I personally don't think you can go off-topic when you're in a conversation & it leads you to discussing things that branch off the main subject. But, that's the consensus around here. It would be off topic if someone dropped into random forums and said "HEY! How about kayaking? do you guys like it?". I often don't wish to start a new topic, but the fear lingers over being off topic :whip: -- so since I wanted to continue this discussion, here I am.

This is continued from the "vegan police" thread. Soilman has stated the following:

First this:

Personally, I extend the term vegan to mean someone who does not participate in hunting or animal husbandry, for any reason, except perhaps for wildlife stewardship purposes -- someone who does not hunt animals, or breed animals or raise animals or keep animals, for any reason -- not for food, not for their labor, not for companionship, not for entertainment.

But some vegans consider keeping animals for companionship to be suitable for vegans to do, but not to keep animals for entertainment. Personally, I don't much difference between keeping a cat for companionship and keeping a lion for use as a circus entertainer, but the definition of vegan does not specifically exclude keeping animals as companions. Tho many years ago Jay Dinshah wrote that it would be preferable if we enjoyed and appreciated animals in their natural habitat, and did not try to domesticate them.

and to followed up, with this:

Personally I do not see much difference between keeping a cat for companionship, on one hand, and keeping a lion for use as a circus entertainer, on the other hand.

(1) Not all circus lions are abused. One can keep a lion and train it, and not abuse it. Not all circus lions are "captured" in the wild, either. Some may be lions abandoned by former owners, that were "saved" from euthanasia.
(2) Not all people who keep "companion-cats" love their ctas or treat them kindly. Many of them got their cats from cat breeders.

The comparison between bad and worse should not be made between circus and lion on the one hand, and private owner and domestic cat on the other hand, rather, it is should be made betwen kind treatment of captive animals, on one hand, and abusive treatment, on the other hand.

Also, in the "loving" relationship between 2 adult humans, if one is mistreating the other, the mistreated one has some recourse. It is a relationship of equals. In the "loving" relationship between an animal and a human, if the animal is being mistreated, and no other humans are aware of this, or care to interfere -- then the animal has no recourse. It is a relationship of unequals.

But this is offtopic, and a debate should be put in another thread. So I am not going to continue to debate this here. I was just trying to define veganism, not start a debate. I already admitted that it is possible to own an animal and conform to the definition of vegan -- as long as you don't kill it or keep it for it's milk, hair, eggs, etcetera.

But I am going to "coin" a new phrase, and be remembered by posterity for coining it: anti-hunting and anti animal-husbandry advocate.



First off I'd like to point this out:


an·i·mal hus·band·ry

noun

care of farm animals: the branch of agriculture concerned with breeding and rearing farm animals


I'm personally not engaged in any form of animal-husbandry. I also don't "own" any animals. I share my home with feline members of my family. Are they free to roam, did they sign up on their own to come here? nope. I wouldn't leave a 3 year old alone in the city and I won't let my cat out to face the harms of the world. That is the society we live in. However, I treat them with the utmost respect, love them & provide them with all sorts of entertainment & care. Infact if anyone owns anyone, perhaps they own us. I wait on them hand & foot, clean their waste, and provide them with entertainment at their request. They aren't kept in cages, I never ask them to perform dangerous stunts for the public, I don't whip them into submission and they cannot bite my entire head off all at once. Or atleast I hope not :think:

You mentioned you felt that human relationships are equal, and if somebody is being mistreated they have a recourse. This is true in theory, but we all realize people often stay in abusive relationships for many reasons. Fear, convenience, low self esteem, etc.

People have different levels of knowledge and acceptance of animal welfare issues. Just because someone purchased an animal from a breeder does not imply that they wont love the animal and treat it well. I personally look down on buying animals from pet stores, and choose to adopt instead. But not everyone agrees, some people are just selfish and insist on getting a "purebred". Still, it doesn't imply how they'll care for him/her.

You are not the only one who holds this opinion, I've seen it displayed in even worse ways on these boards. I really can't speculate on what would be an ideal situation for each animal, but I know it's not right to insinuate that those (veg*ns in particular!) who have animals in their lives are the same as circus trainers. We don't live in an ideal world, and I don't want to get into debates about animals & food and nature and so on. However to me it almost seems to go without saying that someone who cares a great deal about animals would choose to spend their lives with them. Maybe only to work with them or admire them in nature, but most often to cohabit with them. I don't force the cats and dogs that run up to me on the street or at others homes, to rush up and rub against me or lick me. They do this on their own free will. My cats curl up next to me to sleep & purr at night, if they were so unhappy and hated their "imprisonment", why not just hide under the bed all the time and lash out when we approach? some people have cats like that due to the fact they mistreat them, sometimes perhaps the cat just has a bad personality just like some humans do.

