good as disappearing, with a nuclear shadow being the only remnant of your existence.
If the heat didn't immediately reduce your brain to ash, the impact would instantly kill you. A nuclear blast is as hot as the inside of the sun, so surviving the heat wouldn't happen anyway. Please study up on nuclear arms, or even fusion bombs, which are even more powerful.
In the end, you are needlessly killing all life with nukes, that is not acceptable.
Again, as I've said before, the beginning of this discussion was about suffering, not about the morality of it. I'll take your reply here as you conceding that now.
The total amount of suffering is hence not reduced (which is my point). Werther it is ok to be involved or not is a moot point.
In fact, I may argue that suffering is increased by having the snake in the wild instead of home, since in my home I could provide vet care for my pet. In the wild, you break a tooth and you starve to death.
I am not sure that releasing pets that have been raised at home in the wild is practical. Imagine if you released half the domestic dogs, or cows or whatever. Pets are neither prepared to survive out there and may be a liability for the ecosystem.
And yeah, when a pet gets banned or regulated, regulators usually jail the non-compliant pets for life or destroy them, or have similar nefarious plans. This is one of the reasons why I hate bans on certain dog breeds so much. They cause a whole lot of gratuitous suffering.
Banning the ownership of certain item is a serious attempt to limit its availability or number of existences. If you ban pet snakes, it is because you intend to reduce or eradicate the number of pet snakes. This arguably leads to a decrease in the number of snakes in the world. And the reason is because snakes are predators.
It is discrimination against predators disguised as good intentions.
How so? I think is very relevant if a human is involved in a murder. If a croc eats a human, that is nature, if a human pushes another human so a crock eats a human, that is very relevant because a human actions where involved. In that last case, the human is responsible for the murder of that human. Same as a snake owner is responsible for the death of the snake food.
Just like we should stop humans from needlessly murdering humans, we should stop humans from needlessly murdering animals.
That is nature, anima suffer all the time in the wild, you are not responsible if that happens.
If you keep the snake, then you have to murder animals so your pet can eat. YOU become responsible for their deaths.
Humans should avoid being responsible for the unnecessary murder of animals (humans included among those animals)
My argument was specifically about WILD animals and not about domesticated animals. If the wild animal can't be released, then euthanasia will do.
Is not a liability if set free in their natural environment.
Correct.
Only the number of PET SNAKES. The number of non-pets snakes remains the same. Or may even increase if hunters are not hunting wild snakes to sell them as pets.
And?
Discrimination? What? How is that discriminatory against spredators?
You don't even like humans.
Translation: I hate carnivorous animals so if you have one as a pet then make it vegan or kill it.
Unless the person can't go vegan then you practically salivate and jerk off to the idea of that person dying simply because of genetics.
Actually the number of the species would decrease both in the wild and in captivity. Ironically enough the only thing keep some species alive is that people enjoy having them as pets.
facepalm You're still an idiot.
Some sea snakes can breathe partially through their skin, allowing for longer dives underwater.
Thanks for the facts there. You're a good bot :)
Thanks! I try to be! Beep boop.
:)
No, not an idiot, but the epitome of hybris and the Dunning-Kruger effect...
Among a few other things.....
I don't like roaches either and yet I don't advocate for the needless mass murder of them.
Again, I don't hate carnivorous animals. How you reach this conclusion is dumbfounded.
And yes, if your goal is to reduce animal abuse, then you should only have pets that can have vegan diets.
There is no scientific evidence of any humans who can't be vegan. And it would be VERY VERY VERY VERY unlikely for such human to exist. And if such person exist, that person would die the moment he/she is born because such person would be unable to assimilate nutrients from food. And no, I don't salivate or jerk off to the idea of a human ding from having a bad genetic make up.
Care to elaborate on how snakes in the wild will decrease in numbers?
Citation needed.
Rule 7 violation.
By your logic, feeding them to spider is mass murder.
You literally ask for them to be killed.
And if you don't you're literally Hitler and your pet must die.
Prove your claim.
Prove your claim.
Bullshit.
There are populations of animals that are bred to be released into the wild and I can't BELIEVE I have to explain this to you.
/u/AmoreBestia Please can I just use ONE word that may be considered an insult but in this case is an accurate description of Aluzky? Just one, that's all I ask.
Edit: Aluzky you are a complete imbecile.
one
Thank you.
Hens being killed is bad <- This is a gross assumption, but let's take it. A predator exists that needs to kill a hen each day in order to survive. If that predator is kept as a pet, it will kill a hen each day. If that predator lives in the wild, it will kill a hen each day. The bad thing will happen each day, regardless of any philosophical masturbation we practice, or any moral tag we attach to any of the situations. Hence, the point is completely moot.
Unless you take action and destroy the predator.
Now you can argue that the death of hens in nature is not bad, but I don't buy the naturalistic fallacy. Being killed for food is either good or bad regardless of accessory facts - it is not possible that being killed for food is good in my town and bad in the next village.
I am afraid that the humans you feed to a crock don't compare well to mice you feed to your snake. That is because humans can take responsibility for their actions, and hence have full rights. Mice can't take responsibility for their actions and have less rights.
Besides, a human dies either way so the point is moot (see above).
It is discriminative because you are talking euthanasia against certain animals because they are predators and cannot be re-purposed to a situation you find satisfying.
Difference is, if you keep it as a pet, the human is responsible for killing that hen. if the predator is a wild animal, the human has nothing to do with that predator killing. Also, do you know what happens when humans own pets? Those pets reproduce. More than you can find in the wild. As such, the demand for hens increases, so more hens are killed because humans chose to have several of those predators as pets.
I disagree for the aforementioned reason.
