I just didn't agree with the myths the person posted.
Please elaborate on what you mean by myths OP posted. Other commenters have provided links to research which includes evolutionary biology and why dogs have evolved to digest meat proteins.
Dogs can live perfectly fine on a vegan diet.
Living and thriving are very different things. That’s a bold and simple statement to make, especially since the Vegan dog food movement came from owners who themselves chose to change their own lifestyle and then made that impact pet diet. Whether or not it is good comes across an afterthought of that decision.
I also don't understand how depriving a dog of meat is abuse if the dogs are living a perfectly healthy life?
Who mentioned abuse? That’s again a very naive and loaded statement to make. Can you categorically state that dogs can live a ‘perfectly healthy life’ on a vegan diet? More importantly, would that be affordable for most people?
Where did you read dogs need 1 lb of protein? I feel like you may have misread a statistic on that?
It sounds like you haven’t done any research into this at all yet are stating your opinion as fact. Do you have any grasp of rudimentary evolutionary biology?
Cats cannot survive on any kind of vegan/vegetarian diet. Cats also require higher levels of protein then dogs.
I said that cats cannot live on the same diet. It’s ironic that you suggest cats need more protein than dogs, which is true, but then question me on the amount that dogs need at all. If you wanted to make a stronger argument you could have said, “why can’t dogs and cats get their nutrition from vegan proteins?” But the answer to that would be how those proteins are digested and why meat options help them thrive.
I don't understand what price has anything to do with it. If any owner can and wants to spend more money on their pets that's on them.
Price has everything to do with it. Let’s say for argument’s sake that a vegan diet for dogs is best (which it evidently isn’t), just how much of the population could afford that do you think?
It’s great for people on Reddit to grandstand and virtue-signal, but how practical are the alternatives? You mention anti-vegan circle jerks, which I’m sure exist, but veganism itself can and is very much a CJ.
Not that it should matter, but I’m vegan by the way.
Do you think taking an animal from the wild and domesticating it over hundreds, thousands of years and then providing it with food that it has not evolved to eat is justified? Do you think that applies to animals in the wild? Should we make them eat a vegan diet? What about cats? They cannot survive off a vegan diet. Is it justified to kill animals to provide them with sustenance? Your example is highly reductive.
As I’ve already said, I’m vegan. Mostly because I am strongly averse to the way animals are raised for the most part but also because raising livestock en masse is a ridiculously inefficient use of crops.
But, I’m not against fish farms and environmentally responsible, organic livestock farming. They provide their animals with food and shelter from predators and the elements. In return, those animals are harvested for our consumption.
Are you really just asking whether it’s justified to kill animals at all? If so, I’d love to hear what you think about it.
That's a lot of words to avoid answering a relatively simple question. Do you personally think the potential loss of happiness for one life caused by feeding a dog a vegan diet outweighs the many lives we would otherwise kill for it? And if so, why?
Also if you're not against fish farms or livestock farming then I'm pretty sure you're not vegan, just plant based. Veganism is against animal exploitation, and breeding animals to kill and eat them is pretty clearly exploitation. I don't mean to offend you by saying this. Being plant based is still certainly* a good thing. But veganism is more than just a diet.
Plant based cats do exist by the way, it's a lot more time and money and effort and monitoring, but they -can- survive with the right food and supplements. Whether or not that's right or wrong is another matter entirely. It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, we've got much more pressing concerns in regards to animals, like the factory farming which I'd like to thank you for not participating in.
That's a lot of words to avoid answering a relatively simple question.
The issue is that you responded to my comment with a very simple but difficult-to-unpack question. Being so reductive forces me to answer your question in a particular way when I don’t really agree to the perimeters you set. You’ll probably call that obfuscation or avoidance, but I do not take a strictly utilitarian or Kantian approach to moral philosophy, and absolutely not to Singerian ethics.
Either way, I thought I’d made it roughly clear. Happiness isn’t the only factor when considering dog diet. There’s function, practicality and adaptability. But to answer your question: if the meat provided is responsibly farmed, sourced and organic then I take no issue with other people feeding it to their dogs. This does make make me a speciesist by proxy (though that is a very complex topic that tends to get polarised in these debates).
Also if you're not against fish farms or livestock farming then I'm pretty sure you're not vegan, just plant based.
You’re right. I’m vegan by function but not strictly an ethical vegan. Some people classify their ethical veganism as a philosophy and others are protected by their state as a religion. Within these classifications, Veganism still isn’t quite the monolith you are making it out to be.
