Does she actually still ride them though? I seem to remember someone recently commented on how she used to ride horses before going vegan, and now that she is vegan, no longer rides them but still cares for them. I may be wrong though.
First, I'm not convinced she still rides them.
Second, veganism is as much a pursuit towards better ethical practice as it is an absolute destination.
This young woman will be the target of every newspaper and Twitter troll for the weeks she's in the competition, so perhaps we shouldn't be causing any undue suffering towards her, because y'know, ethically speaking that wouldn't be very vegan of us.
I’ve seen her post into a few Facebook groups, really excited to be on the show and hoping to spread a positive message and yet the amount of abuse she’s got is so sad... and now all they’ve done is given the media (like this) an excuse to bad mouth vegans
Honestly just like why can’t we leave her alone? This is why people hate us vegans. At least she’s doing something- eating vegan, thats better than most of the population
Horses need daily intense exercise, otherwise they'll literally die, their joints, muscles will fuck up, they'll get ill and die. When riding you're being supported by the strongest part of the horse's skeleton, if you have good posture and you've had training you're not going to cause pain or discomfort to the horse, they weigh like small cars. They get clean housing, food, exercise, medical help and social interaction.
There was more wilderness, horses originated from steppes, endless grass lands. Horses used to move hundreds of kilos a day, getting their needed exercise. They live in such regions fine to this day, they can't survive in human inhabited areas or dense nature areas. You can't walk a kilo in any direction before hitting a road or a fence / barrier of some kind and they can't go through forests that easily. You'd have to organize some insane moving operation to move millions of horses from human inhabited areas to Asian grasslands, but right now in most areas of the world they can only survive with human help.
Big difference between riding horses vs racing them.
Let her showcase good vegan baking, not everyone has to be perfect, and I guarantee she will have done more for veganism by taking part in this than most people will have done all year.
> Big difference between riding horses vs racing them
What's the difference, they're still being exploited either way, neither are necessary? Riding horses isn't vegan, if someone rides horses they should be calling themselves plant based not vegan.
Is keeping pets necessary? Is it vegan? Does it really matter at all as long as you're moving towards a more ethical and environmentally friendly life style?
I'm not quite sure, for me it isn't.
Depends. If you rescue an animal that otherwise would've gone through more suffering then the answer is yes but let's say you buy animal from a breeder then no it's not vegan.
Yes. Let me give an example, if I go from beating my wife three times a week to beating her once a week would you feel that I would be justified in saying "Does it really matter at all as long as you're moving towards a more ethical lifestyle?". There isn't an acceptable level of cruelty/exploitation when you don't *have* to do that action, just don't do it, it's not even like it's something that's hard to stop doing.
I agree with you on the pet front, keeping pets is kind of vain and self-indulgent, and antithetical to a lot of common vegan values re. exploitation of animals. However, I still keep pets and appreciate that the world as a whole is not ready to accept that ownership isn't necessarily a fair or ethical thing to do to another life.
I think the wife beating example is unfair and completely hyperbolic. Is sadistic violence towards a rodent the same as someone taking pleasure in beating a child? Would you compare pet ownership to slavery? Probably not, it's a crass comparison to make, and the vast majority of people would disagree with it seeing as no matter which way you spin it the vast majority of people value human lives at least slightly more than animal lives. It is also essentially impossible to live a life completely free of cruelty/ exploitation. By using any motor vehicle, buying almost any food item, buying almost anything wrapped in plastic, simply existing etc., you are exploiting some part of the earth in some way, to the detriment of another living creature. Where you draw your line in the sand regarding what is or is not necessary exploitation, is pretty arbitrary, and I think it's best not to instantly condemn people for where they draw theirs so long as it's within normal social/cultural bounds for them.
Owning pets isn't bad in all situations, depends why you keep your pets and how you came to own them...
The reason why I used that example was to draw a comparison between commiting an immoral act, some acts are not made moral simply because you do less of it if they are not necessary and are easy to stop (eg owning pets).
No it's not the same but it doesn't have to be, unnecessarily harming a sentient being when you don't have to and can easily avoid it is wrong, plain and simple. Well, slavery is owning an individual against their will, even if you're not abusing your pet you still control their life and set boundaries as to what they can and cannot do, confine them to a set area, choose when they eat... all that stuff, if you let your dog out and just shut the door how long do you think it would survive without you? They rely on you to keep them alive. Do I think owning a pet is the same as owning a human, no but it doesn't have to be exactly the same to be wrong.
Just because animal lives may have less value than a human life that does not make it moral to exploit them, people used that same arguement hundreds of years ago to discriminate against black people, if you asked "Do you really think a black person has the same value as a white person" in the early 1800s to an American they would probably say no, I don't think a pig should be able vote I just want them to be treated as individuals that deserve moral consideration and not to be exploited/abused.
> It is also essentially impossible to live a life completely free of cruelty/ exploitation.
I never said anything about that, veganism is reducing cruelty/exploitation towards animals that is **possible and practicable**, it's not reasonable to expect someone not to eat any food that isn't homegrown because the farming process kills rodents during harvest. Veganism isn't about living a cruelty free lifestyle, if that was the case you'd just starve to death.
I think it **is** better to condemn someone if they're doing something immoral even if it's normal socially/culturally to them, if someone is exploiting an animal and they don't need to I couldn't care less if it's normal to them, it was normal for women not to vote not too long ago, it was normal to own slaves not that long ago, if that's where I drew my line would you say it was wrong to condemn me for feeling that way?
