It's shit like this that makes my life worse as a Eurasian because even if you look amazing you're still a subhuman because Asian women happily marry guys who look like they've been in industrial accidents over an Asian guy. It makes Asian looking males look like the worst fucking losers on earth. The guy is absolutely offensive to look at. Like his face literally makes my stomach churl because he's so ugly. I'd even be mad if he had a white girlfriend People feel they have the liberty to say of course your dad is white. Because white guys see shit like this where some fucking quasimodo looking freak can get Asian girls and they use it as ammo as to how shittyy asian guys are...
Because I tried to be polite - retards don't deserve to be compared to vegans. Retards are poor people with mental disabilities, they need help and care....hipster vegans....they can fuck off.
How about you deal with the arguments I present instead of demonising the messenger?
You presumably condone an animal holocaust and torture of trillions of animals a year, for something as pointless as hamburgers. How do you morally justify this clearly immoral and barbaric act?
They are dumb animals (this isn't planet of the apes shit, if they were intelligent I would agree) and not humans, thats it. A hamburger isn't pointless btw, same for meat in general. It tastes great and I love that.
Its sickening how retarded Vegans love to compare dumb animals being treated badly with the Holocaust, with slavery, with pedo's.
They are dumb animals (this isn't planet of the apes shit, if they were intelligent I would agree) and not humans, thats it. A hamburger isn't pointless btw, same for meat in general. It tastes great and I love that.
So, you qualify intelligence as the trait that justifies needlessly stabbing animals to death. Cool.
Now, mentally disabled human beings; is it fine to stab them to death for their flesh? Why or why not?
Its sickening how retarded Vegans love to compare dumb animals being treated badly with the Holocaust, with slavery, with pedo's.
I am not comparing it with the Holocaust (though I find no issue with that comparison.)
I am calling it A holocaust.
As per the definition:
holocaust
ˈhɒləkɔːst/Submit
noun
1.
destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.
Back to the topic, I see no reason why eating meat should not be compared to the holocaust. Animals are sentient, thinking beings that do not want to die. Jews are sentient, thinking beings that do not want to die. The fact that one can't do algebra is irrelevant to the fact that they both want to live and don't want to suffer.
Shit like this makes me sick. Fuck your kind, thank god you are just a retarded minority
I don't think it's retarded to not needlessly stab billions of animals to death every year and kill human beings in the process just for a hamburger.
Not because they are humans, that changes things. And them being mentally disabled would be a rarity, animals are always retarded.
No because I'm human and don't want other races enslaving me.
Disgusting that you find no issue with that comparison.
Animals are dumb and not intelligent at all. They also kill each other all the time, what do you make of that? Somehow its bad when we do it?
I think the retarded part is your houlier than thou attitude & acting all superior, shaming "meat eaters" and acting like an obnoxious dick like pretty much every vegan I have seen. That's why your group is thankfully hated.
Change your attitude.
And wtf do you mean, human being killed? What does that have to do with a Hamburger?
And you know damm well that its not just about a Hamburger, its about meat etc. in general. Becoming a Vegan basically means changing your food style completely. Fuck that
Why? What is the difference between animals and humans that justifies stabbing animals to death but not humans? It's clearly not intelligence.
And them being mentally disabled would be a rarity, animals are always retarded.
Cows are capable of critical thinking skills and problem-solving, as well as complex emotional relationships. They are not "retarded". They are simply lower on the scale compared to you. In comparison, you are likely lower on the scale compared to an alien.
Disgusting that you find no issue with that comparison.
Why?
Animals are dumb and not intelligent at all
Extremely debatable. Animals are capable of complex actions and thinking, as demonstrated by biology.
They also kill each other all the time
Cows, pigs, chickens typically don't intentionally kill eachother.
what do you make of that?
Animals are not moral agents. We are. We should know better, because we have the brains to form morality.
I think the retarded part is your houlier than thou attitude & acting all superior, comparing killing animals with the Holocaust, pedo's, slavery etc., shaming "meat eaters" and acting like an obnoxious dick like pretty much every vegan I have seen. That's why your group is thankfully hated. I mean one look at your post history proves that, you are toxic as fuck who ants to force his garbage on everyone else (and you are obsessed with this, seems like your whole life revolves around it)
A long wall of ad hominem that does nothing to justify stabbing billions of animals to death. I am sorry that vegans are mean to you on the Internet, but you are supporting and funding a holocaust of billions of animals. Which one is worse?
And wtf do you mean, human being killed? What does that have to do with a Hamburger?
It's clearly intelligence dude. If animals were intelligent enough this wouldn't be happening. In fact instead something like Planet of the Apes (just more realistic) would be the problem. IF they were like the apes in that movie and actually intelligent I wouldn't eat them, that would be disgusting tbh.
Not enough though, again if they were that good at problem solving, complex actions and critical thinking skills this whole thing wouldn't be happening to them. They are way lower than humans on the scale and that makes all the difference.
Dude Aliens don't exist lol and hell if they did its not guaranteed that they would be on another "level" than us. Thats typical sci fi movies stuff
Because they were actually humans like you and me and treated like complete garbage and killed like they were some trash that needs to be get rid off. How can you not feel more for your own kind who is actually intelligent enough and instead think more about animals?
I have even seen a crazy vegan a while ago who was dumb enough to say that he would prefer the death of MILLIONS of humans just so billions of animals could survive.
I thought animals were smart enough too ? lol. Yeah we do have the brains so we can decide what happens with them and we follow nature's rules
Never was supposed to justify anything, just a rant on your group that should explain the hate you get. Thats all.
Ok some of that stuff sounds dramatic like "serious threat to the existence of humans on earth" lol, no way thats happening any time soon.
But obviously fucking murdering activists, as annoying as they may be is 100% wrong.
Regarding stuff like no fish in 2050 or the threat to the human existence part etc. honestly thats not something I care for much. I doubt it will be true, I think the leading minds on this know better.
And even if I stopped and became a vegan it wouldn't change.
You have been acting morally superior tbh but not as crazy as other vegans
It's clearly intelligence dude. If animals were intelligent enough this wouldn't be happening. In fact instead something like Planet of the Apes (just more realistic) would be the problem. IF they were like the apes in that movie and actually intelligent I wouldn't eat them, that would be disgusting tbh.
We've been over this. If it is intelligence, then stabbing mentally retarded people to death is fine. Aliens killing us for our flesh is fine. Those two hypotheticals, you refuse. So it's not intelligence.
Not enough though, again if they were that good at problem solving, complex actions and critical thinking skills this whole thing wouldn't be happening to them. They are way lower than humans on the scale and that makes all the difference.
Humans are better than them at this, yes. This does not justify stabbing them to death, just like it does not justify stabbing mentally disabled people to death.
Dude Aliens don't exist lol and hell if they did its not guaranteed that they would be on another "level" than us. Thats typical sci fi movies stuff
Do you know what a hypothetical is? It's a thought experiment that puts your logic to the test. It's used in philosophy very often.
If your logic fails to be reasonable in a hypothetical, then your logic is moot. For example, this intelligence thing can be used to justify a holocaust of humans by aliens or a holocaust of mentally disabled people by mentally normal people. Therefore making intelligence an absurd trait to value.
Because they were actually humans like you and me and treated like complete garbage and killed like they were some trash that needs to be get rid off. How can you not feel more for your own kind who is actually intelligent enough and instead think more about animals?
Again, intelligence is not a relevant matter in this case. Jews and animals suffer the same. They feel pain the same. They don't want to die the same.
If you replaced the animals in slaughterhouses with humans, what would you call it?
You'd call it a holocaust.
I thought animals were smart enough too
Animals are smart, we are much smarter.
Yeah we do have the brains so we can decide what happens with them
Yes, and we should decide not to stab billions of them to death needlessly.
we follow nature's rules
That seems like an appeal to nature. Do you think nature should serve as a moral guidance?
Animals rape eachother all the time. They murder eachother all the time. Should we do it to ourselves because it happens in nature?
Ok some of that stuff sounds dramatic like "serious threat to the existence of humans on earth" lol, no way thats happening any time soon.
An antibiotic resistant epidemic is definitely possible. 28,000 PEOPLE die every year from antibiotic resistance because people are too selfish to quit eating meat.
But obviously fucking murdering activists, as annoying as they may be is 100% wrong.
Yes. But you're forgetting the fact that when they destroy the Amazon, they kill the indigenous tribes living there. The meat industry kills human beings. How do you morally justify supporting an industry that murders human beings in a mass and intentional scale?
Regarding stuff like no fish in 2050 or the threat to the human existence part etc. honestly thats not something I care for much. I doubt it will be true, I think the leading minds on this know better. And even if I stopped and became a vegan it wouldn't change.
The leading minds all say that this is going to happen soon if we don't change our consumption habits.
That's not true. Just being vegan for 1 month saves 30 animals's lives, saves 620 pounds of CO2 from being released, saves 913 square feet of forest, saves 1,370 pounds of grain, saves a whopping 33,000 gallons of water.
Yeah we have but it seems you aren't reading my points or ignoring them on purpose.
Stabbing Mentally retarded people would be wrong because they are still humans. Its not just intelligence, its both. You are acting as if there can only be one reason.
And Aliens killing us may be fine for them but not for us since we want to survive and unlike animals aren't dumb (at least not to that level). Anyway this hypothetical part is unnecessary anyway, even if such smart aliens exist its not important now and I can't do anything if they decide to randomly kill us. I doubt us sparing animals would matter to them
No its not absurd at all because intelligence isn't the only reason, them being humans is another. I have mentioned this multiple times. Both reasons are valid overall, you saying they aren't doesn't somehow make it true
Both may suffer but one is intelligent and the other is retarded AND not a human.
Says you, you don't decide this mate and it clearly makes you mad.
No we shouldn't because we are intelligent enough to above that. This only serves as further proof that animals are too retarded to give a shit about them anyway.
I don't support that, innocent humans being killed is always 100% wrong. Thing is its just a minority doing it, you can't just condem the whole thing just because some are doing bad shit.
How about caring what bad things happen to humans everywhere (especially third world countries)? Seems like you care more about animals.
Then the leading minds should stop things, its not my responsibility. I have no power
So? Millions would still die, forest would still be destroyed etc. it can only matter if most people do it. not just a minority
Stabbing Mentally retarded people would be wrong because they are still humans. Its not just intelligence, its both. You are acting as if there can only be one reason.
Why is them being humans relevant? That's an arbitrary difference. Please name a relevant, moral difference.
And Aliens killing us may be fine for them but not for us since we want to survive
Animals too want to survive. What's the difference?
No its not absurd at all because like I said intelligence isn't the only reason, them being humans is another. I have mentioned this multiple times. Both reasons are valid overall, you saying they aren't doesn't somehow make it true
How is being human a valid reason? It's an arbitrary distinction. Explain what in being human entails them to not get stabbed.
How is intelligence a valid reason? We are going through the justifications one by one. If intelligence was to be used, holocausting mentally retarded people is okay.
If "we're humans tho" was to be used, then holocausting a race that is infinitely more sentient and more capable of pain and suffering than us is morally fine. Aliens holocausting us on the basis that "we're aliens tho and we're of a different species, so it's okay to holocaust you" would be fine.
White people enslaving black people because "We're white and you're not" is fine.
Humanity, skin color, and species are arbitrary differences. You must spell out a RELEVANT moral difference.
Both may suffer but one is intelligent and the other is retarded AND not a human.
That doesn't matter in the slightest. You have yet to explain how intelligence or humanity matter.
No we shouldn't because we are intelligent enough to above that. This only serves as further proof that animals are too retarded to give a shit about them anyway. They don't even have rules for this sort of shit (raping and killing each other)
Okay. Let me be clear.
Your premise is:
Killing animals is fine because they cannot comprehend morality and are therefore without moral value.
The conclusions would be:
Killing anything that does not comprehend morality is okay.
Therefore, killing mentally retarded people and developmentally stunted babies who are doomed to be babies all their lives is okay, because they can't comprehend morality.
You're going to move on to the justification "No, because they're human."
Humanity is an arbitrary difference, much like skin color.
Difference of species is not a valid moral justification unless you'd be okay with us being holocausted by an intelligent alien species because they're aliens and we're not aliens.
I don't support that, innocent humans being killed is always 100% wrong. Thing is its just a minority doing it, you can't just condem the whole thing just because some are doing bad shit. American soldiers killed plenty of innocents in Iraq, should I hate all Americans?
The meat industry entirely is cutting down trees in the Amazon. It's not just a minority. You are funding an industry that destroys trees in the Amazon and kills humans.
91% of all destruction in the Amazon is caused by the meat industry.
How about caring what bad things happen to humans everywhere (especially third world countries)? Seems like you care more about animals which is typical Vegan too.
Actually, I argue with pro-Israel people all the time. I care about other humans too. Doesn't mean I can't also care about animals.
Then the leading minds should stop things, its not my responsibility. I have no power
It is the responsibility of the consumer. You are buying products that support the suffering and death of humans and animals. You should stop buying those products.
So? Millions would still die, forest would still be destroyed etc. it can only matter if most people do it. not just a minority.
Except veganism is on the rise. The number of vegans in the U.S. rose from 2% to 6% in the last 2 years. The U.K. is projected to become 30% vegan soon. We're not just a minority, we're making an impact; which is why dairy sales are falling and plant-based milk sales are rising.
Because I care about my species the most. So even when we have mentally retarded one's (which is a rarity) its important to treat them well, just because they are from my species.
Add to that the fact that animals are retarded and this whole thing becomes pretty clear to me. I think thee reasons are very relevant since I don't consider animals to be equal to humans like you do. You act like everyone has to follow your moral ideals regarding this whole matter, nope
Those aren't valid reasons for you but for me they are more than enough as I already explained. You keep bringing killing mentally retarded humans and it just seems like you didn't get my point..
The difference is that I'm not a freaking animal lol so I don't care if they want to survive. Nature should have made them smarter then because this is whole the whole thing works, you adapt and survive.
Well like I said it would be fine for the aliens but not for me since I'm part of the human species. I'm not an animal who is too retarded to do anything either...
White people killing black people again is wrong because both are humans.
Those are important differences because they determine my morals and how much I care. Thats how they matter for me AND most people.
You think animals would give a fuck if they were smart and we were retarded? No, I really doubt that. This is just how we are. I mean we still treat each other like crap (even if its less now than before, like slavery is all but gone) for various reasons (different countries, skin color etc.) even though we are of the same species but you think humans will give a fuck about animals who are too dumb anyway AND can't do anything (unlike other humans)?
You are naive mate
I won't deny its selfish to kill animals because we want to eat. But thats how we are. I wouldn't be ok by being "holocausted" because I'm a human who wants to survive.
Yeah but my point was that America's government and plenty of others have done and are doing bad shit. Somehow I don't see you (if you are from there) leaving and protesting. Why should I do it?
I won't deny its a bad thing whats happening to people there but its out of my hands
Yeah but do you really care this much about other humans?
If I stop, nothing would change. A BIG portion of people would need to stop and thats not happening.
You are still a minority dude, 6-7% isn't much at all. Its like acting transgender people are a majority.
Since most are still eating meat without any problems..you aren't making any impact that matters.
Because I care about my species the most. So even when we have mentally retarded one's (which is a rarity) its important to treat them well, just because they are from my species.