It is implied that a good vegan wouldn't interfere with nature, wouldn't take in homeless animals. I recall seeing it directly stated that we'd be better off letting all the domesticated animals be put to sleep, doing away with "pets" as we know them and relishing in the fervor of having saved the farm animals killed for pet food!! This is appalling and cruel, IMO. Are any animals directly killed for pet food anyway, or isn't it always "waste" from human grade meat (even in fancy meat pet foods)? I think it's besides the point, only because (for some sick reason I cannot excuse, explain or accept) part of the plan in this life is for some creatures to savage & eat other creatures. This is part of nature and I consider it to be sad, and a major design flaw. But as we all know, we are lucky to have a choice in this matter, as do countless other animals that live as primarily or entirely veg*n! For the animals that are flesh eaters, we need to remember that in nature they would kill (and for those that go outside, they do kill). I hate that they do it, but refuse to change (risk) their diet to suit my herbivore ideals.

I can understand frowning upon the capture of wild (birds, wolves, snakes, tigers, monkeys, etc) animals for resale and/or keeping pets in small cages. I don't feel comfortable with that either. Trying to domesticate new breeds of animals is also not well-advised.

But, I would fight to the death to protect our right to love and care for the animals we've already domesticated and find great offense in any statement that suggests I'm cruel for adopting & doting over my feline family members. The real cruelty lies in people who treat animals as "just replaceable property". If animals could talk and we could ask them, which do you think they would choose:

A. Live a natural "free" life, most likely no more than 7 years. Fight the elements, worry about predators, scurry for food & sleep in the dirt. Live with any injuries you get, no treatment.

B. Have a family of other animals & people who do their best to tend to your every need, make sure you're warm, entertained, fed & protected. If you get hurt or sick, you get treatment. You have heat & cozy beds to curl up in, you don't worry about predators and you live up to 20 years.

I choose B. Most humans do. Most animals likely would as well.

I'm all over the place here. Forgive me, and try to be kind (fat chance, lol).. thanks :sheep:


:sweat:

All I know is that I rescued both my cats from the grim reaper. FUzzy, when he was a kitten, and Sputnik, when he was a sick, older cat and no one wanted him.

The door is wide open for them to leave anytime. They hang around the front step, prehaps spend the night at a neighbors house, but they know where they need to go if in trouble.

They are certainly not my slaves.

All of my cats were strays, also, and our dog came from the humane society. Self-righteousness is so unbecoming.

(I've never been kayaking. How is it? ;))

I agree- self-righteousness is *very* unbecoming. Until there are no more shelters with thousands of cats and dogs in them, I will have animal companions. They are part of the family and I treat them accordingly. Comparing having animal companions to animal husbandry is riduculous.

(BTW, I *love* kayaking- it's fun! :D )

My topic, go wild... lol. I prefer canoeing, I don't feel as secure in a kayak. Just a bit too wobbly for me :)

The broad definition of husbandry, rather than the narrow definition mentioned above, is simply

==============
good careful management of resources; stewardship.
==============

Next after that is
==========
cultivation of crops; raising livestock
===============

If you clean up after a cat, and feed a cat, you are practicing cat husbandry, and since a cat is an animal that makes it animal husbandry.

Since one legally owns any cat that one cares for (someone who took it without your permission would be guilty of theft) that makes it livestock. Livestock simply mean something that you own that happens to be a living animal, as opposed to a plant or a mineral or whatever. It doesn't matter what your purpose for owning it is. If you could list it on your accounting balance sheet as a monetary asset, if you can buy it or sell it, it is livestock. You can't list your friends and relatives as an asset.

Feliner's animals are not free to roam, krista's are: this shows us that the choice is up to the owner, not up to the animal. Krista's animals are free to roam because Krista wouldn't stop them. If she changed her mind, she could easily enforce the change.

I might add that treating an animal well does not mean that it is not livestock. There are countless reports of good masters who treated their animal livestock, and their human livestock, quite well. However if you did not treat the animal or human livestock well there is nothing the animal or slave could do about it. And there is generally nothing that other people could do about it. That is one reason why I am against the whole concept. If someone decided to keep their cat in a room with tobacco smoke in it -- there is nothing I could do about it. If someone decided to declaw their cat -- there is nothing I could do about it. If someone decided to feed their cat animal by products, instead of good cuts of meat -- there is nothing I could do about it.

