I have no context to the thread that caused this struggle session but as a vegan and someone who knows for a fact people will take that shit out of context anyway I know that most vegans will either not have pets, or if they do don’t go as far as to malnourish it.

Most vegans interested in a “vegan cat food” are purely seeing a bunch of tinned/pouch food that claims to be nutritionally complete. I know that for some here the assumption is that vegans are trying to force feed Mr fluffles a carrot and kale soup.

As for whether that food is nutritionally complete depends on the animal, the brand, the testing, and the regulations. Turns out there’s a lot less rigor in ensuring foods are safe for animal consumption compared to humans!

The takeaway overall, imho, is that this is one of those times where having an “/R/all” frontpage makes for a great opportunity for a pile on, followed by mod overreach, and then a weird ass ToS change that’s more to spite a few people than to do any good.

Lmao all this over meat eaters getting mad at vegan cat food? I’m genuinely impressed that redditors are managing to turn Lemmy into a caricature of the godawful website they left.

GG

This is the limitation with policy made by people who just think “science” is when you quote an opinion with an article in a journal.

Decades of climate denialism, anti-veganism, and “race science” is perfectly acceptable under these rules because you could simply post studies funded by Exxon, meat and dairy lobbyists, and right-wing think-tanks which support their conclusion.

“Science should prevail” nerds could do well to consider that perhaps we have other means of identifying malicious behaviour. Any kind of checkbook exercise or algorithm that can pluck truth out of the air won’t work; the scientific method was never intended to declare X or Y as permanent facts the way we use it online.