brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:09 am
NonZeroSum wrote:I'm not well schooled in ethics so it'd be easier to defend someone's thesis and have you critique it
That won't work. It's important for people to present their own arguments, otherwise when faced with challenges they can't answer they may appeal to the originator as an authority who surely has unknown answers (which will not be presented because the originator isn't present), and refuse to concede defeat on the argument as a whole.
Fair enough, that's why I thought to just lay my cards out, I'm interested in a lot of existential philosophy questions and politics, but all I know of ethical nihilism is it's evolutionary psychology and political realism aiming for desirable forms of life.
brimstoneSalad wrote:NonZeroSum wrote:All I know is caring about animals is a winning formula to get people interested in animal welfare,
Sure, and I think she mentioned this before with pets. Dogs and bunnies are great options which are less harmful.
It can be important for people to connect with an animal. A dog is probably a better way to do this. If we look at harm reduction from pet ownership and its effects, and harm caused by cats, it is in no way clear that cat ownership comes out in the positive overall.
She mentioned ways to improve that, though, and make cats less harmful.
NonZeroSum wrote:Isn't killing/abusing them a net negative cultural capital?
For shelters to euthanize them, probably not really. That's mostly out of sight. There's harm, but not much to public perception. We'd have to do a cost benefit against the good cats do by inspiring people to be more compassionate to animals.
Encouraging people to adopt dogs or bunnies probably makes more sense.
But again, if healthy cats are eating some meat regardless in shelters and there are people to adopt them who will feed them some meat, there is only net gain to getting individuals interested in animal welfare.
Killing healthy cats is deemed wrong by society at large so it's a net negative cultural capital that vegans shouldn't be associated with, it doesn't matter that it's irrational because cats will be better put out of their misery in poor living conditions, the size of the organization is put under scrutiny like PETA and pointed out rightly that they should do more to promote adoption with their massive budget through donations.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/pets-shelter-euthanization-rate_n_6612490.html
Alive cats in shelters are more palpable statistics, and encourages everyone from charity through public appeals to schools encouraging spading and animal adoption.
That's the real irony in UV's video that people have reacted negatively too, the elephant in the room is those cats will be killed, instead of celebrating industrious owners that can cat sit for each other, give each other tips, butchers that give away off-cuts etc. That can likely effect more people into neutering and education. As it stands UV is carrying that cultural capital baggage and I don't think it does vegan advocacy any favors.
brimstoneSalad wrote:NonZeroSum wrote:and making looking after cats on a freegan/vegan diet look like a shitshow
What do you mean?
Cats appeal to some people's personalities in a way that other domestic animals don't, when you put out a video talking about all the ways cats are terrible pets, I bet the overriding effect will be people going about their life wanting a cat in their life but not adopting any animals because cats are the only animals that would do it for them. Now if they were the type of person who would have gotten a designer breed to look cool, then great UV did their job with the first video, that person shouldn't buy from a breeder, but what are the merits of this latest video? I don't see it given that cats in shelters eat some meat anyway. And as
Darl said vegan industrious owners can really benefit them, by keeping them away from wildlife and trying to feed them freegan, isn't that something we should be celebrating? Not making it seem insurmountable until cheap mass produced cultured meat and cat poop fired power stations come along?
When I was protesting road planning applications through ancient woodlands there was this line that advocates used that less roads meant less cars, less CO2 etc. But my experience of it being used was negative because it was totally see through that it meant more congestion basically an unhappy driving experience that would push people onto public transit. But most people own a car and the line was so see through as to produce the opposite effect of feeling underhanded, that they just wanted less dangerous, more efficient routes etc, that I never used it.
I have the same feeling with this video with the shopping trolley picture, people just aren't there yet and want to go vegan whilst helping cats through this shit situation we put them in, and yes we put cows in it too, but if public sympathy isn't there why advocate for something that is only likely to do harm to veganism?
brimstoneSalad wrote:NonZeroSum wrote:So is it not better to have friends who feed cats meat but are more open to veganism through investment in their animals welfare?
We don't know the effect of cat ownership on inspiring interest in animal welfare.
I don't know where the best place to look for credible surveys on that exact correlation, but just from point of reference in conversation, there are so many animal welfare concerns your exposed to through owning an animal. I know anecdotally so many people who got a cat after university and it was the personal relationship that made all the previous arguments for veganism they were exposed to click.