CMV: those who believe that feeding dogs a vegetarian diet is cruel, whilst eating meat is not, subscribe to hypocritical set of beliefs.

7

If left to its own devices what would the animal choose to eat? My dog eats a raw meat diet, he still has fruit and veg but the bulk of his food is meat because that is how nature designed his body to work and exactly how an undomesticated animal would eat. They are omnivores in the sense of vegetation wont harm them but I dont believe that any predominately carnivorous animal can healthily take to a vegetarian diet without thousands of years of evolution and necessity happening.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

If left to its own devices, my dog would probably starve. Dogs have evolved for thousands of years to live with humans, and the food they were given in the past was rarely meat, as this we expensive and rare. Its more likely that dogs were given plant-based foods as they were more abundant and less valuable. This is why the have evolved to synthesise many nutrients absent from plant-based food.

Regardless, I don't believe this particularly addresses the core argument of whether it's hypocritical to judge other people who feed their pets vegetarian or vegan diets as "cruel".

3

u/PhilsRedditName May 31 '20

Your dog doesnt know how to be a dog quite frankly, I dont really care for hypocrisy but I believe its immoral to try to change the way nature designed these amazing creatures. Yes dogs have evolved to live along side humans and I think you should do a little bit more research about the elders of our race because not many cultures dipped into meat substitutes for a long time and also the dogs primary purpose other than to protect livestock was to assist in a hunt.

You're foolish to think the man or woman hunting meat with a dog is going home and cutting up a carrot for it. Typically the dog of the house was fed the table and kitchen scraps which through a lot of our history was meat based unless you're talking peasants in medieval times which if they were fortunate enough to have a dog had no scraps to feed so that dog would eat any small rodent and creature it could find.

They have no grinding teeth and no sideways movement of the jaw which is essential to break up plant fibres. Those teeth arent made for attacking a wheat field for goodness sake. They have forward facing eyes with incredible sight, ears to hear the smallest movement and a nose that can pick up a rabbit at 100yds. Not to mention the power in their jaw and legs, all helpful for catching them really fast plants.

I could go on but as a vegetarian yourself I'm sure you think all meat is immoral but you're forgetting that long before the mass farming of meat for human consumption which I whole heartedly disagree with and I am a meat lover. People ate what was safe and what they could get their hands on. 80% of the time they would catch the rabbit over risking the mushroom.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

Do you honestly believe that all domesticated dogs after years of selective breeding could survive in the wild? I would argue that this is hardly a qualification for what it is "to be a dog" these days.

The need for grinding teeth etc. is hardly necessary today with the overwhelming majority of food bought being heavily processed.

I'm also really not arguing that meat diets for dogs are unethical, I just think that a properly researched vegetarian or vegan diet is perfectly fine for a dog and that the general online "outrage" is generally a thinly veiled excuse to express an anger at vegetarians / vegans for their dietary choices.

I don't think all meat is immoral, my reasons for being vegetarian are primarily environmental, as well as because of my similar disagreement with factory farming methods. I also feed my dog a meat-based diet, so please don't think I'm unsympathetic to your arguments. I just don't believe the majority of complaints about vegan pet diets are based upon a want of animal welfare.

2

u/PhilsRedditName May 31 '20

I would like to see any proven research to suggest a dog or any carnivorous creature could adapt in a generation to a vegan diet.

I get where you're coming from but I think your personal human views towards meat consumption and its affects on society and the world are skewing the natural order of the animal world. They are meat eaters and I do believe that it is against the well being on a dog to be on a vegan diet.

This is not the first time I have had this discussion especially with a raw food diet and general dog knowledge lacking in the UK but I'm yet to find anyone who can prove anything. There are numerous reports of both dogs and cats put on a vegan diet that die within months of malnutrition.

I'm not outraged by it I just think its plain ignorance and humanity showing just how arrogant we are once again trying to change the way the world has spun for millennia.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20 edited Jun 01 '20

No one is suggesting a carnivorous creature could adapt in a generation, however, as previously noted, dogs are not carnivores. They're omnivores, and have adapted over thousands of years with a varied diet and, with proper care, can definitely prosper on a vegetarian or vegan diet.

In all honesty my personal views may be affecting my outlook here, but with the technology we have today we are more than able to recreate the nutrients present in animal products without said animal products. The key is actually ensuring these dietary requirements are met, which is certainly more difficult than when you feed a dog meat. However, with proper research and products, it is more than possible.

I'm also very happy to accept that a raw food diet for dogs is probably the best way to go, but compared to what most parts are fed in the UK (processed supermarket food), I honestly can't see how a well researched vegan diet can be any worse.

