Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don't buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.

This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.

I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can't live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).

I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that's what they do.

But here they are, making a direct immoral action to force their chosen diet on another being who in all likelihood would NOT choose themselves.

This is the single worst argument you could make.

Every single pet owner does that. Would any animal - including farm animals - choose to eat what humans provide them? Surely [cheapest store brand] wouldn't be popular if they had a choice.

Much better than sourcing animal products from the supermarker. Still worse than being vegan

I’ve been told I’m a raper and abuser.

Factory farming is absolutely industrial scale rape and abuse. The more traditional hunter-gatherer mode of existence is at least approaching "natural" levels of cruelty, but it also takes immense volumes of vacant real estate.

It's cool that you've found a way to do a little traditional animal husbandry, rather than procuring meat from the holocaust mills run by some soulless corporate horror show. But its not what I'd call economical. At least, not for anyone who commutes downtown from an apartment block.

I think there's a kind of ethical middle-ground for folks who can keep a deep freeze full of meat from a cow that gets butchered every couple of months. Then you're at least mitigating the enormous waste in industrial agriculture and you can talk about animals living a relatively dignified life in a pasture rather than walled up in a cattle concentration camp. But that would mean no pink slime on demand, which violates man's constitutional right to eat burger.

As a person with 3 cats, I get what you're saying. You're getting down voted, but we all know cats can devistate local wild life populations.

Rescuing them and making them indoor cats is the responsible thing to do, but I don't think any vegans would argue with that.

I think its after those establishing facts that the discussion is taking place.

I personally am not a fan of any breeding programs when there are so many cats and dogs available to rescue, but that's just me.

A vegan that ~~keeps cats~~ allows cats outside isn't exactly approaching the situation from a purely vegan-based mentality.

There, FTFY.

Absolutely nothing wrong with cats that are 100% indoors, not only do they have no effect on the wildlife, but their lifespans are something like ⅓ to ½ longer due to the lack of accidents or conflicts.

You’re confusing the reactionaries with those who live by a philosophy.

Yeah c/Vegan had mods removed by a Lemmy.world admin because of controversial posts and opinions on a vegan diet for cats.

The removal was justified because that constituted animal cruelty, but it was reversed because scientific evidence was provided for the possibility of a vegan cat diet.

The vegan community I think said they were going to move to hexbear or some shit, lol.

this and the three days without shitting post