I know I know… “obligate carnivore”
Dear Christ. Every thread on this turns into a shit show. Locking.
Someone is creating a strawman argument.
Read the scientific evidence for yourself.
Hey, give me a little credit…
I’ve managed to misrepresent two sides of an argument in this one.
Its not a strawman, that would imply no one was actually advocating for feeding cats a vegan diet, and this post was made up to pretend they did in order to disparage vegans. This post is a reference to someone on Lemmy arguing in favor of vegan diets for cats, and the thread you linked is literally people advocating for and discussing vegan diets for cats.
That being said, if you read the comments you’ll see vegan folks arguing that this is a difficult thing to safely do in practice, and needs oversight and direction from a vet.
Making decisions to feed your pets, who can’t advocate for themselves, things other than what they biologically evolved process as a healthy diet, even if you believe you’ve balanced everything just right, is morally questionable.
Making such a decision about your own diet on moral grounds is an admirable sacrifice and difficult lifestyle change one can be proud of. Choosing to make that sacrifice on behalf of a creature you’re responsible for the health and happiness of is needlessly jeopardizing the wellbeing of that creature. They can’t communicate their needs, and you’re the one responsible for them. Don’t go making questionable choices on their behalf that they’d be powerless to do anything about.
One point, we already make the decision for our pets diet. You are already supposed to consult a vet or nutritionist if you care about ensuring the animal is healthy, vegan food or not.
Its not a moral decision for the cat in this case anyways, its in service of their health first and foremost. If the cat can’t be healthy on a vegan diet, or just simply doesn’t like it, then a vegan will look for the next best thing that could be the healthiest fit for their pet, and see how it goes.
Conversely, plenty of non vegan owners will buy whatever random food is sold in their box store, do zero research past a facebook/reddit corporate circle jerk, and then pat themselves on the back for being such great owners.
The simple fact that vegans are involving pet nutritionists should be a clue as to their priorities. You could also simply ask your vet about it, just like I did, and find out that they won’t accuse you of animal abuse.
So it’s immoral to force your will on a cat regarding their diet when they themselves would choose different is immoral but forcing your will on cows/pigs by killing them even though they would choose to live is not?
Cats, like humans, need certain nutrients (macro and micro), they don’t need that nutrients from a specific source. Of course a healthy vegan diet needs effort and monitoring to ensure sufficient intake of these nutrients, but it’s certainly possible, both for humans and cats.
Just take the L okay, you are literally doing the opposite of convincing people.
“Just keep letting the animal abuse occur when it can be prevented”
TL;DR;
Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don’t seem to have actually read isn’t a good basis for an argument
Scientific evidence, sure, but if you’d actually read them you’d see they aren’t as inline with your argument as you seem to think.
Do you mean the one behind a paywall
Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results
Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:
“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”
How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.
You should actually read the “Study Limitations” section for this one.
Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it’s way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is “rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine”
I’m aware i’m cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren’t the silver bullet you seem to think.
Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it’s a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.
Now you’re moving the goal posts that “vegan diets are not safe for dogs”.
Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles
3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.
I’m aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.
No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.
Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.
However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.
I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.
Feel free to surprise me though.
Just as an aside, I’ve noticed “moving the goalposts” is one of new favorite fallacies for people to slap around when they don’t know what they’re talking about.
The funny thing is he moved the goalpost, but in the right direction. His argument was stricter on itself than required. It’s so funny when these people cry out fallacy, when in fact they are arguing using a fallacy.
She/her
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension the he in this sentence is directed at senal.
Someone is creating a strawman argument.
Yeah, you and your kind.
Read the scientific evidence for yourself.
You should take your own advice, because you’re not making the argument you think you’re making.
🤓
I’m vegan and just downvoted you. Also a social media post is not scientific evidence.
The post has 5 studies. You didn’t click on the link.
I did click it, and read the abstracts. Did you?
One of the abstracts asks if vegan diets can be safe without answering it; the rest of the article is behind a paywall. Another only studies owner reported palatability behaviors (did Fifi come running when the food dish is filled?) that had nothing to do with health. Another says the research on vegan diets is paltry. Another does do owner reported health information, though it isn’t really enough on its own to say vegan diets are healthy for cats.
So no, this does not show any kind of scientific consensus. The evidence is very limited. Perhaps vegan diets for cats will be vindicated in the future, but these studies are insufficient.
