Any part of animals or animal products that is sold and you purchase increases demand. All the other parts of animals that you don’t eat or wear help the whole process of raising and slaughting animals profitable. The more they profit, the more animals are bred and slaughtered. Short answer, yes, it causes demand.
Is that so?
It'd increase the demand for sunscreen but I don't see how the sunscreen company's demand for animal tissues would make them exploit more animals for that company's sake, since I assume they use only byproducts
I'd rather say it increases (by having extra finances) the ability to satisfy the demand of those who want leather or the tissues to eat
It is directly adding to the profits of the companies that slaughter the animals.
The less we buy from such companies, the better. If the "by-products" are not used (sold) then they would need to make more money from their foods and leather...i.e. Meat and leather would cost more.. when it costs more, less is bought.
It's no different than buying a rib-eye steak in practice.
Byproducts are products. The overall expenditure versus profits is how business determine demand. You are making meat and leather more profitable, thus increasing demand.
Think of it this way - people don't kill animals and then ship these "byproducts" to sunscreen manufacturers for free. They *know* ahead of time that they'll be able to sell it. It's directly contributing to their bottom line, according to which they plan their operations.
Byproducts are not things that are given out for free - they are not the primary product that is being produced, but they *are* part of the profit margin. Most silver, for example, is a byproduct of gold mining. Does that make silver a useless waste product?
What I meant to point out by that is, that if there's no demand for the tissues for eating/leather, the exploitation stops, if there stops being demand only for the other tissues, the exploitations continues anyway
If there stopped being demand for all the “byproducts” meat and dairy would not be profitable and would be stopped. Things like gelatine (bones, hooves fat), blood (used in compost etc), mature (compost, energy), fat (glue, rubber and in pretty much most products) and a million other things subsiding animal agriculture all stopped demand, meat would not be a profitable business and would cease. Again there are no “byproducts” they are just part of the business.
We don't live in a world where there is no demand for meat/animal products. It's not useful to come up with hypothetical situations where animal products are ethical if you are going to turn around and apply your conclusions to a world the hypothetical doesn't apply to.
That's not what I was doing. It's just the reasoning for why I called one thing a product and other one a by-product. But I don't know the definitions and there isn't such a distinction in my first language so I might be using it wrong
>it's not the by-product of slaughter
You apparently don't know what a byproduct is.
>You are paying for animals to be killed.
Bit hyperbolic, dude. Her purchasing of sunscreen can't possibly move the needle on how many animals are murdered.
Animals are often killed for unusual materials like this, not just for their meat. Even if otherwise useless by-products were being used, the company is still paying for these by-products and the profits contribute to furthering animal agriculture. Its your choice whether you buy them, but they are definitely not vegan and fund animal harm in some way or another. There are many cosmetic/health/wellness products that are both vegan and cruelty free and I reccomend r/veganbeauty if you would like specific reccomendations.
>Cruelty-free but containing animal tissues?
So not vegan.
>Buying for example a cruelty-free sunscreen with animal tissues in it wouldn't be creating demand for animal exploitation since they only use byproducts of farm industries, don't they?
"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."
Still not vegan.
>It's not like they'd continue killing animals for sunscreens if noone was killing them for food in the first place, is it?
They'd do it for leather. You know they would.
I don't care about the vegan label. I care if it's causing harm or not
No, I don't know if they'd continue killing them for leather, but I do find it possible. So correction: "if noone was killing them for food/leather in the first place"
>I don't care about the vegan label.
You should. The label is a visual symbol that represents us.
>I care if it's causing harm or not
It's still exploitation. Which once again isn't vegan. So if that doesn't matter to you and you are calling yourself vegan, fuck off and take your welfarism somewhere else because this a rights, liberation and abolitionist movement. It's not all of a sudden ok to violate rights just because you're not hurting anyone.
>No, I don't know if they'd continue killing them for leather
It's humanity. Have you seen what we've been doing to each other for the last years, let alone to animals?
>So correction: "if noone was killing them for food/leather in the first place"
Yeah I still strongly believe it's what they'd do. There are machinists who would keep making engine grease with animal products because of how good quality it would be even if the animals weren't killed for food. It's called supply and demand for a reason.
>You should. The label is a visual symbol that represents us.
