We can't even talk in this community dedicated to vegans without someone coming along and meatsplaining.
We can't even talk in this community dedicated to vegans without someone coming along and meatsplaining.
You're viewing part of a thread.
You've invented a vegan in your head to be smarter than. My vegan stance on culls is found here: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/11017095
Context of super necessary (apparently) kangaroo culls.
Species don't suffer, only individuals do. This defense of sheep implies we need to keep breeding pugs, or that if I were to make supersheep who lived ever minute of the day screaming in agony it would be bad to stop breeding them. An absurd stance.
In the interim selling wool creates perverse incentives and if it's a humanitarian effort (so to speak) we should use it for ends which don't profit us.
Your objections are standard and tedious, your examples of extremism in the ideology are actually examples of moderate stances.
I've never met a vegan that finds it morally objectional to scavange meat, assuming you aren't creating perverse incentives. Our objections are to suffering, you should probably stop tilting at strawmen.
You're a mod and didn't like the reply so you deleted it.
And you pretend you don't know what I mean when I say some vegans get upset and have issues with replying to these arguments, lol.
You're welcome to engage in good faith. I have infinite patience for anyone genuinely interested in discussion. It is against the rules of this community to post antivegan rhetoric.
Your initial comment was borderline butI decided to engage in good faith. Then you didn't engage with anything I said and said a few random gotchas. Other mods are welcome to intervene if they felt I removed your comment in error.
If you would like to rephrase your reply and write a better one you are welcome to do so.
There's no gotchas, and it is in good faith.
This post is about how vegans engage with non-vegans.
I noted that often many vegans who are arguing on online forums (this is something I also specified in both comments, because I acknowledge and respect the fact that small online communities don't necessarily represent everyone, or even most people) are often very dogmatic. This can be seen from them getting very upset when they can't answer certain rhetoric.
Case in point; you deleting a reply you found hard to answer and then pretending I'm arguing in bad faith.
You clearly say that you think vegans don't have an issue with "scavanged" meat. ("Scavenged", btw.) This implies that you think vegans would agree that hunting and eating game meat is acceptable and even necessary. Do you think that? (Note, I'm not assuming you do. I'm asking, in good faith.)
The second question is about sheep, since you clearly say that stopping their breeding is the answer. Stopping breeding will lead to the extinction of a species, this is a rather clear consequence. Again, I'm asking this in good faith, exactly because it's a hard question to answer. Asking the hard questions is often when the dogmatic attitudes are revealed.
But it is in the interest veganism to try to satisfactorily answer these questions to develop as an ideology. If it can't do that, then it has to change. If it can't answer, but won't change either, then it is dogmatic.
If you can do the following:
-
comment on the content of my post on culling
-
talk about hunting and perverse incentives
-
edit your reply in the context of sheep species perpetuation to address what I had to say about super sheep/pugs, how wool is used
-
edit your reply to differentiate hunting versus scavenging
I will engage with you. Otherwise I will be recommending you get banned.
-
You can only comment here under the guise of good faith for so long. You're trying to bait a certain response so that you can "prove" a point and put words in other people's mouths.
I'm vegan with a somewhat differing view on culls, having worked for the EPA and with national parks. I agree that a better solution than culling would be ideal, and that no life wants to be killed or population managed. However, we cull because of our past failings. We wiped out natural predators in many areas that kept a balance, and now, if left unchecked, deer will eat themselves into starvation, and devastate their ecosystem. It would be death on a massive scale if unmanaged, and would even affect humans. I think it's a far smaller crime to kill a few deer and manage populations at safe levels, than to allow the mass starvation of entire ecosystems because of our past destruction of that balance.
Better solutions have been proposed. Ideally, where we can, we reintroduce native predators and protect their populations until they're stable. Is that different from killing for population control? We're introducing animals for the explicit purpose of hunting and killing deer in order to keep a balance. If that's wrong, then should we kill all predators? Of course not, but I digress. Those aren't arguments I think you'd make, and I'm not suggesting you'd agree whatsoever, but those are the perspectives we think about. Many many smart people have tackled this issue, and we have not found a better solution than culling. Sometimes, we've done some of what you suggested, and attempted to reduce fertility rates, though I see the same moral issue there as well. No sentient creature wants to be neutered or drugged to prevent reproduction. However, it's better than hunting in certain circumstances, and something has to be done. This isn't a problem that can be ignored to reduce environmental impacts in other areas. Overpopulation will happen, and it is devastating. I wish there was a simple solution, but we made mistakes when we destroyed the native ecosystem, and now it falls to us to keep it from totally collapsing.
But why not humans? and why make a sport of it and celebrate it, why eat them?
Like if species with a tendency to breed to ecosystem collapse should be killed, aren't we top of the list?