If that predator is a pet and it can be set free, yes, humanly kill the predator. That is the path that causes less suffering. If you free the predator, eventually the number of them will go down to a stabler number. Less hens will die as a result of that.
In the end owning predators as pets will defeat the goal of making humanity have a vegan diet. So, predators have to go.
Town A hunts for self survival, taking a few deer from the environment without harming the ecosystem. Town B defores the amazons and farms grains to then feed to cows to then eat the cows, wasting immensurable resources, polluting the environment, destroying nature and also eating a unhealthy diet that increases the cost of health care and shorter humans life spam.
Yes, in one case, eating food can be good and in the other is obviously bad for everybody (including bad for the animals that are keep in horrible conditions)
Both cases the humans is involved and is causing extra animal suffering.
I don't see how that makes any sense. Rights and taking responsibility for ones actions are separated issues.
Yea, and one is murder where the other is not. One is animal abuse where the other is not.
discrimination definition: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
I don't think you are using the definition of that word correctly. I have not been unjust or prejudicial against predators. Like I said, if all other options are exhausted, euthanasia is the most humane option that would cause the less animal suffering.
Not all the time. If the animal has been spayed or neutered then they won't reproduce. Come on, you ought to know this by now.
Only because you're an irrational person.
So let me get this straight; if the animal CAN be set free you'd still kill it? Aluzky, honestly, it's clear that you dislike carnivorous animals particularly those you can't easily control.
So you just want to kill predators because you want veganism to be the only diet and philosophy on the planet.
You would still claim that Town A must be genocided for eating meat though.
What a surprise -__-
Actually you have.
Sorry if I was not clear, I mean that those pets reproduce (by breeders) to keep a supply for the demand. Though, they can also reproduce under the owner care. Either way, the point is that their number increases once they become a pet that people wants.
Off topic, subjective and irrelevant accusation.
Sorry, I mean to say CAN'T, I already fixed the error.
That is what you believe, that is not what I believe and not what I have claimed. I'm not amused that your reading comprehension skills are this bad.
Not really, if they are doing it for survival reasons because they have no other options, then I have no problems with it.
Is not a surprise to me, you have a habit of making nonsensical sentences.
Where I have been unjust or prejudicial against predators?
On topic and prove me wrong then.
Oh so you never claimed that making the world vegan was ever a goal? Not your goal specifically, just a goal? Tsk tsk tsk you're still not doing yourself any good by lying.
My reading comprehension is fine and I'm throughly amused by your increasingly irrational comments and behavior. As well as your evident stupidity.
It is a red herring. It is off topic and irrelevant.
Yes, the goal is for humanity to be vegan. That is the best for animals, the environment and for the health of humans. And this does not support your previous claim.
Can you provide evidence that i have ever lied about something? Have you stop to consider that I'm bad at lying because I'm not even lying?
NOT REALLY. You read one thing and then you claim that I said/believe a totally different thing.
What irrational comments or behaviors?
Please, don't break the forum rules. You are not being polite.
[deleted]
IT?
OMGGG ALUZKY TREATS ANIMALS LIKE OBJECTS!!! YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO USE THE RIGHT DEFINITION!!11!one
I was referring to predators as it, not referring to an specific animal as an it like you do all the time.
So what? You're calling animals still an ''it'' and that does imply you think they are objects. This is your own logic, by the way.
Whether it be a specific animal or not, they're still animals, which is the point. No excuses this time, Aluzky.
Also, I don't call them ''it's'' all the time and when I do their gender is unspecified in which case it's okay to use as that's the definition of ''it.''
Of course you will deny those facts like usual.
Predators definition: an animal that naturally preys on others. ←I'm calling the definition of predators an IT. The definition of predators is not an animal.
Already gave an excuse, you are being stubborn in accepting that I was not calling an animal an it.
When I said all the time, I mean that as a hyperbole. Literally, you often call them IT's, even if you know their sex/gender.
Face it, you are the one who call them its, not me.
''an animal that naturally preys on others.''
Holy shit man.
And an invalid one, too.
You are the one who can't accept their mistakes.
I don't.
We're supposed to be serious, if you're going to be childish and can't be serious then there's no point in talking to you.
Evidence. Now.
Maybe you don't know this, but there are plants and fungi that also predate on others. Such animals are not always male or female, calling them an it is correct with them. The word predator includes all animals, including those who don't have a gender/sex. So, I opted to refer to predators as an it.
Again, it is acceptable to use it if you are not referring to animals that lack gender/sex. Or if you are referring to a mixture of animals where some have gender/sex and some don't have it.
Yes you do. And I have pointed out many times why is why you keep looking for my comments hopping that you will find me once using the word "it" to refer to animals. Good luck with that. It won't happen.
I was being serious.
You are childish, so follow your own advice and don't talk.
I have already debated you over this. I won't go and dig 8 months of your old comments just to prove I'm right. Plus, you have several accounts, I don't even remember in which ones you said it. All I remember is that you indeed say it many times and you know it.
You were talking about animals and animals only, so that excuse doesn't work here. You got caught and can't accept it.
No I don't. Give evidence for your claims.
Then don't use hyperboles.
You're the one who thinks he's smart because you made up a number. I'd say that's childish as you abuse it and think it matters.
Much like a child.
You have no evidence of this, so you failed again. Bad excuses.
Of course you don't remember it happened bedcause I never called a non-human animal that I know the gender of an ''it.'' I can just like you also make up some random bullshit and say it's true without evidence.
Sorry mate, but you got rekt again. You can pretend that ''I know'' but that's not how logic works. Try again.
It is not an excuse, it is an explanation. Predators refer to all animals many of who don't have gende, so calling them an it is a non-issue, is not like you who referring to dogs as "its" even when you know their gender.