Again, you're appealing to group membership. If an alien said "I don't care about humans, they're not in my species, so it's fine to genocide them all" it would not be moral or okay. It's therefore hypocritical to do the same here.
Add to that the fact that animals are retarded and this whole thing becomes pretty clear to me. I think thee reasons are very relevant since I don't consider animals to be equal to humans like you do. You act like everyone has to follow your moral ideals regarding this whole matter, nope
You're repeating your points, over and over again and ignoring that I responded to them.
Killing anything that does not comprehend morality is okay.
Therefore, killing mentally retarded people and developmentally stunted babies who are doomed to be babies all their lives is okay, because they can't comprehend morality.
You're going to move on to the justification "No, because they're human."
Humanity is an arbitrary difference, much like skin color.
Difference of species is not a valid moral justification unless you'd be okay with us being holocausted by an intelligent alien species because they're aliens and we're not aliens.
The difference is that I'm not a freaking animal lol so I don't care if they want to survive.
"Difference is I'm not a black person so I don't care if they don't want to be enslaved"
You wouldn't accept this logic when used by white people to enslave black people. Them being humans has nothing to do with it, btw.
You're making a "might is right" claim, and when you have a might is right way of thinking, you must apply it consistently.
If you're just going to apply might is right to animals but not to humans, that is a logical fallacy called special pleading:
Well like I said it would be fine for the aliens but not for me since I'm part of the human species.
No, I am saying, in your moral system, it is moral to holocaust a species if they are of inferior intelligence and strength. Therefore, you'd morally AGREE with the aliens genociding us.
You disagreeing with the aliens genociding us means you are being hypocritical with your moral system and not applying it to humans when you apply it with animals; yet another form of the special pleading fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
White people killing black people again is wrong because both are humans.
I specifically addressed this in my last comment.
You're going to move on to the justification "No, because they're human."
Difference of species is not a valid moral justification unless you'd be okay with us being holocausted by an intelligent alien species because they're aliens and we're not aliens.
Please respond to my responses and don't just make the same points over and over.
This is just how we are. I mean we still treat each other like crap (even if its less now than before, like slavery is all but gone) for various reasons (different countries, skin color etc.) even though we are of the same species but you think humans will give a fuck about animals who are too dumb anyway AND can't do anything (unlike other humans)?
So, you can't go vegan because other humans sometimes do awful things?
Well, by that logic, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, so it's fine for me to shoot up my local theatre because what he did was worse.
I won't deny its selfish to kill animals because we want to eat. But thats how we are.
Yes, that's how we are, and it's changing. The number of vegans has gone up by 700% in the last two years. There is an extreme upward trend, and it's not going to be a meat-eater dominated society for long. Do you want to be on the wrong, hateful, murdering side of history or do you want to be on the right side of history?
I wouldn't be ok by being "holocausted" because I'm a human who wants to survive.
Then you are committing special pleading.
You are stating "Might is right, but not when I'm affected!"
Yeah but my point was that America's government and plenty of others have done and are doing bad shit. Somehow I don't see you (if you are from there) leaving and protesting. Why should I do it?
I am not from America, and I despise the actions of its government; as you can see from my comment history.
Other people doing bad things does not give you a free card to do bad things yourself, especially when it's easily in your control.
I won't deny its a bad thing whats happening to people there but its out of my hands
But it is. It is in your hands. Once you stop consuming animal products, the production will be decreased. Supply & demand. Being vegan for one year saves 370 animals, and many acres of rainforest land (therefore people).
Yeah but do you really care this much about other humans? I doubt you are this active regarding human rights matters tbh
I am, dude. Check out my political comment history.
You are still a minority dude, 6-7% isn't much at all. Its like acting transgender people are a majority.
I am not saying we are a majority. I am saying, if you look at current trends, it is highly possible that we will be a majority in some decades.
Jesus christ. And vegans can't take a joke. Meat tastes awful without vegetables. Almost nobody can contest that.
Wrong.
Meat is delicious without vegetables. I do a roast chicken with some salt, pepper, 45 minutes in the oven. Boom. Best damn roast chicken. No veggies needed.
Ribeye? Kosher salt, overnight it, then you’ll want to roast in the oven briefly, pan sear with some butter. Delicious.
Meat is delicious without vegetables. I do a roast chicken with some salt, pepper, 45 minutes in the oven. Boom. Best damn roast chicken. No veggies needed.
Meat tastes bad without non-animal product seasoning.
Very well: roast lamb, let it soak in its own fat (works on goose as well) and enjoy.
Again, finding specific exceptions to the rule doesn't go against my point. Most of the meat we enjoy is due to the seasoning. When people state "I don't wanna go vegan, I like meat too much" they probably just like the seasoning.
veggies are for soyboys to enjoy
Soyboys? Animal products raise your estrogen levels and make you feminine.
So 1) cow specifically 2) due to farming practices 3)
CONCLUSIONS: Given the limitations of the study, the lower levels of serum oestrogens in semi-vegetarians than non-vegetarians need confirmation in larger populations.
Uh oh. Sample size too small, need to try again.
And also bro: not one link proved any of this makes a carnivore more feminine.
On the other hand, soy folks are the most feminine bitches I’ve seen.
272 participants is NOT a small sample size. A small sample size is like 30 people. The margin of error is not that high with 272 participants.
The study is asking for replication with larger studies, because that's what studies usually do. Science seeks to replicate itself as well as prove itself wrong. That isn't an argument.
On the other hand, soy folks are the most feminine bitches I’ve seen.
Lol this isn’t about cancer. You asserted 1) all meat products have more estrogen. You should proof for 1, and it’s mainly Amerifat beef that’s loaded.
2) you asserted vegetarians were less feminine. I see no proof.
I am stating that alongside with high testosterone, they also have lower rates of IGF-1; making a vegan diet overall more healthful.
1) all meat products have more estrogen. You should proof for 1
I provided a plethora of citations to support that claim. I also provided a citation that vegan men tend to have much higher serum testosterone and lower estrogen.
2) you asserted vegetarians were less feminine. I see no proof.
And I explained why that's not the case and he doesn't understand basic statistics. Then he retorted with some seriously flawed studies, one of them showing vegans having higher total testosterone, and I explained why they aren't useful here.
lol Why are you bothering with this 'person'? Look at all his sperging just on this thread. You're dealiing with a thoroughly brainwashed cultist drone here. He'll lie, cherrypick, move goalposts and belch out gish gallop after gish gallop in order to avoid entertaining anything other than his black-and-white worldview.
Srsly, this isn't even quality lolcow material. Just a B-12 deficient retard boringly sperging out about boring stuff nobody cares about.
No, that's the thing. You think you've addressed them. Because you're just to dumb to realise otherwise. What you've actually done is sperg the fuck out and showcase to everyone what a retarded, undebateable mess you are.
Now go away and take your vitamins. I have no time to fuck with you.
I can post correlational studies, too. And from sources significantly more credible than the drivel you're posting. Not to mention with much larger sample sizes.
That study is awful. The people in the vegetarian category weren't even vegetarian. They consumed fish.
It's a cross-sectional study, which means they surveyed people at one point in time; meaning no causal relationship can be established.
No sources of funding for the study were provided.
And there's a lot of context being left out.
One important thing that the researchers did not share in their discussion was that this was actually their second study on the health of vegetarians. Their first study came to completely different conclusions. That research gathered data from 15,474 people who participated in the Austrian Health Interview Survey. It found better self-reported health among the vegetarians as well as the omnivores who ate lots of fruits and vegetables. In fact, they concluded that public health measures are needed to reduce the health risks associated with “carnivorous” diets.
The study that found poorer health among vegetarians used a subset of the same study population. The subset was predominantly female and nearly half of them were under the age of 30. It's therefore intellectually dishonest to extrapolate these findings to the vegetarian community at large.
Overall, giving me a methodologically poor study to make some idiotic statement about correlation not causing causation in which I already agreed with you on doesn't serve your argument any favors. Correlation is not causation, but if you take the confounding variables into account, and there are biological mechanisms presented, then the relationship is likely causal.
Both you and the other retard you respond to need to get through your skulls that correlation =/= causation. It's one of the basic principles of research ffs.
Also, lol @ those shitty-ass studies you posted. Tiny control groups, observational studies, 2 out f 3 of them almost 10 years old, just...lmao
Even the conclusion of your second study more or less tells you to your face that your links are crap and untrustworthy:
Given the limitations of the study, the lower levels of serum oestrogens in semi-vegetarians than non-vegetarians need confirmation in larger populations.
Both you and the other retard you respond to need to get through your skulls that correlation =/= causation. It's one of the basic principles of research ffs.
Correlation is not causation for sure. Correlation IS causation when there is a biological mechanism in which causation can be sufficiently explained, and when you examine the confounding variables.
Tiny control groups
One of them had a poor sample size, correct, but this is due to the lack of studies done on this certain subject matter. It's not like I'm purposely picking out studies with low sample sizes. When there are no studies done on a certain topic except ones with low sample sizes, it's a generally good bet to rely on the present literature. Especially if the literature aligns with the fact that it's biologically plausible, as cow's milk definitely has high estrogen levels; and the fact that vegan men tend to have lower estrogen levels on average.
observational studies
So?
Even the conclusion of your second study more or less tells you to your face that your links are crap and untrustworthy:
It does not say that. It states that the study desires replication with larger population trials. Most epidemiological studies ask for replication, as science is a process that seeks to invalidate itself.
You clearly do not wish to grasp nuance and instead are resorting to calling people you disagree with retards.
. Correlation IS causation when there is a biological mechanism in which causation can be sufficiently explained
observational studies
So?
Oh god... there absolutely no point in this, isn't it? You aren't just a fanatical retard that knows -but refuses to face- the truth, like most vegans. You are an absolutely scientifically illiterate retard that's convinced he's right while knowing jack-shit.
There's no hope or point in debating against such a brick wall, I'm done.
You are an absolutely scientifically illiterate retard that's convinced he's right while knowing jack-shit.
I have a feeling you're projecting. You're the one dismissing observational data and all epidemiological studies because of some trite "correlation is not causation tho!"
Correlation is absolutely causation when confounding variables and biological mechanisms are accounted for. It's how we reached the conclusion that cigarette smoking and processed meats are carcinogenic.
But I thought you only like the taste of seasoning? Why the need for a meat substitute? You should be able to put some seasoning on a potato and call it good.
I love seasoned potatoes. Roasted red potatoes with some salt, or mashed potatoes. But my favorite seasoned potatoes are always french fries which go excellent paired with a nice burger. Don't even need seasoning on the burger, just make sure its got some fat content and bam.
I'm the exact opposite, unseasoned vegetable + seasoned meat. Vegetable makes a refreshing contrast to the meat, and vice versa. Although most of the time, like you said, burger doesn't benefit from seasoning.
I am not saying the taste of meat is purely due to seasoning. I am saying that the pleasant taste people like mainly is, and that can be achieved with a plant-based diet.
The reason vegans eat fake meat is because the taste and texture of real meat is good. Vegans would just season an eggplant or tomato if this weren't true. This is why I can slow cook a roast with no salt or pepper and eat off it for a week with no seasonings.
The reason vegans eat fake meat is because the taste and texture of real meat is good.
Fake meat is a testament that meat is mainly seasoning. If same flavor can be achieved with relatively unidentical texture, then it's not entirely about meat's texture.
If same flavor can be achieved with relatively unidentical texture, then it's not entirely about meat's texture.
But it can't. Fake meat is nothing like the real stuff fam, don't even pretend like it is. It doesn't taste nearly as good, and has nowhere near the same texture.
Face it. You either know you're wrong, or you're mentally ill. You wouldn't eat fake meat if real meat wasn't desirable. Every vegan but you knows that people eat meat because it tastes good and has a desirable texture. If it weren't the case, nobody would eat meat.
This is why even the cruel and brutal meat industry flourishes, while miserable vegans munch on fake meat and long for the savory fat and delectable meat texture and all the wonderful juices that are stored in it. You are only trying to convince yourself (or you're mentally ill.)
But it can't. Fake meat is nothing like the real stuff fam, don't even pretend like it is. It doesn't taste nearly as good, and has nowhere near the same texture.
Depends on the brand. Some brands taste exactly like the same thing. Again, try Impossible Burger or Field Roast.
This is why even the cruel and brutal meat industry flourishes, while miserable vegans munch on fake meat and long for the savory fat and delectable meat texture and all the wonderful juices that are stored in it. You are only trying to convince yourself (or you're mentally ill.)
I don't like the taste of meat that much. I used to, till I recognized that it's a tortured and murdered animal. So now I find it unpalatable. I don't think I'm particularly miserable.
Then why do you eat fake meat? You just said it tastes exactly like real meat.
I find actual meat unpalatable due to the fact that it's a dead animal. I recognize that fake meat is not a dead animal, and therefore I don't find it unpalatable.
I recognize that fake meat is not a dead animal, and therefore I don't find it unpalatable.
Lmao. Dude. You wouldn't eat fake meat if you didn't like the taste of real meat--you're the one arguing that they taste the same. Listen to yourself. You have literally refuted your own argument.
And yes, I do like its taste but not its being from an animal.
This whole time you've been arguing that no one likes the taste of real meat, just seasonings. You now admit that you're wrong. Say it. Say you're wrong. Convince me that the average outspoken vegan isn't mentally ill or unwilling to face reality.
your whole spiel is that animel products taste good due to vegetables. The most common seasonings are salt, which is a rock, and pepper, which is technically a dried unripe fruit. Neither of these are vegetables. If I point out that your whole argument makes no sense, you will backtrack like you did above and say "non-animal based products, I mean" or something.
Everyone knows things taste better with spices. A lot of things also taste better when deep fried in bacon fat. These are facts. I appreciate you enthusiastically being a lolcow for us, so please don't stop, but I have no idea what point you're trying to make that literally every human being on the planet isnt aware of
Everyone knows things taste better with spices. A lot of things also taste better when deep fried in bacon fat. These are facts. I appreciate you enthusiastically being a lolcow for us, so please don't stop, but I have no idea what point you're trying to make that literally every human being on the planet isnt aware of
My overall point is that animal products taste good due to their seasoning. If their seasoning was to be put on something else, like on fake meats, the same result is achieved. Most people actually like the taste of seasoning.
When you buy meat, you are contributing to the demand of meat, which contributes to the production of meat.That's like me hiring a hitman to kill Selena Gomez and saying "Nope, I had no part in it!"
It's much better for your overall health outcomes. It's better if you want to be a good person and not torture and or murder animals for taste pleasure, and it's better for the environment.
Many people like myself will kill animals because we they are delicious and humans are predators.
(Healthy) Humans are actually the absolute best distance/stamina runners in all of the animal kingdom. That's because ancient humans would literally run their pray down to exhaustion and then kill them....Imagine a terrified animal, running for hours at uneven paces because a human or several humans are unrelentingly jogging after it for miles. Suddenly it is so exhausted it collapses and humans come over and stab it to death with pointy sticks or brain it with a big rock....it's not pretty but it's nature.
