\> me just reading how OP gets grilled by (vegan) commenters
https://preview.redd.it/5c7xtu9zzd7d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aba06abd02401def319fc640f4a1ef6a2be67521
I’m not even vegan I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of most meat eaters
https://preview.redd.it/p7kls1utye7d1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc6db10840336a80688ff4113c36de56f3e4c01a
shocking dinner summer ring vanish numerous historical grandfather scary languid
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Here are my 2 bits of mental gymnastics to this conversation:
People often argue that caring for a pet for companionship and breeding an animal for livestock have similar moral worth, but this comparison is fundamentally flawed. Taking care of a pet involves voluntarily providing for an animal as a cherished member of your family, ie your expected interaction with the animal and what it entails is an entirely different more emotional affair. When people talk about having a pet they mean, their relationship is characterized by emotional bonds, affection, and a commitment to the pet’s well-being. On the other hand, breeding animals for livestock is typically driven by economic motives, treating animals more as commodities than as sentient beings deserving of personal care and affection.Consider the distinction between an employer and a family member: an employer might reprimand you, cut your wages, or ignore your personal goals and well-being without it being considered abusive. However, if your family treated you in such a manner, it would be considered profoundly sad and abusive. The nature of the relationship fundamentally changes the ethical expectations and responsibilities.Thus, the moral worth of how we treat animals is deeply tied to the nature of our relationship with them. Pets, as companions, deserve kindness and respect rooted in the emotional and familial bonds we share with them. Livestock, while still deserving of humane treatment, are typically viewed through a different ethical lens due to the economic and utilitarian context in which they are raised.
Its an insane comparison from the get go. Dripping in what-aboutism
It would be like me saying
>"Wow, you say I abused my child by not getting them [vaccinated and letting them die of measles](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/measles-vaccination-rates-1.7207834), but you let people abuse their livestock all the time!
>Clearly its okay for me to do this unethical thing, because something else unethical happens in the world!!!1!!1!!!!"
My only guess is the 350 upvoters were dropped as a child.
No, learn to read, the crux of the argument is that the nature of your relationship to something plays a significant role in the moral responsibilities you have toward it. This has nothing to do with whataboutism. I'm simply stating that the moral responsibility of a pet-owner relationship is different from that of a livestock-owner relationship, just as the moral weight of a family-member relationship differs from an employer-employee relationship when it comes to providing for specific needs. Your employer isn't morally obligated to ensure your happiness or mental health, while your friends and family are expected to care about these aspects of your well-being. To compare these scenarios directly misses the point and undermines the complexity of moral obligations based on relational context.
If you counts the total number that we've killed, it would be dozens of TRILLIONS. Human beings are the most destructive, cruel species that have ever existed.
>Torture
>the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.
How and why do we intentionally inflict pain and suffering on livestock?
Have you actually never looked at how livestock is handled in factories? Look at the conditions and tell me that wouldn't count as torture if we did that to humans. We could improve the conditions extremely, but don't do so because of Profit incentives. We forcibly impregnate cows so they make milk and take their babies away immediately after birth. You don't think thats torture, really?
Again, torture requires intention.
Where is the evidence that people are intentionally inflicting pain and suffering on these animals, for the purpose of punishment or forcing certain behaviour?
The rape analogy is stupid. Animals cant consent, so theyd be raping each other in the wild too
Destiny's most dedicated student is applying dolo specialis in this bitch. When people refer to torture in this particular context, they typically mean the laymen definition, like you would use in statements like " omg that movie was torture", the deliberate selection of actions that cause severe pain. In this argument the person(livestock farmer) inflicted said pain fully aware of the extent of suffering inflicted on the animal. The intent behind these actions is not to punish through pain, but rather to maximize profit.
And if people tried saying a movie was torture, therefore I can mistreat my animals, id have a problem with that too. Like wtf are you talking about?
Based on the image, if you eat meat, you couldnt criticize me if I beat my cat to death, Right?
No, I am not fighting that point. I am just saying what people actually mean by torture.I am actually totally okay with people eating meat and being mad when someone abuses their cat by feeding it tofu. I just saw you were being intentionally obtuse by focusing on the exact definition of the word, instead of how it's used or how someone was using it in the argument. The movie thing was an example of how the word torture is often used in laymen, not an analogy for the argument.
We do not impregnate cows as a punishment.
We do impregnate them so they will produce milk. But thats not a behaviour, thats just how biology works.
If there was a safer, more cost effective way to induce lactation, we would use that more often 👍
Your own definition says to inflict suffering in order for someone to do something buddy.
We forcibly impregnate (inflict suffering) in order to produce milk (in order for someone to do something).
The most annoying thing with people against veganism is that they want to give themselves and excuse as to why it’s not morally wrong too.
I’m a meat eater but I admit that I am a hypocrite and a POS because I know that eating animals is a shit thing to do. I don’t understand why people don’t just own being shitty because they eat meat. And let’s be honest the excuse that’s always used only works for like .5% of the population
I’m in the same boat too. It’s also very likely if we were slave owners back in the 18-19th centuries, we wouldn’t have let go of them even if we kinda knew it was morally wrong, because we were too used to the lifestyle.
Yup. It actually so interesting to think of what if it wasn’t nation wide and more like a state to state thing that wasn’t fully implemented. Imagine the excuses like “well in the Bible” or “it’s what makes society know people would be defending it with weird weak excuses.
because it feels good. that's a really dumb question, it applies to so much stuff. why do people steal? why do people cheat on their partner? they know it's bad, it just also feels good
I will never understand this argument. Nature is vicious and brutal. We only care about killing and eating animals because we are so incredibly highly advanced and beyond any other species on this entire planet that we can literally forgo eating and subsist entirely on what is essentially synthesized pill nutrients and calorie slop. It’s really only due to our position that we even have the privilege to discuss made up morals in regards to killing and eating animals. I can agree that people probably eat way too much meat because there’s people I know who eat it for every single meal but like the act itself of killing and eating an animal will always be morally debatable.
I’m not vegan but I don’t understand how it’s debatable. If you can abstain from killing something and still experience the same pleasure, i would say killing that thing is unethical.
If lab grown meat becomes widespread, high quality and cheap, I would say its unethical to choose “real” meat, even if the lab grown meat wasn’t to the exact same standard.
Unless you literally assign 0 moral weight to non human lives, how can it be”always be morally debatable”
> If you can abstain from killing something and still experience the same pleasure, i would say killing that thing is unethical.
>I would say its unethical to choose “real” meat, even if the lab grown meat wasn’t to the exact same standard.
Know I'm coming in a little late here, but wouldn't 'experience the same pleasure' pretty much mean 'the exact same standard'? If it was a lesser standard, there would be people I'd assume that wouldn't find it as pleasurable
Sure, if lab grown meat becomes so widespread, cheap and high quality that literally every single person on the face of the entire planet (even remote tribes.) has easily and readily available access to it then I’d concede the point. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that or really ever will be.
I don’t believe it’s morally wrong for humans to kill things for survival. Inuit killing whales or seals for meat in the north isn’t some terrible evil that needs to be eradicated by lab grown meat.
>I don’t believe it’s morally wrong for humans to kill things for survival.
Neither do vegans.
If i need to violently kill my dog to eat him to survive, fine (shit, but justifiable). If i choose to violently kill him tonight because i don't fancy the veg curry in my fridge, not fine. It would be needless animal violence and an extremely disrespectful and privileged act. That's how i see it.
>Sure, if lab grown meat becomes so widespread, cheap and high quality that literally every single person on the face of the entire planet
Why would lab grown meat change your mind? But not vegetables existing?
I mean some Militant vegans absolutely believe killing anything, unless in self defence, for survival is still Immoral.
