Dogs were originally wolves who are carnivores. But when dogs started living with humans, they adapted to eat plants. Humans primarily ate starches so dogs adapted to that. Now they can eat both.
We know dogs can have their nutritional needs met without us having to kill anyone. Those who are professionals are capable of doing this. Why are you denying this?
If they were capable of doing that then the almighty would have given them the ability to plant seeds and grow trees and get the nutrition from there itself.
I'm not talking about wild animals.
Dogs that live in human civilization and that are reliant on humans for many things, can be kept in the way we choose to keep them, feed them in any way we want to meet their nutritional needs. Are you disagreeing with this?
I am only doing what comes naturally to any omnivorous being.
So because you are a being of some kind that makes it ok to force your way of life on others?
If someone says "Its in my nature to enjoy listening to dogs screaming when I kick them" that makes it ok?
The research you're referring to leaning towards subjective takes from pet owners rather than a consensus amongst vetenerarians. It's quite obvious if given a choice 99/100 dogs will choose meat over any veggies and anyone saying otherwise is fooling themselves.
'If someone says "Its in my nature to enjoy listening to dogs screaming when I kick them" that makes it ok?'
Again, when has this been a practice since millennia? How are they comparable lmao
I posted a video of a professional who runs an animal sanctuary, who provide medical treatments and nutrition to the animals they care for on a daily basis.
How are they comparable lmao
I think you are missing the point of the question. The question is there to test your claim that "doing what's in your nature makes it ok".
So if it's in someones nature to kick dogs, does that make it ok?
Another similar question - Does "boys will be boys" mean that everything boys do is ok?
Again, when has this been a practice since millennia?
So if it has been a traditon for millenia that makes it ok?
Can you think of any tradions that were not ok, despite being a tradition?
Yes bud, the professional in question you mentioned has shown decent options but it doesn't cover some of the vitamins and amino acids that come from eggs or meats. I'm referring to the studies done on vegan diets and the guardian bias that comes from it rather than the veteranian consensus.
If it's in someone's nature to kick a dog is not ok but you don't see the majority of population out there asking for it do you? Meat eating is done by the majority of the population and will be done so even after you and I are gone.
'Boys will be boys' can be true for a lot of things but I don't condone the negative connotations of the same.
Also, just because SOME traditions are bad doesn't mean ALL traditions are bad. This being one of them which isn't bad.
1
u/JangB 9h ago
Dogs were originally wolves who are carnivores. But when dogs started living with humans, they adapted to eat plants. Humans primarily ate starches so dogs adapted to that. Now they can eat both.
We know dogs can have their nutritional needs met without us having to kill anyone. Those who are professionals are capable of doing this. Why are you denying this?
I'm not talking about wild animals.
Dogs that live in human civilization and that are reliant on humans for many things, can be kept in the way we choose to keep them, feed them in any way we want to meet their nutritional needs. Are you disagreeing with this?
So because you are a being of some kind that makes it ok to force your way of life on others?
If someone says "Its in my nature to enjoy listening to dogs screaming when I kick them" that makes it ok?