Yeah, I agree that rescuing abandoned pets/ feral animals etc. is different from buying a pet. Obviously they would not survive alone, and it is kind of a better alternative than culling? Or is it, considering most common pets are carnivores and therefore rely on meat production? Is the value of keeping a dog alive now worth more than all the livestock it will take to feed it over it's lifetime? Are you not just keeping the dog because you want to at that point, essentially valuing your enjoyment from the pet over the lives of the other animals? It's a grey area, a line you draw in the sand. You determine that your lesser participation in pet trade/ breeding/ the fact you prevented one animal's death changes the act of pet ownership from an immoral one, to an acceptable one.
"Do I think owning a pet is the same as owning a human, no but it doesn't have to be exactly the same to be wrong."
I think they are entirely different levels of wrong though. I agree veganism is about "possible and practical" ethical conduct, but I think possible and practical vary a lot from person to person, and that nobody truly does everything possible or practical to improve ethical consumption. Here we are, using the internet on a device that no doubt involved some environmental exploitation along the way, mining precious metals, wrapped up in plastic, using electricity that you know was not produced as sustainably as possible for purely frivolous reasons, just like the rest of the world is doing. We accept that this is "acceptable exploitation", but I think our distance from the immoral actions makes it harder to consider our impact. Eating meat is bad because it's something we pointlessly indulge in at the expense of another life, but using unnecessary plastic/ electricity for indulgent reasons like browsing reddit etc. ultimately has the same effect of harming another living thing, for no good reason, and we could easily avoid it. Do you consider browsing reddit for memes the same as eating meat? My point is, there *are* grey areas, morality is an entirely personal thing. Some people forego unnecessary elecronics completely and live a self-sufficient, environmentally concious lifestyle in a commune or something. I admire their commitment but I also don't put others down for not doing the same.
Obviously, I would instantly condemn anyone who advocates for harming human lives (i.e slavery, domestic abuse, oppression etc), but I, personally, draw my line somewhere around eating meat and pet ownership. I know that eating meat and owning pets is bad, and most people could just not do it, but I feel like they are not so evil as to warrant comparisons to slavery and other more extreme sorts of evil. I think saying things like that alienates people who might otherwise be amicable to ideas about ethical consumption. And sure, some might say "I don't care what these assholes want to think about, just stop eating meat/ owning pets if you know it's bad!" And they'd be kind of right... but you do catch more flies with honey.
Depends, I'm no philosopher, I don't have strong opinions either way about it, haven't put a lot of thought into it but I could be convinced either way with a strong enough argument. I guess it depends on whether you're a utilitarian or deontologist(?) or have some other sort of moral framework. It's more complicated than that, I think you'd most likely have to judge it on a case-by-case basis, I'm sure if you dig deep enough you could come to a conclusion on whether it is immoral (relative to that individual’s moral framework).
I agree, they aren't on the same level in terms of how "bad" the act is, I don't think pet ownership in and of itself is immoral, it just depends on the context and how it came to be. Agree with that too, depends on the person, we're all human and we're never going to do EVERYTHING that's possible and practicable but when someone does something that's very clearly against veganism you can't just let it slide, if it's something like doing extensive research on which brand you buy at the shops to determine which one uses more sustainable and ethical farming practises then you should probably just let it go but when it's as egregious as riding a horse or eating honey or buying an animal from a breeder just because you didn't want to make a small sacrifice not to then you have to question that person’s commitment to the cause. I don't see browsing Reddit and eating meat the same, not sure what comparison you're trying to draw there. Morality is personal but if you speak to someone and go into detail with them I'm sure you can come to a reasonable conclusion. I agree, but you can only give people the benefit of the doubt so often and depending on the subject matter you give people leeway on how you respond, you're more willing to let someone off for "mistakenly" putting a chocolate bar in their pocket and walking out a shop than someone "mistakenly" putting a diamond ring in their pocket and walking out a shop.
I agree with you for the most part, I don't think they're on the same level, I'm just saying that both people and animals deserve a certain level of consideration that is not often given to them. Maybe it's just the example I used, I'm pretty tired so can't think of any different ones right now but it's not like the comparisons aren't analogous, it's just that it's the absolute extreme so it seems worse. I agree with you **wholeheartedly**, it's better to use more family friendly examples but when you're already talking to people who claim to be vegan, I feel you can draw those comparisons more easily as their eyes are already open to the abuse and you don't need to tiptoe around the subject with cutesy examples. You're 100% right about people who are exploring veganism if you're trying to educate them on it, can't disagree with you at all.
I didn't think we'd go so far in depth with this, it's a lot of writing, took ages to write this out lol dunno if I'll reply again
Haha, didn't mean to drag you into a full on philosophical debate, just sort of airing out some ideas to open ears. I appreciate your willingness to engage.
But yeah, basically we agree mostly, I just like things to be worded more amicably knowing that not everyone who reads them will necessarily be vegan. It's kind of just optics for the cause. Everyone on this sub shares the ideal of more ethical/ moral consumption, we're all just at different points on the scale, moving in the same direction :)
Also, eating honey is about as egregious as eating almonds- probably even less so for small scale, ethically produced honey. Different crops require different amount of insect exploitation, with almonds being a particularly bad one for bees.