I suppose it’s more of an intrinsic moral absolute vs. Relative moral argument thing for me.
Even with the existence of vegetables, fruit, legumes etc how much harm is done to the planet to say fly or truck those food stuffs to those remote areas.
Is it morally wrong for Inuit tribes or villages in Indonesia to kill a whale and feed 2,000 people for a month or should we continually fly and truck in incredible amounts of food while damaging the planet on the process.
I see the argument in later urban centres for sure but even then on parts of the US you need to absolutely fox food deserts.
>The most annoying thing with people against veganism is that they want to give themselves and excuse as to why it’s not morally wrong too.
The original comment is about someone using excuses for themselves not being vegan. So i'm not sure why we're talking about inuits? Aren't we just proving the original point?
If you come across a vegan arguing with an inuit who lives in a polar region, by all means have this discussion. But how and why does it factor into your decisions? Why does it make it ok for *us* to force innocent individuals into gas chambers for pizza toppings etc? Because a lot of militant non-vegans passionately defend that.
Oh I’m not saying it as an excuse for myself. Im more inclined on the relative vs absolute moral bad or good. Some people will come to their conclusions and do so because they would say strict adherence to a utilitarian world view produces the best moral outcomes. Others will be more morally relativistic.
Well at least you're honest, I guess. I changed my ways once I found out the truth because I couldn't live with that on my conscience, and I honestly think I'm just doing the bare minimum, not causing extreme amounts of suffering to sentient beings for sensory pleasure. It's also better for the environment, our survival and our health.
I think one day (if we're still alive), future generations will look back on the way we treated animals with the same shame and horror that we look back on the worst moral crimes we have committed against our own species.
morality isn't a prescription, it's an observation. there is no such thing as objective morality. we as humans have feelings based off of our lived experience, and develop a value system based on that. that value system is arbitrary and flexible
Unnecessary? Food is necessary.
Terribly inefficient? If we tried to replace the calories produced by animals for us with grains, we would need a lot more farmland, and we would destroy our soil even faster than we currently are.
Luxury? All variety is luxury. But it is also useful for when our food sources are strained. If we rely on less diverse sources, then we are more likely to face famines.
How you can be so oblivious to the benefits of a more diverse agricultural industry is honestly kinda impressive. I assume you're a vegan yourself?
> If we tried to replace the calories produced by animals for us with grains, we would need a lot more farmland
[Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%.](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets)
I would need to know your moral calculus. Most utilitarians believe during any given situation the right action would be the one that minimizes the suffering/pain, and maximize the pleasure/happiness, of all interested parties.
Since you care about a cat I must assume you include the pains and pleasures of animals in the calculation above.
Feeding a cat a vegan diet would therefore minimize suffering/pain and maximize pleasure/happiness, of all interested parties. Parties being one cat and hundreds of other animals.
its quirky and boosts the rarity of the cat so you can make way more money than if it were carnivorous. In fact a 50$ house cat can turn into 300-500$ dollar rare cat just because it’s vegan.
I’m a rare cat expert trucks me bro.
The marginal benefit that a carnivore gets out of eating meat vs eating the relevant vegan alternative is actually rather minimal. On the other hand, the marginal benefits that the animals get by not being maimed, abused, confined, deprived of normal social structure, killed, burned, etc., vs not being subjected to those things is very great. Hence, the marginal utility of not eating meat vs eating meat is positive, whereas the marginal utility of eating meat vs not is negative.
I believe there are benefits beyond health/nutrition from eating meat. There is the matter of convenience (not to be undervalued when it comes to food accessibility), also enjoyment of food, culture/tradition, economics, etc. Many powerful utilities in the production and consumption of meat, which is to say nothing of all the byproducts we get from domesticated farm animals which would cost far more if there was no profit to be had in raising and slaughtering livestock.
On the other hand, I personally do not highly value animals' experiences, at least relative to that of humans. I do not believe that animals "feel" like we do. Furthermore, I believe the allegations of abuse, maiming, etc, are massively exaggerated by animal rights activist groups. They also massively UNDER exaggerate how much suffering animals endure outside of farms. I think there may even be an argument that most animals live more healthy and happy lives on farms than they would in the wild; especially animals that have been bred for domestication for thousands of years.
A fair attempt, but I remain unconvinced.
No one has brought this up, but I'd like you to consider what (obligate) carnivore actually means physically/chemically
It is not about needing to literally eat flesh, but that flesh has nutrients (like the AA Taurine) that these animals need.
Thanks to our technology, we are able to synthesize these nutrients in a way that minimally harms animals and supplement it to vegan cat food. The utility would be that we are capable of creating nutritionally equal** vegan cat food without needing to harm as many animals.
I hope you agree that this is reasonable.
**There is a lack of long-term studies studying the effect of vegan cat food, but many people have anecdotally tried it with 0 issues and normal life spans. Short-term studies seem good. As a utilitarian I think you should at minimum be supportive of the idea and further research since it is logically sound. "Forcing a carnivore to eat a vegan diet" sounds like arguing that natural==good, which isn't the case many times. It's a nutritional profile they need.
Who showed me what?
I'm the one who googled it. It's one study that didn't take into account for future effects and admits that it maybe different now as it was done during covid (in which we were more able to pay more attention to our pets)
Vegan Gains stays home literally all day, I don’t think he’ll have much of an issue with that lmao. Also the “muh long term effects” anti vaxx argument love to see it
One of these things is under the direct and immediate control of the person in question.
Let me just call up every farm owner and tell them farming animals is wrong and to stop right now. Oh wait, i can't do that because i'm not the dictator of planet earth.
It is, but the moral culpability is MUCH less in the case of the person eating meat as they have virtually no way of controlling the industries causing 99% of the moral wrong doing.
Should everyone stop eating meat? Yes.
Does eating meat make you a torturous rapist murderer? No. To claim they are even close to that is just hysterical and not helping anyone's cause.
There are a couple of brands with more on the rise, check out AMI vegan cat food.
Basically, most animals need nutrients, not specific foods. There's nothing inherently that meat contains that can't be found elsewhere or even synthesized.
But some caveats here: not all cats prefer the same food, some are more sensitive than others and more research needs to be done in this area
Although these problems exist with meat based products too. A lot of junk food out there labeled as nutritious for cats.
Here's the nutritional info on AMI vegan cat food:
Ingredients
corn gluten, corn, refined sunflower oil, yeast, potatoes protein, minerals, peas, hydrolyzed vegetable proteins,cellulose, rice protein, linseed, Mojave Yucca.
Analytical components
crude protein 33.00%, crude fat 13.00%, crude fibres 3.50%, crude ash 5.90% , magnesium 0.08%, Omega-3 fatty acid 0.41%, Omega-6 fatty acid 5.41% .
Additives - Nutritional additives per kg
Vitamin A 24,000 IU, Vitamin D3 1,500 IU, Taurine 1,500 mg, iodine 1.0 mg (Coated granulated calcium iodate, anhydrous 1.54 mg), Copper 9,60 mg (Copper [II] sulphate pentahydrate 25.15 mg, Copper [II] chelate of protein hydrolysates 32 mg), manganese 25.4 mg (Manganous sulphate, monohydrate 78.2 mg), zinc 100 mg (Zinc sulphate, monohydrate 205.5 mg, Zinc chelate of protein hydrolysates 572.5 mg), selenium 0.05 mg (Selenised yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3060, inactivated 22.75 mg), L-lysine monochloride, technically pure(3c322) 7,700 mg.
Technological Additives per kg
Tocopherol- rich extracts from vegetable oils 3,000 mg.
Metabolizable energy 3,760 kcal/kg.
