Ellen DeGeneres talks about backyard chickens

[Tim Gier]

Ellen says that she gets her eggs from someone who has backyard chickens although she doesn't say that she eats the eggs herself. Watch for yourself, and let us know in the comments if you think this video shows, as many people have been claiming, that Ellen isn't vegan and never has been vegan. Those claims seem unfair, what do you think?

More generally, do you think that vegans spend too much time "policing" the activities of other vegans?

 

*******

[Carolyn Bailey]

It's interesting that you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't take Michael's statement to actually mean what he said, but we should all take Ellen's statement to mean exactly what she said, despite the fact that she didn't actually say what you are ascribing to her.

That seems very confusing, and unfair to me.

I don't recall mentioning driving a car, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting there either. 
 

Wendy Kobylarz said:

Carolyn said: Hi Michael, 
No-one is 100% vegan, and Ellen didn't say she eats eggs. What she actually said can be seen in the original post in this thread that Tim posted.

For goodness' sake, allow a little hyperbole. It is one thing to drive a car and another to "get" eggs, and I think anyone could reasonably expect someone who "get[s] our eggs" from "happy" hens consumes those eggs. I think it's implied in her statement. If I got eggs to feed my cats, if I were interviewed somewhere about it, I would say, "I get some eggs on occasion from Goat Mountain Ranch sanctuary to feed my cats, as long as the chickens have had their fill." I mean, I would make a point of announcing that the eggs were not for my consumption.

[Tim Gier]

What I think people are confused about is who gets to decide when a person can call themselves vegan. I also think people are confused with respect to thinking that, just in case a person call themselves vegan, they automatically agree to subject themselves to the judgment of all the self-appointed "keepers of the vegan truth". What nonsense.

Let's suppose that, after careful consideration of all the latest information available, I come to the conclusion that bees are not sentient. If I came to that conclusion with the best of intentions, then I could eat food that contained honey with a clear conscience. I could call myself vegan. If other people thought I was not worthy of the label, that would be their problem, not mine. So, perhaps Ellen thinks that being vegan, as far as eggs are concerned, means not getting eggs from commercial suppliers, and not being a part of the system that does so much wrong to chickens. If she is well-informed and has good intentions, then she can call herself vegan. It should make no difference to her what other vegans think. It makes no difference to me.

[Carolyn Bailey]

We get our dog and cat food from a local producer. I don't eat it though. 

A little charity toward others is something that's sadly missing in the vegan community at times, and that's a real shame. 

Wendy Kobylarz said:

I am taking Ellen's comment to mean exactly what she said: "we get our eggs from..." the neighbors. Not for my dogs, for my mom, for friends, but "we get our eggs..."

[Carolyn Bailey]

As far as I know there is no article claiming who the eggs are for, Tharan. My position is simply that we don't know who the eggs are for, and that assuming they are for Ellen to consume herself, and making outrageous claims such as "Finally, Ellen DeGeneres has admitted to not being vegan and she never was" is an ugly and uncharitable way to treat other individuals. Those claims were made on Facebook (not here). 

Thäran sXeVegan said:

Carolyn, I missed the article or reference where Ellen might have said it's for her old mother, I heard on facebook that the eggs were for Portia, again with no article or video. I've only watched the one above and been on her site to look for anything else. I similarly made the assumption it's for her employees.

All animals being equal and bearing in mind that the hens have been de-beaked and thus forced to lay their eggs and remain unable to help themselves to it, and have a shortened lifespan. 'Force' is not the right technical word but persuasion with arguments doesn't always work with people and even ex-vegans, and trying to have a 'my kitchen is vegan' rule would be seen as forcing, certainly my mum would interpret it this way although she's an ethical vegetarian (if there is such a thing). I personally wish laws would change and that flesh and milk too would not be seen as commodities. Many would see that as vegans forcing their ways but hopefully AR vegans do not.

[Tim Gier]

Oh well, Wendy, you're made some crazy leaps from what I've said to what you're concluding, so that's kinda fun, huh? You may notice that I said nothing about sentience in relation to chickens, and you should of course realize that unfertilized eggs aren't the sort of things that could be sentient, so I don't know where your comments about someone eating chickens is coming from. Likewise, your comments about women and rape is just silly, in the context of this post, so thanks for that, a little silliness does lighten the day.

It may come as a surprise to you, but it's not the case that animals' lives are sacred, any more than yours or mine is, and I take it as given that there are possible circumstances in which the taking of a life in order to prevent some greater wrongful harm would be appropriate. People who see complexities of moral reasoning in absolutist terms, as black or white, haven't done very much actual reasoning, moral or otherwise, in my estimation, so I am not terribly surprised that you don't understand what I say.

Wendy Kobylarz said:

Oh. Well, I don't think women are capable of informed consent, either. Mostly when they say "no," they mean "yes," so after careful consideration, rape is not really rape, because women don't mean what they say.

Does no one understand what Carol Adams was saying about the appropriating of words in order to water down and silence those who are trying to change?

I am really disappointed in this whole conversation. Just as Tim suggested on FB that vivisection to save humans might in some circumstances, now he suggests here that it doesn't matter whether an individual is sentient; if I decide after careful consideration that a chicken is not sentient, and therefore eating her is OK I can call myself vegan and it's the vegans' problems? What the hell? I think it's more like it's the chickens' problems, and those are not minor problems.

I don't why this is called animal rights zone. The moderators of this community seem less concerned with animals than with placating a public that may not look favorably upon us because we -- oh, make waves, contradict celebrities, may be a bit hardass about somethings -- like exploiting animals for eggs?

Unbelievable.

Tim Gier said:

What I think people are confused about is who gets to decide when a person can call themselves vegan. I also think people are confused with respect to thinking that, just in case a person call themselves vegan, they automatically agree to subject themselves to the judgment of all the self-appointed "keepers of the vegan truth". What nonsense.

Let's suppose that, after careful consideration of all the latest information available, I come to the conclusion that bees are not sentient. If I came to that conclusion with the best of intentions, then I could eat food that contained honey with a clear conscience. I could call myself vegan. If other people thought I was not worthy of the label, that would be their problem, not mine. So, perhaps Ellen thinks that being vegan, as far as eggs are concerned, means not getting eggs from commercial suppliers, and not being a part of the system that does so much wrong to chickens. If she is well-informed and has good intentions, then she can call herself vegan. It should make no difference to her what other vegans think. It makes no difference to me.