Probably going to get a dog soon

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by carnap »

esquizofrenico wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am No offence, but I have no interest whatsoever in talking how this looks like to other people, you may very well be right. I'm interested in the morals of the topic.
And that is fine but you keep insisting that I've made some specific moral claim here and I haven't. The text you quoted was me talking about how others would perceive matters, it wasn't me making a moral claim. As I said, I wouldn't bother making a moral claim until I knew the impact of the diet on dogs. That is why I asked about research, a question that was met with hostility.

esquizofrenico wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am
So anyone can force himself to the dichotomy (if he wants to): "Either I don't have a dog or I have one under a vegan diet" and do no moral evil. I think you agree with me on this one, but you are just saying that if you force yourself to that moral dichotomy, you must not get a dog (since you briefly say in a message that you don't see how you could justify getting a dog if you are not willing to feed it meat).
Anybody can force themselves to make a choice between only two options but you're using it as an argument and in that case its a false dichotomy. Suggesting that having a dog and feeding it a non-vegan diet is some "moral evil" just begs the question, that is exactly the sort of issues that are being addressed here. Assuming away alternatives is a false dichotomy.

And I never suggested that I don't see how you can justify a dog if you don't feed it meat. I did imply that I don't see how you could justify having a dog regardless of diet if your motivation is utilitarian in nature.
esquizofrenico wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am
Still, I can morally force myself to the dichotomy: "Either I will not have any child, or they will live in a normal flat".
This is again a forced dichotomy and that is fine at the individual level but it doesn't address the general moral issue, it just assumes it away.

But, fine, that's assume that someone already thinks that its wrong to have a dog and feed it a non-vegan diet so they are forcing the two options on themselves. You'd have to explore why they believe the situation to be wrong to explore the issue. Let's pick a common approach, namely, the reduction of suffering. Since a vegan diet isn't "cruelty free" (animals are harmed in plant agriculture) and also dogs are likely to harm animals when outdoors (how likely depends on the prey derive of the dog/breed). So even with just the first issue you'd reduce suffering more by just euthanizing the dog or preventing it from being born. The second issue you could deal with by confining the animal indoors but that may sacrifice its happiness.
esquizofrenico wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 am
So I think that the fact that this deals with a conflict of interests is almost a tautology.
That doesn't explain how you'd frame the issue in terms of interests. Farming it in terms of "suffering reduction" is somewhat clear, but not sure what it would mean in the case of "interests". So, as above, we'd need to explore the specific rational for the exclusion of the non-vegan option in order to evaluate the other options.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:25 pm Unless that skeptic IS a veterinarian or has credentials equal to or greater than a veterinarian, he or she is being unreasonable in criticizing what the vet said is OK and the vegan wants to do or making accusations of animal abuse.
This is really just an appeal to false authority, a veterinarian isn't an expert in animal nutrition and even if they were you don't need similar or higher credentials to disagree with an expert. Though the next time you disagree with an expert I'll remember this. :D

But the issue here isn't what is reasonable, its about how people perceive matters. The two are often very different.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:25 pm People like that represent an ultra-conservative carnist fringe who are probably not worth the time it takes to engage them.
No idea what the "ultra-conservative carnist fringe" is suppose to be, but the vast majority of people are going to find the idea of vegan dogs strange. Saying "my vet said it was okay" isn't going to change that perception. Your post seems hell bent on insulting people which is obviously not going to make them think positively about veganism.

Its a question of what impression you want to give to the average person, insisting on vegan diets for dogs is likely to give someone the impression that veganism is a weird fringe group which will make it less likely that they will listen on other topics.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by brimstoneSalad »

carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pm This is really just an appeal to false authority, a veterinarian isn't an expert in animal nutrition
A veterinary nutritionist is. Veterinarians receive knowledge of consensus from their field during their education, and that dogs can be vegan (with a properly formulated diet) is obviously consensus; you'll find it on virtually any professionally written information page about the issue.

Medicine is a practical field of knowledge, like a car mechanic (though much more educated). If a doctor or a mechanic says something is OK for you/your dog or your car (respectively to their fields), that's the reasonable thing to believe unless it seems at odds with consensus and you want to get another opinion.

They can be wrong, but if you want to argue that you need to appeal to a larger consensus or superior authority, not your personal incredulity. PARTICULARLY if you're criticizing somebody else.
Your personal incredulity about what somebody chooses to feed his or her dog under veterinary guidance (and in accordance with consensus from experts) doesn't make you a skeptic, it makes you a jerk.
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pmeven if they were you don't need similar or higher credentials to disagree with an expert.
Then you need to appeal to one. Your personal incredulity is not an argument against consensus.
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pmThough the next time you disagree with an expert I'll remember this. :D
I try to avoid disagreeing with consensus in any credible field of hard or practical science. If I disagree with a quack who happens to have credentials (a rare breed), I'll usually cite credible experts to counter the claim, not my personal incredulity.