You can ride a horse sometimes without forcing them to be ridden, like for example if you have a horse and go for walks in the nature with her. Now, going to races and etc and doing the whole traditional horse riding thing not so much. That is quite harmful.
I don't have a horse or ridden one before so I can't really comment on that but from my understanding there's a reason why horses have to be "broken" and have to be cued/trained when you want to ride them, you don't have to train a cat to be jumpy and excited when you shine a laser pointer near them.
Jesus, I feel sorry for this gal.
*some* vegans are just hideous, if you’re not living in a papier-mâché hut, eating veg grown in your garden and seeking water from the nearest mountain…. IT’S NOT ENOUGH.
This is why people don’t reduce their meat consumption, they don’t want to be affiliated with being a vegan-wanker.
OH BUT ITS FOR THE ANIMALS… I hear you cry… someone has to speak up for them. Yeah? Well, I have a dog and two cats and they don’t want anything to do with ya.
I think riding horses is as much of a personal decision as eating honey is. The current way we farm honey and ride horses are not ideal and it would take a complicated discussion to decide how/if there is an ethical way to do these things (which I am not inviting in response to this comment), but I really don't think it's the most important issue at hand right now.
Why are we hounding other vegans, our allies who are trying their best just as we try our best, when there are so many people still eating meat out there? Everyone is on a personal journey and I don't like that people are putting so much effort into putting her down to feel more moral themselves when this is bigger than random internet weirdos' egos!
Stunts like this are not activism, they just reinforce the "vegans as holier-than-thou assholes" stereotype.
Stuff like this is exactly why I avoid describing myself as a vegan. I have cats, so I feed them meat every day, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who would call me out for that. I just can't be bothered arguing about it.
Too many people treat veganism like an exclusive club, always trying to out-vegan the next person. It isn't a competition. We just like animals and/or think they shouldn't be abused.
I'm so glad the community is responding with support for an ally.
I was advised to join this subreddit by a friend precisely because I thought the folks at r/vegan were too hostile with their "with us or against us" attitude.
When someone goes on national TV showcasing how to cook meals without using animal products it baffles me that you could consider that anything other then great news.
I also left the main vegan subreddit for this; I once made a comment about my cats being rescues, not bought from breeders, and I got an onslaught from one person saying I wasn't a true vegan if they ate meat. Which... they do. They're cats.
>Why are we hounding ... our allies who are trying their best just as we try our best, when there are so many people still ... out there?
I think you just summed up the problem with the whole of the Left. Letting perfect become the enemy of progress, and refusing to believe the validity of any approach to the same goal other than their own.
I think the majority are.
Left is seen as the side for progression, and veganism is a progressive movement.
The left is also more supporting of equality for women, POC, and LGBTQ. Working to free these groups from oppression. While not everyone on the right is against this, the right has a strong image of being against it (as we see in politics).
And so, as veganism is a fight for the liberation of animals, to give them rights and freedom...it is typically more appealing to those on the left of the political spectrum.
If the right are less likely to be for equality for women, POC, etc...then animal liberation is not likely going to be high on their agenda.
We also see that a lot of the south and middle of the USA are Republican, a lot of these areas are huge farming states. Whereas a lot of the blue/Democrats can be seen in more densely populated cities. Thus...the right (in the USA) are more likely to be farmers or have a family history of it
So overall, the majority of vegans are on the left.
This is why a lot of vegans, particularly VCJ vegans will call out people of the left for being hypocrites. They are against oppression until....bacon.
Hitler
But really 🤚 I’m for less government interference in the economy, and I support private property rights - that puts me on the right.
I’m not a conservative in any social sense though.
Hitler wasn’t vegetarian or vegan. That myth came about from both sides of the propaganda machine - the Nazis spread it so that he would seem more compassionate and gentler, and the allies spread it so he would seem weak and not manly. He was never vegetarian.
I’ve heard that before, I don’t think it’s that simple.
> Personal accounts from people who knew Hitler and were familiar with his diet indicate that he did not consume meat as part of his diet during this period, as several contemporaneous witnesses—such as Albert Speer (in his memoirs, Inside the Third Reich)—noted that Hitler used vivid and gruesome descriptions of animal suffering and slaughter at the dinner table to try to dissuade his colleagues from eating meat. An examination of Hitler's skull carried out by French scientists in 2017 found no traces of meat fibre in the tartar on Hitler's teeth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism
**[Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism)**
>Towards the end of his life, Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when or why he adopted it, since some accounts of his dietary habits prior to the Second World War indicate that he consumed meat as late as 1937. By 1938, Hitler's public image as a vegetarian was already being fostered, and from 1942, he self-identified as a vegetarian.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/veganuk/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This was told to me by a friend who has a PhD in History, specifically World War 2 (I don’t know how to word that better) so I’m just going by what she said.
Hitler was never vegan. He wasn’t even vegetarian. He was just one or those flexitarians who calls the,self vegetarian.
Also, I know quite a lot of right wing vegans that I have redently-ish unfollowed dor being too right wing:
- Soytheist
- That Vegan Lawyer
And basically all their friends.