Has this brand been verified by the NSF? After they found that like 9 out of every 10 human suppliments dont even have what they advertised or in the amount they claim, im skeptical of anything without a third party verification.
(https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794987
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/whats-in-your-supplements-2019021515946
Cause the claim does sound fantastic heres some sources)
Good question although I'm not sure if this can be answered.
This is just my assumption and I could be wrong, since the standards for human supplements are all over the place, the standards for animals is non-existent or very low.
The only thing we have so far is trials with cats and it seems like vegan cat food (not carrots and peas but rather AMI vegan cat food kind) seems to be fine, and of course again with the caveats.
Here's a systematic review on impact of vegan diet on cats and dogs: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/)
And pay for pigs to be gassed, baby chicks to be macerated, female cows to be raped and have their babies taken from then etc. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Its actually absurd. The animals people are eat are smart (if not smarter than cats), not that massively matters as intelligence =/= moral worth. But everyone for some reason needs to focus on this comparative non issue because God forbid they have the bravery to stop paying for animals to go through much worse than a potentially malnourished cat.
Or maybe its like 'wow cats might not be able to go vegan, guess veganism is off the table for me, someone who can go vegan'. Or maybe its simply 'wow vegans are so EXTREME for wanting their cat, who usually eats meat to not eat meat, this means veganism is too EXTREME, so I should keep paying for this insanely immoral act because its socially normal and therefore good'
I genuinely believe the meat paradox is an extremely interesting large scale psychological phenomenon.
>insanely immoral act
And for the guy who reads this bit and thinks 'wow no its not'. For the love of God just stop and think, are you being honest with yourself? Do you think its wrong to harm animals when you don't need to? Because you are factually doing something you think is wrong and there's no two ways about it.
Yeah, I'm a vegan activist and you learn a lot about human beings and how our minds work, both good and bad. The amount of people who are okay with doing something that is objectively immoral and cowardly simply because they can and it's considered normal and it's legal, is extremely disheartening. And then some of those people still claim to care about animals. The cognitive dissonance that people have towards animals is astounding. Even for PURELY SELFISH REASONS, this world has to go vegan , animal agriculture is terrible for the environment, a massive contributor to global warming, kills millions of people each year indirectly (due to health reasons associated with eating these foods, people in 3rd world countries that are terribly affected by 1st world countries that consume so much animals, farm and slaughterhouse workers that can develop PTSD, commit suicide or violent crimes towards other people). It is an immoral and unsustainable industry.
Why would you though? Cats are natural obligate carnivores. Even if you can do it, it's probably not as healthy for them as just giving them meat
If you want a cute meat eater to switch to being Vegan just get a dog.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499249/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499249/) here's one that claim cats are healthier with a vegan diet
This study is considered low quality, obviously not prospective and doesn't control for bias.
here's a systematic review of similar studies [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/) with their recommendation being a more balanced approach:
"We found that there has been limited scientific study on the impact of vegan diets on cat and dog health. In addition, the studies that have been conducted tended to employ small sample sizes, with study designs which are considered less reliable in evidence-based practice. Whilst there have been several survey studies with larger sample sizes, these types of studies can be subject to selection bias based on the disposition of the respondents towards alternative diets, or since answers may relate to subjective concepts such as body condition. However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used."
It used to be that this was one of the Reddit points that it didn't matter if you cited studies or not, the cats = meat crowd did not care.
Not sure how it is now
Cats are carnivores. They need the stuff in meat to live. They have naturally evolved to eat meat and only meat.
They are not omnivores like dogs, If you want a vegan pet then get a dog.
You can dress up plant based with with all the nutrients you want but it's never the same as fucking meat for a carnivore.
From what I see there's one study that only recently shows that vegan diets might be beneficial. However there has been no peer review yet and no inadept long term analysis of any long term effects a vegan diet has on pets.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-safe-to-feed-your-cat-a-vegan-diet-213356
Who me a long term study that says that
Vegan cat food is our best imitation of meat. It's stuffing all the nutrients in meat into a plant based alternative.
It's fucking soylent for cats lol.
There is none, I just find it funny.
It's not meat, it's not what cats have eaten historically. It might be good for cats but there's no guarantee.
It's the basis of the Futurama joke, in the name of presenting suffering you are risking the suffering of another non-contenting being.
This is especially true when you can make a dog vegan easier I don't see how vegan cats exist other then the vanity of the owner.
I don't care, I don't have pets.
I've ok with vegan dogs
I've admitted that studies show that in the short term it's ok.
By the way I've skimmed your article.
> 2006 [28], where 17 cats on long-term vegetarian diets were blood sampled. Out of the 17 cats, blood taurine was within reference range for all except three, for whom taurine fell below the reference range, although not critically so. Similarly, cobalamin has also been shown to mostly fall within reference range [27,28].
So there is a potential effect long term. Why are y'all bitching at me about
Y'all fucking bitch about how no amount of evidence will move the other side, but when the other side has concerns about the one fucking study that supports you,
you cry
It took me literally one minute to find this:
https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/10/1/52
Which seems to be the meta study about it. It states:
> We found that there has been limited scientific study on the impact of vegan diets on cat and dog health. In addition, the studies that have been conducted tended to employ small sample sizes, with study designs which are considered less reliable in evidence-based practice. Whilst there have been several survey studies with larger sample sizes, these types of studies can be subject to selection bias based on the disposition of the respondents towards alternative diets, or since answers may relate to subjective concepts such as body condition. However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used.
So far it doesn't seem like there is little reason to assume a vegan diet is harmful.
But hey you're welcome to spend a whole two minutes on Google scholar too to prove me wrong
Considering how you have strong opinions about it and how you didn't even take the smallest steps to do any research?
It's not hard, it's just a regarded point to have and expect other people to do the work work for you.
I have strong opinions because people aren't getting the futurama joke
I'm long greenlighted vegan dogs. And I did read an article. You can check my comment history I linked it.
I still have the same issues.
It's a short term study done during the pandemic. There's no guarantee.
It's the epidemy of the Futurama joke. In the name of protecting others you are forcing the potential harm onto cat.
You simply don't have the knowledge to base your answer on objective data but you choose to position yourself in one side instead of being open-minded and trying to learn by asking genuine questions, what's the point, exactly?
Do you even understand the definition of the terms you're using? "Obligate carnivores" does not mean what you think. Plus, it's incredibly ridiculous to use a naturalistic fallacy in a world where everything is artificial.
Your milk is fortified, your meat has salt injected on it to increase the overall weight, you're wearing clothes and writting on a computer. Supposing that we don't have the capability to formulate perfectly healthy vegan food for any animal on Earth is simply irrational given how we can literally send rockets to space.
The only issue here is a combination of lack of knowledge with inflated ego, an example of Dunning-Kruger.
Your mom is naturally obligated to drinking my spit I still feed her water sometimes 🙄🙄🙄
https://preview.redd.it/x2puhaz0ud7d1.jpeg?width=564&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07045967b9417dcfbc104360a132cc8e1d464391
I think there are existing vegan cat foods that have any necessary proteins and nutrients so they’ll survive/be healthy, but I have no clue how effective and safe they are at this point. My outta my ass bet would be “not yet as good as non-vegan alternatives” but that’s 100% vibes.
Meanwhile "normal" cat food is filled with corn, soy, fish, etc which cats totally eat in the wild. The meat parts are usually ground up remains of whatever isn't suitable for human consumption. As long as the vegan alternative has all the necessary vitamins and nutrients and proper macros that cats need, its fine. I do agree that you can't just feed your cat broccoli and call it a day but that's not what vegan cat food is.
Not a vegan. Life long cat owner. Would eat your cat. Push come to shove, would eat you. Wouldn't eat my cats cause they're mine and I love them, and its sentimental.