Who is being self-righteous? Just because someone has a different opinion than you (especially when soilman is basing his arguments on logical reasoning and you are basing yours on emotion) does not mean he is being self-righteous.

I have never been kayaking... but a difference that could exist between a domestic cat and a lion.... if the lion were to roam free around my house there is the possiblity he could eat my five year old....I am pretty sure a domestic cat wouldnt.....

Feliner..... you might as well give up; soilman will just go on and on, posting pointless arrogant bull**** after bull**** (notice his twisting of definitions?).

The differing opinions are not self-righteous, but the manner in which they are presented.

I don't own my cats.
They are my children. I don't want human babies. I want to adopt shelter cats (as all three of mine are) so it is that many less that are killed.
I protect and love them the same way a parent should protect and love their children. Not letting them outside is an example of that protection, NOT captivity.
They purr whenever I pet them. Sometimes they purr simply because I touch them or say their names. I doubt that they are unhappy with their lives.

I don't own my cats.
They are my children. I don't want human babies. I want to adopt shelter cats (as all three of mine are) so it is that many less that are killed.
I protect and love them the same way a parent should protect and love their children. Not letting them outside is an example of that protection, NOT captivity.
They purr whenever I pet them. Sometimes they purr simply because I touch them or say their names. I doubt that they are unhappy with their lives.

Exactly. Argument from emotion.

From reading his posts for over a year, I'd say that soilman is one of the LEAST self-righteous personas on this board and definitely less self-righteous than most of the people I know.

So far, the only responses to his arguments have been "But we Looooove our cats!"

If you care for farm animals that is "farm animal husbandry" a subset of the broader "animal husbandry."

Note the expression "husband and wife." If husbandry only applied to farm animals why do we call someone who takes on the duty of caring for a wife, of cultivating a companion, and of stewardship over a woman whose duties are wifely, a "husband?" The reason is because husbandry means "care, cultivation, and stewardship." Thus animal husbandry means animal care cultivation and stewarship of animals, and farm animal husbandry means care cultivation and stewarship of farm animals. Sometimes people refer to l farm animal husbandry by the abbreviated appelation "animal husbandry." That doesn't mean that care of other types of animals isn't also animal husbandry.

It is good to know some etymology. If you forget about history, you are going to repeat past errors.

I'm sorry but livestock refers strictly to FARM ANIMALS. If cats & dogs are too be included it would only be in some sick country who eats them. Or perhaps you could loosely use it to refer to a breeders "stock of animals". It would not be the term for pets. That's why there are different laws applying to cruelty to pets vs. "livestock"

live·stock [ liv stòk ]

noun

animals kept for sale: animals raised for food or other products, or kept for use, especially farm animals such as meat and dairy cattle, pigs, and poultry.

----> perhaps, there is a "broad definition" of this as well. But basically you're stretching the definition to suit your apparently sterile view of animals.

As far as the law seeing animals as property, yes this is widely true. Many people have fought the courts on this. In divorces and such, some judges have agreed that the family pet was like a child and visitation plans have been established. Companion animals being seen as property (legally anyway) will hopefully soon be a thing of the past. I believe the "theft" of any animal should be seen as kidnapping and not "property theft". It's extremely sad that some choose to look at it this way. There have been cases where the loss of a purebred animal results in a payment which allows the "owner" to purchase another purebred animal, but a stray/adopted animal is looked at as monetarily worthless. This is just plain wrong, many judges agree but their hands are often tied due to the way the law is written.

There is a topic recently which discussed cats being let outdoors. Dogs are not left to roam free because everyone GETS IT on that one. Cats are in imminent danger running wild outdoors (this year alone I have heard of more brutal slayings of pet cats than any year I can recall) and should not be LOOSE outside (walked, outdoor enclosure, this is fine). Most animal welfare organizations support that belief. Every cat that is treated well comes back to the "hand that feeds him/her", this isn't a Sting song ("if you love somebody, set them free"). When a cat stops coming back it's pretty certain that it's met an unfortunate fate or been picked up by another human & relocated. See this thread if you want:

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=9303

"They are my children"

What about when they are adults, if they are not adults already? Referring to an adult animal as a "child" suggests that you are husbanding it, owning it.

Exactly. Argument from emotion.

From reading his posts for over a year, I'd say that soilman is one of the LEAST self-righteous personas on this board and definitely less self-righteous than most of the people I know.