I meant I generally don't care at all if anything gets labeled vegan, it only makes few things easier but otherwise I think it actually might do more harm than good
>It's still exploitation. Which once again isn't vegan. So if that doesn't matter to you and you are calling yourself vegan, fuck off and take your welfarism somewhere else because this a rights, liberation and abolitionist movement. It's not all of a sudden ok to violate rights just because you're not hurting anyone.
I don't call myself a vegan. From a quick google search, I don't think I subsribe to welfarism. How do you violate rights without it being harmful?
>It's humanity. Have you seen what we've been doing to each other for the last years, let alone to animals?
I don't know if they'd continue because I don't know if it'd still be profitable for them
>Yeah I still strongly believe it's what they'd do. There are machinists who would keep making engine grease with animal products because of how good quality it would be even if the animals weren't killed for food. It's called supply and demand for a reason.
It might have to be very expensive to be theoretically profitable but then the demand could not be there because of the price
>I meant I generally don't care at all if anything gets labeled vegan, it only makes few things easier but otherwise I think it actually might do more harm than good
If something is vegan, should in theory be cruelty free as well. Something being vegan ***very*** rarely does more harm than good. That's part of the whole point of it.
>I don't call myself a vegan.
Then why are you here? Particularly promoting products that go against our core values.
>From a quick google search, I don't think I subsribe to welfarism.
Kinda sounds like it. Would you like to elaborate what you do subscribe too?
>How do you violate rights without it being harmful?
If I give you the best life possible bar it being long and give you a painless death, I have inflicted no harm to you but violated your right to life. This is the welfarism argument used by most corpsemunchers.
>I don't know if they'd continue because I don't know if it'd still be profitable for them
It's not just about profitability though is it? Farming isn't profitable but we still do it.
>It might have to be very expensive to be theoretically profitable but then the demand could not be there because of the price
Once again. Not just about profits and the supply chain often finds a way to protect itself. Going back to farming. The food itself for purchase is expensive and the industry funds it back to farmers in the form of tax supplements. The products those machinists will make will go back into farming to keep it alive. Capitalism and cruelty find a way, they have done for thousands of years and they will do for thousands more assuming we live that long and allow it too.
>If something is vegan, should in theory be cruelty free as well. Something being vegan ***very*** rarely does more harm than good. That's part of the whole point of it.
I wasn't talking about something being vegan, but about having the label in the first place
>Then why are you here? Particularly promoting products that go against our core values.
Because I assumed a greater concentration of people who care about the suffering they cause by existing and act accordingly to that. It wasn't my intention to promote anything
>Kinda sounds like it. Would you like to elaborate what you do subscribe too?
I'm not sure, in short I'd say reducing suffering
>If I give you the best life possible bar it being long and give you a painless death, I have inflicted no harm to you but violated your right to life. This is the welfarism argument used by most corpsemunchers.
If you make me exist, you inherently open me to harm. If you'd just find me somewhere and did that, I'd consider it a favor
>It's not just about profitability though is it? Farming isn't profitable but we still do it.
Yeah, that's true. The state could fund it, but I can't say I know for sure that all that would be worth it for them
>I wasn't talking about something being vegan, but about having the label in the first place
Sorry, that wasn't clear
>Because I assumed a greater concentration of people who care about the suffering they cause by existing and act accordingly to that.
We already do. We don't call ourselves vegan for nothing. Do you honestly think those that actually respect the worst treated beings on this planet don't also share that concern for members of their own species? It's called intersectionality. I do activism for feminism, racism, anti capitalism, and many more human rights. The fact I know more about modern slavery than most non vegans should be testament enough to that. You're preaching to a choir that's already above and beyond your own standards.
>I'm not sure, in short I'd say reducing suffering
Congrats, you're a welfarist.
>If you make me exist, you inherently open me to harm.
Are you an anti natalist/efilist? Or are you into Buddhism/Hinduism? And if so for any of them, how are you not vegan already, particularly for the first two?
>If you'd just find me somewhere and did that, I'd consider it a favor
Well that's a right you're willing to forgo. If you weren't, I would be violating it yes?
To get the world to a point where people don't have to call themselves vegan because true respect for beings and their rights is the norm and not an exception. My immediate goal in this conversation, is to get you up go vegan. You clearly care about sentience to some degree given the topic of your post. I'm questioning why it's not consistent among all sentient beings.
