https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmowEQeEMaY

D-O

Ah, so it’s a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

Is…that not what’s supposed to happen?

I don’t have any other socials so I’m not too up on what the standards are.

How so?

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Julie d’Aubigny

Sure

if it ticks the two boxes then it’ll be useful to know :

1 : [ ] Independent

2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

The “Broken Earth” series by N.K Jemesin

First book

how would you measure quality of life for cats and their food?

Already answered, Here and Here

If you are asking for an example of a specific methodology, I’ve no idea, I’m neither an animal behaviour nor nutrition researcher.

In the same way i wouldn’t be able to provide a specific methodology for measuring orbital decay or the long term effects of language drift on emotional responses, because I’m not a physicist , linguist or psychologist either.

That’s one of the reasons for peer reviewed research by specialists.

I presume you would be happy if it was formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition.

Seeing as we are going around in circles i’m going to streamline the process and make it easier for you by providing a checkpoint system.

I’ll be happy when it ticks both of these boxes.

1 : [ ] Independent

2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

On this occasion your reference gets a 1 out of 2 :

[ X ] Independent

[ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

they seem independent enough.

See above

Hardly tree hugging hippies.

You’re the only person using this phrasing, but you are correct in that they don’t match a phrasing nobody has claimed so far.

Hardly magical thinking.

I suspect the irony of claiming a lack of magical thinking by providing no actual evidence and just saying it a second time is lost on you.

the data so far in encouraging.

Again, the data so far is inconclusive

“We don’t know yet” vs “Sure, go ahead”

The food is engineered and independently tested.

Again, possibly true but beside the point.

it has the approval of agencies that exist to make sure animals are cared for.

So I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you have citations for this that aren’t institutions that actively promote (or have a vested interest) in veganism.

As I’m sure you can understand that such institutions can hardly be relied upon to be neutral.

that’s hardly magical thinking.

“magical thinking, the belief that one’s ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world.”

“Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them”

Belief in the absence of a plausible causal link.

In case you are unsure, a plausible causal link can be obtained through quality, reproducible, verifiable research.

Unless you have some of that (or some other proof) , you are basing your opinions on anecdotal evidence and inconclusive studies, they very definition of magical thinking.

It seems we are treading the same ground here so I’m just going to assume you have nothing to add.

sure. But the indications so far are that it is fine.

no, the indications so far are inconclusive.

like the original indications for asbestos were inconclusive or lead pipes/paint.

But it seems you are deep into your magical thinking so i doubt anything I’ve said will make a difference to you.

I hope it works out for you.

they do have world class teams preparing the food.

As i specifically said, this doesn’t address the actual issue.

In case i haven’t been clear, the current state of nutritional science on this matter has no consensus on mid to long term outcomes.

So taking the all of the experts in the world and creating the pinnacle of vegan pet nutrition will still garner a best guess, because, and i’m going to bold this part on a separate line:

THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WITHOUT DOING THE ACTUAL WORK

It is potentially being done now, great, wishful thinking and anecdotal results are not a replacement for actual study.

Also, they have independent bodies verifying that the food is suitable.

Outstanding, and when they’ve provided repeatable results from long term studies with quality methodology and reasonable sample sizes that will make a big difference.

Until then it’s a gamble with potentially life altering consequences (for the animals i mean)

seems good enough for me.

Each to their own, your own subjective comfort doesn’t prove validity, neither does my subjective discomfort prove a lack of it.

For you the risk might be worth it, but to pretend there is no risk is delusional.

If long term , broad participation studies with rigorously reproducible methods came to the conclusion that a vegan diet is a viable option then i would be open to switching.

The issue isn’t which food is the most nutritious, it’s that the evidence available in general doesn’t yet support a conclusion on mid to long term viability.

You could have a team of world class nutritionist vets custom make you the best mixture and you would still have the same issue.

Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles

3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.

I’m aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.

No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.

Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.

However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.

I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.

Feel free to surprise me though.

the meta analysis found no major implications to health.

What it said was the current evidence which is potentially bias and only from short term and limited quality studies indicates there are no major implications to health.

However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.

Agreed, it’s a reasonably promising start and with all the caveats in place it does have some merit, but “should not be disregarded” isn’t the same as “go ahead, everything is fine”.

It’s hardly radical, and with proper care cats can be fed a nutritious and tasty diet with not animal products.

It’s not radical to think this might pan out to something beneficial, no.

But currently it’s still a gamble and to argue from a position that glosses over the many many caveats of the studies you provided is disingenuous and weakens your overall argument.

That you personally think the risk is worth the reward is your own business, presenting the situation as containing no risk is not.

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.

Ah…i think i see the problem.

If what you’ve understood so far from my responses has been “this person thinks cat’s are being force fed cucumbers” then I’m not sure I’m best placed to help you, that’s a job for a professional.

Just for completeness sake I’ll address your response but it seems there might be bigger obstacles in play than i had first thought.

you do understand that people are not force feeding cats cucumbers.

See above

the food is indistinguishable from the meat versions.

incorrect, it might be similar but so far (again, according to your provided meta study) there has been no conclusive research to suggest an equal nutritional profile in the medium to long term.

See my previous response about gambling.

I’m not sure any further conversation on this subject is going to garner anything new if you are unable (or unwilling) to comprehend and respond to points raised.

Good luck.