Sushi Lord
Dog cannibal?Originally posted by Lamsey@15 November 2003 - 21:12
Lady, my sister's dog (who we take care of) eats dog meat, because my parents choose to buy her dog meat. If I had my way, she'd be eating 100% vegetarian food, but unfortunately it's not up to me
Is this a brand of dog food?
Died in battle
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
apparently it is possible to feed a dog something that isn't in its natural diet
The Sexay Half Of ABBA And Max: Freelance Plants
Sushi Lord
Originally posted by DarthInsinuate@15 November 2003 - 21:50
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
apparently it is possible to feed a dog something that isn't in its natural diet
Interesting link written by a vegetarian. He isn't one-sided in any way, but makes it pretty clear that it's not a great idea to feed your pet a strict vegetarian diet.
Dr. Russel Swift, DVM, Classical Homeopath.
There is much more to the article if you follow the link, but no point pasting a huge chunk of text here.So why do a growing number of people recommend vegetarian diets for dogs and cats? There are several reasons:
1) Ignorance of their true nature and needs
2) Having an agenda to convert all people and animals to vegetarianism for animals rights reasons
3) Capitalizing monetarily on people following #2.
4) Knowing an animal that has done well on a vegetarian diet
Personally, i think it's wrong to feed a cat or dog anything other than the equivalent of what would be their natural diet in the wild, which would almost certainly include meat. Biologically, they just aren't made for it.
Whether humans are 'designed' to be vegetarian is debatable, but our bodies definitely support the option, as the many perfectly healthy vegetarians living today and in the past have proven.
We may have the conscience to make the decision not to consume meat, but a dog or cat live more on instinct, and i'm sure they don't have a problem with living on a balanced diet. It's not our place to decide for them, and if you feel strongly on the matter you should offer two bowls of food to your pets, one containing meat, the other strictly vegetarian, and allow them to decide. I'm almost certain they would eat the bowl containing meat first (and would probably finish off the other bowl too). No morals these damn animals! lol
and look how happy it makes them....Originally posted by DarthInsinuate@15 November 2003 - 21:50
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
apparently it is possible to feed a dog something that isn't in its natural diet
(pictures taken from that site).
My personal opinion, one day on a mixed meat & veg diet and these dogs would be more like Rex here...
Lagomorph
Not a thing Linda, If I have asked before was it possibly during an apple period. The old mind does not recall as well nowadays, particularly in relation to Friday and Saturday nights.Originally posted by J'Pol+15 November 2003 - 20:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 15 November 2003 - 20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-summerlinda@15 November 2003 - 20:41
You have asked this before
Its not because you really wanna know, its just for "stoking"
Leave us vegetarians alone, get of our backs, what did we do to you?
I just wonder, because vegetarians can be quite sanctimonious. In my experience those who are vegetarian for health reasons don't really preach. However Vegetarians of "conscience" can be a wee bit too moral high ground for me.
I genuinely apologise if I am repeating this and it offends you.[/b][/quote]
Exactly! They come off as "a bit superior and enlightened", when in fact, I would claim the opposite to be the case.
Humans are highly inefficient in converting plant matter into usable energy. We simply do not have the enzymes to breakdown the major structural components of the plant cell walls. We are well suited to the breakdown of animal products and that is why such a diet is called "low residue" vs the large bulky stools of vegetarians. Vegetarians basically just poop it all out.
Only in a world filled with supermarkets and huge surpluses of food is the vegetarian lifestyle feasible. In the those countries where food is in short supply, for whatever reason (usually political), any animals they can acquire are worth more than money. Many even attempt to supplement their diets with rats and other local vermin, highlighting the need for animal proteins.
As to the philsophy that people refuse to eat certain meats because the animal was raised in a cruel manner to preserve "tenderness" and such, I laud you for this. One of the problems of a capitalist system is that ranchers are all competing to get the most payback for their limited resources, so they confine their animals and pump them full of steroids and antibiotics. This is where society must step in and set the bar for what type of treatment is allowable and create agencies to enforce these guidelines.
Finally, for those who feel that "all life" has an equal right to exist, I agree to a point. Hunting for trophies is disrespectful to nature. We should not kill simply for pleasure (although hunting seasons are useful to thin out excess herbivores and most hunters do butcher their kills for consumption).
But, should I let ants over-run my house, wasps swarm in my attic and harbor mites in my hair? If I am sick, should I kill those innocent microrganisms with antibiotics?
Where do we draw the line? I think it becomes difficult for people when they look at a little bunny. They place a human awareness in it, which simply does not exist. As a former rabbit and cow owner, I can attest to the fact that these animals act more out of primitive reflexes than cerebral ponderings.
For instance, if you were a rabbit and you were chased by a fox, if you escaped you would start thinking about how to avoid the fox. You would live in terror. Actual rabbits just put their heads down and start chewing grass as if nothing has ever happened once the fox goes away.
