Who knew that so many Lemmy users were experts in the science of dietary nutrition?
Carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, ITT apparently a lemmy user invention. You can feed your cat a "vegan diet", you will just have to feed them a god level amount of artificial supplements like taurine, arachidonic acid, EPA and DHA omega 3, vitamin A, etc. It will also increase their risk of urinary tract disease due to alkaline. Or much more likely, your cat will go out on their own and eat normal food. But I must be pulling these terms out of my ass, since I'm a lemmy user.
If only there were pets that were herbivores. Could you imagine that, not being hypocritical by extending the existence of carnivores and the suffering they bring to other animals within your personal ecosystem and actually having herbivore pets?
Frankly, you may as well be pulling all that out of your ass since the information you just provided is as good as useless without any reliable sources backing it up (and don't bother providing any, I'm not here to educate myself on cat diet requirements. If I cared, I would ask a qualified professional not a Lemmy user).
I'm just calling out the hypocrisy in this whole controversy. People do a quick Google search, read "obligate carnivore" in the title of some document and act as if they've got a college degree on the subject.
It's ok, you only need to question the information you disagree with as made up, everything you want to hear is obviously implicitly true. Kudos on asking for evidence while saying you don't really care for it in the same sentence.
It's true, I've now changed my resumé to that of a cat veterinarian. Some people might say extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, but you've really touched on the reality of it, that extraordinary claims, well, you are just pulling your criticism out of Google search and absurd common knowledge you might have been taught in biology class, clearly you consider yourself knowledgeable far beyond your means.
You seem to assume I'm arguing in favor of vegan cats.
Whether or not a cat can thrive on a vegan diet is irrelevant to me as I don't own a cat nor do I advise people on how to feed their cats. However, I do have a bias (as we all do) that tells me there is likely more nuance (which you did allude to in your original reply) than the general absolutist sentiment against the idea.
That bias is informed by half-a-lifetime of experience maintaining a loosely plant-based diet myself and witnessing first-hand the fierce compulsion people have to push their uneducated opinions at the mere mention of a plant-based diet. In my experience, there are few other things that can so reliably stir people into a vitriolic frenzy than the suggestion of a plant-based diet.
And to back up that bias, I now have my first negative comment after almost a year on Lemmy :-)
People are so quick to call it animal cruelty. Did any of you ask a vet if it was harmful to the animal? I didnt coz I dont even have a cat but it seems some vegans did and were reassured that it is alright. I think that shows they care about their pet and want to ensure its health while possibly aligning it with their lifestyles, probably better than feeding them the cheapest crap they can find.
Im not saying its okay to just feed your pet veggies, but just because it doesnt seem 'natural' doesnt automatically mean it is bad. This is 'being gay is unnatural' all over again.
ITT: People still unironically arguing that feeding a cat a diet that is biologically incapable of meeting a cat's 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.
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
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.
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.
Biologically incapable is a lie. Vegan pet food is fortified with all the nutrients they might need.
How can vegans even justify having pets? It's not okay to milk a cow but it is to keep a cat? Indoor cats are deprived of basically all of their normal cat activities. They can't range or roam, they can't socialize with other cats, they are denied their natural predator instincts. As much as I love my kitties, like keeping a predator as a pet is basically kind of a dick move. I don't care how good you treat your slaves, they're still slaves.
If vegans can keep cats, they can eat cheese if the cow is well cared for or eggs if the farmer isn't a dick to the chickens.
Not a good comparison. To produce milk regularly cows must give birth. These calves are often sold to be slaughtered as veal. Likewise situation for eggs. To produce hens farmers typically wait until the chicks hatch and throw the unwanted male chicks in a grinder.
Did I miss something recent?
Yeah c/Vegan had mods removed by a Lemmy.world admin because of controversial posts and opinions on a vegan diet for cats.
The removal was justified because that constituted animal cruelty, but it was reversed because scientific evidence was provided for the possibility of a vegan cat diet.
The vegan community I think said they were going to move to hexbear or some shit, lol.
Yeah c/Vegan had mods removed by a Lemmy.world admin because of controversial posts and opinions on a vegan diet for cats.
Lol, after years of reddit and other big websites I forgot that admins can also get involved in dramas on their platforms. Reminds me of the internet 15+ years ago.
ITT: people with big hurt feewiingssss
its okay babies, you eating meat doesnt hurt anyone! Youve never done everything wrong! Its no worse than how most of us innately benefit from imperialism, we're so far removed! Phew!
lol, we're all always so quick to start crying about hoe annoying and rude veeeegans are. We could all consume less animal products. Its ultimately not an issue of personal responsibility, its systemic and engrained in our society.
getting all pissy because someones telling you the truth and it makes you uncomfortable is embarrassing, I've been there. I still eat meat more regularly than I'd like to. I dont need to justify it, I think its bad that I do, I'm doing my best over here.
