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

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.

You're not wrong.

If you reckon big business and vested interests aren't behind a lot of it think again

https://wickedleeks.riverford.co.uk/opinion/veganism-meat/scrutinise-small-print-eat-lancet

"The Eat-Lancet report commanded the airwaves recently with its proposal for a new, global one-size-fits-all diet which it grandiosely calls ‘The Great Food Transformation’. It is without precedent because it advocates a dramatic shift away from the time-honoured omnivore diet, based on all food groups, including animal foods, to “plant-based” eating."

"The Eat-Lancet report itself was funded by The Wellcome Trust, whose founder, Henry Wellcome, was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist (a Millennialist Christian group) that preaches vegetarianism and shuns red meat. Furthermore, Wellcome made his wealth in the pharmaceutical industry."

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6907429/amp/World-Health-Organization-pulls-support-controversial-planetary-health-diet.html

"World Health Organisation pulls support for "planetary health diet" that drastically cuts back on meat after critics warn it is dangerous to health"

The misinformation

https://vegan.com/health/vegan-dietitian-review-what-the-health/

A vegan dietitian blows the whistle of misinformation being pushed about plant food diets based on the "dishonest" use of nutrition science and research.

*Apologies for the newspaper link the other main articles on that seem to pay to view.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course you do. You simply can't equate pet ownerships with wilfully being cruel to an animal. It's simply not comparable regardless of what mental gymnastics you perform to try and get from point a to b.

There's plenty of people who take care of animals because it provides the best life possible for that animal. They don't see them as their property so wouldn't call themselves "owners", but there is no blood on their hands for taking care of an animal who would otherwise suffer. Buying animals that have been bred for the purpose of profit/exploitation, because you want a status symbol, fashion icon or a cute living toy is completely different to rescuing animals from shelters or other instances where they would endure a lower quality of life than what they can have under the care of a human.

There are some that go on this paleo or Keto diet and they only eat animal based foods. I don't care what science they try pull out their arse, the evidence is that too high of consumption of meat lowers your life expectancy. A healthy diet is one that will have balance and moderation. I love meat, beef particularly, but I wouldn't eat it every day. Balance and moderation.

The packets of ham you mention often have as little as 60% ham in them. You're absolutely correct in steering away from processed meats. But frankly the cause is in the consumer. People don't want to pay for prime meat. They want to pick up a packet of "ham" for a euro in tescos. The better ham, low additives are expensive

A diet centered around a varied array whole plant foods in proper proportions, avoiding processed and super processed foods will meet all nutritional requirements, while supplementing B12 of course. There's evidence to suggest that there are inherent issues with animal protein (found in meat, dairy etc) being pro inflammatory and increasing the risk of disease. Erring on the side of caution would therefore suggest to meet nutritional requirements through whole plant foods as much as possible.

I reckon one of the problems is the amount of crazy lifestyle food misinformation out there at the moment. As other posters said balance is the best approach.

Animal based foods in combination with various plant based foods remain the main recommendations of a well balanced diet.

For example

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

Did anyone see panorama on BBC last night? Where's the outrage over this kind of thing? Lots of dairy products made in the UK are sold here.

https://twitter.com/HazelTreacy1/status/1493504391890022403

So you're now claiming mainstream UK governmental advice on diet and nutrition is either wrong or they're just playing a game so as not to confuse the "average" person?

My apologies if I take that with a very large bucket of salt.

Evidence suggests the more fruit and veg consumed, the better the health. NHS have stated that anything more than 5 a day is a bonus, but they still campaign for 5 a day because it's seen as an achievable and affordable target.

Yeah that's what I said :)

I think its possible he may still face a charge/ prosecution under animal welfare legislation as has happened in other similar incidents.

www.news18.com/amp/news/football/kurt-zouma-withdrawn-from-west-ham-team-due-to-illness-4774646.html

You think the pet industry is animal abuse. Most people wouldn't agree with you in the slightest. We are not talking zoo animals here or exotic animals that shouldn't ever be in personal ownership, I'm talking cats and dog.

Dogs in particular that are not wild animals and would never survive on their own.

If you think owning a dog and caring for it like the vast majority of people do is abuse and excludes them from judging someone who kicks a defenseless animal for amusement aren't entitled to be disgusted, there isn't anything to discuss. I understand the position you hold, I simply can't understand the logic, nor do I agree with it at all, but I certainly don't have a brass neck for holding my opinion

Do you not think there's a big difference between being a caretaker for an animal who would otherwise be in a far worse position without your care, by rescuing them from a sanctuary etc, compared to actively fueling the breeding industries by buying designer pets for status, fashion or whatever selfish reason and then referring to them as your property and yourself as their owner?

One is reducing the suffering and the amount of animals who have to suffer, the other is increasing the suffering and the amount of animals that will suffer.

The ongoing discussion has revolved around the attempted justification of one form of harm over another when both are still harm, and both unnecessary, so naturally the different opinions will create disparity.

I'd actually be curious to see how that argument would hold up in court for the dog license. Maybe they'd end up changing the wording, or throwing you in an asylum with all those extreme vegans not wanting animals to suffer 😂

funny how there's hardly any backlash about Sir Mark Todd, either here or in the uk about whipping a horse with a branch on social media, but then again he's white, and hasn't had to pay any sort of fine as far as i know. Is it his colour ? or is it the type of animal ?

As far as I can see that story all over social media with people calling for all types of things and sanctions.

2 day ago: Looks like the BHA has handed Mark Todd an suspension as a trainer following the incident as well and is banned from racing. He's also lost a load of sponsorship deals as well.

Bizarrely I can't find any update on the Zouma story

Unlike Zouma He's effectively been suspended from his job as a horse trainer and can't race horses so his income loses will probably be a lot more than the £250,000 wage fine than Zouma got. Looks like he like Zouma could face further legal action. Looks like he could also be financially penalised by the BHA.

AfIk the horse he whipped wasn't his. So no it can't be taken off him.

But do continue to make it about the colour of his skin etc because obviously that's very relevant.

But looks like that story is all over social media. Not sure why you thought it wasn't. Maybe start a thread on it?

Good question. No, I think anyone who engages in that kind of behaviour should face serious legal consequences, whoever they are. In this case, I think, a legal/investigative process is ongoing and that should continue.

My problem in this case, is that people, especially children, look up to football players in particular. Now while to my mind that doesn't impose an onus on players to be paragons of virtue, I do think there be an absolute red line beyond which a player should never cross. And if there were such a line, Zouma would have crossed it. Thusly, I have a serious problem with West Ham keeping this vile scumbag on the team, and given their failures, their sponsors like Betway for continuing to allow their names to be associated with cat kickers.

I'm not a fan of "cancel culture" to say the least but in very rare cases, it's warranted. This is one of them.

The law isn't different or being applied any differently to either Zouma or Todd. AFAIK criminal investigations are ongoing.

They are also members of their respective professional and sporting organisations who value their public image and reputations. Membership is a privilege which brings certain benefits and corresponding responsibilities.

The organisations have their own codes of conduct including consequences for members whose actions damage the public image and reputation of the organisaions. This is separate to the law.