Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Study suggests that cats may get health benefits from vegan diet

I think they play with them for fun and then eventually the mice die. They don’t often, in my experience, eat them afterwards, just enjoy the game, where killing doesn’t always seem to be their main objective.
 
I think they play with them for fun and then eventually the mice die. They don’t often, in my experience, eat them afterwards, just enjoy the game, where killing doesn’t always seem to be their main objective.
They are usually very disappointed when the mouse dies. My cat used to flick the dead mouse for a while trying to get it to do something. And yeah, he wouldn't always eat any of it.
 
I think they play with them for fun and then eventually the mice die. They don’t often, in my experience, eat them afterwards, just enjoy the game, where killing doesn’t always seem to be their main objective.

In my experience they mostly bring the fuckers into the house alive and then leave them there for someone else to deal with.
 
They "play" with their prey as a strategy to tire it out and reduce risk of injury to themselves.

And if they don't eat it, its because they aren't hungry, because they've been fed catfood.

It's adaptive behaviour left over from living in the wild. Saying it's for "fun" is anthropomorphising.
 
They "play" with their prey as a strategy to tire it out and reduce risk of injury to themselves.

And if they don't eat it, its because they aren't hungry, because they've been fed catfood.

It's adaptive behaviour left over from living in the wild. Saying it's for "fun" is anthropomorphising.
Nah. Reserving 'fun' to humans only is human exceptionalism. You don't think the ways we have fun have their origins in our evolutionary past? Of course they do. And we share exactly the same fun-rewarding biochemistry as other animals, too.
 
Nah. Reserving 'fun' to humans only is human exceptionalism. You don't think the ways we have fun have their origins in our evolutionary past? Of course they do. And we share exactly the same fun-rewarding biochemistry as other animals, too.
There's loads of stuff we do which has origins in our evolutionary past but we'd only describe some of it as "fun". You can ask a human if they are having fun doing something but not a cat.
 
There's loads of stuff we do which has origins in our evolutionary past but we'd only describe some of it as "fun". You can ask a human if they are having fun doing something but not a cat.

I can tell when my cat is happy. He comes running when he sees a certain brush and purrs deeply.

Its not a big leap to think they have fun.
 
They "play" with their prey as a strategy to tire it out and reduce risk of injury to themselves.

And if they don't eat it, its because they aren't hungry, because they've been fed catfood.

It's adaptive behaviour left over from living in the wild. Saying it's for "fun" is anthropomorphising.


Nah. Reserving 'fun' to humans only is human exceptionalism. You don't think the ways we have fun have their origins in our evolutionary past? Of course they do. And we share exactly the same fun-rewarding biochemistry as other animals, too.

Personally I think the truth is somewhere in between. I think teuchter's example is mostly instinct, but I think you would be hard-pressed to say this dog is not having fun.

 
So what? You also can't ask a cat if it is in pain. Doesn't mean it doesn't experience pain.
My point is more to do with in what way it's useful to talk about the behaviour of playing with prey as "fun". It's useful to identify an animal as experiencing "pain" if you want to avoid it having this experience.
 
Anthropomorphising other animals is of course a danger. But attributing fun to them isn't necessarily anthropomorphising. The opposite trap also exists and is often fallen into - thinking that somehow human behaviours are special and there's a sharp divide between us and other animals. I would suggest that where 'fun' is concerned, there are plenty of other animals that exhibit behaviour the shows every evidence that they're having fun. Dig deeper and you see the same internal reward systems in place that we have.

The danger in failing to recognise this is that you misunderstand both the other animal and our evolved nature.
 
They are usually very disappointed when the mouse dies. My cat used to flick the dead mouse for a while trying to get it to do something. And yeah, he wouldn't always eat any of it.
My sister's cat got bored after a mouse it was 'playing' with in the garden became lifeless and returned to the house. A while later, realising the cat had gone, the mouse leapt up and ran off!
 
Anthropomorphising other animals is of course a danger. But attributing fun to them isn't necessarily anthropomorphising. The opposite trap also exists and is often fallen into - thinking that somehow human behaviours are special and there's a sharp divide between us and other animals. I would suggest that where 'fun' is concerned, there are plenty of other animals that exhibit behaviour the shows every evidence that they're having fun. Dig deeper and you see the same internal reward systems in place that we have.

The danger in failing to recognise this is that you misunderstand both the other animal and our evolved nature.
I think there's a particular issue with words like "fun" because (I would say) fun means more than simply an activity from which some kind of pleasure reward is gained ... it implies something judged to be essentially harmless, or at least something that for the perpetrator is untinged with moral concerns or doubts. And for those reasons I'd say is a human specific word.

If we say the cat is having "fun" playing with its prey it implies we are judging it to be unconcerned with the welfare of the mouse, and therefore perhaps callous behaviour, in which case we are anthropomorphising.
 
As ever there's context. Would you agree that the following statement is athropomorphising?
The only bit I would dispute, or seek to qualify, is the bit about tormenting the mouse. It surely is tormenting the mouse, but I very much doubt the cat has the intention to torment it. The cat doesn't give a shit if the mouse is tormented or not.
 
Mad really - Domesticated cats are there because humans breed them and so, whilst the natural world can be unbelievably cruel at times, we can't really interfere with that (see: Dolphins killing porpoises for fun etc).
Cats, however, not only kill masses of wildlife inc things like songbirds (most of which are protected) they also seemingly enjoy torturing their prey. So; by buying a cat, you are effectively sentencing thousands of animals to a lengthy, horrific, tortuous death (unless you keep it indoors). It is also, as mentioned an obligate carnivore.

If you are a vegan or vegetarian who thinks killing animals for food or sport is immoral, I can't for the life of me see how it's compatible with your code of ethics to purchase a animal that will torture animals on your behalf. I can't see how you could be against hunting with dogs, whilst simultaneously have an outdoor cat, both are human interferences that cause suffering (cats probably more so than hunting dogs, if you exclude foxhunting).

Why not just not have a bloody cat in the first place?
A lot of vegetarians and vegans have rescue cats to be fair.
 
Just having a quick google, taurine can be obtained from seaweed.



So if cats are fed a vegan diet, with seaweed mixed in, you may be good if there are no other nutritional items that can only be obtained from meat. Still, there may be another chemical in seaweed that is toxic to cats as cats seem to be susceptible to a lot of foods we think are fine.
You can also synthesise taurine. The point was that it would need to be added to any vegetable based cat food for it to be healthy.
 
Cats do what cats want to do. If they don't like it, they'll let you know, sure enough.
Is that any guarantee they’ll get what they want? It will basically become a battle of wills against their determined owners, who will dismiss any protestations, revenge poos, and half eaten dishes as an initial unhappiness to the cat’s diet that will wear off in a few days or weeks at most as the cat gets used to the new, only food now available to them.

So unless a cat goes for broke with an all-out hunger strike and holds out long enough for their owner to blink first, in most cases they will end up buckling, because at the end of the day, hunger you know. That they end up eating it every day for the rest of their lives does by no means mean they are happy about it.

I’m sorry, but it seems a complete cunt’s trick to me to do such a thing to a carnivore animal. I would urge any cat owner to either don’t do it, or give the cat to a loving new home if they are uncomfortable with feeding them meat.
 
Back
Top Bottom