Without getting all Agent Smith about it, yes, humans are an ecological disaster. I'm not trying to throw charged what-ifs back and forth. We solve the problems we can. Can you clarify what you're saying? I agree that no animal should be killed by humans, but I also recognize that we must work with the solutions we have. Are you suggesting that we stop cullings and allow overpopulation to happen?
I strongly agree that hunting should not be a sport. I also believe that if we're going to kill an animal, we should at least use the corpse to feed back into the ecosystem, and I don't begrudge those that eat the things they hunt, if necessary. Many people subsist off hunting to survive, and while I disagree with the concept of hunting another animal for food, I won't suggest that they starve, especially when they're filling a vital ecosystem role. If we don't need the food though, we should not be hunting animals for food. I don't know if my opinion is well founded enough to defend the position that if an animal is killed, tragically necessarily, for culling, it should not be eaten. I believe that to be true, but I can't defend that position with anything but my personal feelings and beliefs. On some level, I understand the argument that if an animal must be killed, then it's wasteful to not use the meat. Regardless of either argument, I strongly disagree with trophy hunting, and find any hunting for sport abhorrent.
I hope you can see the nuanced nature of my position. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or be contrarian. I have a well-formed belief from my experiences, and I am trying to argue my position, and don't think you have to agree with me, nor do I expect you to. I do not see a large scale alternative to culling at the moment. I think those types of alternatives are being pursued by some in the industry, but the scale is small. I also do not believe it's an option to allow populations to grow uncontrollably. I believe allowing that to happen would be as morally reprehensible as hunting for sport, as it's neglecting a duty we have to sustain an ecosystem that we damaged. I am open and interested in any and all alternatives to culling, but I've heard none that haven't been tried or that haven't been able to succeed at scale.
I went to sleep, I may write something more sensible when I have more patience but I suspect the difference is mostly speciesm. I think we ought not to discriminate in ways we treat species and standards we have about appropriate interventions. I agree that in the short terms there may not be good options but like suppose there are 5 spots on a liferaft and 10 people, that doesn't really make leaving 5 people to drown OK and you defs shouldn't outsource it to random yahoos that enjoy killing people.
Given we can't like distribute condoms and the pill to like kangaroos or deer or whatever there may be no good answers in the short term, but killing should be the absolute last resort. Like we should be closing farms for more land, managing forests for better outcomes, reducing fertility if we can and so on long before we kill. If we do kill we need to make sure it is done with a sole focus on harm reduction, which the way culls are done now is defs not true and we ought to be happy to apply the same reasoning to human beings (basically that we have tried everything else we can and because we can't reason violence is all that's left).
I agree that killing should be the absolute last resort, though I disagree that killing humans for population control should ever be in consideration. There is a difference between taking the role of a natural process, the predators that have been depopulated, and killing humans for population control, which have no natural predators. We also never need to consider that as an option, because as you pointed out, we can't distribute pills and condoms to deer, but we can to humans. We shouldn't be thinking of things in terms of equality, but equity. Humans can be managed through effective legislation and education. Deer cannot, and need much more direct intervention. I look forward to the day that culling is no longer necessary, as it's a brutal and unfortunate necessary evil. And for the purposes of demonstrating that it's not specifically about species to me, yes, I believe that if the only way to save the global ecosystem was a rapid depopulation of human beings with no alternatives, it would be right to do so, regardless of how impossible that hypothetical situation is.
Well yes, I also agree that we should never consider killing humans. Which is why I come down hard against culls. I don't have any evidence to suggest my life is more meaninful to me than a kangaroo's life is more meaningful to them.
Atm we cull without even really trying other things. We aren't gods, we make do with what we have, but we can leverage a shitload more resources towards non violent means of managing ecosystems for the benefit of all of their participants than we currently do.
My stance can be found
Did I say "yours specifically" or was I talking about loads of other people who may or may not include you? Was I talking about all vegans, or the ones who's rhetoric is most on display in debates?
It's disingenuous to pretend that dogmatic vegans aren't a dime a dozen.
This defense of sheep implies we need to keep breeding pugs, or that if I were to make supersheep who lived ever minute of the day screaming in agony it would be bad to stop breeding them.
So you are actually for getting rid of the entire species?
I've never met a vegan that finds it morally objectional to scavange meat, assuming you aren't creating perverse incentives. Our objections are to suffering, you should probably stop tilting at strawmen.
Ah, so you're for hunting, because without it people, animals and nature would be suffering and dying more.
How many vegans do you think wouldn't explicitly agree with "I think hunting (in the context of deer management) is a good and necessary practice, and it's perfectly fine to enjoy the meat of the deer"?
Because I've not met a single one, and am pretty sure even you won't. I'm pretty sure no-one would think vegans are fine with hunting and eating game meat. You know, because then they'd technically be ideologically flexitarian and not vegan.