Are you going to get offended because I didn't called a genderless plant a she?
Like I said, you have several accounts. And this happened like 8 months ago, I don't have any interest in looking on 8 months of comments in several accounts to find examples of you calling animals with gender an it.
The fact that you are here trying and failing to do what I did on you shows that I'm not lying.
Using hypervoles doesn't always make a comment into a non-serious comment.
I have never claimed to be smart, if you think I'm smart, that is YOU thinking that, not me. And I have not made up any numbers and the times I do, I add a citation stating that the numbers may be inaccurate by a couple of points as I cite those numbers from scientific papers that I read years ago and I may not remember the exact number.
Not wanting to look for the evidence is not the same as the evidence not existing. But be my guess, remind me what was the name of the account that you called dogs and other animas its. That assuming that the account is not conveniently deleted/banned.
It is not wort my time to prove that you have called animals an it. YOU KNOW YOU HAVE DONE IT and that is all I care about. I don't need to prove to you that you have done it because you know you have done it.
It happened 8 months ago, you think I care to remember the names of your sock accounts? Sorry, but you ain't that important for me to remember you.
In your dreams.
I never did.
You still have to prove that.
No, I'm proving you are a hypocrite.
Two.
Yeah, and I know for a fact that I never called a non-human animal it when I knew their gender.
Okay, I can use the same excuse. Aluzky, you told me this 8 months ago:
By the way, we both know that these things are true. I'm not looking back 8 months into the past because of the same reasons such as you.
There, your logic is used.
Again, that is not how logic works.
I'm not failing anything.
Hyperboles are not to be taken literally, so it's not that serious.
Your behavior makes it very obvious that you think you're smart.
You claim to have a high IQ al lot of the time even when it's not relevant. Literally nobody falls for what you just said.
Sure mate, I guess I can start spreading random stuff about you?
Okay, you're really retarded. There, 2lazy4evidence. 100% proven.
I have in fact called non-human animals that I do not know the gender of, ''it's''. There's nothing wrong with that, as that is the definition of it.
You also have called animals ''it's'' too. You referred to the animals in your post. You cannot deny it as it's straight up everyone's faces.
In your sentence back then, you weren't referring to plants and it was very obvious.
However, you still did not prove I did any of the things you claimed.
Then you cannot claim things about me that aren't true. (And you'll be seen as a fool afterwards)
I have only one dream, and sorry bud, but it doesn't even involve you at all.
You're a bit too much of a fool to be in my dreams. Although, do daydreams count? Because you're exactly the same there. A clown being a major annoyance to almost everybody you talk to.
Well, got to go. My poor dog is crying because she will never experience sex. :(
If only anyone knew how to save her from sexual frustration... Since you don't want to help her, I guess you truly don't care about animals, do you?
I'm not wasting more time with you, go troll some one else. Ignored.
Run away like a coward.
Oh nooo, he proved me wrong ;_; SHIT WHAT I DO? UHHH... CALL HIM A TROLL, FAST!
Ahhh... there, I feel better about myself now.
Gotta make sure my IQ is 135 to my neighbour tomorrow, make more random excuses, spread more lies... Yep, I've got it all planned.
That WarCanine dude has beat me again but I can just deny it all I want anyways lol. I can believe my own lies so not a problem lmao.
You are trolling, ignoring a troll doesn't make me a coward. I'm just not going to feed you.
I'm not a troll, you must give evidence first to prove it.
But yes, you are a coward because you straight up ignore the fact that you can't give evidence for any of your claims and are too afraid to talk to me.
It's very obvious, mate.
Ignored.
Well said.
Morality is not about "who is responsible for this". Suffering is increased, it means less moral, you are so fucking egoistic! You would let the whole world burn down because it wasn't you setting the fire! And better not to do anything, because if you fail, then you would be responsible for failing. Man, look what are you typing in!
Disagree. Morality is only relevant to beings that have moral values (aka humans) since other animals don't have morals, it is irrelevant to us if they act "immoral"
Or are you proposing to apply human morality on all wild animals?
I agree. Are you saying that I have been in favor of something that increase suffering?
The whole world? That would kill all life, including my own life, of course I would not let that happen and I would do my best to stop it. Now, if you talk about a natural fire, such fires are responsible for returning nutrients to the ground, some places can only reproduce after forest fires. Try to be more rational. Not all natural fires are bad, not all natural fires need human involvement. I'm not asking for people to be blind and not place attention to the minute details of every case and make a wise choice depending of the situation. Also, why are you talking about fire? When the topic was animals?
Read above. You are attacking a straw-man fallacy.
Never mind. I don't have a time to explain it.
YES! Releasing your pet snakes to wild. Or euthanizing carnivores. All solutions proposed by you leads to leave animals alone, letting them kill each other. Natural conditions are NOT the best possible. If we can provide better ones, and want it, then we should.
I propose to use it to decide what solution is better. Remember, we are talking about our involvement, so it certainly applies.
If the pet can live in the wild on his/her own, how does that increases suffering?
I already said: Euthanizing one is better than euthanizing 1000s of animals. Killing the snake (if release in the wild is not possible) is the most moral thing to do.
That is called nature, that is happening right now on a massive scale. Billions of animals are dying per second.
Is irrelevant if you can provide better conditions to a SINGLE animal if the cost of that is 1000s of other animals being murdered. You are supporting the murder of 1000s of animals to keep one animals good conditions, that is not acceptably/moral.
You are increasing it by not decreasing it when you can and want to.
You have forgot about something: I agree, that's immoral if you don't improve conditions of those 1000s animals as a reward of being killed.
I don't understand your argument.