Soft sciences are something different, as is religion, where sometimes professional views are credible and sometimes they aren't, but that's another subject.
The question of how to respond to consensus you disagree with is an interesting one, but not something we like to waste time on here because reasonable people tend to be swayed by expertise, and if they aren't they're probably suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect and it would take weeks of work to convince them (see how much time I wasted on the Flat-Earth thread to convince ONE person).
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pmBut the issue here isn't what is reasonable, its about how people perceive matters. The two are often very different.
It is an issue of reasonable, because if people are unreasonable they're likely going to oppose veganism with or without any amount of evidence. There's no evidence that it's effective to waste time on presenting more and more evidence to people who are fundamentally unreasonable.

Look at evolution denialists: do they really just need *one more* transitional fossil to be convinced? NO. Evidence has nothing to do with their beliefs, and they'll admit that if you ask the right questions.

Watch some of Magnabosco's street epistemology.
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pmbut the vast majority of people are going to find the idea of vegan dogs strange.
Yes, until you spend 30 seconds explaining that biologically dogs are omnivores like humans and can be vegan or eat meat, and cats are obligate carnivores. The consensus is that dogs can be vegan with properly formulated food, that's the kind of food you use, your vet says it's OK and your dog is healthy.

If they continue to protest they're not doing it for lack of evidence, but because they're either unreasonable and appealing to nature, or they're just being assholes.

carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pmSaying "my vet said it was okay" isn't going to change that perception.
Except it usually does with a brief explanation. They're like "Oh, OK, I didn't know that".
You can add on about how dogs evolved with humans, unlike wolves, and have genetic changes to digest starches. There are plenty of articles on this. Although not the best evidence, anecdotes of very long lived vegan dogs can help convince some people too.
I really don't think additional information is necessary for the vast majority of sensible people who aren't just out to get vegans for anything.
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pmYour post seems hell bent on insulting people which is obviously not going to make them think positively about veganism.
Most people seem to be reasonable. I've rarely had trouble explaining vegan-pet related stuff to the average person.
People who are still against that are not going to think positively about veganism, just as creationists aren't going to think positively about evolution, no matter how much evidence we give them. There's an underlying ideology that needs to be addressed; namely carnism, that they see no problem in killing animals for food and they think vegans are crazy for disagreeing. That takes much longer.
carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pmIts a question of what impression you want to give to the average person, insisting on vegan diets for dogs is likely to give someone the impression that veganism is a weird fringe group which will make it less likely that they will listen on other topics.
I disagree. Insisting on 100% vegan diets for cats might. It's much easier to feed them some meat given the urinary issues they're prone to... or just not have cats. Even vegan sites recommend this.
http://www.vegancats.com/veganfaq.php#1070
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by Lay Vegan »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm A veterinary nutritionist is. Veterinarians receive knowledge of consensus from their field during their education, and that dogs can be vegan (with a properly formulated diet) is obviously consensus; you'll find it on virtually any professionally written information page about the issue.
Carnap's "skepticism" is particularly laughable because veterinarians offer the same advise that veterinarian nutritionists give. (i.e. Dogs can be healthy on a well-balanced vegan or vegetarian diet).

http://vetnutrition.tufts.edu/2016/07/vegan-dogs-a-healthy-lifestyle-or-going-against-nature/
Most dogs can do quite well on a carefully designed vegan diet that meets all of their nutritional needs. As a veterinary nutritionist, I use meat-free diets quite a bit to help manage various health concerns.