It’s a shame; i’m sure there are vegans feeding their cats this way, and when those animals lose muscle mass quickly, the first thing that gets really damaged by that are their kidneys - and this does normally only get noticed shortly before the cat is going to die.
And it’s an ugly death.
I’ve had a young cat which had nearly dead kidneys when we got her, and it’s pure torture for them - we tried everything we could, but there’s not much to be done after they show symptoms.
Those “studies” you are throwing around with the owner-reported feedback regarding the health of their cats which can only be objectively be seen by bloodwork and a kidney ultrasound have actual negative worth.
After these the papers that observed limited bioavailability of synthesized taurine in cats?
I can do two things, ya know.
I’ve heard some pretty weird ass views from vegans about the diet of Indigenous people who’ve traditionally relied on hunting and trapped.
Are these vegans forcing cats vegetarian diets in the room with us?
No, they’re in c/vegan
thank god, I don’t want to be anywhere near them
Closed-minded people are smart to keep to themselves.
So y’all are feeding your cats a natural diet of small game?
Which animal in cat food would they ever eat in real life? Which cat is going to go find synthetic taurine to eat? What about the herd of cats that exclusively eats the diseased and rotted meat that isnt fit for humans?
If you are looking for someone to blame for vegan cat food then look at the quality of commercial cat food.
Which animal in cat food would they ever eat in real life?
Most of the cat foods I’ve looked at are primarily poultry which cats famously eat a ton of. Sure your average feral cat might not be taking down turkeys, but I honestly don’t find it at all hard to believe that it happens from time to time that a feral cat is eating some turkey, whether its roadkill or catching a young turklet itself
Cats in the wild won’t hunt anything too large, but they do like chunky animals that have as much meat as they can hunt. Rabbits are one of the biggest animals they hunt. In areas that have rabbits, its usually their main source of food. Any small game that size or smaller is a target though, including birds.
Duck, Turkey, cow, pig, deer, and bison all are not on the table for a cat to hunt. Cats will only scavenge if they are starving and otherwise will prefer to hunt for their food.
Your vague belief that it might be possible a cat stumbles upon a bison that just has died of natural causes does not make standard cat food natural or inline with the cats personal choices.
They are tho
This whole controversy has been a real boon to my blocklist.
Well I mean the loud/extremist vegan minority are quick to call meat eaters as abusers (“rapist enablers” even because we’ll drink milk a “rapist” (farmer) got from a cow) just for eating meat, even though most of us are far removed from the entire process.
But here they are, making a direct immoral action to force their chosen diet on another being who in all likelihood would NOT choose themselves. And that’s on top of the fact they should probably not have a pet at all based on their strict interpretation of vegan.
Nah, they deserve the call out.
This entire drama has had me thinking about that one talk show clip that has a vegan guest and was talking about how their dog “Is totally vegan now and won’t even choose meat if it’s in front of her”. When the hosts tested the dog by bringing out a vegan dish and a meat dish, the dog devoured the meat dish lmao
But here they are, making a direct immoral action to force their chosen diet on another being who in all likelihood would NOT choose themselves.
This is the single worst argument you could make.
Every single pet owner does that. Would any animal - including farm animals - choose to eat what humans provide them? Surely [cheapest store brand] wouldn’t be popular if they had a choice.
Would any animal - including farm animals - choose to eat what humans provide them?
Good question when it comes to pets. “Would you rather have to go out and hunt every day to get enough to eat, or just eat the canned stuff I give you?” I know I’d take the canned stuff, but who knows what individual pets would choose.
Yeah, with the added factor of convenience this will probably change - but you could extend it to vegan food with supplements and the choices probably wouldn’t change significantly.
My thought was to provide a pet with the choice of:
- store brand food
- alive prey in a cage
to remove any aspect of (in)convenience. By that metric, I think nearly all carnivores would choose the prey. Except maybe if your pet happens to be a vulture.
Then the inconvenience is moved to the owner, who must now either hunt the prey every day or buy it from a store (and the infrastructure isn’t there to supply every cat or dog owner with live prey to buy, not to mention the cost). Realistically, if the pet is going to be provided food and shelter by the owner, canned food is part of the deal. The fact that the average pet cat or dog lives around 3 times longer than ones in the wild makes it seem like the canned food doesn’t negatively affect the pet much.
