Senal

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.

so obviously provide your cat with nutritious food. if the cat is not eating the food then find something it will eat.

And that's the issue, the short to midterm studies are relatively bias (as shown by your own provided meta-study), show you need supplements to stave off issues (taurine etc) and are somewhat inconclusive.

There are no long term studies.

It's a "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"

Of an option between a known good and a potential good , one of those is more certain to produce a good outcome.

at the moment these are new fields of studies.

Agreed, and making potentially life altering long term decisions based on new fields of study comes with risks.

I'm not saying it won't or can't work, I'm saying it's a gamble. At the moment it's a sketchy gamble based on incomplete fields of study with limited quality results and it's a gamble you are making on behalf of another life that can't consent.

If you want to roll the dice on this, that's on you.

For me, i would consider that kind of risk to be too great for the sake of my personal beliefs.

Either way, if you are going to be trying to convince people there is no risk you're probably going to have a hard time with anyone who understands how to read the papers you provided.

there is food available that is vegan, palatable and nutritious.

• Vegan : sure + supplements
• Palatable, meh, as long as they are eating it
• Nutritious, see above (read: inconclusive)

so there is no problem.

A strong claim to be making when the meta study you provide specifically goes out of it's way to say "we don't really know yet"

quality of life is subjective to measure at the best of time.

Sure, no arguments here.

The findings so far so do not demonstrate a problem if the cat is cared for.

Your own citation doesn't even show that , so unless you have another that definitely concludes this I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

As i said above, at best it's stating:

"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 else will you study quality of life from a cat?

Empirically and with a structurally repeatable methodology.

Preferably with funding provided by a somewhat neutral party.

The meta-study you provided specifically calls out the problem with self reported studies.

Whilst survey studies evaluating guardian-reported outcomes generally encompassed larger numbers of animals, these are subject to inherent biases due to participant selection, as well as the reliability of lay people making judgements around somewhat subjective concepts, such as health and body condition.

The whole section : "4.1. Evidence Considerations" specifically points out the inadequacies and limitations of the studies under analysis.

As does the conclusion section : "5. Conclusions"

Which to my personal interpretation says

"We haven't found anything overtly damaging, some benefits even, but the research is lacking in scope, sample size and length is largely from potentially biased sources"

"If you are going to feed your cat or dog a vegan diet, use the commercial ones as they are less likely to be problematic"

emphasis on the potentially there, lest you think I'm claiming absolute bias in my interpretation.

I asked you to show peer reviewed studies that prove cats will not find vegan food palatable.

You asked for nutrition and palatability, the nutrition part is covered in the inconclusive nature of the meta study conclusion section, neither strongly for nor against until higher quality research is available.

Going back to a previous comment

You asked for peer reviewed studies into the palatability and nutrition of vegan cat food.

I provided.

Your provided studies made no mention of a particular palatability metric (i could have missed it however). The fact that they eat either type of food would imply a measure of palatability both ways, but if you have something definitive I'd be interested to see it.

Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match.

Thats the one same difference

Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn't.

We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.

What do u think?

I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else's right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.

U cant just proclaim something to be true.

That's fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I'll clarify what i meant in the next sections.

You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

This is true for all.

In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying "well they can just smoke when they get home", technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.

Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren't exactly as "outside" as they could be.

I'm not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i'd imagine its heavily subjective.

Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.

Oh absolutely, even if it wasn't bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it's a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the "huge burden" on the NHS.

cheery picking laws aside

That would imply there was "cherry" picking to be set aside.

cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.

I'd be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?

God given rights comes from the American Constitution

It does not, purposely so.

It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).

Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.

We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.

Who's we and when was this decided ?

If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.

That is logically incorrect (reduce one persons liberty points by 10, add 5 liberty points each to 2 people and liberty equilibrium is maintained) but i think i know what you are getting at.

Assuming everyone's idea of the ultimate goal is "liberty for all" is also a stretch.

That's an entirely different conversation though.

The smokers zones were a result of the original crackdown on smoking in public places, the government decided and it sounds like you followed along.

That this new change goes further than you are personally comfortable with doesn't make the previous change any less a governmental decree.

Let's assume however that you do have some universal right to smoke in the smokers section:

Is this the only universal right that exists ?

Do other people not have a right to not be forcibly exposed to known carcinogens ?

To pre-empt the "but they don't have to be near the smokers" argument, yes, they do.

A pub garden isn't magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.

God-given? That's your go to?

Fuck the authorities because god says I can do what I like?

Also where is it you think the smokers section comes from?

I'm not saying what they are doing isn't bullshit, it very much is, but "who are they to tell me to do this new thing, I can continue to do this other thing they told me I can do, because I don't have to listen to them" is some Olympian level mental gymnastics

That is a good question, I know where the button is for the website (it's in the sidebar, in my UI it's green) but the app im using doesn't have an obvious button

You don't need to suspect you can check for yourself, modlog exists.