887
TIL Disney killed a bunch of puppies making "Snow Buddies" and weren't allowed to use the "no animals were harmed" claim
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
887 points (98.7% liked)
Today I Learned
23013 readers
1246 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's the conventional wisdom as to why this is so bad, but eating meat basically gets a pass? Like, meat offers sustenance, yes, but it's by no means required. So basically, humans eat meat because it tastes really good
it's great "culinary entertainment."
This is a different kind of entertainment, but it's deeply offensive to many folks. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, just curious why this is seen as such a sin.
Is it that these animals weren't "supposed" to be killed? Would a movie about a beef cow who ends up getting slaughtered, both onscreen and IRL, be seen as better? Worse?
The "conventional wisdom" is just the usual cognitive dissonance of carnists.
They want to cry about puppies but also enjoy meat based on even worse exploitation, torture, murder, etc.
I think because of
1.the chasm between the intended discourse of the film (feelgood movie with puppies going on adventures) and the alleged means to film it, feels particularly cynical and dishonest
2.the fact that dogs are companions -they have co-evolved next to humans for about 15 thousand years and hold a special place, contrary to animals typically consumed for their flesh
Thanks for the thoughtful response! 1) makes a lot of sense, and 2) makes a lot of "emotional sense" to me (as opposed to "intellectual sense," I guess).
yea, it's still not super reasonable to murder animals when we could, well, not do it. But I think dogs being companions mostly explains the difference in treatment. I used to be a vegan but the emotional load was too heavy to bear everyday. I chose to look away. I'm not proud, but I can't afford to be shameful. Do you eat animals ?
No, I've been a strict vegetarian for a long time, mostly vegan now but not strict about it. I did eat fish a few years ago because it was an invasive species (and also, delicious).
But also, I have no problem getting the food/nutrients I need from a plant based diet, which isn't always easy for other folks.
are you for real comparing this to eating meat?
Like we artificially breed cows into existence for meat and milk alone, dogs exists as companions, how could possibly be the same?.
Because the animals don't care what our intended purpose for them is.
Yes, that's the cognitive dissonance of carnism. "How could torturing one animal possibly be the same as torturing another? We have different categories for torturing!!!!" smh.
Broadly, people are not ok with animals being mistreated. An animal that is raised in safe, comfortable conditions and then killed painlessly is not mistreated by the standards of many people.
Abusing a puppy and kitten to make a film is absolutely mistreatment, hence the different reaction.
Doubt. "Just asking questions" is so often a deliberate dick move.
Do you even think this is real
Knowing some farmers personally, yes, yes it is real
Do they know exactly what happens at the slaughterhouse or are they doing it themselves?
The farmers I know go through a handful of local butcher shops to handle everything from that point forwards. The butcher gets high quality meat to sell and the farmer doesn't have to deal with the parts of the process that aren't part of their skillset or that they otherwise don't want to handle. So while they aren't part of the killing and butchering process, they are confident in their trust of the individuals and small businesses they rely on for it
From what I've seen and learned, small businesses and small farms have the capability to handle the process of breeding and nurturing their stock for processing into the cuts of meat we buy at the store in a humane manner, but very large farms and very large meat processing operations every individual is simply too disconnected from the full process to ensure every step is as humane as it should be.
Ultimately this is why we need to greatly expand the USDA to ensure every step of the process of our food being brought to our plates is as humane and safe as possible. The USDA already has full time inspectors who work at meat processing plants full time to ensure everything is safe and by the book, with the power to pause operations at any moment if they see a problem, but this needs to be expanded. We need USDA and FDA inspections to be frequent and thorough at every food processing facility in the country. Farms that product stock for these facilities need to be regularly audited. The erosion of the FDA and USDA is part of why there's been so many salmonella outbreaks and food recalls in recent years
Well, here it is. Strict laws too. And stress, even shortly before slaughtering, makes the meat stringy anyway, and poor health gives a taste.
In france we also have strong laws for that. Doesnt stop our local associations from releasing footage of industrial-scale farms that are just horrible to endure.
Yes, other than for fish.
You're clueless. Even if it was possible, which it is not, it would be not be profitable enough.
Ok angry internet warrior.
Idk im not angry nor a warrior, just someone more informed than you.
fair point but killing for entertainment is pure evil. Killing cause you have to eat is neccesary evil.
You have to eat, but you don't have to eat meat. It's just as optional as creating art that involves animal abuse. (Not a vegan, just interested in this topic).
My sis had to loosen her vegetarian standards for the sake of her daughters health.
We are omnivores, accept that fact. While you can survive without flesh (and the modern person eats too much of it), it requires personal effort and research to find substitutes, with the risk of damaging your health. And most just prefer some meat or fish now and then.
Btw, almost all herbivores are opportunistic omnivores, because they can't research substitutes. Even sheep eat chicks, there, i said it.
I accept it; I enjoy most types of meat. But the fact that you can survive without meat makes it optional, which is relevant to the debate we were having about the morality of killing/harming animals for different purposes.
Cool anecdote.
Cool pseudo-science derived from an anecdote. Even if I believed your story, in reality people don't actually need meat.
Yes, it takes effort to do something different from the rest of society. Apparently you've never done this.
Cool story.
Nobody gives a shit. Nobody is saying go veg because sheep are veg. This is just more wacky carnist babbling.
Humans need nutrition and vitamins found in meat. Without them they get health issues or die. When lab grown meats are available, real meats become optional.
There are literally billions of vegetarians in the world who don't have health issues.
There's multiples more of omnivores who don't have health issues either.
So? That somehow means the vegetarians don't exist?
Where in the fuck did you get that?
You say:
I reply that billions of vegetarians exist without health issues, proving that humans don't need nutrition and vitamins found in meat.
You reply that many omnivores exist without issues as well, which is a non-sequitur. Why was that your reply?
What they mean to say is that there's only one healthy diet, and since more of the healthy people are carnists, the vegetarians are doing it wrong.
We need things that can be found in meat. With some effort, you can obtain them from alternative sources.
Yes.
"with some effort". Eating food humans are meant to eat in a balanced and healthy manner is already borderline impossible for everyone. Eating only vegetarian is more akin to a full time hobby than what food is to most people: fuel.
People don't even give a shit about cars that they drive around and spend insane amount of money on each decade. I just don't see most people just switching to vegetarianism without a survival need. Plant based foods are just stupid expensive to boot outside of rice and potatoes.
Yeah, it's harder for sure. But what I'm saying is that not everyone needs to kill to eat-- if you can afford it and have some time to plan meals, it isn't a "necessary evil". I'd argue it's still more moral to kill for food than for entertainment, of course.
Wow, I must be doing it wrong then. I learned basic combinations and a variety of recipes. No different from when I learned to cook with meat.
I'm not saying that it's for everyone. I personally still eat fish from time to time. But it definitely isnt a full time hobby
Yea, it's easier than some people try to say it is. It's a matter of habit and produce availability, which varies depending on your location
No, that's a myth. There is actually no need for consuming animals. We owe the perpetuation of this myth by the meat industry
I suppose if I had a cow living in my home with me that would be a problem. It's familiarity.
And puppies
I found the vegan!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 gj
I assume that "No animal were harmed" claim cannot be used in film where real meat are consumed?
Welcome to veganism! 🌱💚🌱