So far, the only responses to his arguments have been "But we Looooove our cats!"


You hear what you're looking to hear, don't you? I put a lot more on the table than colorful hearts & empty statements.

I never used the words self-righteous in regards to Soilman. I'll back off from that one. Eccentric is the word that comes to my mind.

Not only are "pets" considered livestock, but in the US, as recently as 140 years ago, people who were owned by other people, were considered by their owners to be livestock. Made no difference if they performed farm labor, child care services, or were too old to do anything but lie in bed and thus they no longer had any monetary value, had no resale value -- their owners considered them to be livestock, and they were listed in business inventories as such.

I might add that many of the people who owned other people, whether they treated them well or ill, were frequently heard to remind others that "we looove our Negroes." And much of the time they did, and treated their Africans quite well, giving them good animal by-products to eat, clothes with very few holes, rooms with nice fireplaces, and remarking that cutting off their toes was good for them, since a Negro who ran away could get into a dangerous situation just like a child.

I'm sorry but livestock refers strictly to FARM ANIMALS. If cats & dogs are too be included it would only be in some sick country who eats them.

I don't think that countries are defined by what they eat. Some countries eat dog, cat, spiders, kangaroos, heck.. here in North America there are those who eat rabbits, ducks, squirrels, etc.

Really, people in other countries could just as easily look at North America and say "they eat rabbits and squirrels so they must be a sick country". Would you judge all of North America to be a "sick country" or a "sick society" just by what *some* folks eat?

"They are my children"

What about when they are adults, if they are not adults already? Referring to an adult animal as a "child" suggests that you are husbanding it, owning it.


They may grow up to be "adult cats", but they don't get careers and move out of the house. You realize this, but insist on making inane points. And for the record, a mother always refers to her babies as her children.

"They are my children"

What about when they are adults, if they are not adults already? Referring to an adult animal as a "child" suggests that you are husbanding it, owning it.


"Adult" when referring to animals doesn't have the same meaning as "adult" when referring to humans. They're still small, they're still dependent, and they're not overly interested from what I can tell in doing things that adult humans would do (move out on their own, get jobs etc.)

They all think they're little kittens anyway :D

Feliner, you're a mind reader! :o

Really, people in other countries could just as easily look at North America and say "they eat rabbits and squirrels so they must be a sick country". Would you judge all of North America to be a "sick country" or a "sick society" just by what *some* folks eat?


Yes, I would say we're a sick nation in many ways too. For more reasons than food choices. But I'll admit it, I made an unfair & prejudice blanket statement and I'm sticking with it :beatnik:

Feliner, you're a mind reader! :o


Hehehe, kitty minds think alike :)

I also have two cats. Certainly I like them and care for them, etc... and as was said earlier, it's debateable as to who owns whom. I'd say those two I have, have successfully altered our life somewhat to revolve around their life.

Heck, I bet most pet owners have probably at some point purchased quality food for their pet instead of themselves when faced with having to choose over limited amounts of money. I have no problem at all with people keeping pets as companions. Then again, I also have no issues with breeding of cats and dogs, so long as it isn't a "mill".

Not only are "pets" considered livestock...
I might add that many of the people who owned other people, whether they treated them well or ill, were frequently heard to remind others that "we looove our Negroes." And much of the time they did, and treated their Africans quite well, giving them good animal by-products to eat, clothes with very few holes, rooms with nice fireplaces, and remarking that cutting off their toes was good for them, since a Negro who ran away could get into a dangerous situation just like a child.

I don't know what sort of 1800's dictionary you're getting your definitions from, but I can't find anything that refers to housepets as "livestock". If this is indeed true, it is still not the common usage. If someone says to you "come see my livestock", they surely will not show you cats & dogs but rather cows, pigs, chickens, etc.

I am not sure which comparison has been worse, the idea that we're like slave owners or circus trainers? In general slave owners beat and/or raped their "lovable negroes", those are not practices that I agree with. So perhaps some slave owners were kinder and gentler, the definition still describes the slave in question as not only "kept from freedom" (which is obviously your angle) but FORCED TO WORK THEMSELVES NEARLY TO DEATH. We do NOT do that with our companion animals. Nobody kept slaves just to pamper them.

Oh, wait.. I do chain that little chariot to my cat and have her sell peaches down at the market on Sundays, is that OK? No, wait, I don't do that.. and if I did then perhaps you'd have a point. For instance, there could be debate in regards to seeing eye dogs. There's a sensitive subject for you.