JaneyPoos said:

Maybe folks who own meat eating pets should be 'vegans' or 'vegitarians'

And those who don't can be Vegpremists?

Imago said:

that's vegelitism!
[Edited 10/27/09 10:39am]

Imago said:

Mai khao jai.

Back to the thread though, this is the first time I've thought about this topic, but I'd have to agree with you that it's hypocritical if you're vegan/veggie on moral grounds. I can't imagine how a strict vegan could maintain their stance and not feel like it were being completely undermined.

JaneyPoos said:

my dogs eat dog food. one of them is a lesbian. she is always humping my other girl dog. Poor thing looks at me like "i do not want to judge but wtf?"

ultrablue said:

Also, from what I understand it's relatively difficult to confirm that the sources of meat going into the products is safe and of sound quality--it's nearly impossible to confirm that the animals used were ethically treated.

I wish someone would breed rabbits that were liter-box trained and had the same qualities of dogs and cats.

Rabbits are sooo cute, but they just remind mind me of deformed rats when it comes to intelligence. Maybe I just haven't been exposed to them long enough, but dogs and cats just seem so much more intelligent.

I think in Bangkok, I'm just going to resort to keeping an Englishman, but forcing him to eat vegan food. That seems best. Your thoughts?

ultrablue said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Thank you for taking this thread into a more expansive direction. I was hoping someone would come along and breath some life into it.

ultrablue said:

I thought it was hilarious.
But I didn't want to draw attention to it because they folks would start to suspect my threads are shit.

Imago said:

Harsh but fair I like it! I keep my title and my pets... everyones a winner!

Imago said:

I see the kittens next door and I wish we'd never got our dog. Cats seem so much cleaner. Our dog gets in the rubbish bags, rolls around in muddy water, jumps all over us, barks all the time and constantly looks dirty (looks like a stray really).

About your last point, if he's not allowed will you be eating the Englishman's meat for him?

.
[Edited 10/27/09 10:51am]

ultrablue said:

Cats are MUCH cleaner than dogs. MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH cleaner. I babysat a dog for 7 days, and he must have had 4 baths in that short time. Cats can go months without needing a bath, and indoor cats can go longer.
Of course, giving a dog a bath involves very little drama. Giving a cat a bath is not something either you or the cat will ever forget.


With regards to the Englishman, of course.

ultrablue said:

but you don't think vegetarians look disapprovingly at lions do you?

Part of being vegetarian is that our bodies are made to accommodate such a choice, as our free will, consciousness, etc. It all comes together and allows us the choice.

Cats & dogs are not in the same position. They are made to eat meat. However we could reduce our carbon footprint by not having pets at all! They produce waste & use energy no matter what they eat. But they also are far less wasteful than even the strictest vegan.

NDRU said:

Of course they are woefully over-populated as it is. Puppy mills and breeding practices definitely deserve scrutiny.

But someone has to take care of these animals. Every cat I've ever had has been a stray that I have adopted and has not been allowed to reproduce. One person can only take care of so many, but I do my part.

NDRU said:

This is along the lines of the type of conversation I was trying to produce.

Yes, at which point is the carbon footprint or the 'ethical foot' print drawn?
Seems arbitrary.

I have my own arbitrary standards (As mentioned on the original post), but at some point, such moral questions and delimas must come up with everyone. I just don't see how they can be resolved and still in tact if one owns such animals--that's not to say I don't love such animals. It's just a thought.

Also, we bred these animals to be our companions. But Lions, we take no real day-to-day Karmic participation with regards to their lives. With these pets (cats and dogs), we not only participate in their lifestyle--we encourage and develop them, often owning multiple animals.


I've also heard the argument that we don't require our friends and lovers to be vegan/vegitarians. But again--we don't own or breed them either. We do, however, very much control what types of animals we keep in our house.

But not to let too much scope creep get into the debate, I just want to know: Is a vegan/vegetarian truly adhering to moral principles of veganism if they choose to own such animals?

I have Mach's take on it--and I know where that's coming from. So, I imagine the answer is 'yes' if you factor in 'point of view'.

CarrieMpls said:

That's true and yes adopting a pet in need is a good thing. But my real point is that even though there may be too many, they still have virtually no possessions, don't drive cars, don't need bottled water, don't watch TV, are generally smaller than us, etc etc.