I would attempt to kill a deer with a knife if the law told me that the only way I could eat meat. Venison is delicious and I would at least be stocked up for half a year.
we're just not very good at being predators because eating prey kills us
Nigga wtf kind of gay shit is that? You win - you've said the most retarded shit I've heard in my life. How the fuck are we not good predators? We're so good that we didn't even need to continue hunting. We just grow animals and eat them like we do to immobile plants. We are the best predator in this planet. I goddamn love being a human.
No, jackass, heart disease is a result of sugar overconsumption. Meats and their fats are in general good for you. There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates how companies like Coca Cola and frozen-food producers lobbied Congress during the 50s and 60s to push the false narrative that fat is the culprit of heart disease. Yet, as sugar consumption grew exponentially in America, so did the deaths by heart disease. Furthermore, cultures around the world that dont have the same anti-fat obsession as Americans but do not consume nearly as much do not have to deal with heart disease as a major issue. Now stop saying stupid ass shit and eat a burger.
Ethics are man made concepts, right. Ethics usually center around the wellbeing of sentient creatures. Do you not advocate for the wellbeing of sentient creatures?
You are using psychopathy as a moral justification for needlessly killing animals. That can be used to justify literally anything, including holocaust and child rape.
There is no use arguing over personal beliefs. There is no right or wrong. I don't care what you personally do or believe, but you care what nonvegans do. In the end, you either accept we want to eat meat, or be angry a lot.
There is no use arguing over personal beliefs. There is no right or wrong. I don't care what you personally do or believe, but you care what abolitionists do. In the end, you either accept we want to enslave black, or be angry a lot.
Newsflash, I season my vegetables too with non-vegetable products.
Seasoning is really a first world thing, ever been truly hungry, I'm not talking first world famished, but like I need to eat? Meat is freaking awesome.
Newsflash, I season my vegetables too with non-vegetable products.
The point I'm trying to deliver is, you probably don't just like the taste of meat. Most of the taste you like is the seasoning, which can be easily put on plant-based alternatives.
See no. If this were the case I'd save a ton of money by not eating meat. Its not just taste its nutrition and my body may be a bastard when it comes to how much it wants me to eat, its pretty good at tell me I need variety.
Lets think of it this way, there are a lot of vegitarian "meat substitutes" often trying to mimic the taste and texture of meat, if it was just flavor, these wouldn't be a thing.
Lastly I'm a semi-heath nut. I know the amount of protein I need to maintain my muscle mass. I could try to go with non-meat and its very difficult to do properly, or I could eat chicken/fish and be there with little effort.
While little data could be found in the sports nutrition literature specifically, it was revealed elsewhere that veganism creates challenges that need to be accounted for when designing a nutritious diet. This included the sufficiency of energy and protein; the adequacy of vitamin B12, iron, zinc, calcium, iodine and vitamin D; and the lack of the long-chain n-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA in most plant-based sources. However, via the strategic management of food and appropriate supplementation, it is the contention of this article that a nutritive vegan diet can be designed to achieve the dietary needs of most athletes satisfactorily. Further, it was suggested here that creatine and β-alanine supplementation might be of particular use to vegan athletes, owing to vegetarian diets promoting lower muscle creatine and lower muscle carnosine levels in consumers.
You are forgetting I'm a health minded individual. It's not veganism that's superior but general fat asses who are not eating a proper diet. This is a common issue with diet studies.
Lets say I decided to be vegan, outside of people who cram oreos in their mouth etc while being "vegan" many have health reasons in mind.
So what happens is you have people who are watching their health, taking their vitamins etc and eating vegan in one group, vrs just average people in the other.
Someone like me, who eats rather healthy, as an omnivore with lean meats is going to have the best of both worlds in my diet.
No, they're not. Meat industry funded studies promoting saturated fats do a little trick. They take participants with already high cholesterol levels and feed them high saturated fats diets. They see that their LDL doesn't considerably change and say "This is evidence that saturated fat consumption and dietary cholesterol don't change LDL cholesterol levels!"
The truth is, LDl cholesterol levels don't increase linearly. If your levels are already high, they won't go further up.
I have high cholesterol in my very genes, dietary cholesterol contribution is quite small.
For food, sure. Everything has to eat, not everything has to live in a local community or global society so we have to work out some different things there but food is pretty ubiquitous.
That would fall within the purview of the second sentence in my prior post, in fact I specifically worded it like that in the hopes you would read it and not worry about traveling down that particular route of discussion
Animals do not have moral agency. We do. We recognize that animals are sentient beings that do not want to die. There is no justifiable reason to kill them without need.
I mean cockroaches run away when you try to step on them and my cat is afraid of my hiccups. Survival instincts are very seperate from understanding what death is and fearing it.
most animals do not, there are only a few exceptions to that rule like crickets, chimpanzees, and humans. The vast majority of animals couple basically doggy-style, or lay their eggs somewhere and have someone else fertilize them. Both of these make rape essentially non-existent in nature.
Again, outside of crickets and shit. And as you've already said in this thread, citing exceptions is not a good way to prove your point.
eat our own babies
most animals do not do this except when in the direst of circumstances, where they themselves would die if they didn't. Those that do just randomly eat their kids are usually really dumb and don't even realize what they're doing. You know, spiders and jellyfish and shit: they just respond to the stimuli of something moving close to them when they're hungry, and eat it. They actually cannot think about their situation and recognize that the creature they're eating is their offspring.
And lots of animals, even when put in a situation where it's either them or their children, will actually sacrifice themselves for their child. So even taking the most extreme (one eats the other or they both die) scenario, lots of animals will still choose their offspring over themselves.
eat our own shit.
Again, animals do not do this except when put in situations where it's their only food supply. At least usually, as with everything there are exceptions.
Also, I'm not sure this is a moral argument...? I mean, eating your own shit is gross, but immoral? I'm not so sure. If it's self-inflicted and you're totally OK doing it, how isn't it OK to do?
coprophilia is a thing after all, and I don't think it's illegal. Just, you know, disgusting.
So, most animals don't rape, therefore we should only take moral inspiration from the animals that don't rape? 70% of animals are herbivores. Why don't we take inspiration from them?
because 90% of the biomass on earth is plant. Just numbers-wise, more species will evolve to eat plants than not. It's the most available form of food on earth.
also because most animals require plants, some animals require meat, and some animals require both and we fall into the last category. Certainly we could survive without meat or animal products. We could also survive by dripping nutrients into our arms via tubing and drinking a lot of water. Neither are sustainable forms of existence, though, and certainly wouldn't work on a societal scale.
Vegetarianism can work. There have been, historically, wholly or almost wholly vegetarian societies. However, pure veganism has never worked on a societal scale and rarely works on a personal one. Most people who go vegan relapse. That's a simple fact: it's is a very hard lifestyle to maintain for a number of reasons.
to be honest, veganism requires you to live a VERY privileged life. Most cannot afford to do it, and even of those who can, many work jobs that make it unfeasible. Another simple fact: meat provides more energy than plant matter. If you do strenuous labor, you cannot afford to not eat meat or animal products.
I'll give you the example of my brother: he was a vegan for a long time. Nice about it, not preachy, but was hard vegan. Then he got a job in construction. His body literally started eating itself because he could not consume enough raw calories to keep himself going. He had to switch over to vegetarianism.
So, TL;DR:
humans are omnivores, we evolved to eat both meat and plants, a diet limited to just one is sub-optimal, though doable.
pure veganism is unsustainable nutritionally on both a personal level for many and on a societal level for all
veganism also can pretty much only be actually done by rich white people living in Brooklyn or San Francisco from an economic standpoint. It is an expensive lifestyle that requires a pretty cushy, low-effort job.
I'll give you the example of my brother: he was a vegan for a long time. Nice about it, not preachy, but was hard vegan. Then he got a job in construction. His body literally started eating itself because he could not consume enough raw calories to keep himself going. He had to switch over to vegetarianism.
Sounds like he didn't plan his diet well.
humans are omnivores, we evolved to eat both meat and plants, a diet limited to just one is sub-optimal, though theoretically doable.
Humans are herbivores. Omnivores that are used to eating meat like dogs don't get atherosclerosis, we do. Eating meat actively kills us and increases the risk of several chronic diseases.
pure veganism is unsustainable nutritionally on both a personal level for many and on a societal level for all
veganism also can pretty much only be actually done by rich white people living in Brooklyn or San Francisco from an economic standpoint. It is an expensive lifestyle that requires a pretty cushy, low-effort job.
He needed to be eating around close to 3,000 calories a day. He found this was incredibly difficult without any animal product, to the extent he needed to be eating all the time just to stay caught up.
Humans are herbivores.
literally, no. If you feed meat to an herbivore, it dies. They are not adapted for it, cannot metabolize it, and they starve. This has been tried in both directions: feeding only red meat to a cow kills it eventually. Feeding only plant matter to a cat kills it eventually.
Omnivores that are used to eating meat like dogs don't get atherosclerosis
Dogs are not omnivores. They occasionally eat small plants and partially digested plants from other animals' stomachs. However, they are scientifically classified as carnivores, and for good reason.
Also, dogs do get atherosclerosis. Fam, please, I study animals for a living. You clearly do not. Stop trying to tell me who eats what and gets what disease.
Eating meat actively kills us and increases the risk of several chronic diseases.
Sort of, but that's not the whole picture. And the issue here is mostly that we live too long these days.
Our bodies are adapted to both eat meat and die around age 30-40. Cancer, heart disease, atherosclerosis... these are issues that rarely affected out ancestors. Their issues had more to do with malnutrition, infection, poor immune systems, etc. They did not live long enough to get killed by cancer caused by carcinogens in meat.
This is true for a lot of things, actually: hot food causes cancer. Hot food also kills bacteria. Evolutionarily, it is better to not die from infection now and get cancer later than to be a really, really healthy dead guy. So, eating hot, cooked food is therefore better for us than eating raw food.
If you want, the best way to live a long time is to cook your food and then let it cool until room temperature or below. But who does that? At some point you draw the line. Health reasons do not always outweigh personal desire.
Same for meat: evolutionarily, it's great for us! Gives us all we need for bigger brains, faster thinking, stronger muscles, etc. Yeah, it kills us in 40 years, but since we only live 40 years anyway, it's better to have a leg up early and die when you'd die normally than be sickly and weak for maybe longer...or maybe a lot shorter, because you can't run as fast from that tiger chasing you.
How so? On average, vegans have fewer micronutrient deficiencies.
Might that be because on average vegans are also much wealthier than most, and therefore have more balanced diets in general than the average populace? Just a thought.
Rice and beans, grains and potatoes are not more expensive than meat
your privilege is showing, white boy. Think! There are other costs besides just $$$!
This is true for a lot of things, actually: hot food causes cancer
Certain foods (mostly animal products) cooked at EXTREMELY high raises their carcinogenicity. This does not mean a blanket "hot food causes cancer."
literally, no. If you feed meat to an herbivore, it dies. They are not adapted for it, cannot metabolize it, and they starve. This has been tried in both directions: feeding only red meat to a cow kills it eventually. Feeding only plant matter to a cat kills it eventually.
I am not saying herbivores can survive on purely animal matter. Humans certainly cannot. A zero carb diet has been shown to induce death.
Also, dogs do get atherosclerosis. Fam, please, I study animals for a living. You clearly do not. Stop trying to tell me who eats what and gets what disease.
Dogs are not omnivores. They occasionally eat small plants and partially digested plants from other animals' stomachs. However, they are scientifically classified as carnivores, and for good reason.
Dogs are scientifically classed as opportunistic omnivores. And the longest lived dog in the world was vegan.
atherosclerosis... these are issues that rarely affected out ancestors
60% of Inuit corpses examined actually died of atherosclerosis.
Same for meat: evolutionarily, it's great for us! Gives us all we need for bigger brains, faster thinking, stronger muscles, etc. Yeah, it kills us in 40 years, but since we only live 40 years anyway, it's better to have a leg up early and die when you'd die normally than be sickly and weak for maybe longer...or maybe a lot shorter, because you can't run as fast from that tiger chasing you.
But we don't live till 40 years now. Therefore, eating meat kills us now.
Might that be because on average vegans are also much wealthier than most, and therefore have more balanced diets in general than the average populace? Just a thought.
Or maybe it's due to vegetables having a higher nutritional profile compared to meat?
your privilege is showing, white boy
I'm not white and I'm not privileged. I'm from fucking Saudi Arabia.
There are other costs besides just $$$
Time? Well, I mean, it doesn't take much time to buy grains and potatoes and beans. I don't understand your point here.
Certain foods (mostly animal products) cooked at EXTREMELY high raises their carcinogenicity. This does not mean a blanket "hot food causes cancer."
literally all hot foods, when eaten, cause cancer. Hot drinks, hot vegetables, hot meats, hot breads. If it goes in your mouth and it's hot enough to tingle/burn, it's hot enough to increase your risk of cancer.
I'm not talking about raising it's carcinogen level, here. I mean causing your body to replace cells at a higher than normal rate, as eating hot foods does, causes an increased risk of cancer.
If you're truly devoted to "my body is a temple and I will not harm it", putting hot things in your mouth isn't helping.
I am not saying herbivores can survive on purely animal matter. Humans certainly cannot. A zero carb diet has been shown to induce death.
Um. Wrong. Just plain wrong. The liver can break down enough glycogen from meat to provide the vital nutrients normally gotten from carbohydrates. Provided you eat organs as well as muscular tissue, you'll get everything you need.
these are some very healthy and alive looking dead people.
60% of Inuit corpses examined actually died of atherosclerosis.
Perhaps I should rephrase: I'm not saying that people in olden days didn't die of heart attacks or clogged veins. However, when those issues start to pop up is right about the end of the childbearing years, which back then was...pretty much old age. Therefore, there is no evolutionary benefit at all to not eating meat, while there is one for it. Therefore, to argue that humans are primarily herbivores is...just...baffling! No other word for it!
But we don't live till 40 years now. Therefore, eating meat kills us now.
The wonders of modern medicine that let us live longer in other ways also offput the negative effects of eating meat. It's still overall better.
Or maybe it's due to vegetables having a higher nutritional profile compared to meat?
Could be. I mean, I'm not saying that's not a valid option. It's just that your results don't show much there. Vegans are in general rich. Rich people are in general better fed and have a more balanced diet. Sure, eating your vegetables is a good idea, I'm not saying it isn't. But only eating your vegetables and nothing else? Nutritionally it's OK, but suboptimal.
I'm not white and I'm not privileged. I'm from fucking Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia.
You mean one of the richest countries in the world? This doesn't help...
I'm not privileged
Everyone is. Intersectionality, bitch!
Time? Well, I mean, it doesn't take much time to buy grains and potatoes and beans. I don't understand your point here.
Closer, you're definitely on the right track. Think broader, though.
I'm not talking about raising it's carcinogen level, here. I mean causing your body to replace cells at a higher than normal rate, as eating hot foods does, causes an increased risk of cancer.
Therefore, there is no evolutionary benefit at all to not eating meat, while there is one for it. Therefore, to argue that humans are primarily herbivores is...just...baffling! No other word for it!
The wonders of modern medicine that let us live longer in other ways also offput the negative effects of eating meat. It's still overall better.
No, they don't. Heart disease is our number one killer. Cancer, the second. Diabetes is also a major killer. All of these are chronic diseases, caused by eating meat. Modern medicine doesn't magically fix most of the cases.
