Vegetarian & Vegan pet owners

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you observe that vegetarians are involved in killing animals for food for their pets, you can either conclude that they are fudging their morals, or you can re-examine your own views as to what their morals are, being open to the possibility that your views might be mistaken.

Obviously, you've already made your choice in that regard, but imagine a hypothetical you who is less certain of his own rightness. Such a you might conclude that the evidence shows your initial belief that "the vast majority of vegetarians don't eat meat because they think it's morally wrong to kill animals for food" is incorrect. On the evidence, vegetarians may think it's morally wrong to kill animals for food for themselves, but not necessarily wrong to kill animals for food for creatures who have a dietary requirement for animal protein.

The cow is just as dead though. They may as well eat steak and have a pet rabbit.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I think the vast majority of vegetarians don't eat meat because they think it's morally wrong to kill animals for food. This isn't about what vegetarians think other people or animals should eat. My point isn't hard to understand.

If a vegetarian gets a meat eating pet they are therefore knowingly involved in the killing of animals for food which in my eyes is fudging of morals.

I highlighted the most relevant part in this post.

Most of the vegetarians I know don't eat meat simply because they dislike the taste.
Personally, I don't eat meat because I don't like the thought of eating a dead animal.
That doesn't mean in any way that I object to other people eating meat, let alone animals eating other animals.

I think you might want to go out and talk to people a little more before posting sweeping assumptions about them online. Thanks.

Shenshen wrote: »

What if they just don't want to eat steak? What's so hard to understand about that?

Nothing's hard to understand. If they don't want to eat it that's grand. I'm just saying that if you're going to eschew meat for yourself on moral grounds but not for your pet it makes no difference to the cow; it dies anyway. So you may as well, if the moral aspect is what's driving your vegetarianism, eat the steak yourself and have a pet rabbit. As far as the cow is concerned it's all the same.

Effects wrote: »

Human grade. Sure.

Actually most pet food is, if not human grade, at least safe for human consumption. This is because so many homeless people eat dog food.

WearstheFoxhat wrote: »

Some might say a carrot is a living thing?

And biologically speaking, they would be correct. What's your point?

kylith wrote: »

Nothing's hard to understand. If they don't want to eat it that's grand. I'm just saying that if you're going to eschew meat for yourself on moral grounds but not for your pet it makes no difference to the cow; it dies anyway. So you may as well, if the moral aspect is what's driving your vegetarianism, eat the steak yourself and have a pet rabbit. As far as the cow is concerned it's all the same.
Actually most pet food is, if not human grade, at least safe for human consumption. This is because so many homeless people eat dog food.

Let's assume that the moral grounds we're talking about are indeed "I don't want an animal to die so that I can eat it" - how does that make letting cats and dogs starve the more moral option?

Shenshen wrote: »

Let's assume that the moral grounds we're talking about are indeed "I don't want an animal to die so that I can eat it" - how does that make letting cats and dogs starve the more moral option?

It's not a more moral option, but if your objection to eating meat is that it's immoral to kill something to eat it then it's something of a contradiction to get a pet that needs to eat meat. There are plenty of rabbits and guinea pigs that need homes too.

kylith wrote: »

It's not a more moral option, but if your objection to eating meat is that it's immoral to kill something to eat it then it's something of a contradiction to get a pet that needs to eat meat. There are plenty of rabbits and guinea pigs that need homes too.

Oh, I see the problem now, I think. You assume that vegetarians and vegans object to anyone and anything eating meat, not just refusing to eat it themselves.

I have to say, I don't think that there are very many out there who feel that not only every member of the human race but also every member of the animal kingdom ought to not consume meat. It's a bit of an assumption, but I don't think that there are many out there objecting to an animal's natural diet - I've yet to hear of a member of PETA trying to teach a pride of lions about the benefits of tempeh.

Personally, I don't think it's immoral at all that other people (and animals) kill and eat other animals. In the case of the humans, that's their choice. In the case of the animals, they don't have a choice.
I just don't want it for myself.

osarusan wrote: »

you should google Pink Slime.

You tend not to find mechanically recovered meat in a butcher's shop. It's also not 'a lot of meat' which gives the impression that, well a lot of meat is chemically processed to make it fit for consumption, which is just wrong. AFAIK the only bit you cut directly from an animal which needs treatment is tripe, and that's not a common cut any more.

Also; you are aware that vegetables tend to be washed in a bleach solution before packaging? And tinned citrus fruits are soaked in acid to remove the membranes. Chemical treatments aren't confined to meat products.

Midkemia wrote: »

Is weetabix veggie? Because my cat loved it :P

Yes, but I wouldn't feed it too much. The cat is probably enjoying the milk more than the weetabix, but even milk is bad for cats as they're lactose intolerant.

Contrary to the popular idea that cats should drink milk, they really, really shouldn't.

In terms of the weetabix, cats are obligate carnivores. This basically means that they cannot process nutrients from vegetable sources. So even if your cat eats a whole bowl of weetabix in the morning, you shouldn't assume she's been "fed" for that day. You should ensure they have some proper food.

kylith wrote: »

You tend not to find mechanically recovered meat in a butcher's shop. It's also not 'a lot of meat' which gives the impression that, well a lot of meat is chemically processed to make it fit for consumption, which is just wrong. AFAIK the only bit you cut directly from an animal which needs treatment is tripe, and that's not a common cut any more.

Also; you are aware that vegetables tend to be washed in a bleach solution before packaging? And tinned citrus fruits are soaked in acid to remove the membranes. Chemical treatments aren't confined to meat products.

Don't disagree with any of that, just pointing out a meat that is treated before consumption, which you asked about.

osarusan wrote: »

Don't disagree with any of that, just pointing out a meat that is treated before consumption, which you asked about.

But you agree that it's not 'a lot' of meat? Because your statement that 'a lot of meat is disgusting and needs chemicals' to make it fit for consumption is totally erroneous and could make some people afraid that meat is somehow contaminated. You can buy a pig, cow, or sheep, slaughter it and cut lumps of it off and immediately cook and eat them, including the organs, and it is highly unlikely that you will catch anything unless the animal itself was diseased.

The only treatment that is usual for meat would be aging for steaks or brining for pork and corned beef.