133
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
133 points (99.3% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15912 readers
543 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
READ THE STUDY!
FFS don't skim the study. 3% of non vegan cats had kidney problems, 4% of vegan cats did.
So you're saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan cats and we're not destroying our planet in industrial livestock murder. Sounds great!
No need to shout. I did.
No. That is not what the study is saying. The study is saying that "we took a look, and couldn't tell if there was a difference or not." Which is understandable, given the methodology. Internet-based questionnaires/surveys are easy to conduct, but tend to have big error bars. It's a common trade-off made when first beginning to investigate a hypothesis.
It's your typical "absence of evidence" versus "evidence of absence" conundrum. The authors note this in their comments on the limitations of their study and on avenues for further research:
Comrade, I'm not trying to argue that cats are "obligate carnivores," or that cats should or should not have vegan diets. I'm not arguing about whether or not cats can meet their nutritional needs from vegan diets. I am only stating that the particular study linked does not provide any usable evidence in support of a conclusion. That's literally what "no reductions were statistically significant" means: that the collected data is not sufficient to draw reliable conclusions.
Other studies may very well have more rigorous methodologies that convincingly demonstrate the nutritional completeness of vegan diets for cats. But not this study.
That's fair enough. Not all nutrient deficiencies have acute presentations, and the seven indicators of illness may not account for all the ways nutrient deficiencies could present, but if the crowd shrieking about animal cruelty was right in its hyperbolic hypothesis, then it would be likely for at least one of those seven indicators to get tripped.
FYI I have no patience for non-vegans concern trolling vegan issues. If you're actively harming sentient animals, your opinion is clouded by your own guilt. Apologies in advance if you happen to be vegan.
I don't know why you're so concerned about my taking my ending summary, out of context, when I wrote paragraphs summarising the lit review and minor differences in kidney issues with non vegan vs vegan cats.
Science doesn't speak in absolutes expect in maths. If you read anything outside of the abstract, you'd see that there's a few other existing studies that support it, no studies claim the opposite, and further research should be done as in all medical research of this type.
No kidding. No if only the "cats must eat meat" side had this sorta need for rigorous methodology.