Kurt Zouma thinks it's funny to use a cat as a football

I posted my reply to your post before realising you edited it to include more. Yes, I'd opt to use one of these for catch and release:

With regards David Bennett, the guy who received the pigs heart, the same guy who stabbed someone 7 times and paralysed them in 1988? The irony of that is that there's a good chance his heart failure was down to lifestyle choices, with most heart disease being lifestyle related and a result of atherosclerosis which is primarily a result of consumption of animal products.

On the topic of the philosophical theory of "least harm", I have to ask which part of "I would be obliged if you didn't direct any more of those questions eitherway" that is not easily understood?

To wrap this up, I'd like to say that in a thread about Zouma sadisticly kicking his cat and filming it, you've barely addressed that question or even the problems of pet ownership, which as someone else pointed out is something that "veganism' seeks to eventually completely abolish.

I understand that 'vegan advocacy is a big thing, but Its perfectly possible to have a proper discussion without necessarily personalising that discussion. I can only presume that particular approach is similar to what is being suggested to this? Personally I reckon it's not a good one.

https://faunalytics.org/how-to-spread-information-without-being-overbearing/

If you think are logical jumping from -

Your silence thus far has been deafening on that question as I asked it not once but three times at this stage. It says a lot of your mindset how you have yet to answer it. It is almost as if you feel guilty for being human.

--

I have already explained the major difference you seem unwilling or incapable of grasping. One is functional one is not. One is to do with human healthy survival - the other is just mindless stupidity (kicking a cat for fun)

--

I noticed you could not answer simply - Pig or Human.

It should be simple in my view for the majority of sane people.

But this bit in your above post that raises eyebrows was -

If you had a bond with pig??? You would prefer some random human to die?

This basically means that you value animals more than human life. And some human life is meaningless to you.

That is some moral code you have. Were you watching 'Babe' on repeat as a child or something?? That is a really odd and extremist world view.

Set up a poll on boards and see what a result of that poll would be - on that issue.

Maybe in your circle of friends that chat is normal. But clearly you are extremely left field on this issue. Your issue is not merely with Kurt Zouma kicking the cat. That is just a small trigger for your underlying issue.

Your issue is with humans being top of the food chain. And it disturbs you. To such an extent you have made unnatural lifestyle choices (and hypothetical choices) to try and make yourself feel better about the situation. And in some circumstances of your choosing in life and death situations - you would chose an animal over a human being. How a person ends up thinking like that I don't know. Baffling stuff.

There is no talking to you are brainwashed. I will leave you be. Without posters like you boards would be less amusing. Left field posters are strangely fascinating to me - in small doses.

But I hope you keep taking those supplements - iron vitamins or whatever you need to have a natural diet. To at least enable you to stay physically healthy.

And I hope incidents like the one this thread is supposed to be about (a footballer kicking a cat) does not take too much toll on you mentally in future. As they seem to be major triggers for you and only copperfasten your blinkered world view, and moral compass.

Im a bit more relaxed about Russia invading now. Timmy is going to save us.

Good lord! 500 posts and virtually everyone has forgotten about Kurt Zouma drop-kicking cats.

Shouldn't the vegans/vegetarians start their own thread instead of hijacking a totally unrelated thread?

Because these two things have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Basic biology is clear - humans are natural omnivores, ergo we do best on a balanced diet of meat and various plant types, the right kind in the right proportions. That's why humans have eaten as much meat as they could throughout history, even after we settled into agricultural societies, which was only around 10,000 years ago.

Drop kicking cats on the other hand, is a sign of a scumbag who enjoys cruelty and is abusive to animals purely for fun, not connected with any biological need. The view of cats as being cute and furry is only an additional factor in this case that magnifies ones feelings, it is not decisive factor. Ergo the "you care about cats but what about pigs" isn't really a good argument - if this scumbag were drop kicking baby pigs around for no reason other than laughs, he would be - objectively - just as much of a scumbag.

Won't somebody please think of the cats?

It's unrealistic to expect people to simply ignore food they find delicious and addictive just because they can also get plant foods. It would be like assuming people can avoid drinking alcohol just because it's bad for you. Kicking a defences cat is a nasty thing to do, not been able to avoid food you've been eating your whole life is not a nasty thing to do.

If the animal had a good life and a very quick death I don't see any issue, its part of the food chain and a perfectly normal fact of life. Now an animal not having a decent life or not having a quick death is not ok.