Again... improving the conditions of those animals is irrelevant if those animals gets murdered against their will because of you selfish and unnecessary need of keeping a snake pet. You are murdering those animals for invalid reasons, that is not acceptable. Treating them nicely doesn't excuse murder.
So the most important thing in life is how you die?
IMO, the most important thing is to stay alive, followed by being happy.
I hate to be the one to point this out, BUT, it will take a snake well more than a hundred years to eat a thousand prey.
Boas eat once per week and adults once every 10-14 days. Feed them chicks or mice and they will eat thousands in their life spam. Obviously, if you feed them a Labrador dog, they won't eat as often.
It's more of a judgement call than a calculation, but, snakes grow and as they grow they consume larger prey less frequently. A really big snake might eat two cows a year and I must assume that any snake that has eaten a thousand prey will be a very big snake.
Most people wont' fee their big piton a large prey, but many smaller prey.
It really doesn't matter what you want to feed a snake. They only eat what they want to eat. Large snakes simply ignore mice.
Citation needed.
And if that claim is true, it goes back to people feeding bigger animals (including cats and dogs) to snakes. (there are videos of that on the internet)
Personal experience. The only snakes that actually swallow their prey alive are those that specialize in prey like frogs, toothless and clawless. Snakes that eat mammals poison, smother, or constrict them before swallowing. How long would anyone live that gave an animal with teeth, claws, and desperation access to their soft internal organs? Even just the frequent clawing at soft throat tissues is going to end in an infection.
So large snakes avoid prey too small to properly wrap up and kill.
You didn't provided citations to support your claims. And don't do it, is irrelevant if your claim is true or false. You still need to kill other animals to keep the snake alive.
If humanity wants to avoid doing unnecessary harm to animals that can experience pain and suffering, then keeping snakes as pets is not acceptable.
So you just don't do logic or physics? Well, let's perform a simple test. Why don't you try to live the lifestyle you advocate? Kill no animals at all. That means no disinfectants, no soap, no antibiotics, no pesticides. Let in the mice, rats, roaches, mosquitoes, gnats, flies. Please arrange for your next of kin to post the results.
Sorry that i was not clear enough with my comment, I just edit it and made it more clear.
I do logic, I don't do physics.
My claim is not: Kill no animals at all. ;My claims not to kill animals UNNECESSARILY. I have no problem with animals being killed if it becomes a necessary.
Read the edit that i made to my comment. Bacteria and most bugs are not being that can experience pain and suffering in a subjective way, os, it is a non-issue to kill them. Specially when it is necessary to do so.
What?
You say you do logic yet you cruise right by the point in that post. You say it's OK for you to kill as needed to provide for your own comfort yet you have no sympathy at all for reptiles. You have a right to life yet others do not.
If I missed a point, why don't you let me know? I'm not perfect I'm just human, I can make mistakes.
Sorry, but I have never said that. Prove me wrong, quote the text and link to the comment where I have said that.
Seem you don't get the math. If you save one wild wounded snake life. You have to kill dozens to other animals to keep that snake alive. You are MURDERING dozens of animals to save one. You defeat the purpose of saving animals as you are killing more animals to save a single animal. Letting that snake die or euthanize her/him is the most humane thing and the path of less suffering.
Yes, the snake have a right to live, but you don't have a right to kill dozens of animals to safe her.
And if you are talking about owning a snake as a pet. SAME THING. You care about the right to live of the snake, but what about the dozens of animals that you have to murder to feed the sank? What about their rights to live?
And you define "necessary" as important to your life or convenience. So your comfort is more important than anyone else's, especially reptiles'.
I accept that life has a cycle and that everybody eats and gets eaten. If you carry your thinking to it's logical conclusion all animal life must be ended because only plants are able to capture energy and mineral directly.
I never gave a definition for necessary. So, you think that I believe that is YOUR THINKING and not my thinking.
By your logic, I accept that rapists exists and rape and so, raping is acceptable.
You are stepping on dangerous grounds there. Utilitarism (morality based on decreasing suffering or incrementing happiness) is just a branch of the tree of ethics. It has its pitfalls if applied as it is, in my opinion. For example, an utilitarian idea would be that it is a good thing to kill a person in order to take his organs and save 6 sick patients.
I know, it has some internal problems, but this is the best algorithm to deciding what is moral I know. Your example isn't really the most problematic, I actually find it moral. There is a thought experiment: If someone built a machine that gives a person unlimited pleasure and reduces pain to 0, but cuts of all connection with reality, would you plug into it?
I don't think I would plug into it unless my life was really bad.
My problem with hard forms of utilitarism is that they turn out to be arbitrary and cause random unpredictable outcomes. If you are healthy and have healthy organs you are "punished" for it and have them removed and transferred to sick people, but if there is no sick people nothing happens to you. Meanwhile, some drug junkie who has done nothing in his life but to try to kill himself is rewarded with resources taken from healthy people who is "punished" for the acts of the junkie. In short, this means that punishments or rewards are given to a person for things other people do.
There are some experiments with monkeys, in which they punish a monkey for the acts of other monkeys and try to see what happens. I have heard that the monkeys end up beating each other because they need to prevent other monkeys from getting other monkeys punished. It is like you had to go out in the night and kill sick people in order to reduce the demand for organs and prevent the authorities from killing you for your kidneys.
Hell, under hard utilitarism, you cannot be sure that the very fact of living is good or bad, because that depends on how much society needs to hack you down to pieces in order to improve the lives of others.
Responsibility based ethics work better, in my opinion, because your acts are good or bad by their own merits. You can define if something is right or wrong without having to consider what third parties that are completely unrelated to you are doing. This also means that they are more predictable moral systems and this is in fact why most Western legal systems are responsibility based.
