That was June 29th, after UV's video on the 28th. Too little too late, I'm guessing. It was already after the sharing of the private correspondence and refusal to address the arguments.
If that video had contained an apology for not addressing her arguments, and then continued on to address them (like that, or even more thoroughly perhaps), I think it would have been a different matter. Or if he just published something like that originally.
ModVegan wrote:
Personally I fall somewhere in the middle - I think it's a little silly to say animals "don't notice" they've been castrated, as UV maintains .
I don't know if they notice or not. When it's done young, probably not. When it's done on mature animals, they're probably a bit confused; I'm not convinced that there's any evidence that they suffer any kind of body dysmorphic stress. I don't find that argument particularly compelling. There would need to be some evidence there beyond some company marketing fake balls.
ModVegan wrote:
On the other hand, it seems necessary to control the domesticated population.
Absolutely. There are also health benefits for many animals, reducing incidence of certain diseases, and reducing tendency to run off and be hit by cars.
ModVegan wrote:
And ABLC has stated a few times that they shouldn't really be killed or allowed to roam free - that they should be adopted and kept inside as prisoners?
I thought he wanted them to be released to roam free, and hunt and kill other animals because it's natural.
ModVegan wrote:
He's also mentioned hormonal bc because it's used on some wild animals.
How is that not interfering with them?
It's also less reliable and less healthy. And it's not going to stop cats (or dogs) from running off and getting hit by cars or poisoned or killed by coyotes... or other strays. Failing to neutralize hormones can make them much more aggressive.
Regardless, the technology and infrastructure for that kind of population control doesn't exist. Although I love to talk about the possibilities, it doesn't make sense to so severely criticize an existing poor solution and substitute science fictional recommendations.
I don't personally agree with keeping cats, and you can see my thoughts on pets in general here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2258&p=24083#p24083
I wrote:particularly when it comes to rescues (even perhaps sometimes for animals that eat some meat although that's more controversial) I don't think a credible argument can be made against it being vegan. Whenever we criticize others, we adopt a pretty heavy burden of proof too.
Only in the case of acquiring an animal for whom all of these apply would I make that argument:
1. Has been bred or sold as commercially desirable rather than rescued from death
2. Has a non-vegan diet (to a non-negligible extent)
3. Is kept in captivity for private reasons (e.g. not bred in a wildlife sanctuary or zoo for conservation/public education purposes)
4. There is no reason to believe this is necessary (e.g. as a service animal where better options are not viable, or as natural pest control)
Short any one of those requirements, I would probably not dare to suggest it was non-vegan.
Even when those cases are all met, I'm not really inclined to call people out on things like these (unless they ask). We have bigger issues on our plates, and ideological purity isn't something I'm terribly obsessed with in practice.
ModVegan wrote:
As he mentions in his video "Unnatural Vegan Hates Me, I Guess. (Vegan Civil War?)", he spent a lot of time talking to VegAnn off YT/Patreon, so I can't really say that this is entirely clear.
I thought Ann cited more that that in her video. What he said in itself was pretty good evidence of inappropriate and dismissive behavior (including his own videos).
ModVegan wrote:
I wrote a letter on that subject that Eisel shared with his patreon group back in June. As you may have surmised, we have different views on how much to censor our own opinions
I'd love to see it, if you can repost it here. Did he reply?