Could be. I mean, I'm not saying that's not a valid option. It's just that your results don't show much there. Vegans are in general rich. Rich people are in general better fed and have a more balanced diet. Sure, eating your vegetables is a good idea, I'm not saying it isn't. But only eating your vegetables and nothing else? Nutritionally it's OK, but suboptimal.
You insinuate that vegans are generally nutritionally deficient. I showed how that's not the case. Continuing this discussion is fruitless.
You mean one of the richest countries in the world? This doesn't help...
I'm not personally rich. Also, note, a country where gay people and atheists are executed and there's no freedom of speech. Doesn't sound like privilege to me.
Closer, you're definitely on the right track. Think broader, though.
Either spell it out or I have no interest in discussing this
Edit: also, since you bring up the Inuits, their diet is an interesting one that is also nearly all meat. They did have some non-meat foods in summer, but for most of the year, they ONLY ate meat. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
No. That's not a sufficient enough justification. If moral justifications were as arbitrary as that, we would have people saying "Let's enslave black people!" and when they ask back "Why?"
They can reply with "Because they aren't white. That's all there is to it."
Obviously, black people and white people are both sentient beings that do not want to be enslaved. That is a logical argument for not enslaving black people. Arbitrarily saying "they're black so it's okay to enslave them" or "they're animals so it's okay to kill them" isn't a sufficient justification, or this line of reasoning can be used to justify almost every senseless form of discrimination.
Remember when you said doing work for charities is more worthwhile than spending time on reddit? Maybe now is the time to logout and go do something worthwhile.
I agree that working for charities is worth more than spending time on Reddit. So?
Remember when you said doing work for charities is more worthwhile than spending time on reddit? Maybe now is the time to logout and go do something worthwhile.
You selling your belongings and living frugally and donating your money to charity would do more benefit overall. Why don't you do it?
Because I’m not the one arguing in favour of protecting the animals, you are.
You do realise that you don’t have to sell everything or live frugally to help charities. You can give them your time for free, do a bake sale and give them the profits, do a 10k run and get sponsorship. All things you could have done in the last 24 hours. They would all have been positive too!
But instead to carry on wasting your time on here.
You do realise that you don’t have to sell everything or live frugally to help charities. You can give them your time for free, do a bake sale and give them the profits, do a 10k run and get sponsorship. All things you could have done in the last 24 hours. They would all have been positive too!
No, but the best thing to do is sell everything and live frugally and donate to charities? Why don't you, hmm?
Why don't you aspire to make the absolute maximum impact?
The reason I don't do these things is because they are impractical for me right now. This does not mean I cannot care about animals and cannot employ a different method of online activism.
Impracticality is a justification for not going above and beyond your moral obligation. It is not my moral obligation to donate to animal shelters. It is my moral obligation, however, to do the bare minimum and quit eating meat.
No. Not murdering is obligatory. Donating to the police department and doing your best to prevent murders 24/7 is not obligatory. Pretty clear lines here
I did explain my reasoning. Moral obligations are obligated. Morally good actions that are not obligated are not obligated, or we would all sell our homes and live frugally.
Not eating meat is a moral obligation, because it causes active and direct harm coming from the individual. You don't have to donate money to vegan companies. That in itself is not a moral obligation, because that prevents harm committed by others. Moral obligations apply to harm committed by the individual. The individual is morally obligated to stop harm emerging from his actions as practically and as reasonably possible.
They are direct. You are paying for the slaughter to happen.
In the same way telling someone else to kill Selena Gomez is direct harm emitting from the individual, buying meat is direct harm emitting from the individual.
And again, it being direct or not doesn't matter. Any harm emerging from the individual is morally obligated to be reduced to its least practical value.
Again, that's an arbitrary difference that can be used to justify slavery. What's in humans that's absent in animals that justifies killing animals for meat and fails to justify killing humans for meat?
I don't care is not an argument. I could stab a child to death and a man could ask me to stop doing that, and I'll respond with "I don't care"
Again, I don't care is not a moral argument. It is a statement that can justify literally every immoral thing ever. If you want to be a psychopath and disregard morals entirely, up to you.
Again, rights are something we made up. Something having no socially constructed rights doesn't mean anything.
An animal being enslaved has no moral weight
An animal being enslaved definitely has moral weight in commonly used moral systems, as animals are sentient beings that do not desire to be enslaved. Animals aren't magically exempt out of morality because you like chicken nuggets. We value animals for the same reason we value humans, sentience.
THAT IS STILL NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT. That argument can be used to justify slavery. You repeating that argument over and over again does not magically make it true. Respond to my objections to your arguments and stop repeating them like a petulant moron
Black people are humans, therefore they have rights.
They did not have rights back in the time of slavery. Do you think a slaveowner replying with "Black people have no rights, so it's fine to treat them like this" is a morally justifiable position?
You're a pretty racist person.
You likely would've supported slavery during its time judging by how you're talking right now.
No. Rights do not exist as an objective concept. They are a concept made by humans. There is no mathematical equation showing that rights exist. There is no scientific evidence of human rights. It is a concept made up in laws and thoughts, therefore, it is subjective.
No. Rights do not exist as an objective concept. They are a concept made by humans. There is no mathematical equation showing that rights exist. There is no scientific evidence of human rights. It is a concept made up in laws and thoughts, therefore, it is subjective.
Acting like an irrational 8 year old won't get you anywhere. Do not debate with people and waste their time if you don't want to actually learn anything from the debate and are just going to stubbornly repeat your points like a schizophrenic parrot after they've been thoroughly falsified.
I am not comparing animals to black people in this comment, by the way. I am stating that the line of reasoning that "they are in a specific group, so it's justifiable to treat them in a certain manner because they're in that group and there's no other reason." can be used to justify anything, including slavery.
right. in your attempt to explain why animals have rights, your first thought was black people.
of course you could have used "animals can't feel pain because they aren't human" or, as you put literally anything else, as an example of how "cuz they're not human" isn't a valid argument.
tbh i'm fine with you comparing blacks to animals. i wouldn't personally have made that choice, if you think it's appropraite that's fine. you're a little too defensive though imo
I am saying that his argument can be used to justify anything, including slavery. Therefore, it's a bad argument. It's not a comparison, you're just a moron or intellectually dishonest or don't understand basic philosophy.
except that's the literal definition of a comparison
in your example black people are analogous to animals, slavery is analogous to denying animals rights, and "blacks aren't white" is analogous to "animals aren't human" thus illustraing why "x isn't y" isn't a valid justification
The logic of "This being is not in X group, so we can treat it however we want" is applied.
Therefore, because animals are not human, we can treat them however we want.
Similarly, a different version of this argument can be used by racists to argue that blacks aren't in their group, which is white people, so they can treat them however they want. Both versions are wrong because they are arbitrary and unjust, the second significantly moreso.
And what are you basing this off of? I primarily eat steak and I only use salt for my reverse sear. Also my issue with how stupid your comment is:
Do you think the seasonings are good on their own? Have you considered that the meat is making the seasonings better by giving them a good base? Are you implying that dumping ground pepper and onions into your mouth tastes as good as eating it with meat? Why do you think it tastes better on meat? You have an incredible one-sided bias for an argument that holds no ground outside of your very, very specific opinion you're for some reason presenting as fact.
And what are you basing this off of? I primarily eat steak and I only use salt for my reverse sear
You primarily eat steak? I feel sorry for your arteries.
I base this off the fact that most meat consumed is seasoned in some way, shape or form.
Do you think the seasonings are good on their own?
No. Seasonings obviously require a base. But regardless if the base is meat or tofu steak, they taste somewhat identical due to harboring the same seasonings.
No. Seasonings obviously require a base. But regardless if the base is meat or tofu steak, they taste somewhat identical due to harboring the same seasonings.
Literally objectively wrong. You think that all things taste the same when seasoned? Holy shit dude just take your loss LOL. By your argument a steak is the same whether or not is A5 Wagyu or Choice from Walmart as long as you season it the same.
I base this off the fact that most meat consumed is seasoned in some way, shape or form.
And I'm telling you that's wrong. You realize humans have been eating meat longer than we've been making oregano, correct?
Literally objectively wrong. You think that all things taste the same when seasoned? Holy shit dude just take your loss LOL. By your argument a steak is the same whether or not is A5 Wagyu or Choice from Walmart as long as you season it the same.
No. I am saying the texture of fake steak and real steak are identical. With the same seasoning, the taste can be identical, yes.
And I'm telling you that's wrong. You realize humans have been eating meat longer than we've been making oregano, correct?
No. I am saying the texture of fake steak and real steak are identical. With the same seasoning, the taste can be identical, yes.
And I'm saying you're wrong. Like there is no actual argument you can make here: You are objectively wrong as someone who frequents steak and can tell the difference between cut quality. The discussion ends here.
Says the anemic cretin that survives on a bean-heavy diet. How does it feel that your uncontrollable farts are considered human right's violations on par with Assad's nerve strikes on Syria?
My anemia is genetic, and has only improved with a plant-based diet.
How does it feel that your uncontrollable farts are considered human right's violations on par with Assad's nerve strikes on Syria?
While I did experience periods of flatulence while starting a plant-based diet, they have quickly gone away. Flatulence is experienced because I am introducing healthy gut bacteria.
You retard math is retard math because you don't realize that the total population is in gigatons while each person only makes about 3.3 on average, with vegan diets about taking off only 15%.
In various methods to "save da wurl" your attempt is laughable at best, a point gesture spurring on hedonistic egotism that you could argue is worsening the environment at worst.
Yes? And most farms in the world are operating due to animal agriculture.
This is also another part of your retardation.
Farm makes meat, so not eating meat will stop farms.
Because a couple people will stop bad farm practicies by not eating meat.
Your retard math is retarded math because you don't realize that the total population is in gigatons while each person only makes about 3.3 on average, with vegan diets about taking off only 15%.
Ok?
This "math" takes into account supply and demand. How the hell did you think the study measures Co2 emissions for diets? By how much dead meat exudes it?
No. The CO2 emissions are measured by looking at the production of the food.
In various methods to "save da wurl" your attempt is laughable at best, a point gesture spurring on hedonistic egotism that you could argue is worsening the environment at worst.
I'm really not sure what you're saying.
Because a couple people will stop bad farm practicies by not eating meat.
No. I'm not saying a couple of people need stop. I'm saying we as a collective need stop.
I mean fuck man, do you really think EVERYONE is going to agree on something enough to get rid of something?
Uhm, yes? We did it on slavery.
Now, compare that to endorsing more efficient farming practices to farmers.
There is no efficient way of making enough meat to feed 7 billion people.
Cool. Meat eating releases way more emissions than a vegan diet according to this graph. So?
This is also not accounting for waste pollution, deforestation, habitat destruction, food loss, soil erosion.
Your evangalizing attempts is hilariously inefficient, and a waste of oxygen.
Childish ad hominem, can't spell evangelizing. Can we please get to an argument, or am I just wasting my time here?
You really should read history, nobody agreed. Slavery is still a thing, retard.
Slavery is illegal in the context of first world countries and a lot of third-world countries as well. If meat eating were to be made illegal in the context of first world countries, it would make a tremendous impact.
Then you're a delusional retard.
boring ad hominem, please quit wasting my time if you just want to insult me
You're really bad at this shit m8, indirectly asking for the point when you're the one that wanted me to clarify the point is retarded.
I am still not sure how the point is retarded. Your argument is, a non-vegan diet releases more CO2 emissions? Is that seriously your argument?
Oh look it sounds like improving farming practices is good, who would've thought?
Those practices are inherent to raising livestock to feed large swaths of people. There is no way you can eliminate them unless the demand is eliminated.
See, that attempt only works if I didn't already put how this would go down two weeks ago.
Not going to bother with this. Come back to me when you want to debate.
I am still not sure how the point is retarded. Your argument is, a non-vegan diet releases more CO2 emissions? Is that seriously your argument for not being a vegan? I can't go vegan because vegan diets release fewer emissions tho? That's the strangest argument I've come across.
Chances are you're going for the environment angle afer this, complaining about farms or some shit.
Then you figure out why I put the carbon footprint shit because it's going to end up there.
Then it's going to be measure air for some retarded reason.
And it's going to keep going on and on.
Those practices are inherent to raising livestock to feed large swaths of people. There is no way you can eliminate them unless the demand is eliminated.
So you're saying farming practices CAN'T be made to lessen emissions?
Or are you implying the only "happy ending" is to eliminate farming agriculture in general.
Because happy endings are fictional, and again, have fun with that. Since last I checked vegans are still a minority, even in the vegetarian field.
Not going to bother with this. Come back to me when you want to debate.
Bitch please, you never wanted to debate.
You wanted to vomit your retarded ideals in some hopes of turning someone, anyone vegan. In some deluded hope that it'll make the environment better somehow.
Again, you're really bad at math.
You don't get to gigatons to 0 using 33 as fast as you can by reducing said gigatons by 0.0001%
Meat tastes bad without non-animal product seasoning in the majority of cases. The majority of its pleasant taste is due to non-animal product seasoning.
Do you not understand the powerful taste of meat? Fat and umami flavours are present in meat, especially red meat. We are hard wired to seek out these flavours. I don’t know what shit meat YOU have eaten in the past, but a very good steak that has been aged correctly can be eaten just seared. It certainly doesn’t need anything else, and salt is just icing on the cake. Vegetables also need salt....and pepper. If you eat vegetables at restaurant they’ll also have fat ( oil) and a little sugar. You know nothing
No, read what I said. I see that you admitted that veggies may taste better to some people with seasoning, but that you think they are still delicious without seasoning. Now why doesn't the same exact reasoning apply to meat?
I'm the first to admit that I like both my meat at veg more with seasoning. But there are certainly people out there who like either or both unseasoned.
I don't have anything to say to them. What I'm trying to deliver is that most people like meat due to seasoning. You can always find exceptions to a rule, though.
Yes! It might be true that a lot of people only like veggies due to seasoning. That's the point. The taste of meat isn't irreplaceable due to most of it just being seasoning.
So despite not eating meat you are an expert on why people like eating it. Ok bud it's clearly going to be impossible to reason with someone whose position is completely irrational.
I'm stating that the seasoning is most of the taste. If the seasoning is employed on a tofu steak instead of an actual steak, the difference is hardly noticeable.
Animals are sentient, thinking beings that do not desire to die. We subject them to pain and agony for nothing but vain pleasure. How is this morally justifiable?
Plants tho is an idiotic argument. Plants aren't sentient
If you're going by the pathos attempt and appealing to whatever the fuck using fear response, plants have it too.
What?
Then you're going to argue they don't because they don't have a nervous system like ours.
Yes, plants don't have a nervous system.
Then we go to fish.
Fish have nervous systems and likely feel pain.
Then jellyfish.
Jellyfish aren't sentient nor do they feel pain. But there's the issue of bycatch.
Chances are you're going to use that one CDC article, or a site that does.
Sorry, what?
Then I say it's about vegetarians, not vegans, and even then the end of the study said it's about proper diet, not proper vegan diet, it's just harder to manage equilibrium with meat-based compared to plant-based diets.
Making assumptions about my arguments without actually arguing me? This is moronic.
Do you want a specific citation of any claim I made? Please ask, and I will cite.
All of it.