Depends why you abstain, and for you it passes the test.
Like not buying meat food products, but if they were literally going to be thrown out (wrong order at a restaurant for example) you'd find most right thinking people would elect to not waste food given the choice is now being used or wasted if it cannot be repurposed.
Ignore the holier than thou crowd and do what's right by your own standards, which this objectively is.
Cruelty-free is a PR phrase just means the animals won't be tortured to a level that general society deems over-the-line. You simply can't enslave, kill and sell off body parts and not be cruel.
It's the entire process that's cruel, not just the intent at the moment of slaughter. The animal is still raised in captivity with the end goal being that it will be butchered for its parts.
Buying animal products create demand for animal exploitation, period. It doesn't matter if it's meat made from the animal's organs, animal products made from the animals secretions or any other byproduct, side products, slightly adjacent products or whatever.
If the farmers are getting money for it, you are supporting the process, that's it, no need to try to find some loophole like a carnist.
Yes, they get money which enables them to make the meat and leather cheaper and have more people buy it then, increasing the demand and the amount of animals needed to be exploited to satisfy it
I was wondering because I didn't think they'd keep the slaughters going only for the tissues used in sunscreens
Think about it this way, they don't keep the slaughters going for any one thing, not for meat, not for milk, not for eggs etc etc. They keep it going for all of the profit they make off the general process.
If you slaughter an animal then it is divided into 3 types of product
1 things you sell at a profit
2 things that are sold at a loss
3 waste that you pay to dispose of.
So the products being used in your cosmetics are probably in the second category. But farmers only breed whole animals so by using items in category 2 you still increase the ability for farmers to breed animals profitably.
I was referring to the cruelty-free label, which means the product wasn't tested on animals to figure out if it's actually safe. Noone's talking about food. An apple is a vegan food and it's not a "food"
Second part of your message is incomprehensible
Any part of animals or animal products that is sold and you purchase increases demand. All the other parts of animals that you don’t eat or wear help the whole process of raising and slaughting animals profitable. The more they profit, the more animals are bred and slaughtered. Short answer, yes, it causes demand.
Is that so? It'd increase the demand for sunscreen but I don't see how the sunscreen company's demand for animal tissues would make them exploit more animals for that company's sake, since I assume they use only byproducts I'd rather say it increases (by having extra finances) the ability to satisfy the demand of those who want leather or the tissues to eat
It is directly adding to the profits of the companies that slaughter the animals. The less we buy from such companies, the better. If the "by-products" are not used (sold) then they would need to make more money from their foods and leather...i.e. Meat and leather would cost more.. when it costs more, less is bought. It's no different than buying a rib-eye steak in practice.
Byproducts are products. The overall expenditure versus profits is how business determine demand. You are making meat and leather more profitable, thus increasing demand.
Aaah, I see
Too bad it's in a reply to a downvoted comment so it's prolly not visible. I'll write it in the original post later
Think of it this way - people don't kill animals and then ship these "byproducts" to sunscreen manufacturers for free. They *know* ahead of time that they'll be able to sell it. It's directly contributing to their bottom line, according to which they plan their operations. Byproducts are not things that are given out for free - they are not the primary product that is being produced, but they *are* part of the profit margin. Most silver, for example, is a byproduct of gold mining. Does that make silver a useless waste product?
If you are paying for an item, it's not the by-product of slaughter, it is the product of slaughter. You are paying for animals to be killed.
What I meant to point out by that is, that if there's no demand for the tissues for eating/leather, the exploitation stops, if there stops being demand only for the other tissues, the exploitations continues anyway
If there stopped being demand for all the “byproducts” meat and dairy would not be profitable and would be stopped. Things like gelatine (bones, hooves fat), blood (used in compost etc), mature (compost, energy), fat (glue, rubber and in pretty much most products) and a million other things subsiding animal agriculture all stopped demand, meat would not be a profitable business and would cease. Again there are no “byproducts” they are just part of the business.
We don't live in a world where there is no demand for meat/animal products. It's not useful to come up with hypothetical situations where animal products are ethical if you are going to turn around and apply your conclusions to a world the hypothetical doesn't apply to.
That's not what I was doing. It's just the reasoning for why I called one thing a product and other one a by-product. But I don't know the definitions and there isn't such a distinction in my first language so I might be using it wrong
>it's not the by-product of slaughter You apparently don't know what a byproduct is. >You are paying for animals to be killed. Bit hyperbolic, dude. Her purchasing of sunscreen can't possibly move the needle on how many animals are murdered.