Yes, and in that case there’s no problem with what type of food the owner provides, as long as it contains enough nutrients, right?
I’m fully aware that it is completely unreasonable for humans to provide the same food to a pet as it would eat in the wild. But since we are deciding what our pets should eat anyways, we can give them whatever food that provides enough nutrients. There is nothing immoral about taking away a pet’s choice - it never had one to begin with
I’ve seen this choice play out with my own cats. I live in a 120+ year old farm house, and both cats came from my in-laws farm and therefore are familiar with catching mice. Every fall at least one mouse makes its way into the house to try to escape the cold and meets its end with the cats. They ultimately choose to eat the cat food (I generally go for Purina because its available at multiple local stores and decent quality) and chase the mice to death, which we ultimately have to toss into the yard to dispose of since they choose not to eat the mice.
So in their case the preference would be, “Let me hunt stuff for fun, but gimme the canned food so I don’t have to actually eat them.”
These mitts were made for murderin and that’s just what they’ll do
Straight up. I had one that wouldn’t even kill stuff. He would literally just let chipmunks go in the house as his plaything. Fucking monsters, them kitties.
Why can’t ppl just be a “vegetarian that does not drink milk”, instead of making a whole new ism?
It’s because ism is a syllable of power! They shall cast it when the time is right and have control over the massesssss!Because it’s more than just not drinking milk. Vegans avoid all products that result from the direct exploitation of animals, including eggs and honey. It also includes not using animal products like leather; you can be a vegetarian and still wear leather.
Honey always seemed a stretch to me, as apiaries benefit bees, but veganism is pretty significantly different from vegetarianism; having a different term for it makes sense.
I didn’t know “eggs” were considered vegetarian.
Very /s apologies for my misunderstanding, which stemmed from vegetarian packets being marked with a green circle and eggs being marked with a black one, clearly stating not vegetarian.It’s called ovo-vegetarianism
Seems to me like this just has Vegetarian replaced with Vegan, because, as you see there is no row labelled vegetarian without the prefixes.
Meat + Eggs + Dairy + Veg = Carno-ovo-lacto vegetarianism
Same species (human meat) + meat + eggs + dairy + veg = Homo-carno-ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
If you equate vegetarian with prefix to vegetarian without prefix, then everyone who eats anything vegetarian even once i their life is a vegetarian.
That’d make Hannibal Lecter a vegetarian because he decorated his raw human with some basil leaves.
Taking honey from bees starves their population and the bee enslavers murder their queens. It is not ethically to steal someone’s resources for your own ends.
I think part of the honey thing is its not so clear if we are hurting or harming them, so its best to play it safe until then. Ive also heard it argued that bees don’t make extra honey, so thats another reason but I’m not sure the validity.
Honey is for bees only. They made it for themselves.
Very true. Similar to cow milk, there is a public perception that there is no cost to take it, or to induce a female cow into pregnancy to cause it in the first place.
Veganism isn’t a diet.
Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don’t buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, or come up with ridiculous excuses for it, but you admit it is immoral, but shift your blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them so that you can eat them.
This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.
I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can’t live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).
I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that’s what they do.
First of all, the mere death or killing of an animal isn’t immoral or wrong or murder, it’s simply the way of life in the animal world. The animal world knows nothing of morals and ethics, this very discussion is a wholly unnatural and human unique thing to have. Do you call a lion a murderer when it hunts down and eats a zebra?
Second, a direct immoral action is worse because it involves a clear, intentional act that directly causes harm. In contrast, buying meat is far less worse because a) it’s more like paying someone to solve a problem for you who doesn’t tell you how they solve it and in turn pays someone else who in turn pays someone else who in turn pays the actual person/company taking the action who in turn is spending millions upon millions to keep the majority of people thinking “Everything is fine, no abuse here” and b) the mere consumption of meat isn’t immoral, like I said its just how the animal kingdom works it’s natural. But rather the way that meat is made, the conditions the animals are subjected to that are immoral and wrong.
You don’t call a lion immoral because lions can’t comprehend morality. That doesn’t mean that humans can do the same actions without being judged morally. Lions can also kill other lions which would be more comparable to murder than your hunting example and still they wouldn’t be held morally responsible and yet humans would if they killed another human. A lot of animals rape too, doesn’t mean it’s moral for humans to do.