I watched one of my rabbits die right in front of the other. I got so angry because the observing rabbit took no notice. I put a corn chip on the body of the dead bunny and watched its companion of 5 years grab the chip and eat it off the corpse. (It was a sad day for me, I only did the chip thing just test how "aware" the surviving rabbit was.) He was not assessing the situation, the actions of the dying rabbit were not something that triggered his innate reflexes. This supported my earlier observations growing up, that cows are nothing more than food processors for grass.
I would submit that, at times, herbivores appear to exhibit individualistic human-like behavior, but most of this is as cerebral as your knee kicking when I hit your tendon with a reflex hammer. A simple neural reflex arc, nothing more.
This is why I consider the concept that "all life" as being equal to be incorrect. Although, I do think that nature and all living entities should be treated respectfully.
What Mother Nature teaches us is that there is a unique role for all living entities and we, by acting in accordance with our abilites, maintain her checks and balances. We were born to be omnivores, according to our biochemistry, not herbivores, and that is how we should live, if we want to listen to Mother Nature.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
Exactly! They come off as "a bit superior and enlightened", when in fact, I would claim the opposite to be the case.Originally posted by hobbes+15 November 2003 - 22:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 15 November 2003 - 22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by J'Pol@15 November 2003 - 20:47
<!--QuoteBegin-summerlinda@15 November 2003 - 20:41
You have asked this before
Its not because you really wanna know, its just for "stoking"
Leave us vegetarians alone, get of our backs, what did we do to you?
Not a thing Linda, If I have asked before was it possibly during an apple period. The old mind does not recall as well nowadays, particularly in relation to Friday and Saturday nights.
I just wonder, because vegetarians can be quite sanctimonious. In my experience those who are vegetarian for health reasons don't really preach. However Vegetarians of "conscience" can be a wee bit too moral high ground for me.
I genuinely apologise if I am repeating this and it offends you.
Humans are highly inefficient in converting plant matter into usable energy. We simply do not have the enzymes to breakdown the major structural components of the plant cell walls. We are well suited to the breakdown of animal products and that is why such a diet is called "low residue" vs the large bulky stools of vegetarians. Vegetarians basically just poop it all out.
Only in a world filled with supermarkets and huge surpluses of food is the vegetarian lifestyle feasible. In the those countries where food is in short supply, for whatever reason (usually political), any animals they can acquire are worth more than money. Many even attempt to supplement their diets with rats and other local vermin, highlighting the need for animal proteins.
As to the philsophy that people refuse to eat certain meats because the animal was raised in a cruel manner to preserve "tenderness" and such, I laud you for this. One of the problems of a capitalist system is that ranchers are all competing to get the most payback for their limited resources, so they confine their animals and pump them full of steroids and antibiotics. This is where society must step in and set the bar for what type of treatment is allowable and create agencies to enforce these guidelines.
Finally, for those who feel that "all life" has an equal right to exist, I agree to a point. Hunting for trophies is disrespectful to nature. We should not kill simply for pleasure (although hunting seasons are useful to thin out excess herbivores and most hunters do butcher their kills for consumption).
But, should I let ants over-run my house, wasps swarm in my attic and harbor mites in my hair? If I am sick, should I kill those innocent microrganisms with antibiotics?
Where do we draw the line? I think it becomes difficult for people when they look at a little bunny. They place a human awareness in it, which simply does not exist. As a former rabbit and cow owner, I can attest to the fact that these animals act more out of primitive reflexes than cerebral ponderings.
For instance, if you were a rabbit and you were chased by a fox, if you escaped you would start thinking about how to avoid the fox. You would live in terror. Actual rabbits just put their heads down and start chewing grass as if nothing has ever happened once the fox goes away.
I watched one of my rabbits die right in front of the other. I got so angry because the observing rabbit took no notice. I put a corn chip on the body of the dead bunny and watched its companion of 5 years grab the chip and eat it off the corpse. (It was a sad day for me, I only did the chip thing just test how "aware" the surviving rabbit was.) He was not assessing the situation, the actions of the dying rabbit were not something that triggered his innate reflexes. This supported my earlier observations growing up, that cows are nothing more than food processors for grass.
I would submit that, at times, herbivores appear to exhibit individualistic human-like behavior, but most of this is as cerebral as your knee kicking when I hit your tendon with a reflex hammer. A simple neural reflex arc, nothing more.
This is why I consider the concept that "all life" as being equal to be incorrect. Although, I do think that nature and all living entities should be treated respectfully.
What Mother Nature teaches us is that there is a unique role for all living entities and we, by acting in accordance with our abilites, maintain her checks and balances. We were born to be omnivores, according to our biochemistry, not herbivores, and that is how we should live, if we want to listen to Mother Nature. [/b][/quote]
What a fine post, a bloody fine post. One of your best
Great points, well presented.
I doff my cap to you sir. Only figuratively I'm afraid but that will have to do.
