u not really supporting giving vegetables to cats, tho, right?
Vegan cat food is still a researched topic. That’s all I know, I’d support it if the cats could live a long and prosper life with it and obv not support it if it’s not good for them.
That’s fair, unsure on how the science behind it all works, but if they can make it work okay. I am against people who would want to literally feed them vegetables and shit.
Yeah gotta agree with you here. Pets are a debatable topic among vegans. The only example that comes to mind is Lewis Hamilton who is vegan and has a pet-dietitian who has helped him put his pet dog on a vegan diet. I’m not really 100% sure I agree with that but I’m sure it beats people randomly giving their pets vegan alternative foods without realizing how it’s affecting the pets.
just get a pet beetle lol f*ck c*ts and d*gs
I mean…yeah,kinda. Rats are cute tho.
Caniforms (dogs, foxes, bears, etc) are omnivores, so they can easily be vegans. Cats are a little more complicated, since they do are almost completely carnivorous, where they can digest some vegetal food, but need taurine to survive. I think that synthetic taurine may fulfill the need for meet.
Well, that’s different though because dogs can eat some vegetables since they are not 100% carnivores, whereas cats are.
Dogs actually can have a fully vegan diet, cats can’t, at all. Under no circumstances whatsoever, at least with current technology, should a cat be ever fed a vegan diet, their digestive system is not built for that.
They can digest some vegetables, cats only need taurine, which can be synthetic and consumed without perill. Theorically.
deleted by creator
Cats are people, people are morally obligated to not hurt other beings, the conclusion is plain and impossible to get wrong.
What the fucking hell is this. This is peak anthropocentricism. Cats are not people, because they are not humans. What you’re suggesting is that we basically murder every species in Earth that are carnivores because you find murder morally incorrect based on human law which in turn is based (most probably) in the bible.
not related to the actual conversation you’re having but i just have to ask; what defines people? a person? is the requirement for being a person, to be human? what would we call other people with the same perceptions as humans, then? from my point of view, people define anyone with equal abstract level of understanding as us, with concepts of culture, medicine and ceremonial traditions. so technically, elephants could be considered people, too (and legally speaking, is being seriously considered as such by some international groups and governments).
deleted by creator
What you’re suggesting is that we basically murder every species in Earth that are carnivores because you find murder morally incorrect based on human law which in turn is based (most probably) in the bible.
I’m an atheist. There is no god nor gods, Jesus was a fictional person, and morality is a human construct.
And whether or not I believe “cats are people” personally, it is an accurate observation of the modern world. For the past 15 years or more, I’ve been mind-boggled by the number of people using the word “adopt” to describe their acquisition of pets. Describing them as “babies”, “child(ren)”, etc. Spending positively insane amounts of their income on the animals (not just cats, obviously, but dogs, what-have-you).
If you believe this, just this one thing, then veganism’s not much of a stretch. If cats are people, so too must cows and pigs be people. Or even tilapia. At which point you cannot eat them. But the illogic inevitably becomes circular, because if they are people, they have similar moral obligations. And if somehow they don’t, then it would mean they aren’t people, and there’d be nothing wrong with eating the critters.
Quite frankly, veganism is a dietary law in search of a prophet. An interesting case study into how proto-religions form and evolve.
It doesn’t matter you are an atheist, the law is based on the bible you like it or not, and you’ve been raised with Western notions of morality which you internalize as normal. Morality being a human construct is a totally irrelevant sentence because whether it is or not it still has real world implications.
If you dress a monkey in silk, it’s still a monkey; have you ever heard of a science called taxonomy? How humans interact with other species is not a factor at determining how they are divided.
It doesn’t matter you are an atheist, the law is based on the bible you like it or not
Sounds like a nonsense statement. What does “based on” mean? I suspect it’s a phrase you learned in early childhood and never examined thoroughly. Let’s do that.
When you say “based on”, you’re saying “I perceive a similarity that my inferior heuristics indicate is causal”. However, as an authority on my own mind and history, I assert that this is not the case. You have no basis for dispute of this assertion, just as I would have none if I disputed claims about your own personal history or state of mind.
If you dress a monkey in silk, it’s still a monkey; have you ever heard of a science called taxonomy?
I’ve literally taught my children since they could listen and talk that they themselves are monkeys. That humans are a species of monkeys that have less fur.
How humans interact with other species is not a factor at determining how they are divided.
Please, enlighten me.
goo goo tata
I swear, it is getting harder and harder to determine sarcasm online these days… You can’t possibly think of any animal as “people” in a literal sense.
And on that note, your name is sarcasm, right?
It’s not unironical, blatant transphobia, right?
deleted by creator
Yo I just wanna remind non-vegans or pickme vegetarians to expect bans if they participate on this community. This is a community for militant leftist vegans only, no bloodmouths or cheesebreathers allowed.