Dog owners who insist on feeding a vegetarian and especially a vegan diet should seek out an experienced veterinary nutritionist to discuss their dog’s needs and develop a diet plan that minimizes health risks.
And this is the general consensus amongst the experts in this field. And same advice I've given repeatedly to Cirion Spellbinder; Proceed under the guidance of a trained professional (their veterinarian) and select vegan pet foods that meet AAFCO guidelines.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm Your personal incredulity about what somebody chooses to feed his or her dog under veterinary guidance (and in accordance with consensus from experts) doesn't make you a skeptic, it makes you a jerk.
I'd like to print this out this quote, turn it into a plaque and hang it above my bed.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm Except it usually does with a brief explanation. They're like "Oh, OK, I didn't know that".
You can add on about how dogs evolved with humans, unlike wolves, and have genetic changes to digest starches. There are plenty of articles on this. Although not the best evidence, anecdotes of very long lived vegan dogs can help convince some people too.
I really don't think additional information is necessary for the vast majority of sensible people who aren't just out to get vegans for anything.
Agreed. Most reasonable people are convinced when given new and compelling information. But I don't think a discussion about evolution or genetic changes is necessary, since the average person who hasn't studied genetics or biology isn't able to throughly understand it anyway. A rational person would just realize that the other person's veterinarian (who's studied animal science extensively) just may know more than he does, and has formed his position around solid research in animal nutrition.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm Insisting on 100% vegan diets for cats might. It's much easier to feed them some meat given the urinary issues they're prone to... or just not have cats. Even vegan sites recommend this.
http://www.vegancats.com/veganfaq.php#1070
Given Carnap's baseless skepticism, I wonder if he also questions the position of veterinarians who would not recommend putting most male cats under a strict vegan diet? Or does he not question this position because it conforms with his bias? Would he demand that we provide a long-term study showing that male cats cannot be healthy on a vegan diet?

If we can't trust that veterinarians, who study and form positions based on reasoned evidence and peer-reviewed literature, shouldn't we doubt everything they say?
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by Jebus »

Unfortunately I have not witnessed this veterinary consensus. Our local vets were educated in a variety of different countries yet they all adamantly believe that dogs must be fed a carnivorous diet.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by Lay Vegan »

Jebus wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:54 pm Unfortunately I have not witnessed this veterinary consensus. Our local vets were educated in a variety of different countries yet they all adamantly believe that dogs must be fed a carnivorous diet.
brimstoneSalad wrote: https://www.cliniciansbrief.com/article/vegetarian-diets (white overlay makes it hard to read, easier in source)
When formulated correctly, vegetarian diets can be fed successfully to dogs but may require more synthetic supplementation. Attempting to feed a vegetarian diet to a cat is not recommended unless under the guidance of a nutrition specialist (member of ACVN or ECVCN). Animals eating a vegetarian diet may also require more frequent screening by veterinarians to ensure essential nutrient needs are being met. Health risks of unbalanced diets, whether vegetarian or animal-based, can be life-threatening and it is important for veterinarians to collect a thorough diet history (food and supplements) at each visit to screen for sources of potential nutrient imbalances.

MARJORIE L. CHANDLER, DVM, MS, MANZCVSc, DACVN, DACVIM, DECVIM-CA, MRCVS, is small animal nutrition consultant and honorary internal medicine and clinical nutrition lecturer at Royal Dick School of Veterinary Studies in Edinburgh, Scotland. Dr. Chandler cochairs the WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee. Her interests include canine and feline clinical nutrition and internal medicine, particularly gastroenterology. She has lectured nationally and internationally and is enthusiastic about clinical nutrition education. Dr. Chandler earned her DVM at Colorado State University.

LISA P. WEETH, DVM, DACVN, is primary consultant at Weeth Nutrition Services. After receiving her degree in 2002 from University of California, Davis, she spent 2 years in private practice, after which she returned to the University of California, Davis, where she completed a 3-year residency in Small Animal Clinical Nutrition. She became a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition in 2007 and moved to New Jersey that same year to establish the first dedicated Clinical Nutrition Department in a private veterinary hospital. She established Weeth Nutrition Services in 2014.

Researchers in this recent systematic review conclude;
It is entirely possible for companion animals to survive, and indeed thrive, on vegetarian diets. However, these must be nutritionally complete and reasonably balanced, and owners should regularly monitor urinary acidity and should correct for urinary alkalinisation through appropriate dietary additives, if it occurs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035952/


As of now, the consensus appears to be that dogs can be healthy on a controlled and well-balanced vegetarian or vegan diet.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm A veterinary nutritionist is. Veterinarians receive knowledge of consensus from their field during their education, and that dogs can be vegan (with a properly formulated diet) is obviously consensus
Like doctors they receive little training in nutrition. And, no, there is not an obvious consensus on vegan diets and dogs. Some of you keep suggesting that there is but have provide no evidence of such a consensus. Scientists don't make a habit of coming to consensus on topics that aren't well researched and its clear that vegan diets for dogs aren't well researched.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm It is an issue of reasonable, because if people are unreasonable they're likely going to oppose veganism with or without any amount of evidence. There's no evidence that it's effective to waste time on presenting more and more evidence to people who are fundamentally unreasonable.
Everyone is "unreasonable" to a degree in the sense that everyone is subject to various cognitive biases. So if you plan your actions on what you believe to be "reasonable" or not (which will, ironically, be subject to cognitive bias as well) you'll be frequently disappointed.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm Look at evolution denialists: do they really just need *one more* transitional fossil to be convinced? NO. Evidence has nothing to do with their beliefs, and they'll admit that if you ask the right questions.
No they probably don't....but they can change their mind. Now what is the best way to do that? Insulting them when they ask questions?