The difference is that we CAN understand morality which is why we are held to moral standards and animals aren’t. This is like, pretty basic stuff and shouldn’t be at all confusing. Maybe read a book or two before having loud opinions?
Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.
Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how “direct” the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to exact is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.
, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.
right but this is not enough evidence to assume it is immoral. we need some reason to believe it is immoral, or it is probably ok
Ah, the classic diffusion of responsibility under capitalism.
The consumer is blameless because they have no control over the production process. The people committing abuse are blameless because they’re just doing what they’re paid to do, and if they didn’t do it someone else would. The CEO is of course blameless because they have a fediciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. And so, the real villains are the shareholders, like granma who has a S&P 500 retirement fund with 0.00001% of the company.
If you accept that when it comes to meat, then what’s the difference when it comes to something like slave labor, or sweatshops? A company sets up in a third world country with deplorable, illegal conditions, which are necessary to compete in the market and secure a contract with a multinational corporation, if their practices get exposed, the big corporation pleads ignorance, some low level manager takes the fall, and they set up another company to do the exact same thing. Once again, everyone’s just responding to price signals and doing what they’re told or what they need to to keep their job.
It’s a wonderfully designed system that ensures that the evil necessary to keep the machine running can be performed without the hindrance of those peaky little consciences. But I have to question whether it’s more moral to make sure everyone can pass the buck for doing something wrong, rather than one person directly doing the same thing and being responsible for it.
Is it more “moral” to kill someone if you do it via firing squad where only one gun is loaded than just having one person shoot them? Is it more “moral” to be 1% responsible for abusing 100 animals than 100% responsible for abusing 1? I’m not sure I understand the moral framework you’re using to arrive at your conclusions.
you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it
no one is paying someone to abuse animals
But you are when you buy the animal products. You are paying them as indirectly as you are supporting the animal abuse indirectly.
You pay the store for the milk, the store pays the wholesaler and the wholesaler pays the farmer who is committing “animal abuse/ rape”.
At least that is the logic flow they are using. I personally agree that there is no problem with this as long as it is done as humanely as possibly.
You pay the store for the milk, the store pays the wholesaler and the wholesaler pays the farmer who is committing “animal abuse/ rape”.
but I’m not paying the store to pay the farmer. I’m paying for a product.
further, artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it is not rape.
Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer. If nobody bought cow milk from the store then the store wouldn’t buy from the farmer and then the cows wouldn’t be milked.
And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent. I’m not an expert on either side of the argument so I may be wrong.
Nah they’re referring to the insemination of the cows. Gotta keep getting the cow pregnant and take away it’s babies to get milk. Gotta inseminate the cows as soon as you can so you’re not feeding them with no return. That’s a basic factor of dairy farming you can’t get away from no matter how you try. If you believe in animal personhood you should find it abhorrent. I don’t.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that for me!
I stopped consuming animal products for three years waiting for this utopia everyone parrots but every time I went to the grocery store the shelves were stocked exactly as they were before I stopped before waking up and realizing it was a pointless escapade of dealing with a situation akin to burying your head in the sand about global warming because you ‘recycle’.
Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer.
the. store makes their own decisions. I don’t decide for them
Yes you do. But you are either being dense or a troll. Have a good day
And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent.
milking isn’t rape, either.
paying them as indirectly as you are supporting the animal abuse indirectly.
no, you’re not. if someone is abusing livestock, they are paid by someone who isn’t me and long before I walk into the grocery store.
That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.
If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.
I believe that’s in the laws of macroeconomics (?)
Dont waste your time on trolls…
I try giving people the benefit of the doubt but yea pretty sure they are trolling.
That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.
supply and demand is a price seeking theory. you are misapplying the term to use it this way
If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.
we made milk before we had money. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop
They main problem is that its currently as humane as is commercially viable. Which sorta means profits come first, animal welfare second.
Also people need to talk about the people who work in that industry and the effects it has on their mental health. If you care about people then you wouldnt want anyone exposed to such a workplace.
a vegan guest and was talking about how their dog “Is totally vegan now and won’t even choose meat if it’s in front of her”.
Christ, I hope that dog got taken off them.
Why?
Dogs don’t belong on TV.
Im a simple man. I see a vegan, I hate vegans. Simple as
LOL Cope dickcheese.
Dick cheese? You know, that’s right, I need to visit your mother for my weekly cleaning. Her tongue feels so nice on my cock, and she loves cheese!
My mom is dead, bellend.