No. An argument being commonly used does not render it invalid. You have yet to offer a sufficient response.
See, the thing about that is the entire retarded cycle of logic is supposed to be there so we could skip your retarded attempt at logic via autism and head straight for anything interesting.
Again, no link makes that claim. Stop being a moron and provide a link. The burden of proof is on you.
All of it.
Uhm, no? Ask for something specific. I'm not citing every single fucking claim I made.
See, the thing about that is the entire retarded cycle of logic is supposed to be there so we could skip your retarded attempt at logic via autism and head straight for anything interesting.
Boring ad hominem. Address my arguments instead of yelling around like an autistic 12 year old.
Again, no link makes that claim. Stop being a moron and provide a link. The burden of proof is on you.
You're complaining about burden of proof now? After you've made an assload of unsolicited claims, made red herrings, and tried to filibuster your way out of this shit?
lol.
Also, actually click the links retard.
Uhm, no? Ask for something specific. I'm not citing every single fucking claim I made.
And then you complain about burden of proof on the same reply.
double lol.
Boring ad hominem. Address my arguments instead of yelling around like an autistic 12 year old.
fallacy fallacy in an attempt of derailing using autism.
You're complaining about burden of proof now? After you've made an assload of unsolicited claims, made red herrings, and tried to filibuster your way out of this shit?
Citation needed.
Also, actually click the links retard.
I did. Nothing there.
And then you complain about burden of proof on the same reply.
You are making a single claim. I have made a large amount of claims over this conversation. Are there any in particular you want me to cite, you absolute useless fucking moron?
fallacy fallacy in an attempt of derailing using autism.
You don't understand what the fallacy fallacy is. A fallacy fallacy states that the premise of your argument (eating meat is fine and vegans don't make an impact or whatever retarded tired carnist bullshit you're saying) is false because you used a fallacy. I am saying that your ad hominem is invalid and you should provide an argument, not that the premise of your argument is false because you used a fallacy.
You are making a single claim. I have made a large amount of claims over this conversation. Are there any in particular you want me to cite, you absolute useless fucking moron?
All of it, you lazy fuckwit. I know why you won't, but I like it when retards get deflective.
You don't understand what the fallacy fallacy is. A fallacy fallacy states that the premise of your argument (eating meat is fine and vegans don't make an impact or whatever retarded tired carnist bullshit you're saying) is false because you used a fallacy. I am saying that your ad hominem is invalid and you should provide an argument, not that the premise of your argument is false because you used a fallacy.
Trying too hard m8.
I'm saying you think what I just said had no credence on how retarded you are because you got triggered when I said autist.
Congrats on showing your true colors by the way.
I called elitism a while back and I was right.
So again. Anything new to add? Cuz this is starting to get sad.
I'm saying you think what I just said had no credence on how retarded you are because you got triggered when I said autist.
I am quite angry because you're acting like an intellectually lazy moron. You have no interest in actual conversation, you're only interested in exchanging a shit throw contest like a deranged monkey.
I called elitism a while back and I was right.
Knowing what you're talking about is elitism? Wow.
Oh boy, when I said you were generic I didn't know it was this rehashed.
Did you even find these things on your own?
1.
If scientists accept that the definition of pain in animals cannot include direct measurement of subjective experience (the standard for humans), then fish fulfill the criteria for animal pain. In this review, recent evidence for pain is discussed in terms of the physiological properties of nociceptors, central responses to noxious stimulation, and changes in behavior and physiology that are indicative of nociception and are responsive to analgesia. To enable the assessment of potential pain, there are descriptions of newly identified robust indicators and species-specific responses that are easily measurable. The article concludes with a discussion of humane endpoints and of the need for alleviation of pain through the use of analgesia and anesthesia.
Then you're going to argue they don't because they don't have a nervous system like ours.
Then we go to fish.
Then jellyfish.
If difference of nervous systems means difference in definitions of pain, why the hell do you get to choose which one fits this debate?
Seriously. Anything new?
I am quite angry because you're acting like an intellectually lazy moron. You have no interest in actual conversation, you're only interested in exchanging a shit throw contest like a deranged monkey.
I have no interest in a retard trying to imitate my disinterest in rehashing the same debate over and over again while missing the point of trying to skip through said rehashing, and then getting pissy when I refuse to rehash something while at the same time trying to fist his way through said rehash. Word. For. Word.
Who knew?
Knowing what you're talking about is elitism? Wow.
LOL
Yes sure, it isn't using carnists like nigger. No sir.
The guy who does exactly what was said NOT to do, expected me to take him seriously after said thing, WITHOUT bringing anything new to the table, thinks I gave a shit about anything he replied to enough to consider this a debate.
lol.
Seriously, all this just so say "no I don't have anything new or interesting to add to a debate."
The guy who does exactly what was said NOT to do, expected me to take him seriously after said thing, WITHOUT bringing anything new to the table, thinks I gave a shit about anything he replied to enough to consider this a debate.
An argument being in common usage does not render it invalid. I have explained that to you many times.
An argument being in common usage does not render it invalid if it hasn't been debunked. I have explained that to you many times. This is just a genetic fallacy.
Going on about debunking shit without debunking shit while ignoring when your shit's been debunked sounds like a good idea on paper doesn't it?
In truth, I'm not sure why I replied. I certainly won't reply to any reply to this. You've demonstrated yourself to be intellectually dishonest and with ill argumentation skill.
The guy ignoring my points and then complaining when I do the same is complaining about me ignoring his points.
Oh no.
Complaining about intellectual dishonesty while pretending to have knowledge in something you didn't even bother to look up properly is pretty retarded m8.
Because I used to eat meat till I recognized that it's morally wrong.
Bad is subjective anyway, who are you to say what I do or dont like?
I'm not saying everyone in the world ever like meat due to seasoning. I'm saying the vast majority of meat consumed is seasoned, therefore, most people enjoy eating seasoned meat. The fact that fake meats are realistic and possible is a testament to the fact that most of the admirable flavor found in meat is merely seasoning.
This right here makes you part of the problem not the solution. You know what this exact statement says. It says that when the concentration camps we're built to imprison and kill Jews, you lived in the town right next to it. With full knowledge of the attrocities and you did nothing about it. You didn't just to nothing about it, you let it happen.
Hoe, you post stuff like 'left-wing people have significantly lower testosterone levels'. Vegans might be whiny, delusional and retarded, but are rarely this self-contradictory.
This is about as reliable as a N. Korean documentary on the workings & functions of American democracy. What are you gonna post next, What The Health? lol
Vegetables are parts of plants that are consumed by humans as food as part of a meal. The original term is still commonly used and is applied to plants collectively to refer to all plant matter, including the flowers, fruits, stems, leaves, roots, and seeds. The alternate definition of the term vegetable is applied somewhat arbitrarily, often by culinary and cultural tradition.
It appears herbs and spices are plants, so they are vegetables.
Antibiotics given to farm animals erase the B12 comments they'd give out naturally, much like washing our vegetables erases the B12 content they give out naturally. Therefore, we give farm animals B12 supplements.
This might be one of the stupidest things I've read today.
Wild caught salmon has 40% of your DV in 3 oz, as do many other wild caught fish. Cattle that are pasture-fed/free range or fed hay (which is the majority of cattle on the planet, unlike what your Amerilard-centric worldview might have caused you to think) have, likewise, no need of B12 supplements.
And B12 doesn't come 'from the soil', you scientifically illiterate mongoloid, it originates from the fermentation of fiber by gut bacteria (even in humans, though we can't absorb it easily). It gets into soil because that soil has been excreted on by animals. So unless you're eating food with feces on it or taking a supplement (or eating a lot of fortified foods, which probably means a lot of processed foods), as a vegan/vegetarian, you're not getting your B12. Which wouldn't surprise me if you did because 99% of vegan ''food'' is virtual indistinguishable from shit.
And very few people feed their animals those expensive-ass B12 supplements, retard. Most farmers buy cheaper cobalt ones, which is B12's central metal ion.
Jfc, what's even the point of explaining all this shit to you? You've been spergposting for hours here, are responsible for the creation of a 100+ comment chain and still going strong. Legit re-evaluate (or, better yet, end) your life my dude.
Cattle that are pasture-fed/free range or fed hay (which is the majority of cattle on the planet, unlike what your Amerilard-centric worldview might have caused you to think) have, likewise, no need of B12 supplements
Antibiotics are often employed on free-range cattle operations all the same.
And B12 doesn't come 'from the soil', you scientifically illiterate mongoloid
You're right on that. I stand corrected. Though resorting to insults like a petulant 12 year old isn't earning you any favor with anyone.
or eating a lot of fortified foods, which probably means a lot of processed foods
Not all processed food is bad for you. Fortified soy milk has a decent nutritional profile.
Which wouldn't surprise me if you did because 99% of vegan ''food'' is virtual indistinguishable from shit.
Boring outbursts from a child yelling against vegetables.
And very few people feed their animals those expensive-ass B12 supplements, retard. Most farmers buy cheaper cobalt ones, which is B12's central metal ion.
Ok? I never made any specific claim about B12 supplements. Calling me a retard over and over again won't make you look cool or edgy, just a desperate moron.
Jfc, what's even the point of explaining all this shit to you? You've been spergposting for hours here, are responsible for the creation of a 100+ comment chain and still going strong. Legit re-evaluate (or, better yet, end) your life my dude.
Haha! I told someone I disagree with to kill themselves on the Internet! Look at how cool I am, guys!
Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life including during infancy and pregnancy by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Dietitians of Canada, and the British Dietetic Association.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church loons and is funded by them, as is most pro-vegan science. One of the co-authors of the official position of the AND on vegeterian diets, Winston J. Craig, is a literal SDA vegeterian cultist. The other, Vesanto Melina, is an open 'ethical vegan' nutjob.
As for the British Dietetic Association, straight for the horses mouth:
The Vegan Society has formed an important alliance with the British Dietetic Association (BDA). The BDA is the professional association for dietitians in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It’s the nation’s largest organisation of food and nutrition professionals with over 8,500 members. By combining their strengths, both organisations are committed to reaching out to members of the public, health professionals and service providers with reliable information about vegan nutrition.
Both organisations will “work together to show that it is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan-friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding” …and… “promote reliable, evidence based advice on a healthy vegan diet to members of the public, services users and medical professionals.”
Why do subhuman vegan cultists never, ever manage to support their shitty arguments with sources that aren't horrendously biased? Even Scientology makes more of an effort to appear impartial lmao 😂 😂 😂
SDA is a literal cult with legal recognition, like most cults in the US. Their founder, Ellen G. White, adopted most of her vegetarian stances after God told her so in a vision lol
Source on the AND founder's backgrounds?
Search it yourself, faggot. The names are all there. Just type them on google along with 7th-day Adventist Church. But, to give you a clue, since you appear to be a borderline invalid, most of them are also members of this group, which is acknowledged as the official pro-vegetarian wing of the AND.
How does being an ethical vegan make someone incorrect or a "nutjob?"
Vegans are by definition nutjobs. See your conduct and that of all other similarly-minded retards such as yourself in this thread. "Bee slavery" lmao 😂😂😂
Source that most plant based nutrition research is funded by SDA?
Source on the BDA quotes?
Again, do a simple reverse google search, you mook. Jfc, do you nedd my help to wipe your own ass, too?
How is promoting peace and non-violence subhuman?
Veganism is promoting neither.
Scientology is a cult, veganism is not.
That's exactly what a deluded vegan cultist would say. Pot, meet kettle.
Ah yes, because the dairy and egg industries are completely impartial.
Except I never linked to a blog/website obviously funded and run by those industries as citation for my arguments. You already did that like 3-4 times in the few posts just the two of us exchanged. And you have the audacity to talk about impartiality 😂😂
We all have biases. For example, you are obviously biased towards eating meat.
lol, I don't even eat much meat, you mong. It's expensive where i'm at. People calling your inane cultust screeching retarded =/= people being biased. Your troglodyteness is objective.
Otherwise, the vegan SDAs would have a lower mortality than the meat eaters.
You mean the same SDA that also promotes regular exercise, prohibits drinking, smoking and has its own network of clinics to provide quality healthcare to its members? You bet they are going appear healthy compared to the average Amerilard poopulation.
What you're doing is textbook example of healthy user bias. The average health-conscious and exercising omnivore is in no way or form less healthier than the average health-conscious and exercising vegetarian.
Edit: If the BND wants to promote a vegan diet, I'd trust the 9,000 dieticians and support workers over your ranting any day.
Except it's the BND's "Plant Based Nutrition Group" that wants to promote that. A textbook example of small group of ideology-based 'health activists' that's infiltrated and attempts to influence a larger dietic organisation. Not disimilar to how the 'Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group' and SDA cultists have infiltrated AND.
And 9,000 is an astonishingly small number for the UK, ya dweeb lol. BND is considered an extremely low-importance NGO by the national dietic organisations of Europe.
and yet, if i cite what any large reputable dietician organization says about diet, you'll throw out conspiracy theories, and then post vegangains videos or a shitty vegan blog with no credibility.
i know this because this ain't my first rodeo with your kind.
Well-planned vegan diets are regarded as appropriate for all stages of life including during infancy and pregnancy by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Dietitians of Canada, and the British Dietetic Association.
Isn't this what "any large reputable dietician organization" says about a vegan diet?
but that isn't what this guy is claiming though. he is claiming that a vegan diet is the HEALTHIEST diet, which no large reputable organization anywhere claims is a solid fact.
they claim, it can be a healthy diet if planned appropriately, pretty different statement.
True, I guess we don't know the absolute "healthiest" diet yet. Once we do, it'll probably come in drink form with the perfect amount of nutrients, calories, fiber, etc. (Soylent, anyone?)
Until then, it's reassuring to know that everyone can live without eating an animal. It gives me faith in humanity. If everyone was vegan, the world would be a better place.
i have no problem with people being vegan, i just have problems with people spreading lies and pseudo science about anything. there are vegans who claim that a vegan diet cures cancer and lets you live to 5000 years old. the vegan "raw diet" cult gets pretty fucking whacky, the kid i was arguing with is one of those nuts.
Unfortunately, there are a "very loud" minority of people who eat a vegan diet (but may not follow the vegan philosophy) who peddle pseudoscience. I prefer the science and logic behind actual veganism.
Fortunately, r/vegan is a great community that shuns pseudoscience and welcomes anyone who has questions (just don't troll please).
Again, plasma HDL cholesterol does not affect overall cholesterol levels. And a medication that raises your HDL levels causing poor cardiovascular outcomes should be a red flag that HDL is bad for you.
Comparatively, medication that lowers LDL has been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
Oh, and my other points still stand. You've yet to address them.
Again, plasma HDL cholesterol does not affect overall cholesterol levels. And a medication that raises your HDL levels causing poor cardiovascular outcomes should be a red flag that HDL is bad for you.
Older people with higher cholesterol live longer. See for example this study, which followed over 3000 people over 60 year old in Sweden for close to ten years:
Compared to normal total cholesterol (<5.18 mmol/l), borderline-high (5.18–6.21 mmol/l) and high (≥6.22 mmol/l) total cholesterol were associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality
That is a poor study to point to. It examines older subjects who are on cholesterol lowering medications, and subjects who aren't. They then say that low cholesterol is associated with high risk of all-cause mortality.