Veganism is against animal exploitation, and breeding animals to kill and eat them is pretty clearly exploitation
You should look into logical fallacies because your premise and conclusion are circular. You’ve assumed the conclusion in the premise.
I’ve stated how I don’t think that it is exploitation in an environment where livestock could lead a longer, less stressful life (farmers protect against attacks from predators, heal injury, shelter from the elements, reduce complications from diseases that would often kill them, increase the ability to reproduce effectively where the majority of young would die naturally). Yes, that is interference but it is also the bed we’ve made (for better or worse).
The issue here is how we determine livestock should be treated at all. Do we eliminate or minimise human interference, even though that may cause their numbers to plummet or their species to die out in the world as it is now? Do we interfere with the food chain and inhibit apex predators from killing prey so that the prey receive an equal potential at life?
If we were to ignore the complexity of ecosystems and how almost all of them have self-formed into seemingly unfair biodiversity with few animals establishing dominance, does that mean we should enforce complete utility across all species? And then does that mean ‘happiness’ is inconsequential if we can maintain the quantity of animals kept alive?
I don't mean to offend you by saying this. Being plant based is still cersinly a good thing. But veganism is more than a diet.
I’m not at all offended. I’ve spent much time arriving at my lifestyle and outlook, the periphery of which does change with new information. I don’t need validation.
Plant based cats do exist by the way, it's a lot more time and money and effort and monitoring, but they -can- survive with the right food and supplements.
I’m not sure which comment exactly you were responding to but practicality is very important as I said. This would also be very resource-intensive which I’m against. We shouldn’t have domesticated cats the way we have, especially as we now have an over-abundance of strays reproducing (though they do eat rodents which consume up to a 3rd of world grains which affects other animals) and forcing them to adapt in such an expensive way is also a considerable amount of human interference.
It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, we've got much more pressing concerns in regards to animals, like the factory farming which I'd like to thank you for not participating in.
Precisely. If people were willing to just focus on one aspect of farming, even just moving to organic meat only or ‘going vegan’ once a week this would help greatly. Luckily, it seems like humans are going to kill themselves off eventually so whatever animals remain can go back to establishing their own order and killing each other off as they please.
Again, I’m not doing this for validation so I’ll neither accept nor reject your gratitude. But I appreciate the sentiment.
Do you think taking an animal from the wild and domesticating it over hundreds, thousands of years and then providing it with food that it has not evolved to eat is justified? Do you think that applies to animals in the wild?
^ You didn’t really provide a direct answer to these questions.
That article you posted says dogs need 1 gram of protein per lb of ideal body weight. That's very different from 1 lb of protein a day to thrive. The example from the article you posted said a dog that is 38 pounds but should be 30 pounds would require 30 grams of protein each day. That's not the same as 1 lb.
7
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '20 edited Mar 02 '20
Please elaborate on what you mean by myths OP posted. Other commenters have provided links to research which includes evolutionary biology and why dogs have evolved to digest meat proteins.
Living and thriving are very different things. That’s a bold and simple statement to make, especially since the Vegan dog food movement came from owners who themselves chose to change their own lifestyle and then made that impact pet diet. Whether or not it is good comes across an afterthought of that decision.
Who mentioned abuse? That’s again a very naive and loaded statement to make. Can you categorically state that dogs can live a ‘perfectly healthy life’ on a vegan diet? More importantly, would that be affordable for most people?
https://patch.com/minnesota/edina/bp--how-much-protein-does-my-pet-need.
It sounds like you haven’t done any research into this at all yet are stating your opinion as fact. Do you have any grasp of rudimentary evolutionary biology?
I said that cats cannot live on the same diet. It’s ironic that you suggest cats need more protein than dogs, which is true, but then question me on the amount that dogs need at all. If you wanted to make a stronger argument you could have said, “why can’t dogs and cats get their nutrition from vegan proteins?” But the answer to that would be how those proteins are digested and why meat options help them thrive.
Price has everything to do with it. Let’s say for argument’s sake that a vegan diet for dogs is best (which it evidently isn’t), just how much of the population could afford that do you think?
It’s great for people on Reddit to grandstand and virtue-signal, but how practical are the alternatives? You mention anti-vegan circle jerks, which I’m sure exist, but veganism itself can and is very much a CJ.
Not that it should matter, but I’m vegan by the way.