Also this is a poor analogy, evolution is a widely accepted theory and denial of the theory is mostly seen in particular religious groups. On the other hand skepticism of veganism as a whole is high and skepticism that vegan diets are appropriate for dogs is even greater throughout the entire society.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm Yes, until you spend 30 seconds explaining that biologically dogs are omnivores like humans and can be vegan or eat meat, and cats are obligate carnivores.
Being an omnivore does not mean that an animal can subsist healthfully on a diet of only plants or only meat. Each animal is adapted to a particular sort of diet. Humans, as omnivores, are more oriented around plants than dogs due to much different ancestry. Therefore if a vegan diet is possible at all for a dog, its going to be a highly engineered diet. Now that may be perfectly healthy for the dog but it would have nothing to do with the dog being an omnivore. It may be possible to engineer supplemented plant-based diets for carnivores as well. But such diets need research to know how they impact the animals health.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:06 pm Most people seem to be reasonable. I've rarely had trouble explaining vegan-pet related stuff to the average person.
Explaining something to someone doesn't tell you want they are thinking about it.

In any case, vegans insisting on their dogs eating vegan diets is often exploited by "anti-vegans". I see it all the time in various facebook groups, etc.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by carnap »

Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:18 pm And this is the general consensus amongst the experts in this field. And same advice I've given repeatedly to Cirion Spellbinder; Proceed under the guidance of a trained professional (their veterinarian) and select vegan pet foods that meet AAFCO guidelines.
What reason is there to believe this is the consensus? This is an article written by one person that doesn't cite any research. Also the author discusses the use of vegan and vegetarian diets as a therapeutic diet for dogs which is a much different sort of issue. Even if there was a down-side to a veggie diet for a dog it may be justified if the alternative is worse. But the author does state that designing a vegan diet for a dog is difficult.


Lay Vegan wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:18 pm Given Carnap's baseless skepticism, I wonder if he also questions the position of veterinarians who would not recommend putting most male cats under a strict vegan diet? Or does he not question this position because it conforms with his bias? Would he demand that we provide a long-term study showing that male cats cannot be healthy on a vegan diet?
Firstly I think its funny that you speak as if I'm the only one with a bias here, clearly you do as well. But unlike yourself I actually have no position on this topic and have made no assertion other than there seems to be a lack of research on the topic.

In terms of cats, yes, the research there is lacking and whether an engineered diet for cats can work is not well studied and as such I have no opinion on the matter.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by brimstoneSalad »

It would be nice to have a Cambridge declaration of consciousness style consensus on vegan diets for dogs, but not necessary. The consensus is apparent in professionally written articles on the topic.
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:33 am No they probably don't....but they can change their mind. Now what is the best way to do that? Insulting them when they ask questions?
Street epistemology seems to be pretty effective. Notable in its methodology: it's not about providing more facts and more evidence.

Your recommendations for yet more studies isn't something that will help convince most people.
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:33 am Also this is a poor analogy, evolution is a widely accepted theory and denial of the theory is mostly seen in particular religious groups. On the other hand skepticism of veganism as a whole is high and skepticism that vegan diets are appropriate for dogs is even greater throughout the entire society.
It's a good analogy; people who object to vegan diets for dogs are primarily doing it on a quasi-religious appeal to nature foundation. That needs to be undermined before they'll consider any veterinary opinion.

carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:33 amBeing an omnivore does not mean that an animal can subsist healthfully on a diet of only plants or only meat.
No, but it doesn't matter. People are usually willing to set aside their appeal to nature style objections for dogs, but not cats, on those grounds.
Veterinary opinion is more than enough to support the adequacy of a diet for sensible people once they get past that senseless hurdle.
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:33 amExplaining something to someone doesn't tell you want they are thinking about it.
You act like I just explain it and walk away quickly before they can say anything. :lol:
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:33 am In any case, vegans insisting on their dogs eating vegan diets is often exploited by "anti-vegans". I see it all the time in various facebook groups, etc.
And they will likely continue to do so no matter how much research there is. And they will also do so whether there are just a couple vegans doing it or millions. In fact, the more vegans doing it, and the more people personally KNOW a vegan with a healthy vegan dog, the less convincing their anti-vegan rhetoric and misinformation will be to the average person.