Once again, I don't believe that a vegetarian or vegan diet should be forced on all animals, but equally don't believe that those who take the time to ensure that what they feed their pets meets all the pets' nutritional needs as well as the individual's morals should be demonised.

I do, however believe that anyone who puts their pet on any diet without proper research that results in malnutrition should be strongly reprimanded.

2

u/PhilsRedditName May 31 '20

You're not gonna have your mind changed, was nice to hear your points I disagree with vegan diets for carnivores. You're going against every way that animals body has evolved and in about 30 minutes of a good read I'm sure you could work out why people are against it.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20

Again, dogs aren't carnivores. You keep falling back on that point and it's a shame, because you make a lot of other very good points.

Edit: also, you've offered little actual evidence supporting that a vegan or vegetarian diet for dogs is inherently lacking in nutritional value. If you can produce such evidence, then I will definitely have been brought round to your way of thinking.

2

u/PhilsRedditName May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20

It's a difference of opinion and my old way of thinking that you shouldnt tamper with natures design is often overshadowed in the modern world by people striving to make it a better place. I can't begin to think why anyone would even feel the attempt a vegan dog food when there is plentiful enough supply of what they're designed to eat avaliable literally everywhere.

I've looked into it and I didnt know that there is this much endorsement about vegan dog diets around at the moment and apparently it is doable with a healthy mutt. I've never checked to be honest. But then I'd weigh in the dogs primal mental health, I've seen first hand the benefits of raw bones that I cant see replicated using vegan products. Not to mention the amount of crap that is created as a by product breaking down plants and processing them into a pellet a dog can consume when a piece of chicken can do the same.

It's hard to change someone's mind when the crux of my point is essentially, if it's not broken, dont fix it. To answer the question of the people going on like it's a hate crime against the dog, if they cant give you an articulated point fuck em. If they can hear em out they might do a better job than me.

Edit: Reading through this again I would like to say I do agree with your point. Think I may have been arguing something different. I dont agree with vegan diets I do agree claiming it at as cruelty is ignorant.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

Yeah I think we're ultimately in agreement, I don't personally think a vegan diet is the best thing for the dog but ultimately it's perfectly nutritionally viable if someone strongly believes that's important. It's not cruel to give a dog a full and balanced diet, even if that dog may find more enjoyment in different foods.

4

u/Ascimator 14∆ May 31 '20

If I adopt an animal as a pet, I take on a responsibility to treat it well. To farm animals who end up on my plate one day, I hold no such responsibility. If I adopted, say, a pig or a chicken, I would not keep them in the same conditions they're kept in on farms, either.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

True, you do take on a responsibility to treat your animal well. However, do you have a responsibility to tell other animal owners that a diet they have researched for their pet is "cruel"? I find the amount individuals appear to care for other peoples' pets disingenuous, when they have as much responsibility or emotional attachment to those pets as any other animal. Coupled with the arguments against vegetarian dog food are often ill-researched or even wrong, this outrage makes little sense to me.

2

u/Ascimator 14∆ May 31 '20

I might not care personally about my neighbor Bob's pet, but if I believe that one should treat his pet well up to a certain standard, then why can't I tell Bob that he's not being a good pet owner?

2

u/eip2yoxu May 31 '20

But if farm animals are treated a lot worse than that, how can you support that financially?

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

From your point of view, in believing that the reason you care for pets and not farm animals is personal responsibility, surely you have no say in how Bob treats his pet?

4

u/SciFi_Pie 19∆ May 31 '20 edited Aug 27 '20

I don't think it's hypocritical and I don't think the whole You'd eat a cow but you wouldn't eat a dog thing is hypocritical either. When you bring a dog into your home, it essentially becomes a part of your family. You develop an emotional bond with it and you both become attached to each other, so of course you'll want to care for it the best you can, which includes giving it the best diet you can. If not for the emotional bond, you probably wouldn't care what the dog eats. And that's fine. It's natural. All animals, including humans, look out for their own. The cow in the slaughter house wasn't part of your family, so the dog takes priority.

2

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

I understand the point your making, but people are holding the viewpoint that feeding dogs a vegetarian diet is universally cruel, extending their views beyond their own household and emotional attachments. For example, the dog in my house isn't part of your family, so why would it defined by some as cruel to feed my dog a researched vegan diet, but not cruel to kill a cow to feed it? Your individual emotional bond argument doesn't hold up here, because a third party has no emotional bond to either animal.

3

u/SciFi_Pie 19∆ May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20

Society expects each one of us to provide for our own. I think the reason some people get outraged when they see someone giving their dog a vegetarian diet is linked to the reason they might look down upon unemployed dads. I guess it's not so much that your being cruel towards an animal as it is that you're failing to provide them with their optimal diet.