Obligate carnivore! I dont give my cats water! Only meeeeeat, rahhhh I'm a big man-or-similar!
inB4, hurt feeling downvotes 😳
You ok dude? Kinda seems like you're just screaming into the wind here.
It’s an average Lemmy.ml user
Are these vegans forcing cats vegetarian diets in the room with us?
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.
Unashamed omnivore, fisher, and hunter here. Working on our play farm so we can source all of our meat ethically in the future. Taking active steps to prevent the suffering of animals we consume. Don't have an ethical or moral problem with killing animals to eat them. Prefer to do it myself so that I know that I have done my best to minimize the suffering of the critters I kill.
I've been told I'm a raper and abuser.
fite me
I’ve been told I’m a raper and abuser.
Factory farming is absolutely industrial scale rape and abuse. The more traditional hunter-gatherer mode of existence is at least approaching "natural" levels of cruelty, but it also takes immense volumes of vacant real estate.
It's cool that you've found a way to do a little traditional animal husbandry, rather than procuring meat from the holocaust mills run by some soulless corporate horror show. But its not what I'd call economical. At least, not for anyone who commutes downtown from an apartment block.
I think there's a kind of ethical middle-ground for folks who can keep a deep freeze full of meat from a cow that gets butchered every couple of months. Then you're at least mitigating the enormous waste in industrial agriculture and you can talk about animals living a relatively dignified life in a pasture rather than walled up in a cattle concentration camp. But that would mean no pink slime on demand, which violates man's constitutional right to eat burger.
Much better than sourcing animal products from the supermarker. Still worse than being vegan
They might be responsible for many less deaths than a vegan, though.
You don't think people would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
Definitely, because the idea that humans can survive and thrive eating their biologically adequate diet from ruminants that graze on grassland instead of fueling deforestation and ridiculous carbon footprints to be fed an unnatural diet that requires supplements and insane anthropogenic change in the environment is... too stupid to even argue about.
Why don't you at the very least try? I mean, it should be much easier than just giving me a canned response, right?
75% of all farm land goes to animals that only provide 10-20% of the common diet.
But feel free to continue using hard words for incorrect arguments.
You're unfortunately deviating the argument to industrial agriculture used to (force-)feed animals, which is not what I was talking about. I literally said "graze on grassland" but you decided to respond to something else. But the fault is mine for trying. I'm not sure what I was thinking, this never leads to anything meaningful, just defensive bullshit.
If you want to educate yourself, feel free to investigate how grasslands work, how most of them cannot be used for anything else other than grazing (not arable), and maybe think about how ruminants actually lived and roamed the land before we started industrial/intensive agriculture and feedlots.
Interesting comment there at the end. English is not my first language and I'm just trying to use the words that best capture the meaning I'm trying to convey. But you do you, you must feel pretty good about yourself.
Even "graze on grassland" falls under this.
All the feed, water and land that's required could be used for far better stuff.
And I seem to be more educated on this matter than you, but thanks.
You must be joking at this point. What else can non-arable grassland be used for? What water and feed is spent on ruminants whose only dietary input is grazing? I just have no words.
What else can non-arable grassland be used for?
Most of the times it can be fixed within a year to allow another 3 years of plant based production.
And even if it isn't, just give it back to nature to do it by itself. It doesn't have to be used. That's just some weird capitalistic mindset.
What water and feed is spent on ruminants whose only dietary input is grazing?
Grazing is a joke. They are still being given tons and tons of water during their lifetime, almost all livestock is given soy based feed that's fortified with antibiotics, B12 and other vitamins.
"Grass-fed", "freerange" and similar terms are all moralwashing lies. "Grass-fed" still allows to force feed them vitamins, antibiotics and even hay. "Freerange" for a chicken means 1 hour of sunlight and a little bit extra space, which isn't even what actually happens.
And people keep crying about giving a cat a nice life but using vegan pet feed which contains all the nutrients they need.
The definition of Hypocrite should have these people as an example.
Fellow unashamed omnivore. The vegans have the moral high ground. I hope one day to become one. No need to shame or be ashamed of eating meat though. Changes to society take a while, shaming and blaming rarely improve the situation. It often makes things worse.
Im a simple man. I see a vegan, I hate vegans. Simple as
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
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, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.
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.
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.
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
calling me names doesn't change the fact that I'm right
no one at the store has free will, but I do?
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...
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
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.
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 feduciary 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.
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 how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.
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
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 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.