Its not as simple as sensory pleasure, it's about food that's very very difficult to avoid, if I gave up meat I'd eventually be thinking about it all day everyday, I'm sure you've heard of food cravings.

It might be possible but it's difficult, you don't seem to understand how addictive food full of flavour can be.

"If the animal had a good life and a very quick death I don't see any issue, its part of the food chain and a perfectly normal fact of life. Now an animal not having a decent life or not having a quick death is not ok."

I'd agree with this, a decent life and then a quick death is the ideal situation (for those who couldn't live the vegan life). Unfortunately that is wishful thinking at the minute in the food industry.

And yes giving up meat would be very difficult. As soon as i'd give it up id be dreaming of a well cooked steak, or a crispy smoked bacon sandwich or a roast chicken.

1. It's totally irrelevant to a thread about a scumbag abusing animals for literally no other reason than to enjoy their fear and suffering.
2. No, I reject claims about the supposed health benefits of going vegan. Firstly because we are an omnivorous species with specific nutrient needs, secondly because I've heard more than enough stories of people who went on borderline carnivorous diets and had massive health benefits, and thirdly because I have very serious concerns about the health effects of certain ingredients like vegetable oils that I expect would be common in vegan "alternative"

But while on the topic of vegans and cats, I learned a few months ago that "vegan cat food" is literally a thing. Now ... while humans are omnivores and as such should have a balanced diet, cats are obligate carnivores which means they must only eat meat. Anything else will cause nutrient deficiencies.

Frankly I think that anyone who thinks vegan cat food is a good idea is a greater danger to cats than Kurt Zouma. And that's saying a lot because that guy (as the OP was discussing) a vile scumbag.

This. The food chain is a fact of life. Humans farm and raise their own foodstuffs whether that is animal based or otherwise.

What should never be tolerated is sadistic cruelty to animals under our care. And for that reason Zouma was called out for kicking his pet cat. If did the same to a pig or another animal the outcome would be no different.

If or where there are instances where animal welfare standards are not being adhered to, then that is reason to make sure that is remedied.

Animal based foods make up an important part of a nutritious and healthy balanced diet. A diet including meat and dairy foods recommended by national health bodies such as the NHS in the UK etc

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/

Thing is billions of people all over the world depend on animal based foods for their livelihoods and or benefit from a wide range of nutritious animal based foods. The only thing that has changed is a small increase in people adopting various lifestyle choices based on their own personal beliefs, economic security and easy access to cheap imported foodstuffs. No one has a problem with that regardless.

It's relevant in that both are unnecessary and both cause harm when that harm is being caused for somebody's personal choice of how they seek pleasure.

So you're rejecting what the leading dietetic and health associations say because of some anecdotal stories you've heard of where people benefit from going borderline carnivore? This is a good example of how going carnivore can bring about a great reduction in symptoms of gut issues, but that it's only going to be temporary relief and will pave the way for more issues long term. Vegetable oils are not a staple of a diet void of animal products. Anything highly processed such as oils, refined sugars, high salt content, refined carbs etc should be avoided for optimal health.

I haven't looked much into the requirements of cats but at a quick glance, I'm guessing nutrients such as taurine can just be supplemented for and from what I can see just because they only require nutrients found naturally in flesh, they can still consume plant foods and I see plant foods such as corn, soy and wheat are commonly found in the likes of whiskas. Just because somebody can't digest a food type, doesn't mean it's bad for them, like humans can't digest fiber but higher consumption of fiber is associated with better health in humans.

As I've said, animal products are not necessary. My point is about not causing harm where harm isn't necessary. What the NHS recommends has to fit with what most of the UK are going to be open to hearing. The Academy of Dietetics and Nutrition, who are the largest organisation of health professionals (registered dieticians etc) say this about diets void of animal products:

If you want to keep it British, here is the stance of the British Dietetic Association

• Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.

Most people do not "depend" on animal based foods throughout the world. Plant based foods are the staple for most people, especially in poorer countries. Meat is seen as a luxury and is associated with a sense of success, power dynamics etc.

I'm not sure what you're claiming to be utter nonsense? Just because there are unhealthy plant foods (refined carbs, sugars, oils etc) doesn't take away from the health benefits of eating a whole food plant based diet. The argument here however is that animal products are not necessary and that is fact.