That's not a very wise conclusion. The people on cholesterol lowering medications are likely suffering from a multitude of chronic diseases, and are therefore more likely to die compared to people who aren't taking medications.
All the studies that examine a healthy population with healthy levels of LDL vs a population who are not on medications but have high levels of LDL come to the conclusion that LDL is associated with higher all cause mortality. Finding some strange poor methodology study doesn't change the fact that LDL cholesterol is associated with heart disease, as I've cited to you through a plethora of papers.
Ok, be realistic, saturated fat also raises LDL and total cholesterol levels. Higher total cholesterol level is associated with a higher risk of heart disease.
LDL is not considered much of a risk factor any more. On the other hand, low HDL is.
Furthermore, while some do, a vast majority of people do not experience a significant LDL increase on a high sat fat diet anyway; no change in my case. My HDL is through the roof, and my TGC are low, while they were way above the recommended range before.
Source? A vast majority of people are an unhealthy weight. Most people already have high LDL levels, so it makes sense the absorption sensitivity would be low. Either way, high total cholesterol is still a risk factor for heart disease, which is why eggs can’t be advertised as “healthy.”
Also, if vegans live an unhealthy life, why do they live longer than the average person?
For example, on my blood lipid test results, there's a "CVD risk factor scoring". 1 point for smoking, 1 point for high BP, 1 point for high TGC, 1 point for age, 1 point for HIV. You can decrease 1 point however if you have high HDL. LDL does not factor in.
Either way, high total cholesterol is still a risk factor for heart disease, which is why eggs can’t be advertised as “healthy.”
Dietary cholesterol has little to no impact on blood cholesterol, as 90%+ of cholesterol is endogenic (not coming from diet), EXCEPT for people suffering from familial hypercholesterolaemia.
In any case, The Kuopio study, which has lasted for 2 decades, has produced many results that tend to show that higher egg consumption is associated with better outcomes, such as lower incidence of type 2 diabetes, which is itself strongly associated with all kinds of problems.
Also, if vegans live an unhealthy life, why do they live longer than the average person?
Here's something Gary Taubes points out. Seventh Day Aventists have excellent health outcomes, particularly compared with the average American. They are also mostly vegetarian, and also eat some fish. Case closed?
Well Mormons have the exact same health outcomes as Adventists. They also eat meat. But like Adventists, they don't smoke, and they have similar social practices.
More generally, vegetarians in the West have better outcomes than the rest of the population. They pay attention to their diet and don't typically eat lots of processed food and particularly, processed sugar. Now there was a study on some buddhist nuns or some shit in Taiwan who don't eat meat for purely religious reasons. They don't care about their diet like a Western vegan would, and they don't fare any better than the rest of the Taiwanese population.
Since a vegetarian/vegan diet can be healthy (or healthier than average), killing animals for food is unnecessary. Why would you want to harm a cow/pig/chicken needlessly?
You’re wasting all your time being a keyboard warrior trying to convert people to be vegans by telling them they are wrong. You’ll never get anywhere by spreading negativity like you are. Why don’t you put your effort into fundraising for charities that work for causes you believe in, or go out and do something yourself about it.
You're being rude, condescending and childish. That is a clear textbook example of dick waving. I will consider discussing this with you politely when you quit waving your dick.
I am not interested in holding further discussions with you. You are deliberately intellectually dishonest, as amplified by that puerile post you just made.
So if you want to make a difference don’t waste your time on reddit. In this time you could have organised some fundraising, or go out and volunteered at an animal shelter for example.
I’m not arguing in defence of not killing animals. I’ve shot animals myself. I don’t have an issue with animals dying. My argument is, that if saving animals is so important to u/lepandas why don’t they do something about it?
Me:
So if you want to make a difference don’t waste your time on reddit. In this time you could have organised some fundraising, or go out and volunteered at an animal shelter for example.
lepandas:
I agree that working for charities is worth more than spending time on Reddit. So?
OP even agrees with me but carries on pointlessly arguing over it instead of actual positive action!
I’m sure the cancer research and stroke rehabilitation charities I’ve raised money for would have preferred me writing comments on reddit over the money. You’re dumb. Goodbye.
I’m sure the cancer research and stroke rehabilitation charities I’ve raised money for would have preferred me writing comments on reddit over the money
See, this is why no one takes you misanthropic little cultists seriously. Imagine comparing a developing a child and/or a person with mental disabilities to a pray animal that's not even self-aware. I bet you're also one of those vegan troglodytes that is against eating honey because of the 'enslavement of bees' lmao
And people do eat dogs, retard. Just not in our, Western, culture.
Btw, how does it feel to know that mean consumption will continue to rise all over the world and veganism will never amount to nothing more than short-lasting diet fad for most people, despite all your impotent efforts?
What is misanthropic about peace and non-violence?
All food production involves animal deaths or 'violence', as you say.
How is a cow different from a mentally disabled person from an ethical perspetive? Neither are self-aware (at least not like us), neither want to die, and both feel pain like us.
Mentally disabled people aren't self-unaware, you scientifically illiteratet troglodyte. They aren't comatose. You can't compare their psyche, or than of a child, to that of a farm animal.
And cows do not want to 'live' or 'die' because they have no concepts ofeither. They don't think of the futture, the operate on baseline animal instinct. Quit anthropomorphizing animans, cretin.
-retarded appeals to emotion, posts link to random deceptively edited, touchy-feely YouTube video run by vegan cultists-
Nothing to debate here.
Does culture = morally right?
We're talking about food, ya stupid bint.
-blah blah blah, stuff everyone worth their salt in beekeeping knows are new age, city folk hippie drivel with no basis in reality, blah blah blah, bee enslavement (lol), blah blah blah, link to a vegan cultist website, blah blah blah-
I get it. There's absolutely no reasoning with you people. I mean, I already realised this when I tried to talk with the previous retard, but you appear even more fanatical and head-to-anus single-minded than him. You're not here to debate, you're here to preach.
Well, do so and be a lolcow-- but pester someone else. I have no interest hearing the same inane vegan diarrhea I've heard and debunked countless in the past. G'bye.
All food production involves animal deaths or 'violence', as you say.
By eating an animal, we directly participate in its slaughter. Yes, some animals die when grain/beans are harvested, but remember than animals eat food too! For every kg of beef, 10-15kg of feed is required. Thus veganism still = less violence.
And cows do not want to 'live' or 'die' because they have no concepts ofeither.
In the UK I would need a slaughter licence to kill a dog which I don't have. I would have no use for a dead dog as I have no good dog recipes, but I have some great chicken recipes.
I believe it stinks of hypocrisy to tell one culture that they are wrong for eating a certain species whilst eating other species yourself. If someone wants to eat a dog, let them. I wouldn't want a Chinese man telling me I shouldn't eat a deer, so why should I tell them not to eat a dog?
At no point have I argued for killing a child or mentally disabled person as they are human. That is probably the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
If you want people to be won over in a debate, accusing them of wanting to kill a child is not the way to do it.
You said you would kill an animal. A human is an animal, so you have indeed argued that you will kill a person.
I don't believe you would really eat a dog.
Would you agree that your compassion does not stem from the fact that:
1) humans use language
2) humans compose symphonies
3) humans can plan in the far future
4) humans have a written, technological culture, etc.
Instead, I think you will agree that compassion stems from the fact that humans can suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. Nonhuman animals can also suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. (See Earthlings if you do not believe me)
Thus, by not according moral status to nonhumans, one is acting morally inconsistently.
Look through the comments, how many have they converted? In the time they have wasted on here they could have done something useful instead of entrenching meat eaters.
Yeah, volunteering for Mercy for Animals or Direct Action Everywhere would probably be more useful, but some activism is always better than nothing. Maybe he hasn't converted anyone, maybe he has.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Michael Scott
Chimpanzees are opportunistic "omnivores", like humans. They are frugivores, really. Their body is adapted to consume fruits, but they are able to eat meat out of necessity. Doesn't mean it's good for them. They get atherosclerosis.
Also, if humans are herbivores, then why do we have canines?
We have canines for tearing up tough fruits and nuts. Other herbivores also have canines.
+1 - Ok, be realistic, saturated fat also raises LDL and total cholesterol levels. Higher total cholesterol level is associated with a higher risk of heart disease. I highly recommend this lecture on plant-based nutrition to physicians by a leading nutr...
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
475 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-07-02
It's shit like this that makes my life worse as a Eurasian because even if you look amazing you're still a subhuman because Asian women happily marry guys who look like they've been in industrial accidents over an Asian guy. It makes Asian looking males look like the worst fucking losers on earth. The guy is absolutely offensive to look at. Like his face literally makes my stomach churl because he's so ugly. I'd even be mad if he had a white girlfriend People feel they have the liberty to say of course your dad is white. Because white guys see shit like this where some fucking quasimodo looking freak can get Asian girls and they use it as ammo as to how shittyy asian guys are...
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-07-02
And this is why people hate retar...I mean vegans.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-07-02
Why did you start to type vegan and then correct yourself?
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-07-02
Because I tried to be polite - retards don't deserve to be compared to vegans. Retards are poor people with mental disabilities, they need help and care....hipster vegans....they can fuck off.
1 TheRootinTootinPutin 2018-07-02
People with mental retardation often go on to lead normal lives, often at a decelerated pace, doing something useful. Can't say the same for vegans.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Because they offer logical arguments that ask people to re-evaluate their immoral dietary choices?
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-07-02
Lol, I'm making sausages right now btw.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Got em! You destroyed my philosophical and scientific evidence with that sentence.
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-07-02
I don't give a shit about you or your arguments, ok?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
All I read is that "I don't have an interest in arguments that make me feel bad and challenge my moronic pre-existing beliefs"
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-07-02
And I read "I'm a grandstanding vegan hipster, who has too much time on xir hands".
I pay for my food, I make my own food and sure ass hell I'm gonna eat what I want, piss off, you wanker.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Tell that to the dead cow (food) lol. They don't exactly line up to have be killed for you to eat them.
If I paid to eat your dog, could I?
1 voicelesshoodwinker 2018-07-02
Yes.
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
since your arguments aren't logical you're not a vegan, right?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I think my arguments are logical. If you disagree, you are welcome to discuss them with me.
1 Journey95 2018-07-02
GTFO cunt vegan
Your arguments are garbage and worse, how your kind behaves is sickening
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
How about you deal with the arguments I present instead of demonising the messenger?
You presumably condone an animal holocaust and torture of trillions of animals a year, for something as pointless as hamburgers. How do you morally justify this clearly immoral and barbaric act?
1 Journey95 2018-07-02
They are dumb animals (this isn't planet of the apes shit, if they were intelligent I would agree) and not humans, thats it. A hamburger isn't pointless btw, same for meat in general. It tastes great and I love that.
Its sickening how retarded Vegans love to compare dumb animals being treated badly with the Holocaust, with slavery, with pedo's.
Now thats barbaric tbh.
https://i.redd.it/nlsj8q93jng01.jpg
https://i.redd.it/rfnnog25bjiz.jpg
Shit like this makes me sick. Fuck your kind, thank god you are just a retarded minority
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
So, you qualify intelligence as the trait that justifies needlessly stabbing animals to death. Cool.
Now, mentally disabled human beings; is it fine to stab them to death for their flesh? Why or why not?
I am not comparing it with the Holocaust (though I find no issue with that comparison.)
I am calling it A holocaust.
As per the definition:
holocaust ˈhɒləkɔːst/Submit noun 1. destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.
Back to the topic, I see no reason why eating meat should not be compared to the holocaust. Animals are sentient, thinking beings that do not want to die. Jews are sentient, thinking beings that do not want to die. The fact that one can't do algebra is irrelevant to the fact that they both want to live and don't want to suffer.
I don't think it's retarded to not needlessly stab billions of animals to death every year and kill human beings in the process just for a hamburger.
1 Journey95 2018-07-02
Not because they are humans, that changes things. And them being mentally disabled would be a rarity, animals are always retarded.
No because I'm human and don't want other races enslaving me.
Disgusting that you find no issue with that comparison.
Animals are dumb and not intelligent at all. They also kill each other all the time, what do you make of that? Somehow its bad when we do it?
I think the retarded part is your houlier than thou attitude & acting all superior, shaming "meat eaters" and acting like an obnoxious dick like pretty much every vegan I have seen. That's why your group is thankfully hated.
Change your attitude.
And wtf do you mean, human being killed? What does that have to do with a Hamburger?
And you know damm well that its not just about a Hamburger, its about meat etc. in general. Becoming a Vegan basically means changing your food style completely. Fuck that
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Why? What is the difference between animals and humans that justifies stabbing animals to death but not humans? It's clearly not intelligence.
Cows are capable of critical thinking skills and problem-solving, as well as complex emotional relationships. They are not "retarded". They are simply lower on the scale compared to you. In comparison, you are likely lower on the scale compared to an alien.
Why?
Extremely debatable. Animals are capable of complex actions and thinking, as demonstrated by biology.
Cows, pigs, chickens typically don't intentionally kill eachother.
Animals are not moral agents. We are. We should know better, because we have the brains to form morality.
A long wall of ad hominem that does nothing to justify stabbing billions of animals to death. I am sorry that vegans are mean to you on the Internet, but you are supporting and funding a holocaust of billions of animals. Which one is worse?
Sure. I'll explain.
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon. 91% of Amazon deforestation is due to animal agriculture, displacing many tribes and killing human beings in the process.
137 plant, animal and insect species go extinct due to rainforest deforestation EVERY DAY.
1,100 environmental activists lobbying against rainforest destruction have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years.
80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock. Chickens are being dosed with the strongest antibiotics in the world. This will lead to bacterial resistance against antibiotics, which is projected to become one of the leading causes of death by 2050. This poses a SERIOUS threat to the existence of humans on this Earth.
The oceans won't have any fish by 2050. This will have serious ecological implications that will kill a lot of humans.
A vegan was rude to me on the Internet, so I have to stab billions of animals every year?
I've been polite throughout this entire conversation.
1 Journey95 2018-07-02
It's clearly intelligence dude. If animals were intelligent enough this wouldn't be happening. In fact instead something like Planet of the Apes (just more realistic) would be the problem. IF they were like the apes in that movie and actually intelligent I wouldn't eat them, that would be disgusting tbh.
Not enough though, again if they were that good at problem solving, complex actions and critical thinking skills this whole thing wouldn't be happening to them. They are way lower than humans on the scale and that makes all the difference.
Dude Aliens don't exist lol and hell if they did its not guaranteed that they would be on another "level" than us. Thats typical sci fi movies stuff
Because they were actually humans like you and me and treated like complete garbage and killed like they were some trash that needs to be get rid off. How can you not feel more for your own kind who is actually intelligent enough and instead think more about animals?
I have even seen a crazy vegan a while ago who was dumb enough to say that he would prefer the death of MILLIONS of humans just so billions of animals could survive.
I thought animals were smart enough too ? lol. Yeah we do have the brains so we can decide what happens with them and we follow nature's rules
Never was supposed to justify anything, just a rant on your group that should explain the hate you get. Thats all.
Ok some of that stuff sounds dramatic like "serious threat to the existence of humans on earth" lol, no way thats happening any time soon.
But obviously fucking murdering activists, as annoying as they may be is 100% wrong.