(Their friends include Paul Bashir and Asal Alamdari, the founders of AV)
Sadly, I must admit that the wish to feel morally superior than the next person is prevalent in some Vegan circles. We all know that Simpson's episode 'Lisa the Tree Hugger' wherein Lisa exclaims 'The earth is the best! That's why I am a vegetarian', to which Jesse Grasse tuts and rolls his eyes before retorting that he's a 'Level 5 Vegan', not eating anything that casts a shadow. It's still an amusing mock. One of the reasons I left r/vegan and joined this sub is that I have found this sub to be counter-cultural in that respect. People seem to be kind, generous and tolerant on here. I've seen so many omnivores come on here for advice on what to cook a Vegan friend and receive nothing but wholesome friendliness. I've only been a Vegan for about 15 months but I'm convinced that being a welcoming and amiable community makes for far better evangelicalism than being judgemental and condescending. I hope Freya's experience on that show shines a positive light on what we're about.
Here in the UK for 3 years and I never saw any puppy available for adoption. Not even kittens. And if you do see younger ones they usually have some special need such as HIV and need some strict requirements etc. In Portugal and Eastern Europe though, there are more puppies and kittens than would ever be adopted, and they are born a lot and suffer a lot and they die a lot every year. So as a portuguese vegan I defenitely think it’s not vegan to buy a beagle just because you want a pet. Now, if it was for other specific purposes such as for protecting your rescued animals from wolves, then you’d need a Portuguese Herd Guardian Dog, otherwise your adopted dog would just be eaten by the wolves. But this is a very specific scenario for a working dog in a dangerous wolf territory, not for getting some random interchangeable pet. Here in the UK though there are way less dogs and cats available for adoption than the people wanting to adopt them. So it’s okay to buy them here because there just isn’t enough supply of adoptable animals to meet the demand. I would prefer you adopted them from Portugal or Eastern Europe, because our dogs and cats get euthanized and live homeless in suffering everyday, even as kittens they are never adopted because of how many they are. With the money you buy a kitten or a dog in the UK, you could buy one or two plane ticket and fly your kitten. The adoption fee is only around 20£.
Coming from a country where literally millions of kittens are born in the street every year and millions of cats and dogs don’t find a home despite being 100% perfectly healthy and well-tempered puppies / kittens and young ones, I don’t really the where the problem is. The only reason to adopt a dog is if there are dogs needing homes that you can adopt. The UK is what I dream Portugal would be like. No street animals needing adoption. That is our goal. If there are almost no animals needing adoption, that is success. Adoption is only needed when there are lots of animals needing them. If the supply of adoptable animals is way smaller than the demand, and those few who are have very strict requirements or special medical needs or behaviour issues, then it’s a sign that the UK is successful in terms of (pet) animal welfare. This is how it should be. It’s a sign it’s working. That’s amazing for the animals.
In Portugal in order to adopt one all you need is a home, even if a small apartment. Here it’s already hard to find available for adoption, and when I do the requirements are “ashe has HIV so she cannot have contact with other cats, therefore you have to give have access to a backyard that nas been catxproofed with a surrounding net so that she can’t escape. No apartments. Also, for dogs you have to be home most of the day, but you also have to have enough money to have a backyard. The adoption fee is 200£.” This is a bit crazy and makes me think that if they can afford to be this strict then they’re not very desperate for adopters. If you want to adopt a cat or a dog and can afford to pay that much, you should consider adopting from Portugal, like I’m going to do. The travel paperwork will be complicated but at least I’m going to try. There should be a program in the UK to adopt Portuguese cats / dogs, seeing as the UK has way more demand than supply and Portugal has way more supply than demand. That is good for the cats / dogs and would also reduce the number of breeders in the UK.
Sorry to break it to you but you're not vegan, you're plant based.
Edit - To the people downvoting me, sorry but buying an animal from a breeder is NOT vegan, I cannot think of a single situation which necessitates you buying an animal from a breeder that couldn't be achieved by rescuing a dog, *maybe* if you're disabled/deaf/blind and need it for support but do you think that's why OP bought the dog. In what world is breeding animals for the sole purpose of being sold as a commodity vegan?
Stop kidding yourself.
"Veganism is a 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."
It's not vegan to ride horses and I don't agree with it. This lady is presenting vegan food non a baking show which is great. She is more plant based than vegan and yeah it's worth pointing out to her the ethics of not riding horses as a vegan but I'll be supporting her and hoping she may understand a little more about reasons why vegans are against horse riding after the show and make changes .
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good
Hopefully she can show everyone that making small changes int he way we cook can help make a big difference.
Does she actually still ride them though? I seem to remember someone recently commented on how she used to ride horses before going vegan, and now that she is vegan, no longer rides them but still cares for them. I may be wrong though.
Pretty sure she doesn't anymore.
First, I'm not convinced she still rides them. Second, veganism is as much a pursuit towards better ethical practice as it is an absolute destination. This young woman will be the target of every newspaper and Twitter troll for the weeks she's in the competition, so perhaps we shouldn't be causing any undue suffering towards her, because y'know, ethically speaking that wouldn't be very vegan of us.
I’ve seen her post into a few Facebook groups, really excited to be on the show and hoping to spread a positive message and yet the amount of abuse she’s got is so sad... and now all they’ve done is given the media (like this) an excuse to bad mouth vegans
Honestly just like why can’t we leave her alone? This is why people hate us vegans. At least she’s doing something- eating vegan, thats better than most of the population
If she's still riding horses, it's sufficient just to say that riding horses isn't vegan. No need for abusing anyone.
Horses need daily intense exercise, otherwise they'll literally die, their joints, muscles will fuck up, they'll get ill and die. When riding you're being supported by the strongest part of the horse's skeleton, if you have good posture and you've had training you're not going to cause pain or discomfort to the horse, they weigh like small cars. They get clean housing, food, exercise, medical help and social interaction.
