mathemachristian

You can take your devs vult and shove it where the sun don't shine. You've shamelessly even named yourself after a colonizer that basically started the british mandate of palestine. Your kind has done unspeakable things in west asia and you will be remembered by history as people that were rotten to the core. Future generations will be baffled as to how humans could come to the stuff that your kind did.

Ok but why do you think its bad to abuse these animals aside from killing them? That's the part I'm curious about. What kind of pain would you consider immoral? Do you count emotional pain such as separating a newborn child from it's mother for instance?

There alternatives are still harm reduction, I agree that linkrot is a real issue and that animal testing is rather neglected by most vegans. However the fact that there are alternatives to the way we do animal testing, that quite a few are due to regulatory restrictions and not necessary in the scientific sense is not false information.

I would also like to point out that this expectation of always having a well-studied understanding with sources at the ready seems to not be applied when carnists post stuff like "animal testing is necessary", "animal ag's impact on the climate is negligible" etc.

Got tesserekt lmao

There are resources on that page. That is an area I know nothing about sadly.

The problem you're describing is extremely niche. A rescued cow that is still lactating, where the calf could not be rescued, will likely need to be milked in order not to develop any issues in her udder. That milk is a byproduct of a medical procedure made necessary by the abuse she suffered. I would see to it that it gets put to use for the cow children first but in the end whether you pour it down a drain or your throat makes no difference. However that milk will dry up after a couple months anyway. No mammal produces milk just because, it is always to provide for a child.

As for if making cheese out of that milk would be vegan, it depends on the rennet I suppose. For cows you don't have to butcher calves anymore so it's likely gonna be possible. For goats I don't know.

A rescued sheep might need to get shorn regularly due to a problem of its breed. However again the focus is not getting wool, it's to help the sheep, which means it should be shorn more often than at a farm and not as close to the skin than "normally", resulting in a poorer wool quality since the individual hairs are much shorter.

Like you could ask if eating roadkill is vegan. Sure, if it doesn't interrupt any animals grieving process or rituals, whatever, who cares. I think our ancestors probably scavenged a lot of the animal products they used.

But there is an ethical issue with breeds that depend on humans for their survival, it's that the people hold the power of life or death over them. There can be no meaningful consent there. Additionally they have to be held in captivity if they would die in the wild. Which is why rescued animals usually aren't allowed to breed. They could never be allowed to breed as they wish anyway, otherwise their population might overwhelm the care humans are capable of giving them anyway, so let's cut it off entirely.

So your hypothetical vegan animal products depend on rescue farms that would be phased out. There is no vegan way to get animal products in perpetuity.

What is it that makes slavery bad?

Go do that maybe they'll teach you something about the difference between owning a pet and adopting an animal

Yeah, pet ownership is not considered vegan. On account of, you know, owning a sentient being, treating it as property.

There are also many effective alternatives to animal testing in the case of vivisection for medical and pharmaceutical purposes. This is good news, since animals have been proven time and again to be poor models for the study of human injury and disease. But if this is the case, you might ask, why are animals still used in medical and pharmaceutical research at all? One reason is momentum. The tradition of vivisection is deeply ingrained in this research such that status quo bias is a powerful factor in perpetuating it. Another reason is money. Researchers receive grant money based on the number of papers they publish in scientific literature, and it is both easier and faster to use animals as test subjects than it is to undertake human-based research. Finally, while the FDA has often failed to show that the results of animal tests can be extrapolated to humans, companies still use animals in testing in order to protect themselves in the case of a lawsuit. This means that unreliable animal tests are giving rise to unreliable medical and pharmaceutical results, which result in unreliable treatments and medications that are themselves excused by the legal system because of the unreliable animal tests underpinning them. It is altogether a vicious circle that could be eliminated with a more sensible approach to medical and pharmaceutical research that does not involve animals at all.

https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/we-need-to-test-on-animals

you have an incredibly bleak outlook on the "purpose" of a life. The slave is bred for the purpose of toiling for their master their entire life, does that justify anything? Hell the only reason the worker gets a wage is so they can work for the capitalist. The only reason people get maternity leave etc. is to breed more workers, that's your purpose in life.

Only the oppressor has a free choice in their lifes purpose. Well, somehow they always choose to oppress more so who knows. At least we have that old debate finally sorted.

You can talk to me about how to convince others when you've managed to convince yourself. Until then I'll stick with what worked on me and what I know worked on others, which is to move outside the bounds of "civil" debate and call a spade a spade.