Feed your dogs vegan, make sure they're in prime health, and let all of your friends know about it so they can call bullshit on that stuff based on personal experience when they see it.

Like with any social movement, recently the acceptance of homosexuality, this isn't a battle of information where whoever is right automatically wins; this is a matter of personal experience and fear of the unknown.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Probably going to get a dog soon

Post by esquizofrenico »

I think you are not understanding me at all, carnap. I have never suggested that feeding a dog a meat diet is a moral evil, I don't need that to proof my point. I just need to demonstrate that you can morally take a dog from a shelter planning to feed him a vegan diet. I even bit the bullet and answered the question that you asked me "So if a particular dog food limited the life a dog to just 5 years that would be okay so long as the dog's life was "overwhelming positive" during those 5 years?". You are saying you don't have any answer personally to this question. Ok, forget the implications I did in my messages that you do, they don't affect the argument at all.

I don't understand how you don't see that the morality or healthiness of giving a dog meat has nothing to do with whether or not a vegan is morally compelled to give a dog meat. Again, even if eating meat gave your dog superpowers and the happiest life of all possible, a vegan would not be morally compelled to give meat to a dog, because again, he has an alternative that is morally acceptable (not getting a dog). This has nothing to do with veganism. This is also true to a person that doesn't want to give meat to his dog because he thinks that meat has microchips that the government uses to spy on us. Again, the vegan and that person can put themselves, if they want to, in the dichotomy of "either I don't get a dog or I will give it a meat-less diet". Period.

Again, to reach this point we don't need to look at the morality of vegan diets, meat diets or microchip-free meat diets. I put myself in that dychotomy because I want and because I have the right to, since one of the options is morally acceptable. The only way you could attack my argument up to this point is arguing that "not getting a dog" is a moral evil. Otherwise, any moral dichotomy that starts with "Either I don't get a dog or X" will be a dichotomy to which you could bind yourself morally. That's it. So no false dichotomy. It's a very real dichotomy because I bound myself to it and I did so morally. The fact that there are other possible scenarios is irrelevant to whether or not I can bind myself morally to this dichotomy. It's like saying that when I say "I will either have a banana or a plumb for dessert", that is a false dichotomy because there are also grapes in the fridge.

So again, it is the right of the vegan to PUT the dog in this dichotomy. Just so you understand my point, one would also have the right of putting the dog in the dichotomy "I either die in this dog shelter or go to this guy's house where he will torture me to death". You absolutely have the right to PUT the dog in that dichotomy. Another completely different topic which has nothing to do with the first part of the argument is if you can morally TAKE that decision for the dog, given that he cannot make informed decisions.

The problem with all your messages is that you keep attacking the part of my argument that is most obviously the strongest. I sincerely think that no sane person would disagree with that part. It's like saying that someone cannot put a baby to the decision "Either we stay at home or we go to the park". But wait, going to Dysneyland would be much better than those two! You are being immoral!

I would gladly debate the second part of my argument, about whether or not you can take that decision for the dog, but you have not addressed it a single time! That's the part in which the healthiness of a vegan diet must be considered and I think it's possible that my reasoning is flawed, but you first need to attack it.

If you don't agree with the first part of the argument, frankly I think it's better if we no longer talk about it, because I don't think there is any possible discussion.

Post:

"But, fine, that's assume that someone already thinks that its wrong to have a dog and feed it a non-vegan diet so they are forcing the two options on themselves. You'd have to explore why they believe the situation to be wrong to explore the issue. Let's pick a common approach, namely, the reduction of suffering. Since a vegan diet isn't "cruelty free" (animals are harmed in plant agriculture) and also dogs are likely to harm animals when outdoors (how likely depends on the prey derive of the dog/breed). So even with just the first issue you'd reduce suffering more by just euthanizing the dog or preventing it from being born. The second issue you could deal with by confining the animal indoors but that may sacrifice its happiness. "

About this, I think this could very well be a position to take, but that is precisely the point! This is an argument against the second part, not the first one! You cannot give a dog a vegan diet because that in itself is a moral evil. Therefore, you are forced to not getting a dog. But I think you can agree that this is a completely different topic, the healthiness of a vegan diet for a dog has absolutely nothing to do with it, so it is not what we were talking about. You did not prove that you cannot take a decision into the morality of giving a dog a vegan diet given the information we have, in fact, you are proving the opposite. Either it is healthy or not, the decision is immoral.
Post Reply