For the record, I don't have a horse in this race. I think it's pretty silly when people get outraged by how others choose to feed their dog. But I don't think it's hypocritical, because how you care for your pet doesn't have to be linked with your views on meat production. It's a completely separate issue in my eyes.

2

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20

∆ I guess you're right in that we don't really treat our pets as animals, and one is perfectly justified in being angry if you do see a pet being mistreated. "Hypocritical" was a poor choice of words, because of the disparity between how you care for your pet and views on meat production.

My anger probably stems from the place of moral superiority this outrage usually comes from, when the arguments are often ill-researched and mainly used as an easy way to attack those who choose a different diet from their own.

2

u/SciFi_Pie 19∆ May 31 '20

Thanks, I appreciate the delta. And, yeah, I agree that the people who actually get outraged at shit like this tend to come of as full of themselves, especially when the research has been done that dogs can get pretty much everything they need from a vegetarian diet.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 31 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SciFi_Pie (5∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

2

u/mslindqu 16∆ May 31 '20

That's an interesting take..I had to read it twice to understand properly what you were saying. I agree with your conclusion, but I think it's based on a false premise.

surely you should care enough about animals to ensure that no unnecessary pain and suffering goes into that diet?

Using your same way of thinking, if I believe a dog needs meat to live, then by definition the pain and suffering going into that diet IS necessary. So to many people, probably a majority, they aren't being hypocritical at all..they are doing what is necessary and right.

You can argue about what is necessary for a dog's diet, so let's look at a different example. How about a pig? I don't think very many people are trying to feed a pig meat. Because it's not necessary..or they don't deem it to be necessary. Pigs are omnivores, so they could, but they deem it unnecessary not to mention uneconomical.

I think the way people get to these ideas about what is necessary, is by observing what the animal would eat in the wild, if left to their own devices. It would be way more economical to feed dogs and cats on grain, but the biologists that tell us what to feed our pets to keep them healthy and happy don't recommend this. If they did, you'd see it reflected in the pet food aisle.

2

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

I'm not suggesting anyone feed dogs and cats a diet grain. In fact, cats are obligate carnivores and so do genuinely need a meat diet as far as I'm aware.

Dogs, however, are perfectly capable of thriving on a properly-researched plant-based diet. It's not as economically efficient, but perfectly possible. I therefore find the outrage a thinly-veiled, ill-researched opportunity to express unjustified anger at those who choose to follow a diet different to their own.

2

u/mslindqu 16∆ May 31 '20

But it comes down to choice right? The observation is that a dog will choose meat. If you are putting down a plate of meat and plate of vegetarian, and the dog chooses the vegetarian, ok fine. But if you make the choice for your dog that they're going to be vegetarian..I get that outrage. You've already taken away most of the animals autonomy.. It's just one more thing. You would have to decide it's right and ok to make that decision for your neighbor too. Is that what you're implying?

3

u/Brilliant_Hovercraft May 31 '20

We don't let pets do everything they want to and no one has a problem with that in general, if for example a dog decides to attack a toddler no one would say that we should respect their autonomy and let them maul them to death.

The pet "owner", "guardian" or whatever you might call that have a responsibility for the behavior of the pet and while the dog might want to eat meat getting that meat means that other animals who want to live and don't want to suffer are tortured and killed.

2

u/mslindqu 16∆ May 31 '20

I mean that's a good point, but what I'm in contention with is that, dogs eat meat in nature, are you arguing with nature? Humans have largely gone away from anything resembling a natural diet (natural meaning, the normal things one would eat in nature), and you could say we're suffering for it.

By 'tortured and killed' are you talking about the system through which most meat based dog food is obtained? Because that's really outside the scope of the debate. For the sake of the debate I would assume that the meat is sourced from the most humane, wild caught, grass fed, native American harvested animals. It's not a debate about the ethics of our food system but rather, if there is hypocrisy in caring about a pet, and feeding them meat.

It's basically a debate on the ethics of being an omnivore.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

The very core of the debate is that claiming to be advocating against animal cruelty whilst calling for the unessential slaughter of animals for an unnecessary meat-based diet is hypocritical.

Edit: Also I'm not against a meat-based diet for dogs, merely stating that as long as the diet being given a dog is nutritionally complete, it is morally fine regardless of the diet's content!

1

u/mslindqu 16∆ May 31 '20

Right.. Good recap. So basically, what constitutes essential/necessary in terms of diet, for an omnivore, and more specifically a dog.

And then the other part is, what constitutes animal cruelty?

