From the conclusion of the paper you linked:

This review has found that there is no convincing evidence of major impacts of vegan diets on dog or cat health. There is, however, a limited number of studies investigating this question and those studies available often use small sample sizes or short feeding durations. There was also evidence of benefits for animals arising as a result of feeding them vegan diets. Much of these data were acquired from guardians via survey-type studies, but these can be subject to selection biases, as well as subjectivity around the outcomes. However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.

There is an urgent need for large-scale population-based studies to further investigate this question, with a particular focus on assessing the dietary aspects cited to be of particular concern, e.g., taurine and folate. For guardians wishing to feed their pets vegan diets at the current time, based on the available evidence it is recommended that commercially produced vegan diets are used since these are less likely to lead to nutrient imbalances.

While it does support the viability of specially formulated vegan dog and cat diets based on the current research it is important not to gloss over the fact that they also stress that the current research is lacking and largely based on self-report surveys. Personally I’m not terribly swayed by this paper one way or another and wouldn’t take it as being definitive. Of course I recognize that more precise research has difficulties due to the ethics involved, but I’m also confident that we can do better.

I agree with what you say about the obsession with natural diet being weird by the way, but I think there is a reasonable disconnect in the leap from natural meat -> meat based pet food ------> no meat. For example, even if I don’t eat the same food an early homo sapien would eat I still eat the same kind of food rather than an all mineral diet or something. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t if such a thing were viable of course, just that I’d want to be very sure first.

That’s not a strawman. You should review your knowledge of informal logical fallacies and be certain of their application before leveling accusations of them at people, even if you really disagree with them.

This has got to be parody, right?

That is assuming of course that all the women who said yes are in fact people being truthful and not creeps 'as-a-black-man’ing.

Let’s not jump to conclusions… he could be Bi.

My dude, you haven’t pissed anyone off here that I can see, you’ve just gotten overly defensive and are seeing slights where there aren’t any. People are disagreeing with you and some may be critical of your responses but that doesn’t mean anything is heated. Maybe take a short break from Lemmy and get a glass of water or something? I mean that with 100% sincerity. If you’re interpreting these comments as hateful you’re probably in a bad headspace and I’m doubtful the internet is going to help.

A bit of both in my non-expert but local understanding.

I mean, you should be slowing down at least a bit when passing someone pulled over on the side of the road anyways, no? Just like going through a construction zone. It really depends on how much braking we’re talking about.

That pattern doesn’t really hold though. The third strong enemy becomes a sexy man. Seriously though, it’s not the greatest show ever made but it is better than 95% of the isekai trash out there and isn’t nearly as formulaic as you seem to think it is.

Of course Anne of Green Gables is set in PEI so really it should have been set there. It would have been even funnier since they could probably outnumber the current population pretty easily if they immigrated en masse.

I mean, I think that’s just called science

Well, because it financially supports scammers preying on people is why not. And many medical scams aren’t harmless or innocent or may give people a false sense of wellness that can lead to them avoiding real medicine.

Ya, sadly while this is cute it is not in fact true.

Yes and no. I can’t speak to the particulars of this situation but differences in means matter even if they currently produce the same outcome. A toothless dog and a dog in a muzzle are different in important ways.

Organic does not mean pesticide free. It just means they use so called ‘organic pesticides’ which are just as bad or worse, but they’re ‘naturally derived’ which sounds better to some people. It’s marketing BS. Any agricultural practice at scale uses pesticides and all produce should be washed before consumption.

I’m not a doctor or even well read on the subject but my understanding is that: a) it’s not, and b) it’s a rather different texture/stiffness.

If that’s all you said, I agreed with that part. Why did you keep arguing with me?

I see people doing this so often (on the internet especially) and it honestly baffles me. The best I’ve ever been able to rationalize it is that people are often far more interested in arguing their own points and saying what they believe than actually listening to and understanding others or having a real debate. That may be overly simplistic but it’s how I cope.

I entirely agree, and that does sound like a good approach. I just caution against presenting recycling as a solution rather than as a reduction of harm.

You often can’t though unfortunately. Most plastics can only be recycled a handful of times before they degrade too far. Recycling, while better than nothing, is a far more inefficient and flawed process than it is often presented as. That’s why it is far better to reduce usage in the first place and reuse things as is where you can. Of course this is all still easier said than done.

It’s not a competition, they can both be shit.