Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lettuceLeafer wrote

I disagree, I would say if u incarcerate animals u can't be vegan. Anarcho super nice prisons uwu aren't ever good form an anarchist perspective also. (I'm trying to be nice and friendly but I can't figure out how to say my criticism without sounding like a dick). U r interesting to talk to and doing things I view as harmful and authoritarian doesn't make u a bad person or like not an anarchist or whatever.

But I do agree that cats are a massive problem and provide many quandries for veganism. So I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands how bad this argument is.

8

moonlune wrote

Its ok I caught your vibe. I'd probably catch it if you were trying not to be nice and firendly too haha.

yeah I agree that keeping cats indoors is also animal torture. I have a friend that has a lone cat indoors and she's going insane (she was also kept alone in a rabbit cage by farmers as a baby and I assume she also was separated from her mom before being weaned, my friend "saved" her). She has cat anxiety and is scared of visitors and pisses blood when she gets stressed so my friend put her on a special diet. She wouldn't go outside anyways she's too scared but it breaks my heart to see her each time I go to my friend's place, she hisses at me when I'm less than 2 meters away.

The only real vegan solution is that all (house) cats should be sterilized asap to the limit of extinction.

6

lettuceLeafer wrote

Okay cool. Idk about sterilization it's something I don't have an opinion on bc I'm unsure on how I feel

3

vos wrote

Yeah violating their bodily autonomy because you as a human deem their numbers to be too high is very anti-speciesist.

/s

3

moonlune wrote (edited )

bodily autonomy

male cats rape and have spikes on their dicks.

Are you suggesting to let people's pets eat and kill to near extinction local wildlife like they did in new zealand?

4

vos wrote

Maybe if those people you call 'wildlife' hadn't had a lot of their habitats destroyed by humans, they wouldn't now be near extinct. And maybe if humans didn't massively sexually exploit the nonhumans you call 'pets', their numbers wouldn't be so high in the first place. My point is, this is the fault of humans and punishing nonhumans for our mess is messed up. So yeah, only thing that rests us now is to cope with the consequences of our actions. And of course fight civilization.

4

Bezotcovschina OP wrote

male cats rape and have spikes on their dicks

Hmmmm... I don't get your point. How it's relevant?

4

moonlune wrote

I was implying that not sterilizing cats because of "bodily autonomy" is an interesting idea when cats have rape built into their reproduction. It was mostly a gotcha argument, I didn't think much more about it.

The idea that cat sterilization is speceist is nonsense for me anyways.

1

vos wrote (edited )

The idea that cat sterilization is speceist is nonsense for me anyways.

Now replace 'cat' with any other marginalized identity and 'speciesist' with the corresponding oppression this identity faces. It's not speciesist for you because you're speciesist.

3

moonlune wrote (edited )

I'm antinatalist lol, I want humans sterilized too I don't discriminate based on species.

−1

[deleted] wrote

4

moonlune wrote (edited )

well we could also lock people up so that they can't meet other people & reproduce or destroy wildlife while playing, but the ethics of locking people up isn't great...

2

Bezotcovschina OP wrote

You just predicted my question I'll have courage to ask half-year later

3

vos wrote

I think it should be obvious that projecting human ideas about what counts as 'too many' onto nonhuman people, let alone sterilize them on the basis of these ideas, is incredibly speciesist/authoritarian.

3

metocin wrote (edited )

So is it vegan to take cats who were raised indoors and force them to rewild against their will, and against their learned abilities? I'm vegan and I live with two cats that I took in that were both essentially abandoned by their owners. I don't think that trying to maintain the only lifestyle they know is cruel or inhumane or not vegan/not anarchist. They did not grow up hunting, and they are poorly adapted to survive the cold climate in which I live. I think the best case scenario for pets in that position is to keep them comfortable in the situation they are accustomed to, which is being indoors.

Are you honestly suggesting that the ethical thing to do is for people to abandon their pets who were raised indoors and force them to go feral?

To be clear, I don't agree with breeding pets, shopping for pets, or forcing wild animals indoors. But in the same way that I, as a domesticated human would not survive outdoors alone, house cats would not survive either.

To insinuate that I'm "incarcerating" my feline family members is ridiculous.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

That would be a silly thing to claim. Good thing I didn't. Tho I stand by my incarceration comments.

I mean if u can quote where I said that you shouldn't feed cats or let them inside

2

metocin wrote (edited )

So you're saying that keeping an indoor cat indoors is incarceration right? What's the difference?

2

vos wrote

Well if you keep them indoors, you're incarcerating them. Nothing wrong with having a feline roommate who decides for themselves whether and when they want to go outside.

2

metocin wrote

That's not really possible or practical, and I live in a city where there are many ways for them to get injured, infected, or killed. Would that be better than "incarcerating" them? You might say that if I live in such a place then I shouldn't have taken them in. But there are many cats who get abandoned here in the city that would suffer without the help of humans because they weren't raised outdoors by other outdoor cats. It's also not really possible or practical to relocate all of these cats to rural areas.

Ideally I would live in a situation where I could have the cats come and go as they please, but that's not really possible for me and them living with me is better than living in a pound until they get put down, or abandoned on the street to starve and get ran over by a car. I'm doing the best I can for them, as good as they would likely receive from any other adoptive family, and to compare what I do for them to imprisoning humans is inaccurate, ignorant, and kind of insensitive to incarcerated people.

2

vos wrote

I don't get why it wouldn't be possible or practical. The cat that lives with my dad generally leaves and comes back whenever they want, and they live in a city.

