Quick back story, there was a discussion on a topic I thought was interesting. The original post mentioned that this self sufficient omnivore was a "specist" because he didn't kill 3 baby wild raccoons that just randomly ran up to him on his fishing trip. Instead he caught a few fish and fed the raccoons some of the fish he caught and went on his way.

Anyway a commenter said he was a specist because he felt the raccoons were "too cute to kill" but the fish he caught he and I quote "VICIOUSLY REMOVED THESE FISH AGAINST THEIR WILL, forcing them to leave their friends and family in the school they swam in" (I think u can tell this commenter is a vegan right? It was part of her name)

Now while I understand they whole definition of specist, and I personally think that's the stupidest shit I've heard because it's been part of multiple cultures world wide to sacrifice the animals to nourish their community , this person had the nerve to say, that it's never been apart of anyone's culture to eat meat. HUMANS were never supposed to eat animal life, that it was introduced to people and taught to "mass produce animals for consumption " (personally I think that's a crock of shit, humans are naturally omnivorous)

Anyway, my question for you guys is a bit of a 2 park question. Is being a "specist" really wrong?

I mean multiple cultures world wide tend to lead a "self sufficient" life style meaning they have their own live stock and essentially live off the land wouldn't it be technically a pretty rude thing to say someone is a "specist" when that's part of their culture?

Part 2. For vegans or (hypothetically speaking for non vegans) would you feed your animal nonanimal product food/ vegan animal food ? Or would continue to allow your animal to stay on a regular or natural diet?