Why would a cat of all animals be confused about which ones to eat? They are obligate carnivores.
Yeah, they totally get it. We’d eat them if we were hungry enough, same as they’d eat us. This doesn’t conflict with our feelings of love and companionship. We’re all animals here
We’d eat them if we were hungry enough
They’d eat us if we were small enough.
And the house cat has such a strong prey drive they’d likely do it for fun. I suspect when Mr. Rorschach bites on my hand he’s testing the flavor.
Cats are prey to some larger animals, and considering that many humans have portable machines that can instantly kill almost any living mammal, their concern about our diet is probably valid
Ah yes, my cat is so confused she brings me her recommendations to my step door.
Help stepdoor, I am stuck.
You’re not my real door.
as a cat owner, I can promise you that cats wouldn’t be the confused ones
deleted by creator
Read an account of a guy lost at sea, after a while fish eyes and liver were delicacies where mere weeks before he was repulsed by the idea… When the brain decides “ok I’m taking over to keep us alive” you will not only eat things that you normally wouldn’t - you’ll enjoy doing it too.
deleted by creator
Cats and dogs both eat meat
Wild animals hunt and herbivores occasionally eat meat
So no animals wouldn’t think this as they eat meat the same as us and wouldn’t care at all about eating meat
So I don’t get what this is trying to say at all
Edit: also forgot to add that some animals are cannibals for example chickens
Cats and dogs have no metacognition. They can barely recognize themselves in the mirror. We do. We have the ability to think about our actions, assign them moral value and better ourselves. That ability is completely wasted if you hold yourself to the same standard as a dog or cat. Is it ok to sniff random people’s buttholes because dogs do it? To eat your own children because some wild animals do it?
Human beings evolved to eat plants and meat and no you can’t get everything from plants as some nutrients in plants are not digestible and don’t get absorbed compared to nutrients from meat
Look if you want to be personally vеgаn indent mind and don’t have anything against you for it but when you or other vеgаns attack people who choose to not be vеgаn or have a vegetarian diet then that becomes a problem because you step into the territory of bullying and harassment of others
Vegan diets have been confirmed to be as good as omnivore diets, even better in some aspects, multiple and multiple times by research, so this point is moot.
We are not attacking you, though your defensiveness speaks volumes. We simply want a better world where billions of animals aren’t tortured and killed every year for a diet that is unnecessary, for the profit of shady corporations and that is contributing to our unsustainable lifestyle.
Yeah you’re gonna need to cite your sources when you make claims like that.
- https://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(17)30260-0/fulltext
- https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/
- https://www.jandonline.org/article/S0002-8223%2803%2900294-3/fulltext
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190708160222/https://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx
And many more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Positions_of_dietetic_and_government_associations
But you’re probably not going to read any of that and were just hoping for some gotcha moment
i don’t know about all of their references, but i do know the canadian paper you linked is dated TWENTY YEARS AGO and the ARCHIVED position paper you linked from the AND is expired: it is not the current position of the AND. the australian government’s position is based entirely on that expired position paper.
and, of course, the NHS regularlyly recommends that people eat dairy and seafood. even if a vegan diet can be made to work, it is not recommended by most dietetic associations (none that i know of) for most people.
edit: apparently the only paper with which i had no familiarity was the italian position, but the lead in for that details that you need to take special care to ensure you get enough of certain nutrients.
i’m not a dietitian nor a nutritionist, but even if i were i’m not YOUR dietition or nutritionist, just as you’re not the dietician or nutritionist for anyone on this network. further, veganism is linked with depressive conditions like vystopia, so it’s clear that nutrients aren’t all that is required to be healthy.
The AND paper from 2016 doesn’t seem expired, just removed from some site redesign: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ The fact that the position hasn’t changed in more than 13 years should be an indication that it still holds. You don’t need to prove that water is wet every few years to make sure it’s still a valid stance.
The NHS respects your life choices, and makes recommendations for nutrients based on those choices.
