7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DarlBundren wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:16 pm Yeah, I was rewording NonZeroSum's opinion, Brimstone.
Ah, I see.
NonZeroSum wrote:...
Regarding the point of consequentialism; it's what her core audience expects. She also has a video on that in the first part (third part?) of the intersectional series.

We've discussed deontology substantially on this forum, as the only mainstream alternative in ethics.
Deontology is a problem within veganism, because it's inconsistent and arbitrary, so it gives critics a strong argument against such vegan arguments.

Looking at this case:

Is your duty to not harm other animals except for your own survival? Then you DO NOT interfere with nature, you do not kill a cow or chicken to feed a cat. The cat lives or dies on its own terms. It may kill to survive, but you may not help it do so.

Do you have a prior duty to a cat you have already adopted to continue feeding it? In which case, you should do so (even meat) and not get another cat (to which you have no duty).

Do all humans have duty to all cats, because we had a hand in breeding them? Then the same applies to chickens and cows. There's no justification in failing in our duty to those animals by harming them in order to support a cat. Deontology has no basis for comparing these things unless they're on another ad hoc tier of duty; you just can't interfere (as in point #1).
If serving our duty to cats means violating a duty to other animals of the same order, then we can not do it.

Deontology is broken and arbitrary, but even if you try to play by the broken rules it presents under the most generous assumptions, there's not much you can do to justify adopting and feeding cats other animals unless you're proposing we have less duty to wild animals due to the lack of intervention in their creation, thus may go out and hunt to feed a cat.

If you have a consistent ethical framework which differs from the two (consequentialism broadly, or deontology) that you think you can present an objective analysis of the situation in context of, I'd love to see it.
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by DarlBundren »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Do you have a prior duty to a cat you have already adopted to continue feeding it? In which case, you should do so (even meat) and not get another cat (to which you have no duty).
What about cats who already are in a shelter? Wouldn't a vegan person be a better owner? Meat eaters would hardly be concerned about the whole 'spaying and neutering' situation, nor would they force them to live indoors.
Last edited by DarlBundren on Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

DarlBundren wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:16 pm No hard feelings. . . asshole. :lol:
Image

Jokes, I'm honestly just bemused there was so much miscommunication, I think we set some kind of world record :D
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:03 pm Regarding the point of consequentialism; it's what her core audience expects. She also has a video on that in the first part (third part?) of the intersectional series.

. . .

Do all humans have duty to all cats, because we had a hand in breeding them? Then the same applies to chickens and cows. There's no justification in failing in our duty to those animals by harming them in order to support a cat. Deontology has no basis for comparing these things unless they're on another ad hoc tier of duty; you just can't interfere (as in point #1).
If serving our duty to cats means violating a duty to other animals of the same order, then we can not do it.

Deontology is broken and arbitrary, but even if you try to play by the broken rules it presents under the most generous assumptions, there's not much you can do to justify adopting and feeding cats other animals unless you're proposing we have less duty to wild animals due to the lack of intervention in their creation, thus may go out and hunt to feed a cat.

If you have a consistent ethical framework which differs from the two (consequentialism broadly, or deontology) that you think you can present an objective analysis of the situation in context of, I'd love to see it.
I'm not well schooled in ethics so it'd be easier to defend someone else's thesis and have you critique it:
https://www.academia.edu/10663597/Do_Anarchists_Dream_of_Emancipated_Sheep_-_contemporary_anarchism_animal_liberation_and_the_implications_of_new_philosophy

There's also 4 forum posts dealing with my tentative philosophy your welcome to have a crack at it if you like:
— Evolutionairy meta-ethics
— http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2896&start=10
— http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2944&start=204
— Ethical Nihilism
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2998
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2973

From an activist perspective UV might be a trailblazer for all I know, their videos might be completely revolutionary and people will look back and say I totally get it now. All I know is caring about animals is a winning formula to get people interested in animal welfare, and making looking after cats on a freegan/vegan diet look like a shitshow doesn't fit into my conception of bringing people over to our side.

From a political perspective aren't all cats fed meat at shelters? Isn't killing/abusing them a net negative cultural capital? So is it not better to have friends who feed cats meat but are more open to veganism through investment in their animals welfare?
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pm I'm not well schooled in ethics so it'd be easier to defend someone else's thesis and have you critique it:
https://www.academia.edu/10663597/Do_Anarchists_Dream_of_Emancipated_Sheep_-_contemporary_anarchism_animal_liberation_and_the_implications_of_new_philosophy
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. This is most common for atheists vs. lay Christians who insist their preachers have answers to all of the arguments made (or that God does).
Kind of an unfalsifiable "god works in mysterious ways" clause.
Somebody with philosophical "power of attorney" over the argument needs to be present to have a real debate on it.