Can you describe it more? Google doesn't help much on ethic systems...
The idea is that you are only responsible for your own actions. If I break your car, I am supposed to fix it or get somebody to fix it. If I achieve something, I am the only owner of my success.
The most direct consequence is that your rights are not subject to change at the whim of anybody else. You buy a car and are responsible for it. Since you are responsible, you have certain freedom about how you use that car, since in order to be able to be actually responsible for something, you need to be able to take decision about how it is used. Otherwise somebody else would be taking the decisions for you and putting the blame of bad consequences on you. Imagine if somebody else decided that your car didn't need an airbag nor a brake revision, the car was involved in an accident, and you were responsible of fixing the damages.
Since the car is your responsibility, a third party cannot show up and take your car, or force you to use it in ways you don't deem correct. There may be a shortage of cars, or somebody may need the car more than you do, but a third party cannot just "punish" you by taking your car, arguing that it is for the common good, if you have done nothing wrong with it. You only get punished for bad things you do. You may take advice on how to use the car for the better good, but how you use it is your call and nobody else's.
I don't know the name this family of ethics is codified under. F. Hayek used to talk about the "Rule of the Law", which is the closest thing I can name. The idea is that you have consistent and mostly universal rules (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) that apply to everybody, that punishment comes when you break them, that you cannot be punished for not breaking them, and that the authorities cannot issue arbitrary mandates that violate these rules. For example, the government is not supposed to go "Yeah, killing people is illegal, but there is a shortage of food so we are going to kill the weakest members of society in order not to waste resources".
Ugh... I have a serious trouble to put this together. Main concept is fine, but serious trouble starts popping out when you try to set up those rules. You have to rely on something. And as you have said, they are MOSTLY universal. I need some time to think about that. I will probably redefine some words soon...
Well, of course you cannot base your ethics on responsibility alone. That is why there are variations within the general concept and different opinions of what implies that a person is responsible for something - which yes, means in the end you have to rely on something for defining responsibility, be it the Non Agression Principle or whatever have you.
Actually... I still think utilitarism is the best. I think I can prove responsibility while basing on it.
We need this kind of rules to feel safe. Without them things are going to be really bad, so from utilitarian view they are good.
This is called communism. Except in communism you can't have any items or valuables. I think I don't have to describe how communistic countries end up. It's really good on paper if you don't think about psychology. So again, from utilitarian view the same outcomes. But you have to remember how psychology works, what would really happen, there are much more variables than one healthy person dies vs six sick people dies. Real outcomes can only be estimated, which brings us to another rule: Decision what to do should be made by person who can make the best prediction, because it guarantees the best chances for a good choice. This also kinda solves pleasure machine problem. Still not good enough I think, but... always something.
Utilitarism also provides a very useful tool: You can more easily choose between two bad things if there is no other option. Of course you should always look for this other option if you can.
The "natural environment" of domestic animals is in the company of humans.
First, I was talking about wild animals (snakes to be exactly) those can be free in their own environment.
Second: If an animal is domesticated and can't be set free, then keep them as pets or let them die of old age or euthanize them.
Nobody is saying that such animal must be released to the wild where they will cause troubles or die.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I think it should be noted that animals kept with the full benefits of human civilization are much happier and healthier than their wild counterparts.
On a semi-related note, would you consider it fair for me to eat meat if the animals had a chance to eat me?
No problem.
I know.
Like what? Like you hunting lions to eat them with just a knife?
I'm not sure I'm ready to go yet but I would consider something unique as a final experience. Maybe being eaten by a large snake would do it.
There is a chance that a local swarm of feral hogs could get me on any given day. That would be poetic given the number of them that I have eaten.
Back to you are question now that i have more context. i would be fair if your only weapon is a knife and you hunt the animal with your own hands (not using traps) and the animal you hunt has a way of defending himself and killing you. Not something easy to hunt and kill like a snake or a bunny.
I guess you've never seen a wild piney woods rooter.
Never.
That's /u/Aluzky for you. To be perfectly honest I think he hates animals that are carnivorous or mostly carnivorous(i.e. omnivorous animals that will only eat berries or vegetation if no prey is available). He also hates people that enjoy these animals and take care of them, such as those who nurse wounded snakes back to health or opt to keep them in captivity if releasing them would more than likely result in their death. He strikes me as the kind of person who would want to see tigers, lions, wolves, bears, etc killed in zoos rather than letting them live because they eat flesh. Never mind if the animals are endangered, they must die because they eat meat and that upsets Aluzky very much. However it's just the facts of life but he doesn't understand that.
I don't hate them.
I don't hate them and unless the species is endangered, euthanasia would be the best option for a wounded animal. You can't have humans saving every wild wounded animal because predators that feed on death and wounded animals would have nothing to eat. Humans are best not meddling with nature.
I don't like zoos. You don't need to jail most animals to educate humans. And unless the animal is endangered and in a depopulation program, they should be let free in the wild. Or again, put to sleep.
It doesn't upset me that carnivores eat meat. it upset me when humans keeps animals as pets or unnecessarily at zoos because this leads to an increase of demand of animals that needs to be murdered to feed them.
So even if the animal can be saved you'd rather kill it because it eats meat. Honestly that's quite a pathetic worldview and further proves your dislike of animals that eat flesh.
True we can't save them all. However if I saved a carnivorous animal I wouldn't kill them if they could still be saved. Nor would I kill them because of an irrational fear and hatred of meat eating animals.
Oh look, more hypocrisy from Aluzky.
Depopulation involves killing animals not saving them Aluzky.
Yeah sure it doesn't.
Yet you have pet.
Well unfortunately that can't be fixed and most zoos take very good care of their animals.