People are the problem, not animals. So the choices WE make are far more important than whether or not a cat exists or if it eats meat.

NDRU said:

To be honest, I'm not in a position where it's necessary for me to think about it in any great detail. My brain, in passing, think it's hypocritical but that's of no consequence to anyone either. I respect peoples' choices for their own lives and those of their pets. I wouldn't think any less of anyone for their stance on keeping and feeding pets as a vegan/vegetarian. I'm happy if they're happy.

NDRU said:

absolutely.

NDRU said:

Yes, but it still takes 18 pounds of grain to feed one pound of beef-source catfood, so from a green point of view, the pet industry isn't exactly environmentally ethical either.

And yes people are the problem, I agree. We shouldn't be, if we really think about it, keeping pets at all if we want to go extreme with it.

But I don't. I just posed a rather specific question: Are owners of meat eat pets adhering to the principles of veganism/vegitarianism---I'm not talking about the technical principles (not eating meat), but the overall principles and spirit of humane and ethical treatment.

I wonder what PETA's stance is on owning meat eating pets
Cause I've heard some fools try to feed their cats and dogs veggie food, and their fish soy-derived fish food (which to me is even more cruel).

ultrablue said:

I agree, we're all doing what we can, and nobody's perfect. I give someone credit for the good choices they make and try to allow for a few bad choices that I know I make.

ultrablue said:

I don't think any less of them. I just think they're hypocrites and shit.


But seriously, I think when and if I finally go full tilt into it, I'll refrain from owning meat eating pets--I disdain the American meat industry as it is. If I do own a cat or dog, I'm going to make my own cat/dog food from organically grown meat. And of course, this means, I'm a long way off.

Imago said:

Well, I think that the more hardcore a person gets about their choices, the more they apply that method of thinking towards their pets. The heath food shoppers don't all buy friskies. A lot of them actually cook for their pets, and talk about stuff like boycotting iambs.

But they still drive cars, too. Or eat grain that requires petroleum to produce, or grown by farmers who eat meat So it's really difficult to not be a hypocrite without living like an animal--naked and in the woods.

But I think people do try to get close to the principles, and the most important choice they can make is for themselves.

NDRU said:

Great points.
I think folks on this thread should start with putting their pets to sleep.

Then buy Macs. They use a lot less energy than other products, and contain no mercury.

Imago said:

they should probably eat their pets so as not to waste anything.

I wonder if we could quantify the waste the org adds to the universe?

CarrieMpls said:

Yes, I'm attacking the label I guess (I missed this post originally).

I'm just trying to purify my party like Rush Limbaugh. You can't have your tufu and fluffly too.

Imago said:

I know this is a bit much but I've been thinking its best for vegans/vegetarians to be with vegans/vegetarians. It eliminates a lot of drama.

Imago said:

That's the thing. If it means that much to you (to not have a meat eating pet), and not doing it bothers you and makes you uncomfortable then you can go ahead and do it. It's entirely personal. There's no crime either way. It's not 'bad' in any way other than you might personally feel you're not happy with it. If someone's vegan and feeds their cat meat and is cool with that, what else is there to say? If they're not cool with it and do as you said, same thing. My simpleton's brain thinks of it like if I said I were fully committed to getting fit and healthy and then went and ate loads of junk food. People could think of that what they will. Would that make me stupid? A liar? A fool? If I went on and on and bragged about how important it was to get fit would that make me a hypocrite? Even more of a fool than if I didn't make such a big deal out of it? Are there greater and lesser degrees of foolishness and hypocrisy and does it really matter what anybody thinks of you in such matters? Is it actually important in any way other than on a personal level?

I think in answer to the core of your thread, that very straightforward question you've asked, is that it's hypocritical. I'm just not even sure if that hypocrisy is even a 'bad' thing. I don't think I need decide.

JackieBlue said:

Well, Zombiekitten once posed a perfect question. If you swallow sperm, are you really ever vegan?

Imago said:

I was waiting for that
Every sperm is sacred! You might be a vegan but you're going to hell!

ultrablue said:

You've just pussy-footed and backtracked your original 'it's hypocritical' post, if not by refuting it, then at least in spirit. I sense you're still concerned your "ultrablue appreciation thread" maintain a certain level of support.

Your posts on this thread will thus be taken with only casual amusement.