Any talk about nutrition will be prefaced about getting certain nutrients. If omnivore diets had no risk of deficiencies we wouldn’t need dietitians. Any talk about an omnivore diet will be prefaced with fiber, which is easier to be lacking in that diet.
I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I was just challenging the outdated notion that you NEED to be an omnivore to have a healthy diet.
Vystopia is just a side effect. If I had a cent for every depressing thing in life I would be a millionaire. Dealing with depressing shit is just part of life. Suggesting that someone shouldn’t become vegan because they might get depressed is ridiculous. The same could be said about politics, gay rights, abortion rights etc, etc. Just live in a monastery, don’t care about anything worldly and you won’t be depressed. And veganism isn’t just about being depressed. There is a complementary effect of happiness from feeling connected to and respecting every living being in the world.
How to trigger a vegan with only two words:
Nature cycle.
I mean, its kinda funny at how folks believe that we are an evolution of an animal unable to judge and dream to (suddenly) deny our (natural) purpose towards other animals.
No vegan is triggered by this argument. It is simply the naturalistic fallacy.
I don’t think it’s arbitrary. I think people eat the ones that are tasty…
Doesn’t seem too arbitrary at all.
And some cultures eat dog, and others worship cows.
Why is your culture correct?
Eh, horse meat isn’t that bad
Neither is rabbit.
Rabbit is actually really testy when prepared well.
Rabbit is more food than horse because you can’t ride a rabbit.
Dogmeat tried to kill The Master and failed
Rabbit should be right of horse. Goat and sheep the most right; there is no culture nor religion that bans their consumption. They are that important to human survival.
I love my basil plant and take care of it, but one day I’ll come along and definitely eat it
Plants are not sentient
Just because there is no indication of their suffering doesn’t mean they don’t suffer.
This post isn’t about the ability to feel pain or sentence, it’s about the paradox of people eating something they claim to feel compassion for. I can feel compassion for both animals and plants but will still eat them
They aren’t but they’re not far off… Trees communicate with each other through fungus in their roots, if one is being attacked it let’s the others know, I can’t remember what evasive action the others take but still…
So what? Traffic lights communicate with each other as well. That doesn’t mean we should grant them moral worth. The ability to suffer and be conscious does.
I don’t know. I wouldn’t venture to eat a traffic light.
I doubt that we stop at plants not because they’re worth less than animals and it’s somehow morally alright. We stop there because we may not be able to survive without eating some kind of living thing: directly or not. I don’t know if there is a diet that doesn’t involve either plants or animals.
Perhaps. It all depends on how you look at it. Personally I don’t think of plants as moral agents, because they don’t have a capacity to consciously suffer. At least that is according to my definitions.
But perhaps for some definition of consciousness and some definition of suffering even a plant can suffer. Perhaps according to those definitions even a traffic light can suffer. Sounds crazy, but it all depends on the definition. If something responding to stimuli to serve some goal is consciousness then a traffic light has consciousness. There is no universally accepted defintions.
Yet then the difference between a pig and a traffic light is so extreme that a cut off point seems reasonable. I certainly also don’t consider mosquitoes as important as pigs. Then we can assign certain moral weight to anything within some range of intelligence and capacity to suffer. At some point we might even have to consider sufficiently powerful AI moral agents. Perhaps the neuron count would be part of that scoring equation.
The least amount of harm that we can inflict on other living creatures weighted by this set of scores while maximizing our own happiness, yet not over estimating our own worth, should be the goal.
Under those conditions eating plants is still better than eating animals, because animals eat plants and thus you indirectly cause more plant death by eating animals.
We would then have some suffering index and could calculate that by going vegan you lower your suffering index by a factor 10, similar to how we know it reduces your carbon footprint by a factor 2 or so.
I always find it funny that vegans seem to completely ignore fish, they only ever have a pickle with mammals and some birds
That’s pescatarian
