Vegetarian Pets

[Nitefly]

Jack of all trades now, thanks to my neurological disease I did a degree (first class honours) in psychology specialising in psychopharmacology, and wanted to study medicine. I'd spent five years working full time in a vet surgery as I already had a strong interest in my working dogs and vet medicine/surgery. I joined the Raw Meaty Bones Lobby once I'd learnt as much as I did, and nowadays thanks to my illness I can't carry on to study medicine so I'm stuck on the PC talking to you lot instead

That said, my illness/disability has let me spend a lot of time in front of a PC learning Linux/networking/overclocking etc so it's a mixed blessing really lol

Wow, that really is diverse! I'm sorry to hear of your disease and hope all goes as best as it can.

I recently completed a biology degree where just about everything regarding evolution was hammered in till we couldn't take any more - hence I was very impressed at your taxonomy knowledge earlier on

 

[KittensCake]

Yes it does. Without meaning to sound like a broken record, the only substance which has the same molecular structure, consistancy, nutritional value and edibility (digestability) of meat for a dog is... meat.

No, it doesn't. For something to effectively maintain health of a dog, to be digestable..etc it doesn't NEED the exact same molecular structure as meat.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Tush and fie. Do you seriously think that a hamster, fish or dog...Nevermind a cat...'loves' you?

Anthropormorphic projection fools nobody but yourself. They are animals, plain and simple. A dog may look up to you but that is only as to the dog, you are its pack leader. By convincing yourself that you are giving and receiving 'love' or providing a good home/care for them, you are only using them as an emotional crutch for your own failings.

If you truly believe that your pets stay with you through 'love' and not because you either keep them trapped in a tank, cage, hutch or home, or that you are a reliable source of food, turn them loose. If your pet 'loves' you, they'll stay put, won't they...?

So the stories of dogs and cats travelling thousands of miles to be with their owners are purely down to food? I know I said that dogs can be unspeakably dumb before but that's slightly extracting the urine when there are meals available much closer.

Nothing...As long as you accept that you are enslaving animals to be your playthings.

Perhaps but given each side is getting something out of the situation I'm prepared to call it a mutually beneficial relationship.

You could just vomit on your cats dinner should do too.

Why, pray tell, would I want to do that?

 

[mattyfez]

No, it doesn't. For something to effectively maintain health of a dog, to be digestable..etc it doesn't NEED the exact same molecular structure as meat.

It needs to be pretty damn close, otherwise we would all be feeding our dogs on bodybuilders milkshakes, after all, thats got all the basic ingredients does it not?


Ever tried feeding a dog on milkshake? It gives humans seriously bad guts after a while, I dread to think what it would do a dogs much more specialized system...

 

[Nitefly]

No, it doesn't. For something to effectively maintain health of a dog, to be digestable..etc it doesn't NEED the exact same molecular structure as meat.

Then please enlighten me as to what substance will give the equivilent nutritional benefit to an animal which has an ancestry of millions of years maximising its ability to utilise nutrition from meat?

Whey?

 

[Whiskas]

FFS If you're vegetarian and want a pet get a freaking vegetarian pet like a rabbit- its not exactly rocket science is it?

Vegetards who do own a carnivorous animal and force-feed it vegetable matter should be forced to eat the still-warm, raw carcass of their former pet tbh.

 

[KittensCake]

Ah yes I completely forgot about cultured meat actually, which is a good point, and it's basically the best solution for both sides.

 

[Energize]

Ah yes I completely forgot about cultured meat actually, which is a good point, and it's basically the best solution for everyone.

Except farmers.

 

[Whiskas]

Ah yes I completely forgot about cultured meat actually, which is a good point, and it's basically the best solution for both sides.

Does it actually exist though? Maybe we should suggest soylent green as an alternative too as atm its about as plausible.

 

[Energize]

Does it actually exist though? Maybe we should suggest soylent green as an alternative too as atm its about as plausible.

