💚

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." TERFS: FUCK OFF

[katelouisepowell]

‘A Proper Hunt’

[prints]

[katelouisepowell]

there are just hours left to make your voice heard in regards to a REAL ban on trail hunting

the government consultation closes just before midnight tonight (18/06/26). Use your words and help put the pressure on to end hunting with hounds once and for all. Your opinions matter, and you best believe the pro-hunting crowd will be submitting their opinions en masse

the HSA has put together a guide to completing the consultation here

[dragonclawz2007]

Trump is trying to kill off the last buffalos in the US just so companies and farmers can have more space for their livestock cattle to graze

This is a painful reminder of the buffalo slaughter of the 1800s, when white colonizers tried to kill off all of the buffalo just to keep native American people from having resources.

[kiloueka]

Another reminder about how human oppression and animal oppression are inexorably linked, and you can't liberate one without the other.

Colonizers commit mass killing/full exterminations of native wildlife to further the genocide of native peoples and make way for the exploitation and abuse of imported farmed animals, which is further damaging to the environment and human health in general. It happens in every colonized area, from the bison in the US to the eels in Aotearoa.

People can fight these bills all they want, but they're going to keep coming if we continue to shill for and pay the companies that fund them. Stop giving them money if you can avoid it.

The mass killing of bison matters because it's used to harm native people.

It matters because bison are living creatures that feel emotions and pain and don't deserve to be killed.

It matters because the cattle that will be grazed on that land don't deserve to be exploited and killed for money, for a burger.

It matters because the native predators don't deserve to be killed for 'harming' profits.

[charl0ttan]

Is killing bad? We just don’t know yet.

i mean nobody whos been killed has complained so for all we know its good

[acti-veg]

Denying the role that individuals need to play in combating the climate crisis is the leftist version of climate change denial. Anyone responding to suggestions of realistic, accessible changes to reduce your own impact with anything resembling ‘100 companies are responsible for most of our emissions so this is pointless’ are engaging in science denialism.

There is no way that collective action takes place without individuals making changes in their own lives. Yes, the rich are more responsible than the poor and yes, what we need is systematic change. However, there absolutely are things we can and should be doing to reduce our own impact and put pressure on polluting industries through direct action and boycott.

These include stopping or reducing flying, eliminating or drastically reducing our consumption of meat and dairy, buying second hand where possible, repairing, recycling and supporting environmental action and rewilding efforts. None of this in isolation will mend the world but its a hell of a lot better than passing the buck while refusing to make any changes in our own lives.

I know that the idea that climate change is caused by someone else; somewhere else, and that it’s up to them to change instead of us is seductive rhetoric, but it’s also extremely dangerous. It encourages the kind of apathy that plays directly into the hands of corporations who want us to feel powerless and to continue to consume as we do now.

We can’t just sit around and wait for The Revolution; we have to live revolutionary lives.

[acti-veg]

Just to add for some of you in the notes, the ‘100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions’ headline was a gross, clickbait misrepresentation of the truth. Influencers and media outlets twisted the results of this study because they knew consumers wanted something, anything, to tell them that the responsibility isn’t on them to make any change, since it’s all the fault of those big nasty corporations. The following is from the Fullfact analysis of this study:

“In the original press release accompanying the report, CDP said: “100 active fossil fuel producers including ExxonMobil, Shell, BHP Billiton and Gazprom are linked to 71% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.”

“This means that the total estimated cumulative greenhouse gas emissions released by human activity (excluding carbon dioxide from land use, land use change and forestry, and agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% of those emissions originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions from producing fossil fuels (like oil, coal and gas), and the subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to other companies. Therefore, it might not come as such a surprise that these 100 entities are linked to 71% of human activity-related greenhouse gas emissions, since all 100 are fossil fuel producers.”

In other words, this study (which was extremely limited in scope) concluded that 100 companies produce 71% of the fossil fuels which are then used by other industries and by consumers themselves. 100 companies aren’t causing 71% of emissions, they’re producing the fossil fuels that are then linked to 71% of emissions. Those are completely different things.

[nemfrog]

The little people of the garden. 1922. Book cover.

Internet Archive

[fairycosmos]

the way the dinosaurs were here for like 180 million years and we're just like ughhh rip to the monsters. now onto the main story of planet earth humanity. btw we're 3 seconds old

[rpfisfine]

[moralomnivore]

I've long been musing over the concept of vegan meats that are sold as faux-dragon (purple and spicy) or faux-unicorn (pink and mica-sprinkled), or buffalo "wings" that look like a chicken wing but taste beefy. Sky's the limit!

[veganmabelpines]

Since being vegan wont solve all the problems ever in the world, I've decided to give it up. I will also be sneezing directly into people's faces from now on, because using a tissue doesn't guarantee their continued good health.