There's also many ways for humans to get injured, infected and killed. Yet, you wouldn't advocate for humans to be locked up because of this. Cats are free agents that can make their own decisions. Who are you to determine what's best for them?

2

metocin wrote

  1. These cats did not grow up being let outside, they were indoor cats until I took them in.
  2. I took them in, therefore taking responsibility for protecting them. One of them was starving after being kicked out of their house.
  3. Cats do not possess the same level of decision making as humans.

If I think my cats want to go outside and I let them, and they get sick, get seriously injured, or killed, I am responsible for that. Do you think that's an ideal situation? Do you think it's based + praxis for me to let my sheltered indoor cats hurt or kill themselves?

It's unfortunate that animals grow up in captivity, in unnatural environments. It's also a shame that humans do. But to think that a domestic, captive cat is prepared to survive in the city where there are hostile cats and dogs, countless things to be cut by or trapped under, and moving vehicles to crush you, is ignorant. Your dads cat is lucky. The amount of cats that have to be put down or are accidentally killed in the city is ridiculous. I think its much better for me to "incarcerate" my cats and ensure they live healthy, full lives with lots of attention instead of risking an early, painful death.

And to make another point about cats and humans. Like I said, cats don't possess the decision making skills of an "average" human. If you had a human relative, who's cognitive function prevented them from having decision making skills that are expected in humans, would you allow them to roam freely in the city whenever they wished, knowing that they could easily harm themselves or be harmed by others? Or would you only allow them outside in a way that you could supervise or accompany them?

4

vos wrote

Are you responsible for what happens to them though? This implies that they are somehow not able to navigate the world themselves. And as I said, accidents do happen, but that applies to humans as well.

I find that you seriously underestimate cats, and for lack of a better word infantilize them. I also think it's arrogant and speciesist to assume that their level of decision-making is not the same than that of humans, with 'level' implying ours is superior.

Furthermore, in a sanist and ableist world where disabled people are often denied agency because of their supposed incapability to make their own decisions, and are often imprisoned because they are considered a 'harm to themselves and others' - often falsely, and even if suicidal, it's their own life - your analogy kind of falls flat...

0

metocin wrote

I find that you seriously underestimate cats

I don't think I do. As I said, I am quite aware of all the dangers that are present for a free roaming cat in the city. I made the decision to take them in, if I let a cat out doors and something bad happens to it, I do think I'm responsible because I didn't have to let them outside.

arrogant and speciesist to assume that their level of decision-making is not the same than that of humans, with 'level' implying ours is superior

Listen if you don't think your intellectual abilities are above that of a cat, then that's your problem. It's not speciesist to recognize varying levels of cognitive and rational capabilities in different species, just like it's not ableist to recognize those differences exist in humans.

your analogy kind of falls flat

An ableist world doesn't change my "analogy", which was a question that you conveniently avoided answering. In fact, a speciesist and ableist world only reinforce the point I was making because the world we live in (specifically the urban areas) present many dangers because they are ableist and speciesist.

3

vos wrote

I made the decision to take them in, if I let a cat out doors and something bad happens to it, I do think I'm responsible because I didn't have to let them outside.

By this logic, human parents are responsible for something bad happening to their children throughout their whole lives because they didn't have to let them outside.

The fact that you're referring to a cat as 'it' reveals a lot by the way.

It's not speciesist to recognize varying levels of cognitive and rational capabilities in different species, just like it's not ableist to recognize those differences exist in humans.

I agree it's not speciesist to recognize differences between species, but to claim you know the precise nature of these differences and measure them against human standards, on the basis of which you deem them inferior... yeah, that's speciesist. Just like it's ableist/sanist to do the same with cognitive differences between humans.

your analogy kind of falls flat

I'm sorry, I might not have been so clear. I think your analogy falls flat because it rests on ableism. Your analogy implied that at least some humans with cognitive abilities different from those we 'expect' from humans (i.e. neurotypical humans) should not be allowed to 'roam free' - which is quite a derogatory way to refer to the movement of disabled people to be honest - on the basis of ableist/sanist assumptions about the danger of neurodivergent people and/or because they are deemed incapable of making their own decisions.

Furthermore, while I agree that this ableist and speciesist world presents many dangers, I don't think that the way to go about this is to not allow nonhuman animals or disabled people to go outside. A better way to go about this would be to take actions that directly target ableism/speciesism, for example through making places more accessible, making spaces safer for nonhumans, educating people about neurodivergence and how to support disabled people and help them meet their needs, etc.

1

metocin wrote

The fact that you're referring to a cat as 'it' reveals a lot by the way.

I actually try not to use "it", didn't mean to

but to claim you know the precise nature of these differences and measure them against human standards, on the basis of which you deem them inferior... yeah, that's speciesist

So is it anti-speciesist to assume all species of animals have equal intelligence? lol

it's ableist/sanist to do the same with cognitive differences between humans

It is not abliest to recognize that there are cognitive differences between humans. I have adhd, it's not ableist for someone to recognize that I function differently to others. That's ridiculous.

while I agree that this ableist and speciesist world presents many dangers

Okay, so wouldn't you agree that in the meantime, while those dangers still exist, that there is some reason to be cautious of allowing certain domesticated species or humans with severely limited cognitive abilities to explore (specifically urban) outdoor spaces alone in order to keep them from harming themselves or being harmed by others?

By the way you can respond but I am not replying any further because I don't think either of us are going to convince each other of anything and I'm kind of sick of you calling me ableist and speciesist for caring about the well-being of nonhuman species and differently abled humans. It's not bigoted to understand that some folks need care and companionship in order to thrive in an ableist, speciesist world.

3