they also think just because the animal isn’t being killed that peta wouldnt be mad at it. they think peta thinks it kills them to take their wool ☠️☠️
Don’t worry, vegans. It’s perfectly fine if I forcibly inseminate animals, take their babies from them, cut their tails off, confine them in spaces where they can barely turn around, feed them complete garbage, and then give them a haircut with no attempt to avoid cutting their skin with my industrial clippers, because they don’t die or anything!!
/s: They die if I don’t treat them like this, you claim to want whats best for them but want them to die?? Didn’t really think this through did you now
One of my favorite anti-vegan arguments, where vegans are are portrayed as ignorant and naive regarding animal agriculture.
Vegans know how it works, that’s why people go vegan to begin with.
[Serious]
What are we supposed to do about species that have been bred in such a way that they are not longer viable without human assistance?
Help the ones that are alive, don’t breed more. Yes you’ll need to shear rescued sheep but it won’t be as brutal and near skin as a farmers shear. But they need to be neutered or there needs to be a plan in place to undomesticate them.
And PETA sucks ass for a LOT of things, but this is the most lukewarm take for these redditor carnists to get mad at.
they also think just because the animal isn’t being killed that peta wouldnt be mad at it. they think peta thinks it kills them to take their wool ☠️☠️
Ah, the tendency for people to strawman veganism as a welfarist/utiltiarian stance. Classic.
Mfrs think they came that fuzzy. Agriculture is a hoax I guess.
Domesticated sheep can’t shed their wool either. We bred them so have to rely on humans shearing them so they don’t overheat.
Not just overheating, flystrike is pretty common as well.
This does present a conundrum that I don’t know how to tackle: sheep as they exist in agricultural contexts need human intervention to prevent overheating, so what’s the way forward? Give them good lives outside of current production structures (so they can move more freely and live until old age with assistance) while still shearing them to save them from overheating? I can’t think of any solution that isn’t “kill them off and don’t let them reproduce”.
sanctuary farm (including shearing but more as a medical procedure like you’d care for a dog that’s had a stroke) and then don’t let them reproduce
Not trying to be facetious, but is it right not to let them reproduce?
Allowing them to reproduce is just perpetuating suffering in cases like this, it’s not like preserving a critically endangered species where the animal could theoretically live a healthy life in the wild without constant human intervention.
I mean what’s the other option given the current situation?
Do they eventually die off as a subspecies? I dont know much about sheep, but I assume there are sheep that don’t have this problem that can allowed to live freely and reproduce in their stead. But are there just more sheep than can be ecologically allowed in existence right now?
Rereading this, it sounds confrontational, I don’t mean it that way. But is the goal to, through this, limit the population of sheep that can’t survive without humans?
Yes, animals that we have bred to be unhealthy should cease to exist. That means chickens, sheep, cows, pugs. I’ve seen people talk about how pugs can be fixed by breeding them with healthier dogs so maybe if we really want to keep sheep and cows and chickens around as living historical artifacts we could do something like that. But personally I think they should all just be allowed to go extinct.
There are cows, chicken, and sheep that can survive without humans just fine, right? Or is that all just selective breeding to a point of non-survivability? Astonishing if so, I’ve never considered this before.
Animals likely domesticated themselves early in human history (such as wolves eating trash and evolving into modern dogs), but then were selectively bred at various intervals. Using dogs again as an example, some breeds have only been around for decades while others have been around for millennia.
Most farm animals have been bred to rely on humans in order to prevent them from wandering off. They can’t feed themselves, for example, so they stay near humans. If all animal products ceased tomorrow and we had all these domesticated animals, some of them would be capable of being let back into the wild and some would have to stay in captivity.
You also have the other problem: they become invasive species if you just unleash them into the wild. A cow population run amok could end up doing something like eating all the grass in an area, preventing deer or bison from getting enough to eat. And that’s just one example. Like who knows what harm could be done to bee or bird populations?
Humans have really fucked up the environment and then fucked up the solutions. The obvious thing to do is like what other posters said, which is turn farms into sanctuaries and let them die out while returning them to their place of origin when possible. You won’t see this done under capitalism, however, because the cost of such an endeavor isn’t viable when there’s profits to be made.
Cows and chickens yeah, I don’t think there’s any reason they can’t survive without humans. But they’re still unhealthy because of selective breeding (same as pugs). But if you’re asking if there are healthy “natural/wild” versions of those animals, yes, but they’re not called cows or chickens. The wild cow was called the aurochs and it’s extinct, and the wild chicken is the red junglefowl.
There are a bunch of different species of wild sheep still around I think.
If the system wasn’t just ultra exploitive capitalism, I think there would be a couple of animal products I would be okay with, personally. Basically just wool and honey, honestly.
Until then. The only wool I own is the socks I got years before I was vegan.
There is no way to consentually take something when the animal is completely dependent on you for their survival
Yeah. You gotta’ wonder what they think wild sheep do exactly.
Not sure exactly what the point of this comment is. Domestic sheep are very different from wild sheep and leaving them to let their wool become overgrown is a pretty extreme form of neglect that will ultimately kill the animal in a slow and torturous manner. Wild sheep shed. Domestic sheep don’t and also produce more wool. Now that doesn’t mean there is nothing wrong with sheep husbandry but “wild sheep” have basically nothing to do with this topic.
This guy does not think there’s a difference between domestic and wild sheep. Same reason a lot of people think cows just make milk all the time. Their human-made purpose is considered the default for various reasons.
Yes and we certainly never remove their skin
Also, you never eat sheep meat coming from wool sheeps right
vegetarians should also consider what happens to the dairy cow after it’s outlived it’s usefulness as a breeder. a life of torture just isnt enough there’s meat on them bones
Vegetarians should also consider what’s done to the cows to get them to produce milk all the time. Then again, there are many things vegetarians don’t consider.
some “very principled” vegetarians will not eat cheeses with rennet because they contain tiny amounts of calf stomach lining, but they of course eat obscene amounts of cheese without rennet, because as long as the calves being killed don’t touch the food it’s all fine i guess
Non-vegans will get offended if you call it SV even though it obviously is.
the racks they use for “artificial insemination” is/were literally called r-word rack. non-vegans can fuck off with that cope