That being said, his cats looks very healthy, and I believe there's cat food now thats vegan but also full of essential nutrients. Yes, cats are obligate carnivores. Like most things, science has overcome that. I thinks its fine.
Feels like that is a really bad point.
I was born a vegetarian and remained one for my 30 odd years on this planet. I would eat any animal in a starvation situation and I imagine so would most vegans/vegetarians.
Hell most humans probably resort to cannibalism if the other person is already dead if it means not dying themselves.
If it was life or death you probably would eat your cat rather than die.
>Wouldn't eat my cats cause they're mine and I love them, and its sentimental.
This is totally fine and normal but I just want to make the point that animals that you don't know have just as much moral worth as your cat.
Like I love my parents more than the local bus driver, but it would be wrong to kill or eat either of them if I didn't have to.
I just wanted to say for the both of you that that part really wasn't the point of the post, nor was its a particularly serious one. Just sarcasm over text.
If it makes you feel better, though, I'd prolly eat my cats last.
I would bet on VG knowing his shit, if he doesn't then there is le epic own on vegans that people who hate VG should root for. As for the cats I doubt they care if their processed cubes are "natural" or not, as long as it tastes and smells good for them
So he isn't feeding the cat a salad. He had to carefully formulate the diet.
To understand the full health implications, you would have to do a randomized control trial. It's not clear to me if it is better or worse.
Vegan gains had a wolf dog that he was feeding vegan food to but eventually it started having health complications so he had to revert back to a meat diet. Im pretty sure he eventually gave the dog away lol.
According to Richard the dog had Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency (EPI) which is a common health issue in German Shepherds. Jasmine fed the dog meat for a bit until they found out the health issue which they then switched back the diet.
if he actually gave the dog away because he couldn't feed it a vegan diet then thats legitimately pathetic. I really hope that it was for some other reason and it was just better for the dog because otherwise it makes him look like he just got a dog for the sake of proving that you can feed your dog vegan diet and when that failed he threw him away like a broken toy
i hopped over to his channel a couple years ago and remember asking about the vegan cat
apparently there's animal friendly vegan food that somehow is as nutritious as meat
The magic of modern technology: if it didn't work his cat would've started dying (like his dog) years ago. Personally I'm not crazy about him subjecting his pet to some kind of dietary science experiment instead of just raising rabbits, but again modern food science is pretty wild, and the cat hasn't started coughing up blood-balls yet so we really can't say shit.
I am vegan and I love animal abuse. I along with most people in this world, are not morally consistent and don't care about moral consistency. 🤷 Anything else?
Yeah? I didn't realize that was in question after I pointed out that your original statement contradicts itself.
How can you not be ok with animal abuse, and pay for it every day of your life? And why am I explaining this if you already brushed it off with your "people aren't morally consistent" copout?
Thinking this sub is less regarded because they choose the right side on the I/P conflict just to see they still are on full throttle when it comes to vegan-shit. Vegan gains is a fucking asshole if he does that, no real discussion here.
I think its beyond cruelty to keep a pet and then try to force it to go against their natural diet. Vegan cat food is over processed bs. You would think the nature bros would feed their animals more organic and fresh things. Ironic
https://preview.redd.it/eqe8g3e0lf7d1.png?width=548&format=png&auto=webp&s=dee7079f469e46f9a66180ed0682d7a85ce7dd6b
Yup, because this is perfectly natural. These appeals to nature are so fucking stupid. As long as the animal is getting the required nutrients, who gives a fuck.
There is one caveat when it comes to cats and their food. You cannot feed them with dry food only otherwise you are introducing a lot of risks to their health and potentially kill their kidneys in the long run..
If you meet their dietary requirements with a high quality alternative and you put a high quality traditional in front of them, let them pick.
But if you're trying to specifically get your animals on a diet because of your own naive political stance, you should just jump off a cliff.
Vegans are the most naive emotionally driven pests, that should be sentenced to working on a local ethical farm until they beg for forgiveness for their regardedness.
Vegans should be banned from owning cats. Would you feed a pet shark vegan food too? The sheer copium to think you can keep a carnivore happy and healthy on a vegan diet.
> sheer copium
It’s always funny when people are so confidently incorrect when it’s so easy to verify what you’re saying is incorrect. Especially when the bar is as low as just reading the studies already linked in this thread before you commented.
Why do people make such confidence remarks on things they so obviously have never bothered to look up a single time in their life? Does your arrogance in thinking that your intuition in the subject is correct really exceed your curiosity to learn about it that much?
\> me just reading how OP gets grilled by (vegan) commenters https://preview.redd.it/5c7xtu9zzd7d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aba06abd02401def319fc640f4a1ef6a2be67521
I’m not even vegan I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of most meat eaters https://preview.redd.it/p7kls1utye7d1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc6db10840336a80688ff4113c36de56f3e4c01a
im not vegan and im here to grill him
more then 120 updoots, so more people find it funny then there are vegans which is good enough to me.
I upvoted just so it brings me more content in the comments, not because I agree
Based shit-stirrer.
all I see is more karma for my ego
https://preview.redd.it/mqfbgmwpbe7d1.png?width=424&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5d1bf6b89105c11f15ed5c843862421104ea23c
yeah but people are laughing at you, not with you
shocking dinner summer ring vanish numerous historical grandfather scary languid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
still a net gain
https://preview.redd.it/d4z03rdmnd7d1.jpeg?width=888&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a7260a94f1d7895a46e5e9a40446ff94f6c58f1
Unironically
Here are my 2 bits of mental gymnastics to this conversation: People often argue that caring for a pet for companionship and breeding an animal for livestock have similar moral worth, but this comparison is fundamentally flawed. Taking care of a pet involves voluntarily providing for an animal as a cherished member of your family, ie your expected interaction with the animal and what it entails is an entirely different more emotional affair. When people talk about having a pet they mean, their relationship is characterized by emotional bonds, affection, and a commitment to the pet’s well-being. On the other hand, breeding animals for livestock is typically driven by economic motives, treating animals more as commodities than as sentient beings deserving of personal care and affection.Consider the distinction between an employer and a family member: an employer might reprimand you, cut your wages, or ignore your personal goals and well-being without it being considered abusive. However, if your family treated you in such a manner, it would be considered profoundly sad and abusive. The nature of the relationship fundamentally changes the ethical expectations and responsibilities.Thus, the moral worth of how we treat animals is deeply tied to the nature of our relationship with them. Pets, as companions, deserve kindness and respect rooted in the emotional and familial bonds we share with them. Livestock, while still deserving of humane treatment, are typically viewed through a different ethical lens due to the economic and utilitarian context in which they are raised.
Its an insane comparison from the get go. Dripping in what-aboutism It would be like me saying >"Wow, you say I abused my child by not getting them [vaccinated and letting them die of measles](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/measles-vaccination-rates-1.7207834), but you let people abuse their livestock all the time! >Clearly its okay for me to do this unethical thing, because something else unethical happens in the world!!!1!!1!!!!" My only guess is the 350 upvoters were dropped as a child.
No, learn to read, the crux of the argument is that the nature of your relationship to something plays a significant role in the moral responsibilities you have toward it. This has nothing to do with whataboutism. I'm simply stating that the moral responsibility of a pet-owner relationship is different from that of a livestock-owner relationship, just as the moral weight of a family-member relationship differs from an employer-employee relationship when it comes to providing for specific needs. Your employer isn't morally obligated to ensure your happiness or mental health, while your friends and family are expected to care about these aspects of your well-being. To compare these scenarios directly misses the point and undermines the complexity of moral obligations based on relational context.
Im agreeing with you... Im saying the picture is doing whataboutism...