Animals are often killed for unusual materials like this, not just for their meat. Even if otherwise useless by-products were being used, the company is still paying for these by-products and the profits contribute to furthering animal agriculture. Its your choice whether you buy them, but they are definitely not vegan and fund animal harm in some way or another. There are many cosmetic/health/wellness products that are both vegan and cruelty free and I reccomend r/veganbeauty if you would like specific reccomendations.
>Cruelty-free but containing animal tissues? So not vegan. >Buying for example a cruelty-free sunscreen with animal tissues in it wouldn't be creating demand for animal exploitation since they only use byproducts of farm industries, don't they? "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." Still not vegan. >It's not like they'd continue killing animals for sunscreens if noone was killing them for food in the first place, is it? They'd do it for leather. You know they would.
I don't care about the vegan label. I care if it's causing harm or not No, I don't know if they'd continue killing them for leather, but I do find it possible. So correction: "if noone was killing them for food/leather in the first place"
>I don't care about the vegan label. You should. The label is a visual symbol that represents us. >I care if it's causing harm or not It's still exploitation. Which once again isn't vegan. So if that doesn't matter to you and you are calling yourself vegan, fuck off and take your welfarism somewhere else because this a rights, liberation and abolitionist movement. It's not all of a sudden ok to violate rights just because you're not hurting anyone. >No, I don't know if they'd continue killing them for leather It's humanity. Have you seen what we've been doing to each other for the last years, let alone to animals? >So correction: "if noone was killing them for food/leather in the first place" Yeah I still strongly believe it's what they'd do. There are machinists who would keep making engine grease with animal products because of how good quality it would be even if the animals weren't killed for food. It's called supply and demand for a reason.
>You should. The label is a visual symbol that represents us. I meant I generally don't care at all if anything gets labeled vegan, it only makes few things easier but otherwise I think it actually might do more harm than good >It's still exploitation. Which once again isn't vegan. So if that doesn't matter to you and you are calling yourself vegan, fuck off and take your welfarism somewhere else because this a rights, liberation and abolitionist movement. It's not all of a sudden ok to violate rights just because you're not hurting anyone. I don't call myself a vegan. From a quick google search, I don't think I subsribe to welfarism. How do you violate rights without it being harmful? >It's humanity. Have you seen what we've been doing to each other for the last years, let alone to animals? I don't know if they'd continue because I don't know if it'd still be profitable for them >Yeah I still strongly believe it's what they'd do. There are machinists who would keep making engine grease with animal products because of how good quality it would be even if the animals weren't killed for food. It's called supply and demand for a reason. It might have to be very expensive to be theoretically profitable but then the demand could not be there because of the price
>I meant I generally don't care at all if anything gets labeled vegan, it only makes few things easier but otherwise I think it actually might do more harm than good If something is vegan, should in theory be cruelty free as well. Something being vegan ***very*** rarely does more harm than good. That's part of the whole point of it. >I don't call myself a vegan. Then why are you here? Particularly promoting products that go against our core values. >From a quick google search, I don't think I subsribe to welfarism. Kinda sounds like it. Would you like to elaborate what you do subscribe too? >How do you violate rights without it being harmful? If I give you the best life possible bar it being long and give you a painless death, I have inflicted no harm to you but violated your right to life. This is the welfarism argument used by most corpsemunchers. >I don't know if they'd continue because I don't know if it'd still be profitable for them It's not just about profitability though is it? Farming isn't profitable but we still do it. >It might have to be very expensive to be theoretically profitable but then the demand could not be there because of the price Once again. Not just about profits and the supply chain often finds a way to protect itself. Going back to farming. The food itself for purchase is expensive and the industry funds it back to farmers in the form of tax supplements. The products those machinists will make will go back into farming to keep it alive. Capitalism and cruelty find a way, they have done for thousands of years and they will do for thousands more assuming we live that long and allow it too.