Regarding stuff like no fish in 2050 or the threat to the human existence part etc. honestly thats not something I care for much. I doubt it will be true, I think the leading minds on this know better. And even if I stopped and became a vegan it wouldn't change.
You have been acting morally superior tbh but not as crazy as other vegans
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
We've been over this. If it is intelligence, then stabbing mentally retarded people to death is fine. Aliens killing us for our flesh is fine. Those two hypotheticals, you refuse. So it's not intelligence.
Humans are better than them at this, yes. This does not justify stabbing them to death, just like it does not justify stabbing mentally disabled people to death.
Do you know what a hypothetical is? It's a thought experiment that puts your logic to the test. It's used in philosophy very often.
If your logic fails to be reasonable in a hypothetical, then your logic is moot. For example, this intelligence thing can be used to justify a holocaust of humans by aliens or a holocaust of mentally disabled people by mentally normal people. Therefore making intelligence an absurd trait to value.
Again, intelligence is not a relevant matter in this case. Jews and animals suffer the same. They feel pain the same. They don't want to die the same.
If you replaced the animals in slaughterhouses with humans, what would you call it?
You'd call it a holocaust.
Animals are smart, we are much smarter.
Yes, and we should decide not to stab billions of them to death needlessly.
That seems like an appeal to nature. Do you think nature should serve as a moral guidance?
Animals rape eachother all the time. They murder eachother all the time. Should we do it to ourselves because it happens in nature?
An antibiotic resistant epidemic is definitely possible. 28,000 PEOPLE die every year from antibiotic resistance because people are too selfish to quit eating meat.
Yes. But you're forgetting the fact that when they destroy the Amazon, they kill the indigenous tribes living there. The meat industry kills human beings. How do you morally justify supporting an industry that murders human beings in a mass and intentional scale?
The leading minds all say that this is going to happen soon if we don't change our consumption habits.
That's not true. Just being vegan for 1 month saves 30 animals's lives, saves 620 pounds of CO2 from being released, saves 913 square feet of forest, saves 1,370 pounds of grain, saves a whopping 33,000 gallons of water.
For more on this and for statistical citation, check out: http://vegancalculator.com/
1 Journey95 2018-07-02
Yeah we have but it seems you aren't reading my points or ignoring them on purpose.
Stabbing Mentally retarded people would be wrong because they are still humans. Its not just intelligence, its both. You are acting as if there can only be one reason.
And Aliens killing us may be fine for them but not for us since we want to survive and unlike animals aren't dumb (at least not to that level). Anyway this hypothetical part is unnecessary anyway, even if such smart aliens exist its not important now and I can't do anything if they decide to randomly kill us. I doubt us sparing animals would matter to them
No its not absurd at all because intelligence isn't the only reason, them being humans is another. I have mentioned this multiple times. Both reasons are valid overall, you saying they aren't doesn't somehow make it true
Both may suffer but one is intelligent and the other is retarded AND not a human.
Says you, you don't decide this mate and it clearly makes you mad.
No we shouldn't because we are intelligent enough to above that. This only serves as further proof that animals are too retarded to give a shit about them anyway.
I don't support that, innocent humans being killed is always 100% wrong. Thing is its just a minority doing it, you can't just condem the whole thing just because some are doing bad shit.
How about caring what bad things happen to humans everywhere (especially third world countries)? Seems like you care more about animals.
Then the leading minds should stop things, its not my responsibility. I have no power
So? Millions would still die, forest would still be destroyed etc. it can only matter if most people do it. not just a minority
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Why is them being humans relevant? That's an arbitrary difference. Please name a relevant, moral difference.
Animals too want to survive. What's the difference?
How is being human a valid reason? It's an arbitrary distinction. Explain what in being human entails them to not get stabbed.
How is intelligence a valid reason? We are going through the justifications one by one. If intelligence was to be used, holocausting mentally retarded people is okay.
If "we're humans tho" was to be used, then holocausting a race that is infinitely more sentient and more capable of pain and suffering than us is morally fine. Aliens holocausting us on the basis that "we're aliens tho and we're of a different species, so it's okay to holocaust you" would be fine.
White people enslaving black people because "We're white and you're not" is fine.
Humanity, skin color, and species are arbitrary differences. You must spell out a RELEVANT moral difference.
That doesn't matter in the slightest. You have yet to explain how intelligence or humanity matter.
Okay. Let me be clear.
Your premise is:
The conclusions would be:
Killing anything that does not comprehend morality is okay.
Therefore, killing mentally retarded people and developmentally stunted babies who are doomed to be babies all their lives is okay, because they can't comprehend morality.
You're going to move on to the justification "No, because they're human."
Humanity is an arbitrary difference, much like skin color.
Difference of species is not a valid moral justification unless you'd be okay with us being holocausted by an intelligent alien species because they're aliens and we're not aliens.
The meat industry entirely is cutting down trees in the Amazon. It's not just a minority. You are funding an industry that destroys trees in the Amazon and kills humans.
91% of all destruction in the Amazon is caused by the meat industry.
Actually, I argue with pro-Israel people all the time. I care about other humans too. Doesn't mean I can't also care about animals.
It is the responsibility of the consumer. You are buying products that support the suffering and death of humans and animals. You should stop buying those products.
Except veganism is on the rise. The number of vegans in the U.S. rose from 2% to 6% in the last 2 years. The U.K. is projected to become 30% vegan soon. We're not just a minority, we're making an impact; which is why dairy sales are falling and plant-based milk sales are rising.
1 Journey95 2018-07-02
Because I care about my species the most. So even when we have mentally retarded one's (which is a rarity) its important to treat them well, just because they are from my species.
Add to that the fact that animals are retarded and this whole thing becomes pretty clear to me. I think thee reasons are very relevant since I don't consider animals to be equal to humans like you do. You act like everyone has to follow your moral ideals regarding this whole matter, nope
Those aren't valid reasons for you but for me they are more than enough as I already explained. You keep bringing killing mentally retarded humans and it just seems like you didn't get my point..
The difference is that I'm not a freaking animal lol so I don't care if they want to survive. Nature should have made them smarter then because this is whole the whole thing works, you adapt and survive.
Well like I said it would be fine for the aliens but not for me since I'm part of the human species. I'm not an animal who is too retarded to do anything either...
White people killing black people again is wrong because both are humans.
Those are important differences because they determine my morals and how much I care. Thats how they matter for me AND most people.
You think animals would give a fuck if they were smart and we were retarded? No, I really doubt that. This is just how we are. I mean we still treat each other like crap (even if its less now than before, like slavery is all but gone) for various reasons (different countries, skin color etc.) even though we are of the same species but you think humans will give a fuck about animals who are too dumb anyway AND can't do anything (unlike other humans)?
You are naive mate
I won't deny its selfish to kill animals because we want to eat. But thats how we are. I wouldn't be ok by being "holocausted" because I'm a human who wants to survive.
Yeah but my point was that America's government and plenty of others have done and are doing bad shit. Somehow I don't see you (if you are from there) leaving and protesting. Why should I do it?
I won't deny its a bad thing whats happening to people there but its out of my hands
Yeah but do you really care this much about other humans?
If I stop, nothing would change. A BIG portion of people would need to stop and thats not happening.
You are still a minority dude, 6-7% isn't much at all. Its like acting transgender people are a majority.
Since most are still eating meat without any problems..you aren't making any impact that matters.
Now this might change but I doubt it.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Again, you're appealing to group membership. If an alien said "I don't care about humans, they're not in my species, so it's fine to genocide them all" it would not be moral or okay. It's therefore hypocritical to do the same here.
You're repeating your points, over and over again and ignoring that I responded to them.
"Difference is I'm not a black person so I don't care if they don't want to be enslaved"
You wouldn't accept this logic when used by white people to enslave black people. Them being humans has nothing to do with it, btw.
You're making a "might is right" claim, and when you have a might is right way of thinking, you must apply it consistently.
If you're just going to apply might is right to animals but not to humans, that is a logical fallacy called special pleading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
No, I am saying, in your moral system, it is moral to holocaust a species if they are of inferior intelligence and strength. Therefore, you'd morally AGREE with the aliens genociding us.
You disagreeing with the aliens genociding us means you are being hypocritical with your moral system and not applying it to humans when you apply it with animals; yet another form of the special pleading fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
I specifically addressed this in my last comment.
Please respond to my responses and don't just make the same points over and over.
So, you can't go vegan because other humans sometimes do awful things?
Well, by that logic, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, so it's fine for me to shoot up my local theatre because what he did was worse.
Yes, that's how we are, and it's changing. The number of vegans has gone up by 700% in the last two years. There is an extreme upward trend, and it's not going to be a meat-eater dominated society for long. Do you want to be on the wrong, hateful, murdering side of history or do you want to be on the right side of history?
Then you are committing special pleading.
You are stating "Might is right, but not when I'm affected!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
I am not from America, and I despise the actions of its government; as you can see from my comment history.
Other people doing bad things does not give you a free card to do bad things yourself, especially when it's easily in your control.
But it is. It is in your hands. Once you stop consuming animal products, the production will be decreased. Supply & demand. Being vegan for one year saves 370 animals, and many acres of rainforest land (therefore people).
I am, dude. Check out my political comment history.
I am not saying we are a majority. I am saying, if you look at current trends, it is highly possible that we will be a majority in some decades.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-07-02
/u/lepandas
Wrong.
Meat is delicious without vegetables. I do a roast chicken with some salt, pepper, 45 minutes in the oven. Boom. Best damn roast chicken. No veggies needed.
Ribeye? Kosher salt, overnight it, then you’ll want to roast in the oven briefly, pan sear with some butter. Delicious.
And I haven’t even gotten to duck prosciutto.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Meat tastes bad without non-animal product seasoning.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-07-02
You’re changing your claim. It was “vegetables” now it’s “non animal”
Very well: roast lamb, let it soak in its own fat (works on goose as well) and enjoy.
More importantly: veggies are for soyboys to enjoy, carnivores to suffer through to avoid ass cancer.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Again, finding specific exceptions to the rule doesn't go against my point. Most of the meat we enjoy is due to the seasoning. When people state "I don't wanna go vegan, I like meat too much" they probably just like the seasoning.
Soyboys? Animal products raise your estrogen levels and make you feminine.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-07-02
Uh-huh. Sauce for tht?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24050121
https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article/20/9/1610/218592
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-07-02
So 1) cow specifically 2) due to farming practices 3)
Uh oh. Sample size too small, need to try again.
And also bro: not one link proved any of this makes a carnivore more feminine.
On the other hand, soy folks are the most feminine bitches I’ve seen.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
272 participants is NOT a small sample size. A small sample size is like 30 people. The margin of error is not that high with 272 participants.
The study is asking for replication with larger studies, because that's what studies usually do. Science seeks to replicate itself as well as prove itself wrong. That isn't an argument.
Vegans have higher serum testosterone levels on average, and lower IGF-1 levels. If you don't know what IGF-1 is, it's a carcinogen.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-07-02
Lol this isn’t about cancer. You asserted 1) all meat products have more estrogen. You should proof for 1, and it’s mainly Amerifat beef that’s loaded.
2) you asserted vegetarians were less feminine. I see no proof.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I am stating that alongside with high testosterone, they also have lower rates of IGF-1; making a vegan diet overall more healthful.
I provided a plethora of citations to support that claim. I also provided a citation that vegan men tend to have much higher serum testosterone and lower estrogen.
But I cited two studies showing proof...
1 oss_spy 2018-07-02
And he addressed why you're a fucking retard for citing those, didn't he?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
And I explained why that's not the case and he doesn't understand basic statistics. Then he retorted with some seriously flawed studies, one of them showing vegans having higher total testosterone, and I explained why they aren't useful here.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-02
I knew you were on a roll lmaoooo
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Stating that it's a small sample size over and over again is not going to prove anything.
Vegan foods naturally contain zinc. Vegan populations don't generally receive zinc deficiencies.
No, just b12 which is found in fortified soy milk
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-07-02
Uhhuh. Then why precisely do multiple articles, including one by the Livestrong foundation, discuss needing your zinc?
You need more than b12. And soy milk: please prove you don’t look like a soyboy.
Bitching about your sample size won’t make for a conclusive study.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/testosterone-sex-hormonebinding-globulin-calculated-free-testosterone-and-oestradiol-in-male-vegans-and-omnivores/27DDFF5DF01A55EA4E1ECDBA443B7896
Note the above study has a small group, but since you’re ok with that 🤷🏻♀️
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022473189904597
Less test.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/4014062/
Small sample group and less test.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/70/3/525s/4714981
11,000 members in the group! And uh. Pretty much no difference.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Regardless, the study has a smaller sample size than the one I provided. You generally accept studies with larger sample sizes if possible.
Your second study discusses vegetarians who consume dairy products that increase estrogen levels. I'm discussing vegans.
Your third study has a horrendously small sample size. High margin of error.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-02
Adderall much? 😆
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
lol Why are you bothering with this 'person'? Look at all his sperging just on this thread. You're dealiing with a thoroughly brainwashed cultist drone here. He'll lie, cherrypick, move goalposts and belch out gish gallop after gish gallop in order to avoid entertaining anything other than his black-and-white worldview.
Srsly, this isn't even quality lolcow material. Just a B-12 deficient retard boringly sperging out about boring stuff nobody cares about.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I enjoy how you're resorting to ad hominem after I've addressed your points.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
No, that's the thing. You think you've addressed them. Because you're just to dumb to realise otherwise. What you've actually done is sperg the fuck out and showcase to everyone what a retarded, undebateable mess you are.
Now go away and take your vitamins. I have no time to fuck with you.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
So, debunking your points with actual understanding science is showing people how much of a retarded mess I am?
Sorry, I don't quite follow.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Are you so buttfrustrated that you didn't even notice that this is a different user?
Fucking seriously?
Did the the lipstick flair not give enough of a hint?
Then again a lack of zinc does lead to eyesight problems.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Uhm, sorry? I had a separate debate with /u/Matues49. Don't make unfounded assumptions and resort to ad hominem afterwards.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
It's unfounded that I think you're a flippant retard that came to this thread because someone pinged you?
You sure you've taken enough b12 supplements chief?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Boring childish ad hominem. Grow up.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Quick question, what did you expect with happen when you tried that response?
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
do you know what subreddit you're on?
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
I can post correlational studies, too. And from sources significantly more credible than the drivel you're posting. Not to mention with much larger sample sizes.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
That study is awful. The people in the vegetarian category weren't even vegetarian. They consumed fish.
It's a cross-sectional study, which means they surveyed people at one point in time; meaning no causal relationship can be established.
No sources of funding for the study were provided.
And there's a lot of context being left out.
One important thing that the researchers did not share in their discussion was that this was actually their second study on the health of vegetarians. Their first study came to completely different conclusions. That research gathered data from 15,474 people who participated in the Austrian Health Interview Survey. It found better self-reported health among the vegetarians as well as the omnivores who ate lots of fruits and vegetables. In fact, they concluded that public health measures are needed to reduce the health risks associated with “carnivorous” diets.
The study that found poorer health among vegetarians used a subset of the same study population. The subset was predominantly female and nearly half of them were under the age of 30. It's therefore intellectually dishonest to extrapolate these findings to the vegetarian community at large.