Would you go as far as to say that any vegetarian who does not provide their pet dog with a proper, balanced, natural diet was being cruel. In the same way as the very animal breeders and techniques that they object to.
Pyretta¤Blaze
Exactly! They come off as "a bit superior and enlightened", when in fact, I would claim the opposite to be the case.Originally posted by hobbes+15 November 2003 - 22:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 15 November 2003 - 22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by J'Pol@15 November 2003 - 20:47
<!--QuoteBegin-summerlinda@15 November 2003 - 20:41
You have asked this before
Its not because you really wanna know, its just for "stoking"
Leave us vegetarians alone, get of our backs, what did we do to you?
Not a thing Linda, If I have asked before was it possibly during an apple period. The old mind does not recall as well nowadays, particularly in relation to Friday and Saturday nights.
I just wonder, because vegetarians can be quite sanctimonious. In my experience those who are vegetarian for health reasons don't really preach. However Vegetarians of "conscience" can be a wee bit too moral high ground for me.
I genuinely apologise if I am repeating this and it offends you.
Humans are highly inefficient in converting plant matter into usable energy. We simply do not have the enzymes to breakdown the major structural components of the plant cell walls. We are well suited to the breakdown of animal products and that is why such a diet is called "low residue" vs the large bulky stools of vegetarians. Vegetarians basically just poop it all out.
Only in a world filled with supermarkets and huge surpluses of food is the vegetarian lifestyle feasible. In the those countries where food is in short supply, for whatever reason (usually political), any animals they can acquire are worth more than money. Many even attempt to supplement their diets with rats and other local vermin, highlighting the need for animal proteins.
As to the philsophy that people refuse to eat certain meats because the animal was raised in a cruel manner to preserve "tenderness" and such, I laud you for this. One of the problems of a capitalist system is that ranchers are all competing to get the most payback for their limited resources, so they confine their animals and pump them full of steroids and antibiotics. This is where society must step in and set the bar for what type of treatment is allowable and create agencies to enforce these guidelines.
Finally, for those who feel that "all life" has an equal right to exist, I agree to a point. Hunting for trophies is disrespectful to nature. We should not kill simply for pleasure (although hunting seasons are useful to thin out excess herbivores and most hunters do butcher their kills for consumption).
But, should I let ants over-run my house, wasps swarm in my attic and harbor mites in my hair? If I am sick, should I kill those innocent microrganisms with antibiotics?
Where do we draw the line? I think it becomes difficult for people when they look at a little bunny. They place a human awareness in it, which simply does not exist. As a former rabbit and cow owner, I can attest to the fact that these animals act more out of primitive reflexes than cerebral ponderings.
For instance, if you were a rabbit and you were chased by a fox, if you escaped you would start thinking about how to avoid the fox. You would live in terror. Actual rabbits just put their heads down and start chewing grass as if nothing has ever happened once the fox goes away.
I watched one of my rabbits die right in front of the other. I got so angry because the observing rabbit took no notice. I put a corn chip on the body of the dead bunny and watched its companion of 5 years grab the chip and eat it off the corpse. (It was a sad day for me, I only did the chip thing just test how "aware" the surviving rabbit was.) He was not assessing the situation, the actions of the dying rabbit were not something that triggered his innate reflexes. This supported my earlier observations growing up, that cows are nothing more than food processors for grass.
I would submit that, at times, herbivores appear to exhibit individualistic human-like behavior, but most of this is as cerebral as your knee kicking when I hit your tendon with a reflex hammer. A simple neural reflex arc, nothing more.
This is why I consider the concept that "all life" as being equal to be incorrect. Although, I do think that nature and all living entities should be treated respectfully.
What Mother Nature teaches us is that there is a unique role for all living entities and we, by acting in accordance with our abilites, maintain her checks and balances. We were born to be omnivores, according to our biochemistry, not herbivores, and that is how we should live, if we want to listen to Mother Nature. [/b][/quote]
Lets just say thats your opinion, based on the things you know, you read, you heard and you believe, okay?
Sorry for coming off as superior and enlightened...
I think this is exactly what JP was aiming at, another useless, veggie discussion, the 10th or something.
We all stand for what we believe in, no-one can change that.
My best friend is a potato! Vegetables have feelings too!
I love animals too in every sense gnorf! I have decided to become an eat buggerallarian!
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>Mr Hand's Busy Right Now! So Talk To Mr FOOKIN FINGER!!!!</span></span>
Linda
What I was aiming at was a serious discussion, on a serious topic. I start that type of thread fairly often (I think).
If other people wish to discuss toilets, genitalia, whatever I really don't mind as long as they are having fun. It's just not always my cup of tea.
I think the juxtapositions are interesting.
Either be cruel - as an objection to cruelty.
Or allow your dog to eat meat (because it's natural) but not your brother.
I cannot see a third way, but find either of those untenable.
Posting Permissions
Is this a brand of dog food? 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks