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

Ah another one who wants to get rid of all pets 🙄

And thing is that's absolute unmitigated rubbish which has already been thoroughly debunked many times here

Its illegal to kick any any animal in the UK and Ireland so you better explain your pet theory to the likes of the the rscpca and the courts in the UK and the same here who have convicted people like this for cruelty towards animals.

So an ambassador to the UN and some random NHS doctor are the critics on the daily mail article? Doctors are by no means experts on nutrition, in fact they get very little training on nutrition in their medical tuition.

The second article is good, thanks. It even contradicts the first article you've posted :) It's from a dietician who advocates for veganism based on science who is criticising a movie which contained some flaws because there is enough evidence to show a plant based diet is sufficient for all stages of life and that when film makers misinterpret studies, and push flawed information, it gives fuel to others to undermine the credibility of the movement. I've never once mentioned this movie, I've just been quoting the statements from the leading dietetic associations worldwide, but this article is actually good advocacy towards veganism.

I don’t know enough about human nutrition to say if a fully plant based diet is the same, better ir worse than a diet of meat and plant based food. I’d say it would likely be better than a diet of mainly meat though.

I used to eat far too much processed meat and not enough veg. Now I like veg and other plant based foods much more. My aim is to eat more free range and organic food. Eat less 4 euro chickens and packet hams etc.

This is hillarious. I looked up the American Dietetic Association being lauded in a number of comments.

Funny thing is this private body with the impressive sounding name are not quite what you might imagine

The American Dietetic Association is actually a private lobby and interest group which was co-founded by one Lena Cooper who was an active Seventh Day Adventist.

Today Adventists and the American Dietetic  Association continue to  push vegetarian and vegan agendas actively onto national health policies in many countries.

http://foodmed.net/2017/08/medical-evangelism-adventist-diet-advice/

https://www.inforum.com/lifestyle/adventists-believe-the-bible-favors-vegetarianism-shouldnt-their-dietary-studies-tell-us-that

And the quoted American Dietetic Association paper being quoted here promoting plant based diets?

Both authors of the paper are vegan, one is also a seventh day adventist. and the reviewers of said paper are also also vegan / vegetarian. Who'd have thunk it 😅

It would be even more hilarious if they actually had terrible health, but that's not the case :)

I'm not actually sure what you're trying to prove spending all this time linking to articles though? Are you trying to disprove that it's not necessary to consume animal products?

Anyway, here's a longer list of statements from other associations if you think there being a religious agenda behind the American Dietetic Association voids any relevant scientific studies done under good scientific merit.

Dietitians of Canada

• A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.

The British National Health Service

• With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.

The British Nutrition Foundation

• A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.

The Dietitians Association of Australia

• Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider.

The United States Department of Agriculture

• Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

The National Health and Medical Research Council

• Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day

The Mayo Clinic

• A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

• Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.

Harvard Medical School

• Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.

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.

This is advice given to be achievable and not appear so daunting to the average person. You can see how people react even when they are simply being told animal products are not necessary in this thread. Imagine advising close to 70 million people not to eat the food they've grown up eating and identify so much with in their culture, habits, taste etc.

Also from the NHS: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/why-5-a-day/#:~:text=A%20portion%20of%20fruit%20or,and%20some%20types%20of%20cancer.

5 a day is commonly recommended because it appears to be an achievable amount and is the minimum that should be eaten. It's much better to eat more than 5 a day though, but again, they need to appeal to the average person in a population where it's normal to develop heart disease, diabetes etc.

Can't imagine it's easy for a 90kg human to get a 500kg cow to move. Oats are a little easier to handle I'd say.

Looks like the Dietitians of Canada/UnlockFood.ca have updated their blurb on diets void of animal food:

Besides posters who are getting nearer and nearer to Southpark parodies with every post-

Posters who are making parodies of themselves and been so 'out there' they have made themselves irrelevant to the discussion as they repeatedly go 'off road' based on their ideology/lifestyle choices. It certainly is not conducive to getting more members to join their cause - quite the opposite in fact!

I suspect the intent is for such posters to feel good about themselves rather than recruiting members to their 'cause'. I think engaging with such posters only encourages them to keep repeating mantras regardless of the topic.

--

I would like to get the thread back to the main issue which the thread was created for. Because I am curious as to what the majority of people think.

So I suppose I should ask what do the more ahem - 'mainstream' posters think of the Kurt Zouma scenario.

Is it an overreaction? As the cat was not killed Zouma was fined etc.

Or was it an underreaction as it showed Zouma's mindset?

Given the fact Zouma is a pro footballer (role model to youngsters) does this mean that he should be held to a high level of accountability than the average man on the street?

As is the NHS recommendation for a healthy balanced diet of both plant and animal based foods.

I agree, let's get back on topic.

As far as I am concerned, the punishment for Zouma did not go far enough. Footballers are looked up to especially by young people, and they are certainly paid enough that we should expect them to adhere to basic standards of ... at least not being sadistic scumbags. It was clear that he did what he did solely to enjoy the cats fear and pain, and this is not someone that should be in any kind of position of influence or trust. The fact that he happened not to kill or (we assume) permanently injure the cats may be something of a mitigating factor, but realistically, not much.

Shame on West Ham for treating the matter with kid gloves and shame on companies like Betway for continuing to support this. Though considering that large companies had no problem being associated with the Genocide Olympics in Beijing, perhaps West Ham's sponsors are small fish in comparison.

Let's hope so.

If you contribute to the pet industry then you play a small part in the torture, killing and mutilation of millions of animals every year.

Kurt Zouma kicked a cat which was nasty and cruel, and potentially damaging. But what is happening to him now is like being accused of assault by those who have committed genocide.

You can say what you want to defend the pet industry, or where you get your pet, or how you treat pets under your control, but ultimately by having a pet you are vindicating the pet industry and popularizing it, which will only lead to the further mistreatment of animals.

Now, personally I am ok with that. I have had pets and am as guilty as anyone, but I don't have the brass neck to judge someone else over what is really a misdemeanor by comparison to what we are all responsible for.

I for one think there should be a limit on the amount of pet dogs in the world, they are terrible for the environment, as bad as owning an SUV apparently with all the meat they consume, and now plastic from pet superstores etc. Not a popular opinion but there are billions of them on the planet now and they are a strain on the Earth's resources. People buy gourmet cuts of meat from gourmet pet food companies, talk about extreme civilisation, it's ridiculous.

Nah don't think so. Philosophical meanderings aside I reckon a lot of posters have been trying to get the thread back about the Zouma kicking a cat.

Btw I think the previous poster was being humorous about the dog license thing