Not commercially. But yes it has been grown many times before. Currently the problem is trying to grow structured meat rather than just muscle cells.

 

[mattyfez]

Ah yes I completely forgot about cultured meat actually, which is a good point, and it's basically the best solution for both sides.

Yes, but from a vegitarians point of view, animals, at some stage, will have been disadvantaged in the process of developing such a substance, so it would still be morally wrong.

 

[Nitefly]

Not commercially.

It never will be. Its an ethical minefield.

 

[Energize]

Yes, but from a vegitarians point of view, animals, at some stage, will have been disadvantaged in the process of developing such a substance, so it would still be morally wrong.

Nope because vegetarians don't think like that. They eat animals products. Your thinking of vegans.

It never will be. Its an ethical minefield.

I don't see how, no animals are killed and as technology advances animal products such as hormones won't be needed at all for it. Plus it has commerical advantages which for supermarkets would outweight any ethics anyway.

 

[Rainmaker]

still meat but without the moral baggage of killing somthing

You're presuming everyone carries such 'moral baggage' about killing things. I certainly don't.

Wow, that really is diverse! I'm sorry to hear of your disease and hope all goes as best as it can.

I recently completed a biology degree where just about everything regarding evolution was hammered in till we couldn't take any more - hence I was very impressed at your taxonomy knowledge earlier on

Cheers

 

[mattyfez]

You're presuming everyone carries such 'moral baggage' about killing things. I certainly don't.

I don't either, I am well aware of the fact animals are butchered so that I may feast on thier bloodied remains, I was just playing devils advocate .

 

[Nitefly]

I don't see how, no animals are killed and as technology advances animal products such as hormones won't be needed at all for it. Plus it has commerical advantages which for supermarkets would outweight any ethics anyway.

Cruelty to animal concerns start to be replaced by 'playing god' concerns...

 

[penski]

Precisley not representative. My dad has been a vegetarian for years because he doesn't want animals killed, as have many others, some people are vegetarians for environmental reasons, so to say that all vegetarians are hypocritical for having pets is incredibly ignorant.

I didn't say all vegetarians, genius.

Read my first few posts in the thread. Pay attention to what I italicised.

Good boy. Now run along.

*n

 

[Energize]

Cruelty to animal concerns start to be replaced by 'playing god' concerns...

Genetically modified food is grown and eaten in many places so I can't see peoples concerns over playing god stopping the production of in vitro meat. Besides which, as time moves on, people become more accepting of these sorts of things.

I didn't say all vegetarians, genius.

Read my first few posts in the thread. Pay attention to what I italicised.

Vegans/veggies who enslave animals for their own entertainment are big enough hypocrites without calling them up on other aspects of their ****ed-up belief system.

No matter how much you try and spin it, humans keep pets for their own entertainment.

The hypocrisy of pet owners who claim to be non-omnivorous because they wuv the widdle animals is at best laughable.

 

[Whiskas]

I wonder if they'll grow some exponentially-growing superbeast that you can just cut a slice off like in Torchwood- that would be cool

 

[KittensCake]

Then please enlighten me as to what substance will give the equivilent nutritional benefit to an animal which has an ancestry of millions of years maximising its ability to utilise nutrition from meat?

Whey?

I don't know, I'm not a scientist and I can't see into the future to see what we will be able to produce. Obviously I doubt anything exists today that will statisfy those criteria, but it's entirely possible there will be, and does it even have to satisfy those criteria? Why is not possible for an animal to live heathily on something that is not EXACTLY as beneficial as meat?

And also, the mention of meat grown in labs has made me think about the definition of meat used in my argument. Obviously, my argument which started with penski was about giving pets a healthy diet without feeding them 'meat'. Now when I was writing this, I was basically defining meat as in meat from animals which are farmed then killed. But then there's meat grown in a lab would also be called meat of course, although not aquired by the same means, and so that satisfies my argument even though it is still meat. So simply using the word meat in my argument was insufficient and wrong.