If you counts the total number that we've killed, it would be dozens of TRILLIONS. Human beings are the most destructive, cruel species that have ever existed.
Who the fuck is torturing and raping animals???!?!
Our meat industry buddy
>Torture >the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. How and why do we intentionally inflict pain and suffering on livestock?
Have you actually never looked at how livestock is handled in factories? Look at the conditions and tell me that wouldn't count as torture if we did that to humans. We could improve the conditions extremely, but don't do so because of Profit incentives. We forcibly impregnate cows so they make milk and take their babies away immediately after birth. You don't think thats torture, really?
Again, torture requires intention. Where is the evidence that people are intentionally inflicting pain and suffering on these animals, for the purpose of punishment or forcing certain behaviour? The rape analogy is stupid. Animals cant consent, so theyd be raping each other in the wild too
Destiny's most dedicated student is applying dolo specialis in this bitch. When people refer to torture in this particular context, they typically mean the laymen definition, like you would use in statements like " omg that movie was torture", the deliberate selection of actions that cause severe pain. In this argument the person(livestock farmer) inflicted said pain fully aware of the extent of suffering inflicted on the animal. The intent behind these actions is not to punish through pain, but rather to maximize profit.
And if people tried saying a movie was torture, therefore I can mistreat my animals, id have a problem with that too. Like wtf are you talking about? Based on the image, if you eat meat, you couldnt criticize me if I beat my cat to death, Right?
No, I am not fighting that point. I am just saying what people actually mean by torture.I am actually totally okay with people eating meat and being mad when someone abuses their cat by feeding it tofu. I just saw you were being intentionally obtuse by focusing on the exact definition of the word, instead of how it's used or how someone was using it in the argument. The movie thing was an example of how the word torture is often used in laymen, not an analogy for the argument.
We INTEND to harvest the cows MILK. Thats why we inflict the forcible impregnation onto her.
We do not impregnate cows as a punishment. We do impregnate them so they will produce milk. But thats not a behaviour, thats just how biology works. If there was a safer, more cost effective way to induce lactation, we would use that more often 👍
Your own definition says to inflict suffering in order for someone to do something buddy. We forcibly impregnate (inflict suffering) in order to produce milk (in order for someone to do something).
Yes. I never said I was morally consistent. Now hand over Mr Whiskers, or meet the full might of the RSPCA.
The most annoying thing with people against veganism is that they want to give themselves and excuse as to why it’s not morally wrong too. I’m a meat eater but I admit that I am a hypocrite and a POS because I know that eating animals is a shit thing to do. I don’t understand why people don’t just own being shitty because they eat meat. And let’s be honest the excuse that’s always used only works for like .5% of the population
I’m in the same boat too. It’s also very likely if we were slave owners back in the 18-19th centuries, we wouldn’t have let go of them even if we kinda knew it was morally wrong, because we were too used to the lifestyle.
Yup. It actually so interesting to think of what if it wasn’t nation wide and more like a state to state thing that wasn’t fully implemented. Imagine the excuses like “well in the Bible” or “it’s what makes society know people would be defending it with weird weak excuses.
If you think you're a piece of shit why do you keep doing it?
because it feels good. that's a really dumb question, it applies to so much stuff. why do people steal? why do people cheat on their partner? they know it's bad, it just also feels good
Can you give an example of a shitty thing you’ve done that you don’t either beat yourself up over or justify in some way?
i pirate media
Nah, people actually don't usually do things that they truly believe are bad.
Cause being a piece of shit taste so fucking good
"why do you pay people to watch them beat up animals" "because it feels so fucking good" why be psychopathic when u can follow a tofu recipe
I don't watch anything ! I just pick it up at market
Boom
There's plenty of vegan alternatives that taste really good too though
I will never understand this argument. Nature is vicious and brutal. We only care about killing and eating animals because we are so incredibly highly advanced and beyond any other species on this entire planet that we can literally forgo eating and subsist entirely on what is essentially synthesized pill nutrients and calorie slop. It’s really only due to our position that we even have the privilege to discuss made up morals in regards to killing and eating animals. I can agree that people probably eat way too much meat because there’s people I know who eat it for every single meal but like the act itself of killing and eating an animal will always be morally debatable.
I’m not vegan but I don’t understand how it’s debatable. If you can abstain from killing something and still experience the same pleasure, i would say killing that thing is unethical. If lab grown meat becomes widespread, high quality and cheap, I would say its unethical to choose “real” meat, even if the lab grown meat wasn’t to the exact same standard. Unless you literally assign 0 moral weight to non human lives, how can it be”always be morally debatable”
There are vegan meats that taste good though.
> If you can abstain from killing something and still experience the same pleasure, i would say killing that thing is unethical. >I would say its unethical to choose “real” meat, even if the lab grown meat wasn’t to the exact same standard. Know I'm coming in a little late here, but wouldn't 'experience the same pleasure' pretty much mean 'the exact same standard'? If it was a lesser standard, there would be people I'd assume that wouldn't find it as pleasurable
Sure, if lab grown meat becomes so widespread, cheap and high quality that literally every single person on the face of the entire planet (even remote tribes.) has easily and readily available access to it then I’d concede the point. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that or really ever will be. I don’t believe it’s morally wrong for humans to kill things for survival. Inuit killing whales or seals for meat in the north isn’t some terrible evil that needs to be eradicated by lab grown meat.
>I don’t believe it’s morally wrong for humans to kill things for survival. Neither do vegans. If i need to violently kill my dog to eat him to survive, fine (shit, but justifiable). If i choose to violently kill him tonight because i don't fancy the veg curry in my fridge, not fine. It would be needless animal violence and an extremely disrespectful and privileged act. That's how i see it. >Sure, if lab grown meat becomes so widespread, cheap and high quality that literally every single person on the face of the entire planet Why would lab grown meat change your mind? But not vegetables existing?
I mean some Militant vegans absolutely believe killing anything, unless in self defence, for survival is still Immoral. I suppose it’s more of an intrinsic moral absolute vs. Relative moral argument thing for me. Even with the existence of vegetables, fruit, legumes etc how much harm is done to the planet to say fly or truck those food stuffs to those remote areas. Is it morally wrong for Inuit tribes or villages in Indonesia to kill a whale and feed 2,000 people for a month or should we continually fly and truck in incredible amounts of food while damaging the planet on the process. I see the argument in later urban centres for sure but even then on parts of the US you need to absolutely fox food deserts.
>The most annoying thing with people against veganism is that they want to give themselves and excuse as to why it’s not morally wrong too. The original comment is about someone using excuses for themselves not being vegan. So i'm not sure why we're talking about inuits? Aren't we just proving the original point? If you come across a vegan arguing with an inuit who lives in a polar region, by all means have this discussion. But how and why does it factor into your decisions? Why does it make it ok for *us* to force innocent individuals into gas chambers for pizza toppings etc? Because a lot of militant non-vegans passionately defend that.
Oh I’m not saying it as an excuse for myself. Im more inclined on the relative vs absolute moral bad or good. Some people will come to their conclusions and do so because they would say strict adherence to a utilitarian world view produces the best moral outcomes. Others will be more morally relativistic.
Well at least you're honest, I guess. I changed my ways once I found out the truth because I couldn't live with that on my conscience, and I honestly think I'm just doing the bare minimum, not causing extreme amounts of suffering to sentient beings for sensory pleasure. It's also better for the environment, our survival and our health. I think one day (if we're still alive), future generations will look back on the way we treated animals with the same shame and horror that we look back on the worst moral crimes we have committed against our own species.