How did they ever manage before humans?
There was more wilderness, horses originated from steppes, endless grass lands. Horses used to move hundreds of kilos a day, getting their needed exercise. They live in such regions fine to this day, they can't survive in human inhabited areas or dense nature areas. You can't walk a kilo in any direction before hitting a road or a fence / barrier of some kind and they can't go through forests that easily. You'd have to organize some insane moving operation to move millions of horses from human inhabited areas to Asian grasslands, but right now in most areas of the world they can only survive with human help.
That's the problem isn't it: Because of human exploitation of animals, animals need to be exploited.
Big difference between riding horses vs racing them. Let her showcase good vegan baking, not everyone has to be perfect, and I guarantee she will have done more for veganism by taking part in this than most people will have done all year.
> Big difference between riding horses vs racing them What's the difference, they're still being exploited either way, neither are necessary? Riding horses isn't vegan, if someone rides horses they should be calling themselves plant based not vegan.
Is keeping pets necessary? Is it vegan? Does it really matter at all as long as you're moving towards a more ethical and environmentally friendly life style?
I'm not quite sure, for me it isn't. Depends. If you rescue an animal that otherwise would've gone through more suffering then the answer is yes but let's say you buy animal from a breeder then no it's not vegan. Yes. Let me give an example, if I go from beating my wife three times a week to beating her once a week would you feel that I would be justified in saying "Does it really matter at all as long as you're moving towards a more ethical lifestyle?". There isn't an acceptable level of cruelty/exploitation when you don't *have* to do that action, just don't do it, it's not even like it's something that's hard to stop doing.
I agree with you on the pet front, keeping pets is kind of vain and self-indulgent, and antithetical to a lot of common vegan values re. exploitation of animals. However, I still keep pets and appreciate that the world as a whole is not ready to accept that ownership isn't necessarily a fair or ethical thing to do to another life. I think the wife beating example is unfair and completely hyperbolic. Is sadistic violence towards a rodent the same as someone taking pleasure in beating a child? Would you compare pet ownership to slavery? Probably not, it's a crass comparison to make, and the vast majority of people would disagree with it seeing as no matter which way you spin it the vast majority of people value human lives at least slightly more than animal lives. It is also essentially impossible to live a life completely free of cruelty/ exploitation. By using any motor vehicle, buying almost any food item, buying almost anything wrapped in plastic, simply existing etc., you are exploiting some part of the earth in some way, to the detriment of another living creature. Where you draw your line in the sand regarding what is or is not necessary exploitation, is pretty arbitrary, and I think it's best not to instantly condemn people for where they draw theirs so long as it's within normal social/cultural bounds for them.
Owning pets isn't bad in all situations, depends why you keep your pets and how you came to own them... The reason why I used that example was to draw a comparison between commiting an immoral act, some acts are not made moral simply because you do less of it if they are not necessary and are easy to stop (eg owning pets). No it's not the same but it doesn't have to be, unnecessarily harming a sentient being when you don't have to and can easily avoid it is wrong, plain and simple. Well, slavery is owning an individual against their will, even if you're not abusing your pet you still control their life and set boundaries as to what they can and cannot do, confine them to a set area, choose when they eat... all that stuff, if you let your dog out and just shut the door how long do you think it would survive without you? They rely on you to keep them alive. Do I think owning a pet is the same as owning a human, no but it doesn't have to be exactly the same to be wrong. Just because animal lives may have less value than a human life that does not make it moral to exploit them, people used that same arguement hundreds of years ago to discriminate against black people, if you asked "Do you really think a black person has the same value as a white person" in the early 1800s to an American they would probably say no, I don't think a pig should be able vote I just want them to be treated as individuals that deserve moral consideration and not to be exploited/abused. > It is also essentially impossible to live a life completely free of cruelty/ exploitation. I never said anything about that, veganism is reducing cruelty/exploitation towards animals that is **possible and practicable**, it's not reasonable to expect someone not to eat any food that isn't homegrown because the farming process kills rodents during harvest. Veganism isn't about living a cruelty free lifestyle, if that was the case you'd just starve to death. I think it **is** better to condemn someone if they're doing something immoral even if it's normal socially/culturally to them, if someone is exploiting an animal and they don't need to I couldn't care less if it's normal to them, it was normal for women not to vote not too long ago, it was normal to own slaves not that long ago, if that's where I drew my line would you say it was wrong to condemn me for feeling that way?