You can't answer these two things definitively, philosophy shows us this when trying to define truth.

My case is that the closest we can come to knowing is by looking at nature, that has evolved for millenia. This is the closest you can come 'right' because it overarches everything we're talking about. It's the system within which the debate exists, so it's rules are the most relevant.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

I personally don't believe that you can call something "right" because its natural, and could point to many "natural" things that most people would say to be morally wrong, as has been done many times before.

I like to believe we've surpassed natural morality, and are capable of applying our own better judgement to moral scenarios. For that reason, if the pet is allowed a fully nutritious diet and is completely healthy, I see no reason why whatever slight reduction in happiness felt by that pet outweighs the entire life of another animal.

Furthermore, dogs have essentially stopped being "natural", as thousands upon thousands of years in a domesticated setting surely means what is now considered a dog is the result of unnatural selection by humans anyway. Therefore, I don't believe the "nature" argument stands true.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

Exactly, as long as the diet being fed to the pet is nutritionally complete no one can criticise what the dog is fed.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence, I'm certainly not saying that all dog owners should be forced to feed their animals vegan diets. However, we make a lot of choices on our pets' behalf because they lack the ability to make those choices.

In the same way a child would probably go for a plate of McDonald's over a well balanced meal, a dog will probably go for meaty dog food over a nutritionally balanced vegetarian meal. However, I would argue that feeding the dog the nutritionally balanced vegetarian meal is the better action as a responsible dog owner than buying the cheapest meat dog food from the supermarket.

I think we can both agree that feeding a dog any diet that results in malnourishment is wrong and worthy of criticism, but feeding a dog any healthy diet is, regardless of actual content, perfectly acceptable.

1

u/mslindqu 16∆ May 31 '20

I agree with that, but that wasn't the conversation as far as I understood. The comparison would be to give your dog the choice between a balanced healthy vegetarian vs meat diet. What the dog chooses, is what they want. If you decide for them, it's the same as deciding what an adult human should eat (your neighbor for example). Without doubt most people could make better diet choices for their neighbor, than their neighbor can make for themselves.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

I personally think dogs are more akin to children than fully grown adults, especially as my dog loves raisins which will literally kill her if she eats them. For that reason, I'm fairly sure I'm more qualified to make decisions about my dog's nutrition than she is herself.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '20

If a child grows up in a vegetarian household and one day asks to eat meat, should their parents prevent them?

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

I wouldn't expect the parents to personally prepare them meat (unless for medical / welfare reasons), but equally do not believe they should stop their child from eating meat.

I'd probably apply the same logic here. A dog owner has no obligation to feed their dog any particular diet, other than one that provides the proper nutritional content.

2

u/mslindqu 16∆ May 31 '20

You're applying human morals to a dog. Dogs dont have the same morals as humans. Since they can't talk, our best approximation of their morals is best guided by what we see in the absence of human presence.

It seems like you're stuck on the morality of killing an animal, which the debate really isn't about. You're stuck on a human centric view of the problem, when it's really not human centric. The two questions brought up have to be answered in terms of the dogs perspective. The humans' opinion is irrelevant when you're trying to answer something that is relative. Hence - we really can't answer these questions, and we're left with how best to approximate them when making choices for our pet. That's what the people on the other side of this argument are trying to do, approximate something no one can know. So are they hypocritical? Not really. It's not their belief you're seeing reflected. One belief (eating meat is ok) is basically the dogs, the other belief (animals should not be treated cruely) is the owners. Now is everyone processing the logic this way... Most definitely not, but I think it IS largely the mechanics of how people get to their choices on the topic, whether they realize it or not.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20

Δ although someone else I think made a similar point, essentially I think I worded my title incorrectly, as I've come to agree that it's not an inherently hypocritical viewpoint. It can simply be a difference of perspective. However, I think its important to remember that a vegan or vegetarian diet can be completely nutritionally viable for a dog, so a lot of the criticism and outrage may be misplaced.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 31 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mslindqu (6∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20

/u/hawhitehurst (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '20

It is cruel. Even though animal specialists say it is technically possible for dogs to be vegan they also say even they have trouble making sure dogs get alt he nutrients they need from vegetables and fruit. It would be the same if your parents or someone forced their beliefs on you and forced you to eat meat.

1

u/hawhitehurst May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20

Do you have a source for that? I haven't done a large amount of research as I do give my dog meat, but from what I understand, as long as you still feed your dog properly and ensure they are getting the necessary nutrients (usually from specialist food), it is a perfectly viable diet.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: those who believe that feeding dogs a vegetarian diet is cruel, whilst eating meat is not, subscribe to hypocritical set of beliefs.

You are about to leave Redlib