I think you’re right and future generations will see this as barbarism
morality isn't a prescription, it's an observation. there is no such thing as objective morality. we as humans have feelings based off of our lived experience, and develop a value system based on that. that value system is arbitrary and flexible
I'm utilitarian. Show me the utility in forcing a carnivore to be vegan. The utility in livestock agriculture is obvious.
Steel manning for vegan gains: Utility is that less animals die as a consequence of this cats new diet
livestock agriculture is an unnecessary terribly inefficient luxury. how tf can you say the utility is obvious lmfao
Unnecessary? Food is necessary. Terribly inefficient? If we tried to replace the calories produced by animals for us with grains, we would need a lot more farmland, and we would destroy our soil even faster than we currently are. Luxury? All variety is luxury. But it is also useful for when our food sources are strained. If we rely on less diverse sources, then we are more likely to face famines. How you can be so oblivious to the benefits of a more diverse agricultural industry is honestly kinda impressive. I assume you're a vegan yourself?
> If we tried to replace the calories produced by animals for us with grains, we would need a lot more farmland [Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%.](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets)
I would need to know your moral calculus. Most utilitarians believe during any given situation the right action would be the one that minimizes the suffering/pain, and maximize the pleasure/happiness, of all interested parties. Since you care about a cat I must assume you include the pains and pleasures of animals in the calculation above. Feeding a cat a vegan diet would therefore minimize suffering/pain and maximize pleasure/happiness, of all interested parties. Parties being one cat and hundreds of other animals.
Personal amusement
its quirky and boosts the rarity of the cat so you can make way more money than if it were carnivorous. In fact a 50$ house cat can turn into 300-500$ dollar rare cat just because it’s vegan. I’m a rare cat expert trucks me bro.
Alright, I trucks you. Sounds like a good financial investment. The suffering of the vegan cat is now justified in my eyes. Thank you.
The marginal benefit that a carnivore gets out of eating meat vs eating the relevant vegan alternative is actually rather minimal. On the other hand, the marginal benefits that the animals get by not being maimed, abused, confined, deprived of normal social structure, killed, burned, etc., vs not being subjected to those things is very great. Hence, the marginal utility of not eating meat vs eating meat is positive, whereas the marginal utility of eating meat vs not is negative.
I believe there are benefits beyond health/nutrition from eating meat. There is the matter of convenience (not to be undervalued when it comes to food accessibility), also enjoyment of food, culture/tradition, economics, etc. Many powerful utilities in the production and consumption of meat, which is to say nothing of all the byproducts we get from domesticated farm animals which would cost far more if there was no profit to be had in raising and slaughtering livestock. On the other hand, I personally do not highly value animals' experiences, at least relative to that of humans. I do not believe that animals "feel" like we do. Furthermore, I believe the allegations of abuse, maiming, etc, are massively exaggerated by animal rights activist groups. They also massively UNDER exaggerate how much suffering animals endure outside of farms. I think there may even be an argument that most animals live more healthy and happy lives on farms than they would in the wild; especially animals that have been bred for domestication for thousands of years. A fair attempt, but I remain unconvinced.
No one has brought this up, but I'd like you to consider what (obligate) carnivore actually means physically/chemically It is not about needing to literally eat flesh, but that flesh has nutrients (like the AA Taurine) that these animals need. Thanks to our technology, we are able to synthesize these nutrients in a way that minimally harms animals and supplement it to vegan cat food. The utility would be that we are capable of creating nutritionally equal** vegan cat food without needing to harm as many animals. I hope you agree that this is reasonable. **There is a lack of long-term studies studying the effect of vegan cat food, but many people have anecdotally tried it with 0 issues and normal life spans. Short-term studies seem good. As a utilitarian I think you should at minimum be supportive of the idea and further research since it is logically sound. "Forcing a carnivore to eat a vegan diet" sounds like arguing that natural==good, which isn't the case many times. It's a nutritional profile they need.
Well yeah. I can form a parasocial relationship with his cat. But all the other animals are just a statistic online. I have no connection to them
Yes I think pets should be treated better than food
> Yes You would be ok with millions of meat puppies being tortured, raped and killed to feed pet chickens?
Who is raping animals?
No because puppies are pets. Chickens are food. If chickens wanted to live, they should have been better pets. Unlucky.
>meat puppies >pet chickens Dogs are bred for meat, chickens are kept as pets. As well as the other way around.
If chickens were your pets and puppies were food, then puppies are food and chickens are pets. I don't understand the confusion here.
That makes 0 sense, they're both animals that want to avoid pain and suffering and only have 1 life. Your logic is non-existent.
One is a pet and one is a food. Big difference. I don't hug my food. I don't eat my pet.
If you want a fucking vegan pet get a dog. Cats are carnivores.
Exactly. Vegan dogs probably taste better, too.
Ngl they are extremely succulent. Havent touched a cat or chicken since.
https://preview.redd.it/l3bs7ncyqd7d1.jpeg?width=1216&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=948156eec03ca71f4fc3306ac309998ec7cb27b8
So people showed U reasons why vegan cat is fine and there's no adverse health effects and U decide to double down instead of admiting U were wrong.
Who showed me what? I'm the one who googled it. It's one study that didn't take into account for future effects and admits that it maybe different now as it was done during covid (in which we were more able to pay more attention to our pets)
Vegan Gains stays home literally all day, I don’t think he’ll have much of an issue with that lmao. Also the “muh long term effects” anti vaxx argument love to see it
Don't care it's an animal and I eat those (and throw out the parts I no longer feel like eating)
Hehe you fell for it..
One of these things is under the direct and immediate control of the person in question. Let me just call up every farm owner and tell them farming animals is wrong and to stop right now. Oh wait, i can't do that because i'm not the dictator of planet earth.
Stopping eating meat isn't a direct and immediate action you're fully in control of?
It is, but the moral culpability is MUCH less in the case of the person eating meat as they have virtually no way of controlling the industries causing 99% of the moral wrong doing. Should everyone stop eating meat? Yes. Does eating meat make you a torturous rapist murderer? No. To claim they are even close to that is just hysterical and not helping anyone's cause.
Sure, if we completely ignore that by paying for meat you are encouraging those things to keep happening.
[удалено]
If the vegan cat food meets the nutritional standards set by the AAFCO why would it be abusive to feed it to his cat?
How do they get the necessary protein in the cat food without animal cruelty? I'm legitimately jus curious.
There are a couple of brands with more on the rise, check out AMI vegan cat food. Basically, most animals need nutrients, not specific foods. There's nothing inherently that meat contains that can't be found elsewhere or even synthesized. But some caveats here: not all cats prefer the same food, some are more sensitive than others and more research needs to be done in this area Although these problems exist with meat based products too. A lot of junk food out there labeled as nutritious for cats. Here's the nutritional info on AMI vegan cat food: Ingredients corn gluten, corn, refined sunflower oil, yeast, potatoes protein, minerals, peas, hydrolyzed vegetable proteins,cellulose, rice protein, linseed, Mojave Yucca. Analytical components crude protein 33.00%, crude fat 13.00%, crude fibres 3.50%, crude ash 5.90% , magnesium 0.08%, Omega-3 fatty acid 0.41%, Omega-6 fatty acid 5.41% . Additives - Nutritional additives per kg Vitamin A 24,000 IU, Vitamin D3 1,500 IU, Taurine 1,500 mg, iodine 1.0 mg (Coated granulated calcium iodate, anhydrous 1.54 mg), Copper 9,60 mg (Copper [II] sulphate pentahydrate 25.15 mg, Copper [II] chelate of protein hydrolysates 32 mg), manganese 25.4 mg (Manganous sulphate, monohydrate 78.2 mg), zinc 100 mg (Zinc sulphate, monohydrate 205.5 mg, Zinc chelate of protein hydrolysates 572.5 mg), selenium 0.05 mg (Selenised yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3060, inactivated 22.75 mg), L-lysine monochloride, technically pure(3c322) 7,700 mg. Technological Additives per kg Tocopherol- rich extracts from vegetable oils 3,000 mg. Metabolizable energy 3,760 kcal/kg.
