this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
2 points (75.0% liked)
Out of the loop
10961 readers
144 users here now
A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well I don't follow any "vegan" practices, so I can't really help with the motive part. I think we (internet discourse) often put "vegans" in a box that doesn't really allow for the nuances of individuals. It's not like there is a doctrine that the "vegan" follow, at least not that I'm aware of. So can you be "vegan" and care for a pet? I don't know, but I expect different people will give different answers.
Again, you're making a giant leap to torture. My point was that current scientific consensus is a vegan diet does not necessarily equal torture. So, I'm wondering why you think it does.
the vegan society has a definition of veganism
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Nothing excludes the care of pets. It does exclude "animals for food" "as far as is possible and practical". One could definitely extend this to animals for a pet's diet, but I'd argue it's not practical for cats because we don't yet have solid evidence that says it's safe. I just don't think it's rational to flatly liken it to torture.
some people would argue the keeping of pets is exploitation