You'd need to spend some time becoming more familiar with the argument and the field so you could be comfortable presenting it yourself.
Or perhaps you could invite him or her (the originator of the argument) here to argue it.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pmThere's also 4 forum posts dealing with my tentative philosophy your welcome to have a crack at it if you like:
Maybe you can make a thread summarizing it. Just make sure they're your own arguments so you can follow through with debate until conclusion (whether that finds them to be valid or fallacious).
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pmFrom an activist perspective UV might be a trailblazer for all I know
Not really. Consequentialism is approaching consensus in philosophy. There's mainly disagreement on the details.
Even if she were espousing deontology, however, the conclusion wouldn't really have been different in this case.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pmAll 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: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pmand making looking after cats on a freegan/vegan diet look like a shitshow
What do you mean?
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pmFrom a political perspective aren't all cats fed meat at shelters?
Corn, soy, and meat. Until they're euthanized.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pmIsn't killing/abusing them a net negative cultural capital?
Abusing as in keeping them in a small apartment with little stimulation?

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.
NonZeroSum wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:32 pmSo 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.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

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.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by DarlBundren »

NonZeroSum wrote: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?
I think Brimstone's position has to do with the fact that they have kill shelters in the U.S. If that is the case, then, from a consequential point of view, it might be better not to adopt.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Do all humans have duty to all cats, because we had a hand in breeding them? Then the same applies to chickens and cows. There's no justification in failing in our duty to those animals by harming them in order to support a cat
This is the real elephant in the room, as far as I am concerned. The question, then, is 1) What about countries that don't euthanize them? In those countries, isn't it a good solution for vegans to adopt? 2) Are kill shelters something that vegans should fight against or not?
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

DarlBundren wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:36 am
NonZeroSum wrote: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?
I think Brimstone's position has to do with the fact that they have kill shelters in the U.S. If that is the case, then, from a consequential point of view, it might be better not to adopt.
Yes that's the underhanded elephant in the room I'm referring to when UV makes adopting cats a terrible choice. It's not just leaving them up to meat eaters to adopt, it's leading them to slaughter. Something people are reacting very badly too and making vegans look extreme.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Do all humans have duty to all cats, because we had a hand in breeding them? Then the same applies to chickens and cows. There's no justification in failing in our duty to those animals by harming them in order to support a cat
This is the real elephant in the room, as far as I am concerned. The question, then, is 1) What about countries that don't euthanize them? In those countries, isn't it a good solution for vegans to adopt?
Well you know my position yes for both.
2) Are kill shelters something that vegans should fight against or not?
I'm not sure about that, my instinct is to say yes. But then you get in a situation like abortion e.g. I wouldn't want a puppy being turned away from a shelter because they didn't have enough space because they were full of old rickety dogs. And the farmer takes a shotgun to the puppy inhumanely.

What is needed is shelter charities transparency, publicity, last minute appeals and a network that can transfer pets out of state where all shelters are full up. And of course education through adverts and schools.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DarlBundren wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:36 am I think Brimstone's position has to do with the fact that they have kill shelters in the U.S. If that is the case, then, from a consequential point of view, it might be better not to adopt.
This probably applies to countries with only no kill shelters too.

If there is a limited supply, then people who want cats will get one from a breeder if none are available in a shelter. If you took one of the kittens, somebody is just breeding to replace it.
If there is an overpopulation issue, then there are probably TNR programs and others; leaving cats feral is a form of killing them. Either way the environment is likely going to have cats to capacity.

Adopting will likely increase the number of cats in any case.
DarlBundren wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:36 am2) Are kill shelters something that vegans should fight against or not?
I don't think so. Pet animals already receive a disproportionate amount of funding, and represent a tiny amount of suffering compared to farmed animals.
We should devote our effort to more effective activities.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:35 am 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.
Most people did not, from my skimming the comments.
Most negative reactions were about cats being carnivores and seeing no problem with factory farming to feed them, and many that obviously didn't watch the video saying if you don't want to feed a cat meat then adopt a rabbit instead.

You give people too much credit... and too little. There aren't as many people as you suspect who are over thinking this enough to read into this what you did, but not rational enough to see the point.

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:35 am 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.
Did you collect unbiased statistical evidence of this, or are you reading into it based on your own psychology and projecting that onto others?
You seem sometimes to look for insult or dishonesty (when you accuse people of taking you out of context, I think that's an example of this), and if you look hard enough you'll find it whether it's there or not. This is not something most people do.

Most people would either accept the argument or reject it on its own merits rather than searching for hidden motives.
People may have regarded it as a stupid argument, but that's another issue.
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by DarlBundren »

brimstoneSalad wrote:If there is an overpopulation issue, then there are probably TNR programs and others; leaving cats feral is a form of killing them. Either way the environment is likely going to have cats to capacity.
This is what is going on in my country. We have got an overpopulation issue and there's a TNR program. But it only applies to adult feral cats. Newborn cats and sick/injured cats are usually taken care of by shelters. That means that if you don't adopt them they will likely remain there all their life. However, I have just talked with a girl who works at the the local dog shelter and she told me that this rarely happens. Most newborns are adopted and injured cats are usually taken care of by the people who work there. In the light of this, since cats should be fed meat in any case, being vegan or not, probably, doesn't make much of a difference.
Post Reply