I think I was pretty clear. If saving the animal means that you need to start breading other animals to murder them to then feed the wounded animals, it defeats the purpose of saving a single animals as you have to raise and murder 100s of them just to save ONE.
Subjective irelevant opinion.
Care to elaborate how saying 100s of animals instead of one proves that I dislike animals that eat flash? Where is the evidence that I dislike meat eating animals? have you forgot that I'm a zoosexual who is into canine? HELLOOOOOOUUU WOLVESS, I LOVE THEM. And yes, wolves do eat flesh. I don't hate them, try to explain that.
Like I said, to save that ONE predator, you would have to kill dozens of other animals to feed it. Then you defeat the purpose of even saving the animal as you actions are un-saving dozens of animals. Your actions are killing more animals than what you save.
How does that makes me a hypocrite? And even if I where a hypocrite, it doesn't invalidate my claim. I could be a human rapist and say that rape is wrong, I would be a hypocrite but my claim would still be valid.
Typo, pushed d instead of r by mistake. Typo fixed.
Finally you understand it.
I'm talking about pets that can't be feed a vegan diet. Or pets that are just wild animals locked in cages.
It an be fixed, you just make zoos illegal and the ownership of some pets illegal.
Doesn't matter if they they increasing a demand of animal abuse.
If you had a Wolf you wouldn't give it flesh and would more than likely try to train it to be your personal fuck toy like your other two dogs, including the male you regularly pimped out.
Yeah sure.
By keeping certain endangered animals alive by providing them with the food they can only survive onnis horrible? Yet you question my intelligence, my smarts and my sanity? Keeping a snow leopard alive is evil because they eat meat. Well everyone you heard it straight from Aluzky's mouth/cock holster. Better go kill all those evil meat eating animals in zoos and make zoos and wild animal sanctuaries illegal. Who cares if they save rare and endangered animals? Let them die to appease Aluzky's delicate sensibilities regarding animals eating other animals.
Correct, that is why I would never want a wolf as a pet and I would not want anyone having a wolf as a pet. They are wild animal sand they should remain as wild animals.
I'm against training dogs to do sexual acts. As such, I have never trained any dogs to od sexual acts and i will never train dogs to do sexual acts. Every dog that has done a sexual act with me was without prior training, they did it on their own will because they had their own reasons to do it. Most likely their reasons where: It feels good, it taste good, it is fun.
I have never pimped out any animals and I will never pimp out any animals. Same as above, I'm personally against trading sex for money.
Glad you understand.
Sorry, I don't understand your sentence, can you rephrase it again and make your point more clear?
IMPO: There is no need to question it, anyone intelligent enough can measure those 3 from reading your comments and it does not look good for you.
Those are your words, not mine.
Again, those are your words, not mine.
Again, those are your words, not mine.
Luckily my boy isn't full wolf. He's happy, warm, not covered in cuts, no ticks, no chance of someone shooting him and killing him for fun and he gets healthy food instead of garbage in the street and sick squirrels.
That's bullshit and you fucking know it! You said you weren't against it!
Yet you said you were ok with prostitution.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand that?
Oh the bloody fucking irony.
Oh so you don't care if someone feeds a snow leopard some meat then?
Unfortunately we need zoos right now. No I don't mean Zoophiles.
You're the one complaining because of animals eating meat.
You're so excellent you are kitties.
I hope you have a nice day!
You're so
excellent you are kitties. I hope you
have a nice day!
^^^-english_haiku_bot
Oh umm thank you
Your point?
I have always been against training dogs to do sexual acts, which is why i have never trained any dogs to do sexual acts. You calling a fact bullshit doesn't make it bullshit. If you have evidence that it is bullshit, let us know.
Yes, I'm ok with it. Being OK with it doesn't mean I will partake in it. (and you claim to be intelligent yet you keep proving that you aren't)
Same ay I'm Ok with pot being legal, yet I won't use it. Same way I'm ok with OTHERS training their dogs to do sexual acts, yet I won't do that because I'm personally against doing that.
Instead of saying this, why don't you rephrase the sentence so I can address it?
What Irony?
Depends of the circumstances.
Citation needed that all zoos that currently exist are needed.
Under very specific contexts that you are ignoring.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qlOTNtUvhe8
You outright said that you "trained" the neutered male Cocker Spaniel that you liked using, you also claimed that you weren't against training dogs to be sexual.
Your want to use legal terms in a discussion about the philosophy of morality just helps illuminate the fact that you are waaaaaaaaaaay out of your depth with this stuff.
It actually makes less sense once one considers that mens rea only applies to crimes being committed, which are a matter of legality and not morality. So separate, only a dumbass would conflate them.
More for the "Aluzky is an idiot" pile. The votes should tell you well enough who's argument is convincing. On the off chance you can't see them, its not yours.
Subjective irrelevant opinion.
Morality and legally are closely related, humans tend to make illegal what they find unacceptably/immoral.
I agree. Good thing that I'm not confusing legality with morality. I have never stated that non-human animal should be punished with human laws. Those who can defend their arguments with facts or logical syllogism win.
Ad populum fallacy. An argument being right is not decided with votes but with facts.
You are an idiot. Your arguments are to damn stupid to warrant proper response, and we loooong ago established that you refuse to admit fault or bother to learn a damn thing.
Kek kek Mothah Fuckah. Enjoy the ignorance you so relish.
I mean... holy shit... "Morality and legally are closely related" (ignoring the grammatical error) is used to justify taking concepts from one realm to the next and horrifically butcher them to use as his own justification. As if him saying they're 'related' means they are equivalent. Can you get a load of this guy's bullshit?
If idiots have an IQ of 134, then yes, I'm proudly an idiot.
Do you know what an ad hominem is?