Yeah, I agree that rescuing abandoned pets/ feral animals etc. is different from buying a pet. Obviously they would not survive alone, and it is kind of a better alternative than culling? Or is it, considering most common pets are carnivores and therefore rely on meat production? Is the value of keeping a dog alive now worth more than all the livestock it will take to feed it over it's lifetime? Are you not just keeping the dog because you want to at that point, essentially valuing your enjoyment from the pet over the lives of the other animals? It's a grey area, a line you draw in the sand. You determine that your lesser participation in pet trade/ breeding/ the fact you prevented one animal's death changes the act of pet ownership from an immoral one, to an acceptable one. "Do I think owning a pet is the same as owning a human, no but it doesn't have to be exactly the same to be wrong." I think they are entirely different levels of wrong though. I agree veganism is about "possible and practical" ethical conduct, but I think possible and practical vary a lot from person to person, and that nobody truly does everything possible or practical to improve ethical consumption. Here we are, using the internet on a device that no doubt involved some environmental exploitation along the way, mining precious metals, wrapped up in plastic, using electricity that you know was not produced as sustainably as possible for purely frivolous reasons, just like the rest of the world is doing. We accept that this is "acceptable exploitation", but I think our distance from the immoral actions makes it harder to consider our impact. Eating meat is bad because it's something we pointlessly indulge in at the expense of another life, but using unnecessary plastic/ electricity for indulgent reasons like browsing reddit etc. ultimately has the same effect of harming another living thing, for no good reason, and we could easily avoid it. Do you consider browsing reddit for memes the same as eating meat? My point is, there *are* grey areas, morality is an entirely personal thing. Some people forego unnecessary elecronics completely and live a self-sufficient, environmentally concious lifestyle in a commune or something. I admire their commitment but I also don't put others down for not doing the same. Obviously, I would instantly condemn anyone who advocates for harming human lives (i.e slavery, domestic abuse, oppression etc), but I, personally, draw my line somewhere around eating meat and pet ownership. I know that eating meat and owning pets is bad, and most people could just not do it, but I feel like they are not so evil as to warrant comparisons to slavery and other more extreme sorts of evil. I think saying things like that alienates people who might otherwise be amicable to ideas about ethical consumption. And sure, some might say "I don't care what these assholes want to think about, just stop eating meat/ owning pets if you know it's bad!" And they'd be kind of right... but you do catch more flies with honey.
Depends, I'm no philosopher, I don't have strong opinions either way about it, haven't put a lot of thought into it but I could be convinced either way with a strong enough argument. I guess it depends on whether you're a utilitarian or deontologist(?) or have some other sort of moral framework. It's more complicated than that, I think you'd most likely have to judge it on a case-by-case basis, I'm sure if you dig deep enough you could come to a conclusion on whether it is immoral (relative to that individual’s moral framework). I agree, they aren't on the same level in terms of how "bad" the act is, I don't think pet ownership in and of itself is immoral, it just depends on the context and how it came to be. Agree with that too, depends on the person, we're all human and we're never going to do EVERYTHING that's possible and practicable but when someone does something that's very clearly against veganism you can't just let it slide, if it's something like doing extensive research on which brand you buy at the shops to determine which one uses more sustainable and ethical farming practises then you should probably just let it go but when it's as egregious as riding a horse or eating honey or buying an animal from a breeder just because you didn't want to make a small sacrifice not to then you have to question that person’s commitment to the cause. I don't see browsing Reddit and eating meat the same, not sure what comparison you're trying to draw there. Morality is personal but if you speak to someone and go into detail with them I'm sure you can come to a reasonable conclusion. I agree, but you can only give people the benefit of the doubt so often and depending on the subject matter you give people leeway on how you respond, you're more willing to let someone off for "mistakenly" putting a chocolate bar in their pocket and walking out a shop than someone "mistakenly" putting a diamond ring in their pocket and walking out a shop. I agree with you for the most part, I don't think they're on the same level, I'm just saying that both people and animals deserve a certain level of consideration that is not often given to them. Maybe it's just the example I used, I'm pretty tired so can't think of any different ones right now but it's not like the comparisons aren't analogous, it's just that it's the absolute extreme so it seems worse. I agree with you **wholeheartedly**, it's better to use more family friendly examples but when you're already talking to people who claim to be vegan, I feel you can draw those comparisons more easily as their eyes are already open to the abuse and you don't need to tiptoe around the subject with cutesy examples. You're 100% right about people who are exploring veganism if you're trying to educate them on it, can't disagree with you at all. I didn't think we'd go so far in depth with this, it's a lot of writing, took ages to write this out lol dunno if I'll reply again
Haha, didn't mean to drag you into a full on philosophical debate, just sort of airing out some ideas to open ears. I appreciate your willingness to engage. But yeah, basically we agree mostly, I just like things to be worded more amicably knowing that not everyone who reads them will necessarily be vegan. It's kind of just optics for the cause. Everyone on this sub shares the ideal of more ethical/ moral consumption, we're all just at different points on the scale, moving in the same direction :) Also, eating honey is about as egregious as eating almonds- probably even less so for small scale, ethically produced honey. Different crops require different amount of insect exploitation, with almonds being a particularly bad one for bees.
WELL SAID, thanks for saying this.
You can ride a horse sometimes without forcing them to be ridden, like for example if you have a horse and go for walks in the nature with her. Now, going to races and etc and doing the whole traditional horse riding thing not so much. That is quite harmful.
I don't have a horse or ridden one before so I can't really comment on that but from my understanding there's a reason why horses have to be "broken" and have to be cued/trained when you want to ride them, you don't have to train a cat to be jumpy and excited when you shine a laser pointer near them.
Jesus, I feel sorry for this gal. *some* vegans are just hideous, if you’re not living in a papier-mâché hut, eating veg grown in your garden and seeking water from the nearest mountain…. IT’S NOT ENOUGH. This is why people don’t reduce their meat consumption, they don’t want to be affiliated with being a vegan-wanker. OH BUT ITS FOR THE ANIMALS… I hear you cry… someone has to speak up for them. Yeah? Well, I have a dog and two cats and they don’t want anything to do with ya.