Who knew that so many Lemmy users were experts in the science of dietary nutrition?
Carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, ITT apparently a lemmy user invention. You can feed your cat a "vegan diet", you will just have to feed them a god level amount of artificial supplements like taurine, arachidonic acid, EPA and DHA omega 3, vitamin A, etc. It will also increase their risk of urinary tract disease due to alkaline. Or much more likely, your cat will go out on their own and eat normal food. But I must be pulling these terms out of my ass, since I'm a lemmy user.
If only there were pets that were herbivores. Could you imagine that, not being hypocritical by extending the existence of carnivores and the suffering they bring to other animals within your personal ecosystem and actually having herbivore pets?
Frankly, you may as well be pulling all that out of your ass since the information you just provided is as good as useless without any reliable sources backing it up (and don't bother providing any, I'm not here to educate myself on cat diet requirements. If I cared, I would ask a qualified professional not a Lemmy user).
I'm just calling out the hypocrisy in this whole controversy. People do a quick Google search, read "obligate carnivore" in the title of some document and act as if they've got a college degree on the subject.
It's ok, you only need to question the information you disagree with as made up, everything you want to hear is obviously implicitly true. Kudos on asking for evidence while saying you don't really care for it in the same sentence.
It's true, I've now changed my resumé to that of a cat veterinarian. Some people might say extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, but you've really touched on the reality of it, that extraordinary claims, well, you are just pulling your criticism out of Google search and absurd common knowledge you might have been taught in biology class, clearly you consider yourself knowledgeable far beyond your means.
You seem to assume I'm arguing in favor of vegan cats.
Whether or not a cat can thrive on a vegan diet is irrelevant to me as I don't own a cat nor do I advise people on how to feed their cats. However, I do have a bias (as we all do) that tells me there is likely more nuance (which you did allude to in your original reply) than the general absolutist sentiment against the idea.
That bias is informed by half-a-lifetime of experience maintaining a loosely plant-based diet myself and witnessing first-hand the fierce compulsion people have to push their uneducated opinions at the mere mention of a plant-based diet. In my experience, there are few other things that can so reliably stir people into a vitriolic frenzy than the suggestion of a plant-based diet.
And to back up that bias, I now have my first negative comment after almost a year on Lemmy :-)
People are so quick to call it animal cruelty. Did any of you ask a vet if it was harmful to the animal? I didnt coz I dont even have a cat but it seems some vegans did and were reassured that it is alright. I think that shows they care about their pet and want to ensure its health while possibly aligning it with their lifestyles, probably better than feeding them the cheapest crap they can find.
Im not saying its okay to just feed your pet veggies, but just because it doesnt seem 'natural' doesnt automatically mean it is bad. This is 'being gay is unnatural' all over again.
ITT: People still unironically arguing that feeding a cat a diet that is biologically incapable of meeting a cat's dietary needs is a good idea.
smh.
We've been putting supplemental taurine in cat kibble for decades.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Biologically incapable is a lie. Vegan pet food is fortified with all the nutrients they might need.
How can vegans even justify having pets? It's not okay to milk a cow but it is to keep a cat? Indoor cats are deprived of basically all of their normal cat activities. They can't range or roam, they can't socialize with other cats, they are denied their natural predator instincts. As much as I love my kitties, like keeping a predator as a pet is basically kind of a dick move. I don't care how good you treat your slaves, they're still slaves.
If vegans can keep cats, they can eat cheese if the cow is well cared for or eggs if the farmer isn't a dick to the chickens.
Not a good comparison. To produce milk regularly cows must give birth. These calves are often sold to be slaughtered as veal. Likewise situation for eggs. To produce hens farmers typically wait until the chicks hatch and throw the unwanted male chicks in a grinder.
Did I miss something recent?
Yeah c/Vegan had mods removed by a Lemmy.world admin because of controversial posts and opinions on a vegan diet for cats.
The removal was justified because that constituted animal cruelty, but it was reversed because scientific evidence was provided for the possibility of a vegan cat diet.
The vegan community I think said they were going to move to hexbear or some shit, lol.
Lol, after years of reddit and other big websites I forgot that admins can also get involved in dramas on their platforms. Reminds me of the internet 15+ years ago.
ITT: people with big hurt feewiingssss
its okay babies, you eating meat doesnt hurt anyone! Youve never done everything wrong! Its no worse than how most of us innately benefit from imperialism, we're so far removed! Phew!
lol, we're all always so quick to start crying about hoe annoying and rude veeeegans are. We could all consume less animal products. Its ultimately not an issue of personal responsibility, its systemic and engrained in our society.
getting all pissy because someones telling you the truth and it makes you uncomfortable is embarrassing, I've been there. I still eat meat more regularly than I'd like to. I dont need to justify it, I think its bad that I do, I'm doing my best over here.