I refused to admit fault about what? I chose to not learn what? Your sentence lacks context.
Sorry, but I have no idea on what you are talking about.
What bullshit? You are not making any arguments nor refuting my claims. Seems all you came here was to use ad hominems.
Its not an ad hominem if I have a proper argument next to it, dumbass. You did, however, commit fallacy fallacy again.
Need I remind you, just because you can't understand the argument doesn't make it wrong or non-existent, it just highlights your stupidity. Allow me to lay it out, reeeeeeal simple-like. Morals =/= Laws, they are related, yet unequal. Thus, concepts of Legality do not translate, equivalently, into the realm of morality like you attempted to do. Mens rea doesn't mean shit in the context of morals, since its purely a legal term. It also pre-supposes that an act is a crime, which is a whole other bag of worms but we'll ignore that, which is a favor towards you.
Simple enough? Probably not, but one can only try.
So I'll just add this one to the pile as well, albeit its not nearly as ridiculous as some other gems you've provided. Also, what kind of anti-social dipshit repeats their IQ ad nauseum like it means something behind a wall of anonymity. Not to mention that IQ says nothing conclusive about you except how good you are at taking IQ tests, a controversy surrounding the IQ test that has been common knowledge for the past few decades. Fuck, you're dumb...
You didn't give a proper argument, all you did was insult me and my arguments.
Prove it, where hae I made that fallacy?
No need to remind me, that I'm well aware of that fact.
Prove it. What stupidity?
In some places, there is no distinction from law and moral, because they make immoral stuff illegal or thy think that what is illegal is immoral.
Depends of the context. Sometime it does translate.
Doesn't mean that it can't be aliped to animals. Same way we call it rape when a human rapes an animal even that legally rape only applies to humans act with humans.
If the act has a victim, then it is a crime.
Context, to what are you making that comment?
Citation needed that I have made ridiculous claims.
Citation needed that I'm anti-social. I'm correcting people who claims that i have a low IQ by letting them know what my IQ is. I know my approximate IQ as i have taken IQ tests in the past. If they where not to go around claiming that i have a low IQ, i would have no need to ever mention my actual IQ to correct their non-factual claims.
Citation needed.
I have an IQ around 134 and that is the opposite of dumb. The fact that you have to resort to insults, shows that you are the one who has a lower IQ than mine.
Twenty-one days. Twenty-one fuckin' days ago. You really have an issue letting shit go don't you?
Anytime you say "ad hominem" you're committing fallacy fallacy. Do I have to link to every time you've done that, or are you aware of what you've typed enough to realize it now?
That's your response? Are you fucking kidding me. "In some places this is treated as true, thus it is in all instances, including now."
Nope. Nope. No. You have got to realize how fuckin' stupid you sound, so I can only conclude you're trolling at this point. You also clearly don't even know what the definition of a crime is, or where a crime comes from. Why should I treat your argument seriously if you clearly aren't?
Your insistence on stating the obvious for no reason is also more proof of your idiocy. I have aaaaaaall these posts of you showing your dumbassery, with only your assertion, "No I'm not, I got, like, 134 IQ points!" to counter it. Funny enough, a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence from a dumbass isn't proof of anything. You're still a dumbass, mostly because your posts highlight this fact very well. Notice how basically everybody you've interacted with has tried to tell you this? There's a reason for this pattern, nimrod.
Also, go fuckin' educate yourself on IQ. Google more for further studies and professional psychologists and sociologists saying IQ doesn't mean what you keep thinking or implying it means. I thought this was common knowledge. It very well could be; you not knowing this doesn't mean it isn't common, could just mean you're a fuckin' idiot. Your "134 IQ" doesn't negate that you're an idiot, even if its true... which I very much doubt and you will never verify. Here's another one. Fuck that was easy. Why do I have to do your research for you?
Oh, rite, cuz you're a fucking idiot.
If possible I'm going to reply to every comment directed at me. I have 200 comments that I need to reply, some are 21 days old, some are months old. It is rude to not reply to those who reply to me.
Fallacy fallacy definition: You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
Can you prove a single instance of me doing that fallacy? If not, your claim is a baseless accusations and not a fact.
Link + explanation of why I made the fallacy is enough.
Correct.
Never.
Red herring fallacy.
You also clearly don't even know what the definition of a crime is, or where a crime comes from.
False attribution fallacy unless you can defend your claim with evidence.
Avoiding the Issue fallacy. You are making the false excuse that I'm not serious to avoid defending your
indefensibleclaims.Red herring fallacy.
Dumbassery? And what is the definition of that word? Where is the evidence that I fit that definition?
I agree. Which is what you have been doing all this time.
Unless you can prove it with evidence, that statement is only true in your imagination.
Prove it.
Hasty generalization fallacious. Only a few selected individuals (who IMO are not very intelligent) have tried to tell me that. The large majority of people have not tried to tell me that.
And what is what I think about IQ? Where is the evidence that I think that? FYI: I don't imply stuff, if I didn't say it literally, then I never say it.
Even if it is, common knowledge is not know by everyone.
Idiot is related to a low IQ, where not knowing something is related to how educated a person is on a topic. Lets follow your logic, since you don't know this fact, you must be an idiot. lulz
And Idiot has an IQ below 70. The fact that my IQ is above 130 proves that I'm not an idiot. You calling me an idiot is nothing but INSULTS from an immature person.
The world doesn't end if I don't prove that i have a high IQ, and i have no need to prove it. You people are the one accusing me of being an idiot, the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
If you have the burden of proof, you are the one that has to do the research to support your claims.
You don't need to dude. The fact that you even said that is more testament to my assertion that you're fucking stupid.