Among all things on Earth, you decided to hate a group of people who don’t want to hurt animals? That’s bizarre.
Vegan here, I like my fires hot to roast my marshmallows.
Its common that when people do morally questionable things they may use underhanded tactics.
It’s a joke. Simple as
You need to be open-minded about other cultures.
For anyone wondering, I have this dude labeled as “fascist”. I don’t remember what they did, but it was probably definitive.
…why would ANYONE just naturally wonder what you’ve labelled this one specific user, if you yourself can’t even remember what they did?
It’s more if they’re wondering how shitty of a person they are (the answer is “very”)
Sometimes its smart to immediately know where someone lands on a debate so that I can be ready to engage again.
I can’t remember specific instances that made me look at someone and label them.
I tend to forget about the idiots I randomly meet on. The internet.
I also have that on old reddit with res.
I got him tagged is Right-wing Nut lol, tomato/tomatoe
… I have to ask my app creator to add user tags now
Same, did it for Mlem
Wait how do you label people? Is that built into the API or is that specific to an app?
I’m using an app, but I’m pretty sure the website itself has it.
Okay I figured out, you’re now “tags guy”
Its part of the app they’re using.
Idk I was able to do it, don’t know if we’re using the same app tho. I’m on boost.
Im curious as well. Im using boost. But i see now that you can give tags to usernames? Maybe thats it?
Yea that’s it, some clients call it different things so I’m pretty sure it’s a client dependent thing
I suspect it might be part of an app. Although I’m curious as well.
I’m using sync, but I’m pretty sure it’s native to the platform. I access it from the user profile in question.
Everyone just labeled you as “Doesn’t even know how to label! Psssh!”
I’m labeling you as someone who labels people (Can you tell me how to label people?)
Its client dependent, on Boost it’s called tags and I can tag people from the users profile menu or the quick menu from a comment
I’ve now got you labeled as “tells people what they’ve labeled people”.
Watch out for that guy 🤭
I actually do have a habit of that. 😂
Random user: Free Gaza!
Free? I’ll take two
ITT: People still unironically arguing that feeding a cat a diet that is biologically incapable of meeting a cats dietary needs is a good idea.
smh.
feeding a cat a diet that is biologically incapable of meeting a cat’s dietary needs
We’ve been putting supplemental taurine in cat kibble for decades.
There’s a world of difference between supplementing taurine and engineering a synthetic meat-free diet for a cat, requiring continuous blood and urine testing which, if done incorrectly or not monitored correctly, will 100% fuck up and probably kill your cat.
There’s a world of difference between supplementing taurine and engineering a synthetic meat-free diet for a cat
What do you think the supplemental taurine is intended to accomplish?
This just reminds me of people who lost their fucking minds when they found out a big chunk of McD’s hamburgers were soy protein. This is a cost-cutting measure as often as it is any ethical consideration. Your cat may be far closer to vegan than you even realize.
First of all, taurine is not the only thing you need to supplement. Second of all, you can’t just sprinkle some taurine over the kibble and call it a fucking day. This is serious shit. It needs to be calculated, tested, monitored by a God damn licensed veterinarian with literally continuous blood and urine testing. I had a diabetic cat for 21 years. Keeping her glucose stable throughout the day was deceptively challenging, and that’s one of the easiest long term care conditions for a cat.
You people are going to kill your cats. Fucking shame on you.
You people are going to kill your cats.
My cats lived to the ripe old age of 16, before they passed. Somehow, the vet never seemed to find all these maladies during their annual checkups.
But hey, maybe the random haters on the internet know more than a couple of trained professionals.
If I met a human who needs constant blood and urine tests, I’d assume said person is ill.
Just because there is supplemental taurine in cat kibble doesn’t mean that’s the only thing they need from their diet. Just get a different pet jfc
How many live mice do you feed your cat?
That’s practically all my cats eat! I only put cat food out in the winter or if they start to look slim. All summer they eat mice and sparrows and get fat. (Note that sparrows are a terrible invasive pest and removing them has a positive impact on the local ecosystem)
They are barn cats though and that’s their job so it’s a little different from the pet cat situation.
I don’t feed her any, but she willingly hunts for them.
You’d hate a snake lol.
