How is that hypocritical? I’m sure most people would want to see the CEO serving life instead, but his ilk are not who the prisons are made for. Slavery and murder can be legal when done with policy, and rather than the state going after these villains it defends them with force.

No wok? Also safety razors are great and I’m guessing the only reason cartridges won out is because of marketing, then the following generation forgot there was another option.

Explain how they make money buying property?

Landlords inflate prices of property.

Turns out having a value proposition beyond “we bundled a lot of software together that you can get on any distro” has allure.

Hair tie. I always have 1, or 2, or 3 in my pocket.

What vegan thinks you can turn a cat vegan? That’s like thinking you can turn a cat hegelian or something.

You’re asking the wrong question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States

That’s not important. I was illustrating that clearly if nobody ate chicken nobody would harvest chickens for food. Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.

If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market. So acting like the consumer here is not one of the if not the most important part in this causal chain is just naive.

That is pretty irrelevant. You purchasing the product signals a certain demand for it, that demand will help determine how much product is requested in the future, there is a cascading effect all the way up the supply chain. Sure an additional chicken might not be bred just because you purchased a chicken, it’s way more abstract than that. Maybe if a hundred more chickens are bought then a hundred more chickens will be bred as replacements plus extra to account for growth and failed product (dead or sick chickens). And if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken. Do you think if nobody purchased chickens that they would just keep stocking the shelves?

Most people I’ve talked to, which is mostly nonvegans, think it is unethical to let cats outside because they will kill wild animals. This is a more hypocritical stance than the reverse (a vegan who lets their cat outside) if you understand veganism.

You’re also throwing around the word forced. People force choices on their pets, children, and even fellow adults all the time, but there are different levels of force. Putting down food for a cat that gladly eats it is a far cry away from shoving something down their throat or leaving it out until they have no choice but to eat it. I’d argue that it’s often very appropriate to make food choices for a cat you live with, if a cat begs for some lasagna or a donut you probably shouldn’t give it to them.

Edit: Also when people talk about forcing cats onto a vegan diet you have to realize the alternative is forcing livestock to suffer serious trauma for their entire life and then die. It’s not hard to see that one of these is a more serious abuse of our power over other animals.

Humans are good at pulling nutrients from all sorts of sources but those sources have to actually contain the nutrients in the first place, we don’t have some magic ability to just eat one thing with no supplementation and get all our nutrients.

Dogs are omnivores.

Supplements are already in the livestock (that we feed the cats) feed and animal based cat food. Yes it’s harder to get most cats to take a pill than a human adult, but that really isn’t necessary it can just be put in the food itself, and it is.

Do you have a problem with the word chud? Because you sure sound like one.

It triggers me that this is a pie chart. First of all it implies there are advantages even if they aren’t keyed in. But most importantly pie charts only measure the weight of something within within its own context as a fraction of the whole.

Fans

Call me crazy but I mess my fries up and eat them with a fork.

I wouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Following aesthetic trends is just being savvy, it’s not necessarily compensating for something.

That burden of proof doesn’t fall on me. I was rebutting your claims that relied on nature and on mechanisms, and explained why the reasoning doesn’t hold up. The reason I asked for a study is because if you can’t produce an argument on why we couldn’t feed animals in a vegan manner then a study that showed poor health outcomes would at least require me to explain how those specific hurdles are solvable.

I completely agree with you that I shouldn’t have a cat because I have not done the research on how to feed a cat in a vegan manner, but that’s something most people have not done because they simply don’t care about feeding a cat in a vegan manner. In my view they should not have cats either.

As for meat grown in a lab, I am fine with it. But ethics aside ultimately I think we shouldn’t evaluate food on how natural it is but how provably healthy it is. If we can formulate food that gives cats better health outcomes then we should be feeding them more of that. This is anecdotal, but of the dogs I know through family or friends the ones fed way more plain meat have the worst digestion and I wouldn’t be surprised if they died the earliest, but it’s hard to talk people out of these naturalistic positions.

When I said study I meant an observational or longitudinal study measuring health outcomes, not a description of the mechanisms at play. Such studies are important to concluding that alternative diets are already nutritional or elucidating the flaws so that they may be addressed.

Don’t you think such knowledge of cat digestion would be integrated into feeding a cat in a vegan way? We are incredibly good at synthesizing nutrients these days through both chemical processes and modifying microorganisms or plants. We can produce “higher forms” of things such as vitamin A and D without invoking animal biology, these aren’t hypotheticals, such things are already common in the huge supplement and cosmetics industries.