You also clearly have no earthly clue what makes a claim based or baseless. I'm honestly insulted for others that you'd use the word as you did... You posted the definition of fallacy fallacy, and then have the audacity to pretend its not right fucking there in your comment?
You continually ignore my overall argument in favor of picking apart my semantics on some ridiculous notion that finding a fallacy in a non-debate makes you some form of "winner". It makes you stupid, and appear stupid, is what it does. That you don't see this would hint that you're even stupider.
Absurd. You are truly absurd. You are an absurd, stupid individual. One who continues to misuse IQ despite me just showing you an article telling you not to fuckin' do that. IQ classifications (the whole '<70 = mental retardation'... not 'idiot' you fucking idiot. Idiot is specifically <20. Dumbass) have been abandoned because psychologists noted how god damn stupid and useless they are, for the very reasons in those articles you seem to have ignored.
'Burden of Proof' also specifically doesn't matter over 'common knowledge'. Funny, I used that term for a reason, guess your idiot ass didn't pick that up.
'Gratz on missing a capitalization and being the only human on the planet who doesn't.
Cute, but that actually hurts you more then helps... since you are either a dumbass who can't extrapolate or a dumbass who actually thinks that was clever. Either way, more dumbassery.
The fact that you treat my clear insults as formal points of debate is the biggest reason why you're a complete fucking idiot though. If you quote that, you're proving me right.
IMO is rude to not reply back.
You thinking that I'm stupid is a subjective opinion and not a scientific fact.
Citation needed.
Is not my job to prove that it is there. If you claim that it is there, then PROVE IT.
I address 100% of a person comment, I never ignore anything on purpose. If I ignored any of your arguments it was done by mistake, so, feel free to let me know which argumetn I ignored by accident and I will gladly address it.
Again, subjective opinions, not facts. And it is not relevant if you believe those things about me.
Again, subjective opinions, not facts. You have never presented any scientific evidence that I'm stupid.
Again, subjective opinions, not facts.
You have not presented any evidence that I have misused IQ.
I never said that 70 = idiot, I said that idiot are below 70. 20 is indeed below 70. So, straw man fallacy right there.
Again subjective opinion not fact.
CITATION NEEDED.
I didn't ignore them.
Thanks. Though, why are you congratulating me for a lazy typo?
Subjective opinion, not fact.
Again, subjective opinion, not fact unless you can present actual citations.
Thanks for admitting that you are insulting me several times on purpose. I will be reporting your comment as rule 7 violation.
You are aware that subjective opinions matter in bullshit internet arguments, correct? What clued you in that this is some form of formal debate subjected to your bizarre ass rules? We also see a pretty clear example of you skirting around admitting to a mistake and instead relying on semantics and pedantry to be "right"... which is something only insecure dipshits attempt to save face and don't get their egos bruised.
You being a dumbass is very relevant, and by this point quite factual for the myriad of reasons I've repeatedly stated combined with your... ludicrous posts.
Lookie, you proved me right again!
I'm unaware and I don't see how they can matter.
What?
We also see a pretty clear example of you skirting around admitting to a mistake and instead relying on semantics and pedantry to be "right"... which is something only insecure dipshits attempt to save face and don't get their egos bruised.
You have not provided any evidence that I'm a dumbass. And even if you prove it, which you can't, it would still be irrelevant.
I proved you right about what? You sentence lacks context.
Oh trust me, we know.
The context is easily ascertained with clicking the word "context" twice.
You then did.
I'm vegetarian, not vegan.
I find that most of vegan ideas go too far.
I see extremist vegans like I see extremists in every religion : The 1% who give a wrong image of the 99%.
...and I see people who generalise vegans as not too far away from those they oppose...
Unfortunately, I'm not wrong.
In vegans, there is that 1% to kill every good actions of the other 99%.
PS : I edited my previous post. It could be misunderstood.
Nobody will have to worry about this anytime soon. Right now everyone including PETA heavily advocates adopting animals from shelters.
In the order of importance meat, animal products, breeders, companion animals, with the latter being a maybe at best for most people. And for breeders, it just depends. Just go to youtube and watch some videos of so called breeders. To me there is no question that the act of making animals mate when their willingness to do so is questionable at best absolutely needs to be abolished. As is, separating their young from their parents and giving them away, before they're old enough to be independent. I mean that we are faaaar away from reaching the most important issue, there will be lots of time until the topic of companion animals is even worth considering.
For meat and animal products, everyone who cares for the well-being of animals should know where they stand there. I only blame the upbringing of people and society pushing the consumption of animal products on people for so many people being on the wrong side. If you really imagine a world where 95-99% of the people around you have always been opposed to using and eating animal products, where you were brought up as a vegan as the norm, how many people who consider themselves animal lovers would really go out of their way to kill animals to eat them?
Right now the most troubling aspect of most of the vegan communities for me is the acceptance of "neutering and spaying" over vasectomies, tubal ligations or other less harmful methods for population control. I don't really understand how the bodily integrity and autonomy is never even considered by most...
I do like the abolitionist animal liberation idea, but as an ideal it's not completely realistic. Personally I think that in the end there will be a compromise where companion animals are not legally owned by people and are legally "free", but that people can be caretakers, but with fewer of the legal implications of "ownership". No, I don't know how exactly it would work, I just hope something in this direction can be figured out.
I've noticed this trend among vegans sadly.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I'm a vegan that is a zoophile. Yes, a lot of vegans are screwed up, but, a lot aren't. Sadly, it's a messed up world. I know, this didn't help your anxiety, sorry.
I like dogs too, mine's a he.
/r/VeganPogrom will shelter you in these frightening times!
That place seems dead, last activity was like 4 months ago. And they seem to be against veganism.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/06/you-dont-say.gif