Also my cat ruthlessly murders any creature unfortunate enough to stumble into her den simply for the pleasure of doing so. She doesn’t eat them, usually, but she isn’t exactly gentle regardless of whether or not she consumes her quarry. I think I may end up her next victim should I attempt to completely change her very nature against her will.
It’s a little known fact, but if you killed an animal yourself, its meat is vegan.
Taurine is usually singled or because it is the only nutrient required to meet the AACFO cat food guidelines that can not be readily sourced directly from plants.
Biologically incapable is a lie. Vegan pet food is fortified with all the nutrients they might need.
I just find it wild that vegans can simultaneously come to the conclusion that all forms of animal farming is unethical but still accept that keeping pets is ethical. My wife grew up on a milk goat farm, every single goat had a name (and they had hundreds of goats), and the goats generally lived lives as good as the average pet. They’d run around and play, get attention from the people who lived and worked there, and every once in a while escape the pens just to prove that they can (they’d literally be standing around the yard waiting for their escapades to be discovered)
Even if the concern is “some farms are unethical and I’m not able to validate where my food comes from to make sure its a farm that isn’t abusive to its animals” there’s ways around that, like buying from your local coop (in the case of meats, buying from a local butcher) or buying direct from the farm. Usually when you’re that close to the farm its really easy to trace your products back to a specific farm, or even make a deal with the butcher/coop to only buy products from a specific farm
Honestly at that point I think it’s lower effort to just go vegan. You’re already avoiding meat in every situation where you can’t investigate the supply chain, so no meat at restaurants, fast food, other friend’s houses, etc. I guess if you really crave the taste of meat or something or if you live on a farm already I could see a case for it. For me, the case of going to the grocery and making a meal at home was always the easiest case to have a vegan diet (and avoiding all the extra prep and cleanup from preparing meat were nice perks), the parts that were actual hurdles were the convenience of fast food and not wanting to assert myself in group meals.
Personally, I figure that the tiny sliver of meat that’s produced ethically can go to the tiny sliver of people with weird dietary restrictions, and to cats, I guess. We still need to see a massive reduction in meat consumption if we want to address the abuse that’s rampant in the vast majority of meat production.
Almost all vegan pet owners ADOPT their pets.
Compared to Franky who pays a breeder so he can gift a cat like it’s a fucking toy.
What does adopting vs. buying from a breeder have to do with this person’s point?
The argument is that breeding more animals for the enjoyment of humans is bad, but the existing animals should be given as good of a life as we can. Since rescuing does not directly support the breeders, some vegans are OK with rescuing to give these animals a better life. Some vegans use similar logic to thrift wool sweaters for yarn, when they would not support buying new wool.
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I’ve never though of the concept of “adopt don’t shop” being a “vegan friendly” option for pet ownership, I’ve just always thought it was an obvious choice, but I get the connection now.
I would argue that your pet didn’t consent to being
imprisonedrescued and should be free. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, and forced sterilization are antithetical to vegan ideology.
There are many different vegans with many different viewpoints. I am not vegan, but I come pretty close - I do still consume a limited amount of dairy, but otherwise I don’t buy animal products. This is for the reasons you say - I don’t want to support factory farming. I also have a limited amount of time in my life for investigating everything I eat, however - I don’t honestly have the stamina to check every egg-containing product to see if it used battery eggs or not. I really don’t have the time to check if the “free range” eggs I’m buying are really free range or if they have sneaked around the regulations and it’s battery farming in disguise. It’s just easier not to buy any eggs.
I will accept eggs from people I know who keep chickens - no problem from me there. I think that humans having relationships with domestic animals is fine, generally we both benefit - the animals because they are protected from predators, they get fed, etc, and us because we gets eggs.
Some vegans would not agree with me. Some vegans don’t believe humans should keep any animals, including pets. I don’t believe there’s an issue with keeping some pets though. Domesticated animals wouldn’t even exist without us… Like it or not their “natural” habitat is living with humans. You couldn’t release all the dogs and expect that to be better for us or them.
She grew up on on a milk goat farm but never learned that goats don’t give milk from the goodness of their heart?
nah, i just like making fun of and annoying vegans. They call me slurs that are metal as fuck like “carnist” and “bloodmouth”, i love it.
It’s your own fault for meatsplaining to them.
Here’s another one for you speciesist
It’s a mouthful (heh)
eh, it’s alright. Not as punchy as I’d like.
Gotta have that fruit punch lol
You’re confusing the reactionaries with those who live by a philosophy.
