In medicine there is a concept called “implied consent”. Suppose you come across a human who is dying, they are not able to say that they would like you to save their life. You are assumed to have consent to try, assuming they have specifically not refused consent (e.g. through an advanced care directive) because there is the implication that they would prefer to live than die.

There is not really a good reason to apply this concept only to humans. For example, if you saw a train bearing down on an oblivious wombat moving the wombat off the tracks (or scaring them off or whatever) is obviously something you should try, despite generally having moral reservations about interfering in their life, because wombats generally aren’t trying to commit suicide.

We can assume most abandoned animals that were formerly pets (or in entertainment industries or whatever) would like to go on living given that they continue to try staying alive. Although approaching that as ownership is definitely non-vegan, like if you take one into your life with a mindset that you can just stop caring for them or sideline their needs when inconvenient that is not vegan.

Veganism is centered around minimizing harm either directly or indirectly. Why are you so focused on consent?

Is it? I can open my front door, and my dog will just stand there and look out. If there’s a squirrel, she’ll chase after it, but then come right back.

That seems like consent to me.

Keeping the little ones alive doesn’t require consent. Buying and selling them does.

We have a cat.

We let the cat out the door.

The cat keeps coming back.

Ultimately, veganism relies on personal decisions of morality. It’s not fully prescriptive and leaves room for differing opinions. The question here is whether or not the relationship is exploitative.

This leaves some room for nuance. There’s a difference between purchasing a pet from a breeder, which adds further demand, and adopting an animal that would otherwise be euthanized, for example.

Words matter, mindset matters blah blah dont have the time for a “your hairsplitting vs. my careful differentiation” debate rn

I am aware and the damage they can do is legit, but people seem to automatically assume everyone lives in such place and i have been burned before.

As far as i am aware the concept of the family cat being a wild/stray that decides to just live at your house is an ancient dynamic here.

I once found a cat in need and took it to a vet where they found it had a chip. Returned it to the official owner, they already considered it the neighbors cat more than theirs and those neighbors hadn’t seen it for 3 months. They assumed it found some better place like rich lonely elders.

They are only a meaningful problem where no native feline species are present. Asia, Africa and Europe (excluding islands) have native wild cats. House cats are a direct descendant of the African wild cat and have been domesticated and spread since ancient times. They can be a danger to the “genetic distinctiveness” of wild cats in some places. But they mostly are not the same level of danger to native species like they are in America and Australia.

I assume you’ll concede absolutely nothing to the “what about cats who roam free but come back of their own free will” point, as you don’t think cats count because they’re cruel invasive bird massacring demon monsters?

That’s what makes cats so great!

I think the guy running my cat over is the murderer, not me letting her outside.

💀 okay I get it now

It’s a joke at the expense of people that think cats need meat vs nutrients. en-souled, as in food which has a soul.

I am likening imagining meat has some mystical property that follows it which affects nutrition to the claim that cats need to devour souls.