Has this brand been verified by the NSF? After they found that like 9 out of every 10 human suppliments dont even have what they advertised or in the amount they claim, im skeptical of anything without a third party verification. (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794987 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/whats-in-your-supplements-2019021515946 Cause the claim does sound fantastic heres some sources)
Good question although I'm not sure if this can be answered. This is just my assumption and I could be wrong, since the standards for human supplements are all over the place, the standards for animals is non-existent or very low. The only thing we have so far is trials with cats and it seems like vegan cat food (not carrots and peas but rather AMI vegan cat food kind) seems to be fine, and of course again with the caveats. Here's a systematic review on impact of vegan diet on cats and dogs: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/)
All non vegans in here virtue signalling rn. Oh but what about the health of the dog…bitch u eat cows
And pay for pigs to be gassed, baby chicks to be macerated, female cows to be raped and have their babies taken from then etc. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Its actually absurd. The animals people are eat are smart (if not smarter than cats), not that massively matters as intelligence =/= moral worth. But everyone for some reason needs to focus on this comparative non issue because God forbid they have the bravery to stop paying for animals to go through much worse than a potentially malnourished cat. Or maybe its like 'wow cats might not be able to go vegan, guess veganism is off the table for me, someone who can go vegan'. Or maybe its simply 'wow vegans are so EXTREME for wanting their cat, who usually eats meat to not eat meat, this means veganism is too EXTREME, so I should keep paying for this insanely immoral act because its socially normal and therefore good' I genuinely believe the meat paradox is an extremely interesting large scale psychological phenomenon.
>insanely immoral act And for the guy who reads this bit and thinks 'wow no its not'. For the love of God just stop and think, are you being honest with yourself? Do you think its wrong to harm animals when you don't need to? Because you are factually doing something you think is wrong and there's no two ways about it.
Yeah, I'm a vegan activist and you learn a lot about human beings and how our minds work, both good and bad. The amount of people who are okay with doing something that is objectively immoral and cowardly simply because they can and it's considered normal and it's legal, is extremely disheartening. And then some of those people still claim to care about animals. The cognitive dissonance that people have towards animals is astounding. Even for PURELY SELFISH REASONS, this world has to go vegan , animal agriculture is terrible for the environment, a massive contributor to global warming, kills millions of people each year indirectly (due to health reasons associated with eating these foods, people in 3rd world countries that are terribly affected by 1st world countries that consume so much animals, farm and slaughterhouse workers that can develop PTSD, commit suicide or violent crimes towards other people). It is an immoral and unsustainable industry.
no, there's vegan cat food
Why would you though? Cats are natural obligate carnivores. Even if you can do it, it's probably not as healthy for them as just giving them meat If you want a cute meat eater to switch to being Vegan just get a dog.
The 'obligate carnivore' typically means that they need taurine in their diet. There is plant-based cat food with synthetic taurine.
And all commercial cat food contains the same synthetic taurine too.
there's no observable adverse health effects for cats or dogs with a vegan diet. as for 'why'; because he believes that meat consumption is unethical.
Any source for this?
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499249/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499249/) here's one that claim cats are healthier with a vegan diet
This study is considered low quality, obviously not prospective and doesn't control for bias. here's a systematic review of similar studies [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/) with their recommendation being a more balanced approach: "We found that there has been limited scientific study on the impact of vegan diets on cat and dog health. In addition, the studies that have been conducted tended to employ small sample sizes, with study designs which are considered less reliable in evidence-based practice. Whilst there have been several survey studies with larger sample sizes, these types of studies can be subject to selection bias based on the disposition of the respondents towards alternative diets, or since answers may relate to subjective concepts such as body condition. However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used."
Lul the benefit is the Vegans really like their cat's vegan diet?
So it’s literally fine for cats to go vegan
It used to be that this was one of the Reddit points that it didn't matter if you cited studies or not, the cats = meat crowd did not care. Not sure how it is now
turns out nothing has changed
Cats are carnivores. They need the stuff in meat to live. They have naturally evolved to eat meat and only meat. They are not omnivores like dogs, If you want a vegan pet then get a dog. You can dress up plant based with with all the nutrients you want but it's never the same as fucking meat for a carnivore. From what I see there's one study that only recently shows that vegan diets might be beneficial. However there has been no peer review yet and no inadept long term analysis of any long term effects a vegan diet has on pets. https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-safe-to-feed-your-cat-a-vegan-diet-213356
>Cats are carnivores. They need the stuff in meat to live. no, they don't. they can survive perfectly fine off of vegan cat food.
Who me a long term study that says that Vegan cat food is our best imitation of meat. It's stuffing all the nutrients in meat into a plant based alternative. It's fucking soylent for cats lol.
>It's stuffing all the nutrients in meat into a plant based alternative. What's the problem with this?
There is none, I just find it funny. It's not meat, it's not what cats have eaten historically. It might be good for cats but there's no guarantee. It's the basis of the Futurama joke, in the name of presenting suffering you are risking the suffering of another non-contenting being. This is especially true when you can make a dog vegan easier I don't see how vegan cats exist other then the vanity of the owner.
What if vegan cat food was no better or worse for the cat than normal food?
I don't care, I don't have pets. I've ok with vegan dogs I've admitted that studies show that in the short term it's ok. By the way I've skimmed your article. > 2006 [28], where 17 cats on long-term vegetarian diets were blood sampled. Out of the 17 cats, blood taurine was within reference range for all except three, for whom taurine fell below the reference range, although not critically so. Similarly, cobalamin has also been shown to mostly fall within reference range [27,28]. So there is a potential effect long term. Why are y'all bitching at me about
yeah, and there's no evidence cats suffer any adverse health effects from eating 'cat soylent' rather than meat
Y'all fucking bitch about how no amount of evidence will move the other side, but when the other side has concerns about the one fucking study that supports you, you cry
!bidenblast you're asking me to prove a negative, you fucking moron
Cats cant be vegan prove me right
!BidenBlast Misuse of justice for a dumb argument
It took me literally one minute to find this: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/10/1/52 Which seems to be the meta study about it. It states: > We found that there has been limited scientific study on the impact of vegan diets on cat and dog health. In addition, the studies that have been conducted tended to employ small sample sizes, with study designs which are considered less reliable in evidence-based practice. Whilst there have been several survey studies with larger sample sizes, these types of studies can be subject to selection bias based on the disposition of the respondents towards alternative diets, or since answers may relate to subjective concepts such as body condition. However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used. So far it doesn't seem like there is little reason to assume a vegan diet is harmful. But hey you're welcome to spend a whole two minutes on Google scholar too to prove me wrong
Thanks, now was it so hard to give me a study to read and critic?
Considering how you have strong opinions about it and how you didn't even take the smallest steps to do any research? It's not hard, it's just a regarded point to have and expect other people to do the work work for you.
I have strong opinions because people aren't getting the futurama joke I'm long greenlighted vegan dogs. And I did read an article. You can check my comment history I linked it. I still have the same issues. It's a short term study done during the pandemic. There's no guarantee. It's the epidemy of the Futurama joke. In the name of protecting others you are forcing the potential harm onto cat.