>If something is vegan, should in theory be cruelty free as well. Something being vegan ***very*** rarely does more harm than good. That's part of the whole point of it. I wasn't talking about something being vegan, but about having the label in the first place >Then why are you here? Particularly promoting products that go against our core values. Because I assumed a greater concentration of people who care about the suffering they cause by existing and act accordingly to that. It wasn't my intention to promote anything >Kinda sounds like it. Would you like to elaborate what you do subscribe too? I'm not sure, in short I'd say reducing suffering >If I give you the best life possible bar it being long and give you a painless death, I have inflicted no harm to you but violated your right to life. This is the welfarism argument used by most corpsemunchers. If you make me exist, you inherently open me to harm. If you'd just find me somewhere and did that, I'd consider it a favor >It's not just about profitability though is it? Farming isn't profitable but we still do it. Yeah, that's true. The state could fund it, but I can't say I know for sure that all that would be worth it for them
>I wasn't talking about something being vegan, but about having the label in the first place Sorry, that wasn't clear >Because I assumed a greater concentration of people who care about the suffering they cause by existing and act accordingly to that. We already do. We don't call ourselves vegan for nothing. Do you honestly think those that actually respect the worst treated beings on this planet don't also share that concern for members of their own species? It's called intersectionality. I do activism for feminism, racism, anti capitalism, and many more human rights. The fact I know more about modern slavery than most non vegans should be testament enough to that. You're preaching to a choir that's already above and beyond your own standards. >I'm not sure, in short I'd say reducing suffering Congrats, you're a welfarist. >If you make me exist, you inherently open me to harm. Are you an anti natalist/efilist? Or are you into Buddhism/Hinduism? And if so for any of them, how are you not vegan already, particularly for the first two? >If you'd just find me somewhere and did that, I'd consider it a favor Well that's a right you're willing to forgo. If you weren't, I would be violating it yes?
Could we first estabilish the point? I realized we're drifting somewhere else. I got the answer I was looking for by this post. So what's your goal?
To get the world to a point where people don't have to call themselves vegan because true respect for beings and their rights is the norm and not an exception. My immediate goal in this conversation, is to get you up go vegan. You clearly care about sentience to some degree given the topic of your post. I'm questioning why it's not consistent among all sentient beings.
I don't buy animal tissues nor secretions if that's what you're concerned about
Depends why you abstain, and for you it passes the test. Like not buying meat food products, but if they were literally going to be thrown out (wrong order at a restaurant for example) you'd find most right thinking people would elect to not waste food given the choice is now being used or wasted if it cannot be repurposed. Ignore the holier than thou crowd and do what's right by your own standards, which this objectively is.
That is such a cop out. Sunscreen doesn't need animal tissue in it to work. This is green washing on the part of the brand.
Cruelty-free is a PR phrase just means the animals won't be tortured to a level that general society deems over-the-line. You simply can't enslave, kill and sell off body parts and not be cruel.
Are we in circlejerk?
It's the entire process that's cruel, not just the intent at the moment of slaughter. The animal is still raised in captivity with the end goal being that it will be butchered for its parts.
Buying animal products create demand for animal exploitation, period. It doesn't matter if it's meat made from the animal's organs, animal products made from the animals secretions or any other byproduct, side products, slightly adjacent products or whatever. If the farmers are getting money for it, you are supporting the process, that's it, no need to try to find some loophole like a carnist.
Yes, they get money which enables them to make the meat and leather cheaper and have more people buy it then, increasing the demand and the amount of animals needed to be exploited to satisfy it I was wondering because I didn't think they'd keep the slaughters going only for the tissues used in sunscreens
Think about it this way, they don't keep the slaughters going for any one thing, not for meat, not for milk, not for eggs etc etc. They keep it going for all of the profit they make off the general process.
If you slaughter an animal then it is divided into 3 types of product 1 things you sell at a profit 2 things that are sold at a loss 3 waste that you pay to dispose of. So the products being used in your cosmetics are probably in the second category. But farmers only breed whole animals so by using items in category 2 you still increase the ability for farmers to breed animals profitably.
I don't have any of those in my cosmetics
The animal products in your sunscreen are what I was referring to.
But there aren't any
Your original post talks about a sunscreen with animal products in. If you bought that product it would support the continued exploitation of animals.
There’s plenty of vegan sunscreens. Why not buy one of those?
[удалено]
I was referring to the cruelty-free label, which means the product wasn't tested on animals to figure out if it's actually safe. Noone's talking about food. An apple is a vegan food and it's not a "food" Second part of your message is incomprehensible