[gaytrees]

plant based diet. as opposed to meat cringe diet

[vegspoblr]

"i am fine with animals dying for my meal" well animals are not fine with it which is the entire issue

[vegspoblr]

"i've made my peace with animals being killed for my sake" easy to say you are fine with others dying when you are not the one being killed ever thought of that

[mali-umkin]

[brightwingedbat]

help

[hearthoof]

im so tired of hearing the "buy from local farms" argument. local animals dont wanna fucking die either. the impact their existence had on this earth isnt just erased cus u drove 10 minutes to pick up their corpse by the way. jesus christ im tired

[flowerlygirls]

up to a certain point animals dying and being eaten by other animals is normal and natural. antilopes or flies and seals dont ""want"" to die either but thats the cycle of nature. if capitalism or simply civilization didnt exist humans would still hunt and eat certain animals just like other predators do. and sometimes a human will be killed (and eaten) by a shark or a bear and thats normal too.

what absolutely isnt normal ofc is the amount. the amount of meat (many) people eat nowadays and how removed they are from its origin and how wasteful we are with the animal isnt normal. keeping them in torturous conditions with overfeeding and tiny cages isnt normal. but youll just have to accept that many people, those who buy from local organic cruelty free places, just dont agree with your prerogative that animals being eaten is always fundamentally immoral

[hearthoof]

eating animals when you dont have to is immoral. "you have to accept that-" im not going to. i will say its immoral until it annoys people. until they block me. i dont care.

also i know animals killing and eating other animals is a thing that happens. dont know why people seem to assume over and over again that i dont think that its normal. i am not concerned with the actions of wild animals and i never will be. i am concerned with the choices of human beings.

i dont believe in cruelty free animal agriculture. killing an animal before it can live its natural lifespan so it can be eaten is not "cruelty free". betraying a "happy" animal with slaughter is not somehow okay. plenty of "cruelty free" places arent actually cruelty free either.

also idk why you put want in quotes. I think not wanting to die is a reasonable desire for an animal to have.

i hope this doesnt come across as me being angry with you. im not really angry with you as a person or anything. i just think these arguments are overused and im a bit tired of them. i hope you can see where im coming from

edit: when i say eating animals when you DONT HAVE TO i mean not in a survival situation. i have to say this over and over just to make sure ppl know where i'm coming from :/

[acti-veg]

What is normal or natural has absolutely no relationship with what is ethical. Appeals to normality and appeals to nature are both widely recognised as logical fallacies.

There is a good reason why these are called the three N’s of oppression - “normal, natural, necessary.” Literally any act, no matter how immoral can be deemed ‘normal’ when practiced at scale and over a sufficient length of time. Some animals kill for territory, they kill infants to secure breeding, many engage in cannibalism. Can you therefore defend any of these behaviours in humans on the basis they they’re ‘normal’ in the wild, and therefore natural? I should hope not.

The truth is that the oppressor always defines what is ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ in the way which most benefits the status quo they wish to maintain. They will pick and choose which behaviours to defend as ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ based on what is convenient to them. This is a facile argument; it is irrational utterly self-serving.

[oediex]

"In the far corner of the kill room are two doors, one for workers and one for pigs, which open onto the holding pen in the back of the slaughterhouse. The doors are somewhat difficult to see, as this area is partly walled off from the rest of the room. Located in this obscured corner is an enormous machine that temporarily holds the pig in place when the animal enters, and allows the "knocker" - the worker who operates the stun gun (the "shocker) - to discharge the device on the top of the pig's head, ideally rendering it immediately unconscious. No one is willing to give me a justification for why this machine and its operation are hidden from the view of everyone save the knocker, but it's easy to make guesses. No doubt some of it has to do with allowing the workers to go about their business without having constantly to be reminded that their business is the taking apart of recently living beings. By the time a pig comes into view, he or she is already a thing."

Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals (2009), p. 154.

[oediex]

Right before that he writes

"As soon as a pig is inside, a door drops behind it so that the waiting pigs can't see what's going on. This makes sense not only from a humane perspective but from an efficiency one: a pig that fears death - or however you want to put its panic - is going to be hard, if not dangerous, to deal with. And stress is known to adversely affect the quality of the pork."

[calico-vegan]

Having any sort of conversation with non-vegans can be so frustrating because so many of them will bend over backwards to make all kinds of excuses and frame you as being antagonistic, unreasonable, etc regardless of what you’re actually saying and how you’re saying saying.

It’s essentially their own version of the narcissist’s prayer;

That doesn’t happen on farms,

And if it does, I didn’t know about it,

And if I did, then it’s not that bad,

And if it is, there’s nothing I can do,

And if there is, well it’s my personal choice and you need to respect that.

[jadeblueafterglow]

genuinely wondering, where did the idea that vegans don't care about the welfare and conditions of the people who are picking fruits and vegetables? and why do non vegans make themselves exempt from it, as if they're eating completely different fruits and vegetables we vegans don't have access to?

if anything, i've had the exact opposite experiences non vegans are claiming. every vegan i've come across agrees that no person should be working under harsh and dangerous conditions, or be exploited for their labor, and fully understand where the food we eat comes from and want these systems to be dismantled and changed and work/advocate for it

while the non vegans i've talked to pull the "no ethical consumption under capitalism so who cares about how i choose to do things" excuse and don't even bother engaging with or thinking critically about the subject unless they want to pwn vegans or whatever.

[veganmabelpines]

It's a bit funny how I'm the inverse of those lame "Ill eat twice as much meat to cancel you out" meat eaters except mine is for environmental reasons. People who rely heavily on animal products for medical reasons are part of why I'm so happy to be vegan. Here in the US, everyone needs to consume less meat to ensure a livable climate. This does not inherently mean no meat for anyone, but significantly less per person.

There are people out there who cannot reduce their meat consumption at all. When I cut out all meat from my diet, the small portion I would have been able to sustainably eat can be allocated to someone who has no option to reduce.

[healingwgabs]

Comparing milks and its environmental impact.

Where I live plant milk is cheaper too!

Soy milk looks like it’s the most eco friendly milk