Those who just live by a philosophy might browse there for recipe ideas and that’s about it.
I would say it’s the reactionaries confusing everyone
I hadn’t seen this angle, awesome. There really is some pretty great hypocrisy here.
live by the sword die by tbe sword
Cats are bad, generally.
They’re killing machines that have a big impact on local wildlife.
A vegan that keeps cats isn’t exactly approaching the situation from a purely vegan-based mentality.
As a person with 3 cats, I get what you’re saying. You’re getting down voted, but we all know cats can devistate local wild life populations.
Rescuing them and making them indoor cats is the responsible thing to do, but I don’t think any vegans would argue with that.
I think its after those establishing facts that the discussion is taking place.
I personally am not a fan of any breeding programs when there are so many cats and dogs available to rescue, but that’s just me.
True, ethical adoption is an option.
But then I always ran into the issue with how to feed the cute little monsters, which is what this drama is about.
Honestly, it’s easier to not have a cat. Plus I’m allergic, so…
Yeah, the pandemic just gave us the best example why many people shouldnt get pets that require a lot of effort and time.
At the start of the pandemic many people got cats / dogs ( of course bought them not adopted them ;( ) because they were home and had time during lockdown. But after it was over they didnt had any time and gave it up for adoption.
Everyone needs to check if they have not just now time but in the future too and if they have the money to have the pet. And get yours best from adoption as this reduces the “intentional-pretty” breeding, that harms them ( for example pugs and their 24/7 breathing issue ).
At the start of the pandemic many people got cats / dogs ( of course bought them not adopted them
Hey now. I periodically volunteer at the local SPCA and they got absolutely cleaned out when COVID hit (then rapidly filled back up again, because strays are everywhere, but still…) 2020 was the best year for rescue animals, possibly in all of human history.
But the worst too. As saaid many got new pets and ditched them after the lockdown. It could be some of them are from some shelters but many got ditched afterwards too
But cat
A vegan that
keeps catsallows cats outside isn’t exactly approaching the situation from a purely vegan-based mentality.There, FTFY.
Absolutely nothing wrong with cats that are 100% indoors, not only do they have no effect on the wildlife, but their lifespans are something like ⅓ to ½ longer due to the lack of accidents or conflicts.
their lifespans are something like ⅓ to ½ longer
Outdoor cats have a life expectancy of 2-5 years. Indoor cats routinely hit teenager status and can push past 20 with quality care and a bit of genetic good fortune. Its crazy what a steady diet, low stress, protection from the elements/predators, and even middling modern veterinary health care can accomplish.
Now, imagine what this change in condition can do for homeless people.
That is, of course, only a problem with outdoor cats and feral populations. Indoor cats are fine. Personally I keep my cat indoors for a bunch of reasons, but I also think that reasonable human beings can feel otherwise. I’ve noticed that there are a lot of people online who have decided that not only is keeping an outdoor cat bad, it’s a form of animal abuse. And therefore they not only berate people who allow their cat outside, they also encourage people who stumble upon outdoor cats to take possession of them since they’re being abused. This is a pretty extremist position that probably doesn’t reflect the views of most cat owners, but it tends to get magnified in cat communities that rely on upvotes, since upvotes encourage echo chambers.
There’s a metaphor here.
Allowing cats outside is bird and mice abuse for sure
They’re killing machines that have a big impact on local wildlife.
Saying this to my friends as I drive in my 2 ton steel box powered by liquid dinosaurs across the cemented remains of an old growth forest on the way to my job at the bitcoin mill.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
! We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. !<
Unless, of course, you’re saying that we shouldn’t stop one bad thing because we do other bad things.
We should rethink our attachments to miniature tigers.
Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality
I’m not sure what the solution is here.
We should rethink our attachments to miniature tigers.
And do what? Its not the pets that are doing the bulk of the killing.
Please be serious. I read the source that I posted; you’re not being clever. Cats don’t magically show up from nowhere. Our culture around cats enables and feeds the feral population. If we didn’t keep cats as pets, and animal control treated them the same way they treat raccoons, then this problem would be dramatically reduced. Probably eliminated, but they might turn into an intractable urban pest.
Or just keep them indoors
But you need a job, you don’t need a pet. (Not counting service animals)
You can have both. In fact, you can hire a pet-sitter, which creates two jobs for the price of one.
It’s all about consent.