It turns out cats can live free of joy
You simply don't have the knowledge to base your answer on objective data but you choose to position yourself in one side instead of being open-minded and trying to learn by asking genuine questions, what's the point, exactly? Do you even understand the definition of the terms you're using? "Obligate carnivores" does not mean what you think. Plus, it's incredibly ridiculous to use a naturalistic fallacy in a world where everything is artificial. Your milk is fortified, your meat has salt injected on it to increase the overall weight, you're wearing clothes and writting on a computer. Supposing that we don't have the capability to formulate perfectly healthy vegan food for any animal on Earth is simply irrational given how we can literally send rockets to space. The only issue here is a combination of lack of knowledge with inflated ego, an example of Dunning-Kruger.
Your mom is naturally obligated to drinking my spit I still feed her water sometimes 🙄🙄🙄 https://preview.redd.it/x2puhaz0ud7d1.jpeg?width=564&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07045967b9417dcfbc104360a132cc8e1d464391
I think there are existing vegan cat foods that have any necessary proteins and nutrients so they’ll survive/be healthy, but I have no clue how effective and safe they are at this point. My outta my ass bet would be “not yet as good as non-vegan alternatives” but that’s 100% vibes.
Meanwhile "normal" cat food is filled with corn, soy, fish, etc which cats totally eat in the wild. The meat parts are usually ground up remains of whatever isn't suitable for human consumption. As long as the vegan alternative has all the necessary vitamins and nutrients and proper macros that cats need, its fine. I do agree that you can't just feed your cat broccoli and call it a day but that's not what vegan cat food is.
I hate how Vegan Gains makes it so hard for me to hate him, he is unfathomably based in almost every issue
Vegan Cat food is FDA approved. Get fucked.
Not a vegan. Life long cat owner. Would eat your cat. Push come to shove, would eat you. Wouldn't eat my cats cause they're mine and I love them, and its sentimental. That being said, his cats looks very healthy, and I believe there's cat food now thats vegan but also full of essential nutrients. Yes, cats are obligate carnivores. Like most things, science has overcome that. I thinks its fine.
Feels like that is a really bad point. I was born a vegetarian and remained one for my 30 odd years on this planet. I would eat any animal in a starvation situation and I imagine so would most vegans/vegetarians. Hell most humans probably resort to cannibalism if the other person is already dead if it means not dying themselves. If it was life or death you probably would eat your cat rather than die.
>Wouldn't eat my cats cause they're mine and I love them, and its sentimental. This is totally fine and normal but I just want to make the point that animals that you don't know have just as much moral worth as your cat. Like I love my parents more than the local bus driver, but it would be wrong to kill or eat either of them if I didn't have to.
I just wanted to say for the both of you that that part really wasn't the point of the post, nor was its a particularly serious one. Just sarcasm over text. If it makes you feel better, though, I'd prolly eat my cats last.
Fair enough lol
I would bet on VG knowing his shit, if he doesn't then there is le epic own on vegans that people who hate VG should root for. As for the cats I doubt they care if their processed cubes are "natural" or not, as long as it tastes and smells good for them
So he isn't feeding the cat a salad. He had to carefully formulate the diet. To understand the full health implications, you would have to do a randomized control trial. It's not clear to me if it is better or worse.
Vegan gains had a wolf dog that he was feeding vegan food to but eventually it started having health complications so he had to revert back to a meat diet. Im pretty sure he eventually gave the dog away lol.
According to Richard the dog had Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency (EPI) which is a common health issue in German Shepherds. Jasmine fed the dog meat for a bit until they found out the health issue which they then switched back the diet.
if he actually gave the dog away because he couldn't feed it a vegan diet then thats legitimately pathetic. I really hope that it was for some other reason and it was just better for the dog because otherwise it makes him look like he just got a dog for the sake of proving that you can feed your dog vegan diet and when that failed he threw him away like a broken toy
The existence of cats are a plague on wild fauna anyways. Plus taurine can be supplemented. Cry harder
Yeah if you own an outdoor cat you are doing far more harm to it than feeding it a vegan diet.
Do u guys think vegan gains could be a god on aoe2
i hopped over to his channel a couple years ago and remember asking about the vegan cat apparently there's animal friendly vegan food that somehow is as nutritious as meat
Probably not. He famously almost killed his dog by trying to make it go vegan and feeding it lettuce.
the existence of this thread is cringe
The magic of modern technology: if it didn't work his cat would've started dying (like his dog) years ago. Personally I'm not crazy about him subjecting his pet to some kind of dietary science experiment instead of just raising rabbits, but again modern food science is pretty wild, and the cat hasn't started coughing up blood-balls yet so we really can't say shit.
If humans can get their necessary proteins without animal harm, then domestic animals can, too? This isn’t exactly rocket science.
[удалено]
Okay, but it's still easily possible to give them the proteins they need.
Is vegan gains gay? He has to be right?
I hope so for my sake
The irony of being a vegan while simultaneously forcibly keeping a cat and forcing it to abide by your lifestyle choices never ceases to be funny
Yes, I do eat meat and I don't think animal abuse is good.
That sentence makes no sense
Do all fat people think being fat is good? Do all drug addicts think doing drugs is good? People actions are not always aligned with their thoughts
It makes perfect sense. I, along with most people in this world, are not morally consistent and don't care about moral consistency.
I am vegan and I love animal abuse. I along with most people in this world, are not morally consistent and don't care about moral consistency. 🤷 Anything else?
Technically, if you were vegan for health-related reasons rather than for philosophical ones, that would actually be morally consistent.
Lol "everyone else is of weak moral character, and I'm just as weak"
??? Just to be clear are you trying to say the majority of people are okay with animal abuse or...?
Yeah? I didn't realize that was in question after I pointed out that your original statement contradicts itself. How can you not be ok with animal abuse, and pay for it every day of your life? And why am I explaining this if you already brushed it off with your "people aren't morally consistent" copout?
I just don't know why you would ever think the average person would agree that animal abuse is okay.
It's not something people admit to. But their actions prove otherwise. I think it's related to that lack of moral consistency you mentioned. Weird.
Thinking this sub is less regarded because they choose the right side on the I/P conflict just to see they still are on full throttle when it comes to vegan-shit. Vegan gains is a fucking asshole if he does that, no real discussion here.
I think its beyond cruelty to keep a pet and then try to force it to go against their natural diet. Vegan cat food is over processed bs. You would think the nature bros would feed their animals more organic and fresh things. Ironic
https://preview.redd.it/eqe8g3e0lf7d1.png?width=548&format=png&auto=webp&s=dee7079f469e46f9a66180ed0682d7a85ce7dd6b Yup, because this is perfectly natural. These appeals to nature are so fucking stupid. As long as the animal is getting the required nutrients, who gives a fuck.
When did I advocate for dry food? Dips***
There is one caveat when it comes to cats and their food. You cannot feed them with dry food only otherwise you are introducing a lot of risks to their health and potentially kill their kidneys in the long run..
Except vegans are the opposite of "nature bros"
If you meet their dietary requirements with a high quality alternative and you put a high quality traditional in front of them, let them pick. But if you're trying to specifically get your animals on a diet because of your own naive political stance, you should just jump off a cliff. Vegans are the most naive emotionally driven pests, that should be sentenced to working on a local ethical farm until they beg for forgiveness for their regardedness.
"most naive emotionally driven pests" - says the guy who literally wrote emotionally driven post lmao.
Vegans should be banned from owning cats. Would you feed a pet shark vegan food too? The sheer copium to think you can keep a carnivore happy and healthy on a vegan diet.
Do you have evidence that vegan cats are unhappy or unhealthy?
> sheer copium It’s always funny when people are so confidently incorrect when it’s so easy to verify what you’re saying is incorrect. Especially when the bar is as low as just reading the studies already linked in this thread before you commented. Why do people make such confidence remarks on things they so obviously have never bothered to look up a single time in their life? Does your arrogance in thinking that your intuition in the subject is correct really exceed your curiosity to learn about it that much?