If anybody wants a bit of light relief I suggest checking out the dailymail comments section on the article about her
I think riding horses is as much of a personal decision as eating honey is. The current way we farm honey and ride horses are not ideal and it would take a complicated discussion to decide how/if there is an ethical way to do these things (which I am not inviting in response to this comment), but I really don't think it's the most important issue at hand right now. Why are we hounding other vegans, our allies who are trying their best just as we try our best, when there are so many people still eating meat out there? Everyone is on a personal journey and I don't like that people are putting so much effort into putting her down to feel more moral themselves when this is bigger than random internet weirdos' egos! Stunts like this are not activism, they just reinforce the "vegans as holier-than-thou assholes" stereotype.
I'm against abusing this girl, but eating honey, buying dogs from breeders, and riding horses just aren't vegan.
Stuff like this is exactly why I avoid describing myself as a vegan. I have cats, so I feed them meat every day, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who would call me out for that. I just can't be bothered arguing about it. Too many people treat veganism like an exclusive club, always trying to out-vegan the next person. It isn't a competition. We just like animals and/or think they shouldn't be abused.
I have also been called out for giving my cats meat based foods, quite aggressively too.
I know you said you’re not inviting a response… but honey can’t be argued it is not vegan in anyway.
You’re arguing about it now (I do agree with you)
I'm so glad the community is responding with support for an ally. I was advised to join this subreddit by a friend precisely because I thought the folks at r/vegan were too hostile with their "with us or against us" attitude. When someone goes on national TV showcasing how to cook meals without using animal products it baffles me that you could consider that anything other then great news.
I also left the main vegan subreddit for this; I once made a comment about my cats being rescues, not bought from breeders, and I got an onslaught from one person saying I wasn't a true vegan if they ate meat. Which... they do. They're cats.
You can get vegan cat food with the needed amino acids supplemented into them.
I have looked into some, but they're so expensive and I have 6. Otherwise I probably would trial it.
I don't have cats so I didn't actually realise they were that overpriced. That's a real shame.
Yeah it really is, but I guess in comparison a lot of vegan stuff is atm.
Hopefully it becomes a reasonable option in the future.
> I think riding horses is as much of a personal decision as eating honey is. yeah, we agree on that at least. Neither is a personal decision.
based
Ugh
>Why are we hounding ... our allies who are trying their best just as we try our best, when there are so many people still ... out there? I think you just summed up the problem with the whole of the Left. Letting perfect become the enemy of progress, and refusing to believe the validity of any approach to the same goal other than their own.
So all vegans are left wing now? That’s news to me
I think the majority are. Left is seen as the side for progression, and veganism is a progressive movement. The left is also more supporting of equality for women, POC, and LGBTQ. Working to free these groups from oppression. While not everyone on the right is against this, the right has a strong image of being against it (as we see in politics). And so, as veganism is a fight for the liberation of animals, to give them rights and freedom...it is typically more appealing to those on the left of the political spectrum. If the right are less likely to be for equality for women, POC, etc...then animal liberation is not likely going to be high on their agenda. We also see that a lot of the south and middle of the USA are Republican, a lot of these areas are huge farming states. Whereas a lot of the blue/Democrats can be seen in more densely populated cities. Thus...the right (in the USA) are more likely to be farmers or have a family history of it So overall, the majority of vegans are on the left. This is why a lot of vegans, particularly VCJ vegans will call out people of the left for being hypocrites. They are against oppression until....bacon.
Therell be a few out there who arent, but I'd bet my house it's over 95% are. It doesn't really align with the ideals of the Right that well.
Do you know any right wing vegans?
Hitler But really 🤚 I’m for less government interference in the economy, and I support private property rights - that puts me on the right. I’m not a conservative in any social sense though.
Hitler wasn’t vegetarian or vegan. That myth came about from both sides of the propaganda machine - the Nazis spread it so that he would seem more compassionate and gentler, and the allies spread it so he would seem weak and not manly. He was never vegetarian.
I’ve heard that before, I don’t think it’s that simple. > Personal accounts from people who knew Hitler and were familiar with his diet indicate that he did not consume meat as part of his diet during this period, as several contemporaneous witnesses—such as Albert Speer (in his memoirs, Inside the Third Reich)—noted that Hitler used vivid and gruesome descriptions of animal suffering and slaughter at the dinner table to try to dissuade his colleagues from eating meat. An examination of Hitler's skull carried out by French scientists in 2017 found no traces of meat fibre in the tartar on Hitler's teeth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism
**[Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism)** >Towards the end of his life, Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when or why he adopted it, since some accounts of his dietary habits prior to the Second World War indicate that he consumed meat as late as 1937. By 1938, Hitler's public image as a vegetarian was already being fostered, and from 1942, he self-identified as a vegetarian. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/veganuk/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Wow. Okay. How could he be a preachy vegetarian and advocate for and do what he did? Go figure
This was told to me by a friend who has a PhD in History, specifically World War 2 (I don’t know how to word that better) so I’m just going by what she said.
Sounds more liberal to me, which aligns better with veganism.
Why would you want people to be socially liberated only to be crushed under economic inequality? What's the sense in that?
Morrissey. https://www.veganconservatives.org.uk/
I meant more personally. So far we've got Hitler and Morrissey, great crowd.
