Social contradiction on how we treat animals

JeffKenna wrote: »

Do you also feel as strongly about cruelty free clothing?

Defo. As in all things, 'do no harm' or, in this skewed economic system, as little as possible, given the choice. Most of my clothes are from second-hand shops, f'r instance.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You presume eh ?

Maybe you should set up a thread comparing the quality of life of animals in Ireland and of a 6 year old child making clothes.

You could then discuss that with like minded people of which there are at least 4.

Pretty weird way of thinking but each to their own.

To be honest this thread has made little sense from the start. The OP suggests that people would waste time, money and resources to save a dog just because it's a dog and that we wouldn't do the same for other animals. This is completely untrue, plenty of evidence people have and will do the same for livestock, pets and wild animals a like. As for the video of a complete nutjob runnig down ostriches I don't see what that issue had in connection with this particular thread.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah. You’re not understanding the thread.

Most carnists will struggle but the penny will drop for some.

No, because it makes no sense.
Vegans beat this drum to death.

We don't eat dog because the meat is no good.
We don't keep cows as pets because they are too hard to house train and not great at show jumping either.
Horse is widely eaten; but in Ireland mostly they are kept for recreational use, show jumping, racing etc and most don't enter the food chain as they have received bute.

There is no penny to drop, where is the social contradiction? If we don't eat dog just because they have some special status, then why don't we eat fox or badger or rat for that matter. People choose animals for livestock or pets based on their traits. Cows make good livestock but poor pets, dogs make good pets but poor live stock, and horses fit both categories quite well and are used as such.

On the whole dog thing which comes up again and again, if we kept doogs as live stock, we would also need to keep other livestock to feed the dogs which makes farming them impractical, not to mention the increased disease risk associated with eating carnivores.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Makes perfect sense to me.

No drum being beaten here.

If you don’t understand or if it upsets you then simply unfollow and try to find something you enjoy.

Ah yes the old don't debate things on public forums response.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You could then discuss that with like minded people of which there are at least 4.

Speaking to an echo chamber like you’re suggesting leads to nothing only too much confidence in the ideas and concepts discussed.

It sometimes leads to conspiracy theories or religions/cults.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah. You’re not understanding the thread.

Most carnists will struggle but the penny will drop for some.

Is there any need to use (vegan derived) derogatory language for those who eat a normal mixed diet of both plant and animal products in a discusion - other than to insult and cause offence? If anyone else here used made up and derisive descriptives about vegans I'm sure they would rightly get a royal bollocking from the powers that be.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You presume eh ?

Maybe you should set up a thread comparing the quality of life of animals in Ireland and of a 6 year old child making clothes.

You could then discuss that with like minded people of which there are at least 4.

Pretty weird way of thinking but each to their own.

You completely ignored my point and just deflected away from it. Do you purchase clothes from Primark, Nike etc? Or do you feel that to be morally OK?

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Is carnist a real term? Or is it just a derogatory slur you like to use?

Nope not real - it was completly made up by a vegan 'thinker" called Melanie Joy in a commercial book a number of years back who variously claims that:

'carnism' (sic) is a violent ideology that enables humane people to participate in inhumane practices without realizing what they’re doing.

How the frack is that not piece of opinion not derogratory? The term itself is not in any real dictionaries such as Collins although you'll find any amount of online pushing of the phrase in various vegan websites as if it is an actual recognised word - It's not.

The most noticeable thing here - is that this madey up word is generally used to slander anyone whose diet varies from strict veganism and is nearly always used in context with passive - aggresive type language as in the example above.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Think you’re a bit lost in the flow of the conversation.
You’d be better off reading all posts to help you understand my post before you inaccurately accuse me of something. Unless your used to just making stuff up and running with whatever ?

The poster is correct. Your comment was at best belittling and condescending. It's the general stench of sanctimony which comes across as overwhelming.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A good explanation to why most carnists are acting without any real awareness or thought.

Would be good to see this taught in primary schools to allow children the chance to step back from current socials norms and make their own choices -

https://youtu.be/o0VrZPBskpg

Again Carnist = fictional ideology.
We don't choose meat based on social exceptance of what is or not edibal, it's much simpler.

golden retriever is substandard meat, more likely to pose a disease risk and very inefficient to farm on a scale required for food production (what would we feed dogs bred on a large scale for meat?)

So not a social contradiction just very impractical.

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s great that some of the input from the many farmers on this forum confirms, for your average member of the public, that farm animals are indeed very intelligent, social and have their own personalities.

This confirmation could help carnists to understand the impact of their choices and make a change so they can truly call themselves animal lovers.

Currently most carnists think they are animals lovers but the truth of their choices is they only love some animals.

Are you suggesting that vegans are animal lovers, unconditionally?
Or are they only lovers of "cute" animals?
That rat/mouse/whatever behind the press in the utility room would be welcomed with open arms by every vegan?
I don't think so.
Vegans are just as contradicted as anyone else, and the terminology they use about animals ("babies" etc ) show a level of disconnect with the reality of the animal kingdom.
Little piglets are impossibly cute and funny, but when they grow up they'd just as merrily eat you or me, as the cereal based foodstuff we provide for them.
A fresian bull calf is a dote at a couple of weeks old, at two years of age he'd grind you into the ground like hamburger if you met him on a day he was in bad humour.
The Disneyfication of both wild and domestic animals seems to have caused a minority to lose much of their facilities and power of critical reasoning.