Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don't buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.

This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.

I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can't live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).

I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that's what they do.

But here they are, making a direct immoral action to force their chosen diet on another being who in all likelihood would NOT choose themselves.

This is the single worst argument you could make.

Every single pet owner does that. Would any animal - including farm animals - choose to eat what humans provide them? Surely [cheapest store brand] wouldn't be popular if they had a choice.

Much better than sourcing animal products from the supermarker. Still worse than being vegan

Fellow unashamed omnivore. The vegans have the moral high ground. I hope one day to become one. No need to shame or be ashamed of eating meat though. Changes to society take a while, shaming and blaming rarely improve the situation. It often makes things worse.

You’re confusing the reactionaries with those who live by a philosophy.

As a person with 3 cats, I get what you're saying. You're getting down voted, but we all know cats can devistate local wild life populations.

Rescuing them and making them indoor cats is the responsible thing to do, but I don't think any vegans would argue with that.

I think its after those establishing facts that the discussion is taking place.

I personally am not a fan of any breeding programs when there are so many cats and dogs available to rescue, but that's just me.

A vegan that ~~keeps cats~~ allows cats outside isn't exactly approaching the situation from a purely vegan-based mentality.

There, FTFY.

Absolutely nothing wrong with cats that are 100% indoors, not only do they have no effect on the wildlife, but their lifespans are something like ⅓ to ½ longer due to the lack of accidents or conflicts.

this and the three days without shitting post

They are tho

No, they're in c/vegan

Its not a strawman, that would imply no one was actually advocating for feeding cats a vegan diet, and this post was made up to pretend they did in order to disparage vegans. This post is a reference to someone on Lemmy arguing in favor of vegan diets for cats, and the thread you linked is literally people advocating for and discussing vegan diets for cats.

That being said, if you read the comments you'll see vegan folks arguing that this is a difficult thing to safely do in practice, and needs oversight and direction from a vet.

Making decisions to feed your pets, who can't advocate for themselves, things other than what they biologically evolved process as a healthy diet, even if you believe you've balanced everything just right, is morally questionable.

Making such a decision about your own diet on moral grounds is an admirable sacrifice and difficult lifestyle change one can be proud of. Choosing to make that sacrifice on behalf of a creature you're responsible for the health and happiness of is needlessly jeopardizing the wellbeing of that creature. They can't communicate their needs, and you're the one responsible for them. Don't go making questionable choices on their behalf that they'd be powerless to do anything about.

TL;DR;

Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don't seem to have actually read isn't a good basis for an argument

Scientific evidence, sure, but if you'd actually read them you'd see they aren't as inline with your argument as you seem to think.

Do you mean the one behind a paywall

Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results

Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:

“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.

You should actually read the "Study Limitations" section for this one.

Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it's way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is "rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine"

I'm aware i'm cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren't the silver bullet you seem to think.

Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it's a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.

After these the papers that observed limited bioavailability of synthesized taurine in cats?

I’m vegan and just downvoted you. Also a social media post is not scientific evidence.

Hey, give me a little credit...

I've managed to misrepresent two sides of an argument in this one.