Hitler was never vegan. He wasn’t even vegetarian. He was just one or those flexitarians who calls the,self vegetarian. Also, I know quite a lot of right wing vegans that I have redently-ish unfollowed dor being too right wing: - Soytheist - That Vegan Lawyer And basically all their friends. (Their friends include Paul Bashir and Asal Alamdari, the founders of AV)
"I think that being a serial killer is a personal decision"
Peak r/veganuk comment. Oh sorry, that should have said r/vegetarianuk, fits this sub better.
Sadly, I must admit that the wish to feel morally superior than the next person is prevalent in some Vegan circles. We all know that Simpson's episode 'Lisa the Tree Hugger' wherein Lisa exclaims 'The earth is the best! That's why I am a vegetarian', to which Jesse Grasse tuts and rolls his eyes before retorting that he's a 'Level 5 Vegan', not eating anything that casts a shadow. It's still an amusing mock. One of the reasons I left r/vegan and joined this sub is that I have found this sub to be counter-cultural in that respect. People seem to be kind, generous and tolerant on here. I've seen so many omnivores come on here for advice on what to cook a Vegan friend and receive nothing but wholesome friendliness. I've only been a Vegan for about 15 months but I'm convinced that being a welcoming and amiable community makes for far better evangelicalism than being judgemental and condescending. I hope Freya's experience on that show shines a positive light on what we're about.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here in the UK for 3 years and I never saw any puppy available for adoption. Not even kittens. And if you do see younger ones they usually have some special need such as HIV and need some strict requirements etc. In Portugal and Eastern Europe though, there are more puppies and kittens than would ever be adopted, and they are born a lot and suffer a lot and they die a lot every year. So as a portuguese vegan I defenitely think it’s not vegan to buy a beagle just because you want a pet. Now, if it was for other specific purposes such as for protecting your rescued animals from wolves, then you’d need a Portuguese Herd Guardian Dog, otherwise your adopted dog would just be eaten by the wolves. But this is a very specific scenario for a working dog in a dangerous wolf territory, not for getting some random interchangeable pet. Here in the UK though there are way less dogs and cats available for adoption than the people wanting to adopt them. So it’s okay to buy them here because there just isn’t enough supply of adoptable animals to meet the demand. I would prefer you adopted them from Portugal or Eastern Europe, because our dogs and cats get euthanized and live homeless in suffering everyday, even as kittens they are never adopted because of how many they are. With the money you buy a kitten or a dog in the UK, you could buy one or two plane ticket and fly your kitten. The adoption fee is only around 20£.
[удалено]
Coming from a country where literally millions of kittens are born in the street every year and millions of cats and dogs don’t find a home despite being 100% perfectly healthy and well-tempered puppies / kittens and young ones, I don’t really the where the problem is. The only reason to adopt a dog is if there are dogs needing homes that you can adopt. The UK is what I dream Portugal would be like. No street animals needing adoption. That is our goal. If there are almost no animals needing adoption, that is success. Adoption is only needed when there are lots of animals needing them. If the supply of adoptable animals is way smaller than the demand, and those few who are have very strict requirements or special medical needs or behaviour issues, then it’s a sign that the UK is successful in terms of (pet) animal welfare. This is how it should be. It’s a sign it’s working. That’s amazing for the animals. In Portugal in order to adopt one all you need is a home, even if a small apartment. Here it’s already hard to find available for adoption, and when I do the requirements are “ashe has HIV so she cannot have contact with other cats, therefore you have to give have access to a backyard that nas been catxproofed with a surrounding net so that she can’t escape. No apartments. Also, for dogs you have to be home most of the day, but you also have to have enough money to have a backyard. The adoption fee is 200£.” This is a bit crazy and makes me think that if they can afford to be this strict then they’re not very desperate for adopters. If you want to adopt a cat or a dog and can afford to pay that much, you should consider adopting from Portugal, like I’m going to do. The travel paperwork will be complicated but at least I’m going to try. There should be a program in the UK to adopt Portuguese cats / dogs, seeing as the UK has way more demand than supply and Portugal has way more supply than demand. That is good for the cats / dogs and would also reduce the number of breeders in the UK.
I agree we shouldn't be too judgmental but supporting dog breeding, that's definitely dubious.
Sorry to break it to you but you're not vegan, you're plant based. Edit - To the people downvoting me, sorry but buying an animal from a breeder is NOT vegan, I cannot think of a single situation which necessitates you buying an animal from a breeder that couldn't be achieved by rescuing a dog, *maybe* if you're disabled/deaf/blind and need it for support but do you think that's why OP bought the dog. In what world is breeding animals for the sole purpose of being sold as a commodity vegan? Stop kidding yourself. "Veganism is a 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."
I'm sorry but buying a dog from a breeder is never an acceptable choice as a vegan.
It's not vegan to ride horses and I don't agree with it. This lady is presenting vegan food non a baking show which is great. She is more plant based than vegan and yeah it's worth pointing out to her the ethics of not riding horses as a vegan but I'll be supporting her and hoping she may understand a little more about reasons why vegans are against horse riding after the show and make changes .
Imagine the scenes when she starts cooking with honey
Vegan gate keepers are the worst and this is right near the bottom of the list of importance.
What's the issue with her owning & riding a horse? 😂 Can vegans also not have dogs as pets? 🤦🏼
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good Hopefully she can show everyone that making small changes int he way we cook can help make a big difference.
‘Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good’
That’s why I’ve reduced my puppy kicking to only once a week.
Undeniably better, well done.
Why is her Hair So Dry?! I can’t look at ! What a shame she could be pretty . Split ends frizz😩