Obligate carnivore! I dont give my cats water! Only meeeeeat, rahhhh I'm a big man-or-similar!
inB4, hurt feeling downvotes 😳
You ok dude? Kinda seems like you're just screaming into the wind here.
It’s an average Lemmy.ml user
Are these vegans forcing cats vegetarian diets in the room with us?
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.
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.
Unashamed omnivore, fisher, and hunter here. Working on our play farm so we can source all of our meat ethically in the future. Taking active steps to prevent the suffering of animals we consume. Don't have an ethical or moral problem with killing animals to eat them. Prefer to do it myself so that I know that I have done my best to minimize the suffering of the critters I kill.
I've been told I'm a raper and abuser.
fite me
Factory farming is absolutely industrial scale rape and abuse. The more traditional hunter-gatherer mode of existence is at least approaching "natural" levels of cruelty, but it also takes immense volumes of vacant real estate.
It's cool that you've found a way to do a little traditional animal husbandry, rather than procuring meat from the holocaust mills run by some soulless corporate horror show. But its not what I'd call economical. At least, not for anyone who commutes downtown from an apartment block.
I think there's a kind of ethical middle-ground for folks who can keep a deep freeze full of meat from a cow that gets butchered every couple of months. Then you're at least mitigating the enormous waste in industrial agriculture and you can talk about animals living a relatively dignified life in a pasture rather than walled up in a cattle concentration camp. But that would mean no pink slime on demand, which violates man's constitutional right to eat burger.
Much better than sourcing animal products from the supermarker. Still worse than being vegan
They might be responsible for many less deaths than a vegan, though.
Some food for thought: https://www.carnivoreisvegan.com/carnivore-diet-is-vegan/
This argument is too stupid to even argue about.
You don't think people would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
Definitely, because the idea that humans can survive and thrive eating their biologically adequate diet from ruminants that graze on grassland instead of fueling deforestation and ridiculous carbon footprints to be fed an unnatural diet that requires supplements and insane anthropogenic change in the environment is... too stupid to even argue about.
Why don't you at the very least try? I mean, it should be much easier than just giving me a canned response, right?
75% of all farm land goes to animals that only provide 10-20% of the common diet.
But feel free to continue using hard words for incorrect arguments.
You're unfortunately deviating the argument to industrial agriculture used to (force-)feed animals, which is not what I was talking about. I literally said "graze on grassland" but you decided to respond to something else. But the fault is mine for trying. I'm not sure what I was thinking, this never leads to anything meaningful, just defensive bullshit.
If you want to educate yourself, feel free to investigate how grasslands work, how most of them cannot be used for anything else other than grazing (not arable), and maybe think about how ruminants actually lived and roamed the land before we started industrial/intensive agriculture and feedlots.
Interesting comment there at the end. English is not my first language and I'm just trying to use the words that best capture the meaning I'm trying to convey. But you do you, you must feel pretty good about yourself.
Even "graze on grassland" falls under this.
All the feed, water and land that's required could be used for far better stuff.
And I seem to be more educated on this matter than you, but thanks.
what is a better use for grass than to feed cows?
You're asking the wrong question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
I asked the question I meant to ask
You must be joking at this point. What else can non-arable grassland be used for? What water and feed is spent on ruminants whose only dietary input is grazing? I just have no words.
Most of the times it can be fixed within a year to allow another 3 years of plant based production.
And even if it isn't, just give it back to nature to do it by itself. It doesn't have to be used. That's just some weird capitalistic mindset.
Grazing is a joke. They are still being given tons and tons of water during their lifetime, almost all livestock is given soy based feed that's fortified with antibiotics, B12 and other vitamins.
"Grass-fed", "freerange" and similar terms are all moralwashing lies. "Grass-fed" still allows to force feed them vitamins, antibiotics and even hay. "Freerange" for a chicken means 1 hour of sunlight and a little bit extra space, which isn't even what actually happens.
And people keep crying about giving a cat a nice life but using vegan pet feed which contains all the nutrients they need.
The definition of Hypocrite should have these people as an example.
Fellow unashamed omnivore. The vegans have the moral high ground. I hope one day to become one. No need to shame or be ashamed of eating meat though. Changes to society take a while, shaming and blaming rarely improve the situation. It often makes things worse.
Im a simple man. I see a vegan, I hate vegans. Simple as
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
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, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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
calling me names doesn't change the fact that I'm right
no one at the store has free will, but I do?
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...
we made milk before we had money. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop
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.
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 feduciary 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.
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 how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.
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.
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:
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
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 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.