Overall, giving me a methodologically poor study to make some idiotic statement about correlation not causing causation in which I already agreed with you on doesn't serve your argument any favors. Correlation is not causation, but if you take the confounding variables into account, and there are biological mechanisms presented, then the relationship is likely causal.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
Both you and the other retard you respond to need to get through your skulls that correlation =/= causation. It's one of the basic principles of research ffs.
Also, lol @ those shitty-ass studies you posted. Tiny control groups, observational studies, 2 out f 3 of them almost 10 years old, just...lmao
Even the conclusion of your second study more or less tells you to your face that your links are crap and untrustworthy:
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Correlation is not causation for sure. Correlation IS causation when there is a biological mechanism in which causation can be sufficiently explained, and when you examine the confounding variables.
One of them had a poor sample size, correct, but this is due to the lack of studies done on this certain subject matter. It's not like I'm purposely picking out studies with low sample sizes. When there are no studies done on a certain topic except ones with low sample sizes, it's a generally good bet to rely on the present literature. Especially if the literature aligns with the fact that it's biologically plausible, as cow's milk definitely has high estrogen levels; and the fact that vegan men tend to have lower estrogen levels on average.
So?
It does not say that. It states that the study desires replication with larger population trials. Most epidemiological studies ask for replication, as science is a process that seeks to invalidate itself.
You clearly do not wish to grasp nuance and instead are resorting to calling people you disagree with retards.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
Oh god... there absolutely no point in this, isn't it? You aren't just a fanatical retard that knows -but refuses to face- the truth, like most vegans. You are an absolutely scientifically illiterate retard that's convinced he's right while knowing jack-shit.
There's no hope or point in debating against such a brick wall, I'm done.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I have a feeling you're projecting. You're the one dismissing observational data and all epidemiological studies because of some trite "correlation is not causation tho!"
Correlation is absolutely causation when confounding variables and biological mechanisms are accounted for. It's how we reached the conclusion that cigarette smoking and processed meats are carcinogenic.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
Then why are vegans so desperate to find convincing meat substitutes? The seasoning should be enough.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
There are plenty of convincing meat substitutes out there.
Ever tried Field Roast or the Impossible Burger?
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
But I thought you only like the taste of seasoning? Why the need for a meat substitute? You should be able to put some seasoning on a potato and call it good.
1 Ripper_Jack 2018-07-02
I love seasoned potatoes. Roasted red potatoes with some salt, or mashed potatoes. But my favorite seasoned potatoes are always french fries which go excellent paired with a nice burger. Don't even need seasoning on the burger, just make sure its got some fat content and bam.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
I'm the exact opposite, unseasoned vegetable + seasoned meat. Vegetable makes a refreshing contrast to the meat, and vice versa. Although most of the time, like you said, burger doesn't benefit from seasoning.
1 Ripper_Jack 2018-07-02
Context was potatoes and my favorite way to have potatoes is fried.
I like plain steamed vegetables when I do have them but I like my steaks with salt and pepper. Thinking about it now though, I want a burger.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
Ah yep, I forgot the context. also lemon pepper seasoning on steak fries is pretty good
1 Ripper_Jack 2018-07-02
Maybe if you're having fish, alittle malt vinegar!
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
👌👌👌
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I am not saying the taste of meat is purely due to seasoning. I am saying that the pleasant taste people like mainly is, and that can be achieved with a plant-based diet.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
The reason vegans eat fake meat is because the taste and texture of real meat is good. Vegans would just season an eggplant or tomato if this weren't true. This is why I can slow cook a roast with no salt or pepper and eat off it for a week with no seasonings.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Fake meat is a testament that meat is mainly seasoning. If same flavor can be achieved with relatively unidentical texture, then it's not entirely about meat's texture.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
But it can't. Fake meat is nothing like the real stuff fam, don't even pretend like it is. It doesn't taste nearly as good, and has nowhere near the same texture.
Face it. You either know you're wrong, or you're mentally ill. You wouldn't eat fake meat if real meat wasn't desirable. Every vegan but you knows that people eat meat because it tastes good and has a desirable texture. If it weren't the case, nobody would eat meat.
This is why even the cruel and brutal meat industry flourishes, while miserable vegans munch on fake meat and long for the savory fat and delectable meat texture and all the wonderful juices that are stored in it. You are only trying to convince yourself (or you're mentally ill.)
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Depends on the brand. Some brands taste exactly like the same thing. Again, try Impossible Burger or Field Roast.
I don't like the taste of meat that much. I used to, till I recognized that it's a tortured and murdered animal. So now I find it unpalatable. I don't think I'm particularly miserable.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
Wrong. They don't.
Then why do you eat fake meat? You just said it tastes exactly like real meat.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Have you tried the Impossible Burger/Field Roast?
I find actual meat unpalatable due to the fact that it's a dead animal. I recognize that fake meat is not a dead animal, and therefore I don't find it unpalatable.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
Lmao. Dude. You wouldn't eat fake meat if you didn't like the taste of real meat--you're the one arguing that they taste the same. Listen to yourself. You have literally refuted your own argument.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Do you not recognise nuance?
I hate real meat because it is a dead animal. If the meat had the same taste and wasn't a dead animal, I would like it.
Similarly, the cooked flesh of my grandma might be tasty. But I would find it unpalatable, because it's my grandma.
If there was a meat substitute that tasted like the cooked flesh of my grandma without it being my grandma, it would be palatable.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
So you do like the taste of meat.
Let me break it down for you:
-Fake meat tastes just like real meat
-You like fake meat
-Therefore, you like the taste of real meat
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Real meat has two traits.
Taste
Being from an animal
If 2 was to be removed, like 2 is removed in meat substitutes, then 1. remains. And yes, I do like its taste but not its being from an animal.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
This whole time you've been arguing that no one likes the taste of real meat, just seasonings. You now admit that you're wrong. Say it. Say you're wrong. Convince me that the average outspoken vegan isn't mentally ill or unwilling to face reality.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Seasoned meat, I mean. I don't like the taste of unseasoned meat, no.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2018-07-02
I knew it. You can't admit you were wrong. But I proved it anyway.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Not sure how that's proving anything.
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
your whole spiel is that animel products taste good due to vegetables. The most common seasonings are salt, which is a rock, and pepper, which is technically a dried unripe fruit. Neither of these are vegetables. If I point out that your whole argument makes no sense, you will backtrack like you did above and say "non-animal based products, I mean" or something.
Everyone knows things taste better with spices. A lot of things also taste better when deep fried in bacon fat. These are facts. I appreciate you enthusiastically being a lolcow for us, so please don't stop, but I have no idea what point you're trying to make that literally every human being on the planet isnt aware of
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
My overall point is that animal products taste good due to their seasoning. If their seasoning was to be put on something else, like on fake meats, the same result is achieved. Most people actually like the taste of seasoning.
1 TrueBlue98 2018-07-02
Give up please
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
no, why would I eat fake meat when I can eat real meat?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Because eating meat is morally wrong, and is bad for your health.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
killing animals might be moral wrong, but consuming their delicious flesh is guilt-free
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
why
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
because killings and eating two completely different actions???
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
When you buy meat, you are contributing to the demand of meat, which contributes to the production of meat.That's like me hiring a hitman to kill Selena Gomez and saying "Nope, I had no part in it!"
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
so you meant to say that buying meat is morally wrong? okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I mean, most people eat meat they bought. That's not really moving the goalposts. That's what I meant.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
please don't mansplain your untenable position
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
It’s ok if you eat her unseasoned after killing her.
1 TotesMessenger 2018-07-02
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 lolwutermelon 2018-07-02
I don't season my tenderloin sometimes. I like the taste of the meat and the texture from the grilling.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
At the end of the day, I have 0 reason to switch to all plants
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
It's much better for your overall health outcomes. It's better if you want to be a good person and not torture and or murder animals for taste pleasure, and it's better for the environment.
1 IAngel_of_FuryI 2018-07-02
Many people like myself will kill animals because we they are delicious and humans are predators.
(Healthy) Humans are actually the absolute best distance/stamina runners in all of the animal kingdom. That's because ancient humans would literally run their pray down to exhaustion and then kill them....Imagine a terrified animal, running for hours at uneven paces because a human or several humans are unrelentingly jogging after it for miles. Suddenly it is so exhausted it collapses and humans come over and stab it to death with pointy sticks or brain it with a big rock....it's not pretty but it's nature.
I would attempt to kill a deer with a knife if the law told me that the only way I could eat meat. Venison is delicious and I would at least be stocked up for half a year.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Pleasure does not justify immoral actions
I mean, sure, we CAN be predators with our smarts and running power. We're just not very good at being predators because eating prey kills us.
1 scalar214 2018-07-02
Nigga wtf kind of gay shit is that? You win - you've said the most retarded shit I've heard in my life. How the fuck are we not good predators? We're so good that we didn't even need to continue hunting. We just grow animals and eat them like we do to immobile plants. We are the best predator in this planet. I goddamn love being a human.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Yes, and murdering animals and eating their flesh kills us. Again, heart disease is the number one cause of death worldwide.
1 scalar214 2018-07-02
No, jackass, heart disease is a result of sugar overconsumption. Meats and their fats are in general good for you. There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates how companies like Coca Cola and frozen-food producers lobbied Congress during the 50s and 60s to push the false narrative that fat is the culprit of heart disease. Yet, as sugar consumption grew exponentially in America, so did the deaths by heart disease. Furthermore, cultures around the world that dont have the same anti-fat obsession as Americans but do not consume nearly as much do not have to deal with heart disease as a major issue. Now stop saying stupid ass shit and eat a burger.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
None of those appeal to me remotely
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
So, you don't care about ethics and not being a psychopath. Ok.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
I do care about the delicious burger I will eat later, though!
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Ethics are man made concepts, right. Ethics usually center around the wellbeing of sentient creatures. Do you not advocate for the wellbeing of sentient creatures?
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
No, not really.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Just to be clear, you would not mind anyone committing a mass shooting?
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
Depends, am I affected?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. Someone commits a mass shooting of innocent men and women and children, you are not affected. Do you mind it?
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
Apathetic
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Then you're appealing to psychopathy. That's a retarded moral system.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
Not appealing to anyone
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
You are using psychopathy as a moral justification for needlessly killing animals. That can be used to justify literally anything, including holocaust and child rape.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
Uh huh, whatever you want to believe
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
That is not an argument
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-02
There is no use arguing over personal beliefs. There is no right or wrong. I don't care what you personally do or believe, but you care what nonvegans do. In the end, you either accept we want to eat meat, or be angry a lot.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
1 Chicup 2018-07-02
Newsflash, I season my vegetables too with non-vegetable products.
Seasoning is really a first world thing, ever been truly hungry, I'm not talking first world famished, but like I need to eat? Meat is freaking awesome.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
The point I'm trying to deliver is, you probably don't just like the taste of meat. Most of the taste you like is the seasoning, which can be easily put on plant-based alternatives.
1 Chicup 2018-07-02
See no. If this were the case I'd save a ton of money by not eating meat. Its not just taste its nutrition and my body may be a bastard when it comes to how much it wants me to eat, its pretty good at tell me I need variety.
Lets think of it this way, there are a lot of vegitarian "meat substitutes" often trying to mimic the taste and texture of meat, if it was just flavor, these wouldn't be a thing.
Lastly I'm a semi-heath nut. I know the amount of protein I need to maintain my muscle mass. I could try to go with non-meat and its very difficult to do properly, or I could eat chicken/fish and be there with little effort.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
What makes you think that? There are plenty of high-protein vegan foods.
In fact, on average, vegans tend to have higher serum protein levels.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065242309470070
1 Chicup 2018-07-02
Counterpoint...
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0192-9?sf114327445=1
So I can figure all that out or eat some meat...
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Vegans actually have lower micronutrient deficiencies on average.
All you need to do is consume vegan foods fortified with B12 and Vitamin D, or supplement them manually if you want.
A vegan diet reduces your risk of chronic disease significantly. Diseases like diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis.
1 Chicup 2018-07-02
You are forgetting I'm a health minded individual. It's not veganism that's superior but general fat asses who are not eating a proper diet. This is a common issue with diet studies.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Sorry, don't understand what you mean here.
1 Chicup 2018-07-02
Lets say I decided to be vegan, outside of people who cram oreos in their mouth etc while being "vegan" many have health reasons in mind.
So what happens is you have people who are watching their health, taking their vitamins etc and eating vegan in one group, vrs just average people in the other.
Someone like me, who eats rather healthy, as an omnivore with lean meats is going to have the best of both worlds in my diet.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I am not sure how. Even if consuming lean meats, you are at risk of atherosclerosis due to the dietary cholesterol and saturated fat you're consuming.
1 Chicup 2018-07-02
I have high cholesterol in my very genes, dietary cholesterol contribution is quite small.
Saturated fats are the boogeyman.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No, they're not. Meat industry funded studies promoting saturated fats do a little trick. They take participants with already high cholesterol levels and feed them high saturated fats diets. They see that their LDL doesn't considerably change and say "This is evidence that saturated fat consumption and dietary cholesterol don't change LDL cholesterol levels!"
The truth is, LDl cholesterol levels don't increase linearly. If your levels are already high, they won't go further up.
Reducing dietary cholesterol reduces serum LDL cholesterol levels significantly.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1849932
1 yourdeadwife 2018-07-02
No I like the taste of meat, I would rather have an unseasoned steak than unseasoned zuchinni or something.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Most of the meat we eat doesn't taste good unseasoned. Pork, chicken, turkey, etc.
Steak is an exception rather than the rule.
1 yourdeadwife 2018-07-02
Eh I've had unseasoned deer and unseasoned fish and it's been pretty good. Also bone marrow is delicious with nothing added to it.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Regardless of the taste factor, why do you believe meat consumption is morally justifiable?
1 yourdeadwife 2018-07-02
Lots of animals eat other animals no one gives them any shit for it. Factory farming being as unregulated as it is can be a bit of a bummer though
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Do you believe we should get our morality from other animals?
1 yourdeadwife 2018-07-02
For food, sure. Everything has to eat, not everything has to live in a local community or global society so we have to work out some different things there but food is pretty ubiquitous.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
So, animals are a good source of moral inspiration.
Which means we should rape eachother, eat our own babies, and eat our own shit.
1 yourdeadwife 2018-07-02
That would fall within the purview of the second sentence in my prior post, in fact I specifically worded it like that in the hopes you would read it and not worry about traveling down that particular route of discussion
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Animals do not have moral agency. We do. We recognize that animals are sentient beings that do not want to die. There is no justifiable reason to kill them without need.
1 yourdeadwife 2018-07-02
I don't think most animals can comprehend the concept of death. I'll give that it would be disheartening to see a chicken have an existential crisis.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Chickens and cows likely comprehend the concept of death, as they are scared and deterred when they see a knife/their companions dying.
1 yourdeadwife 2018-07-02
I mean cockroaches run away when you try to step on them and my cat is afraid of my hiccups. Survival instincts are very seperate from understanding what death is and fearing it.
1 e-guy 2018-07-02
most animals do not, there are only a few exceptions to that rule like crickets, chimpanzees, and humans. The vast majority of animals couple basically doggy-style, or lay their eggs somewhere and have someone else fertilize them. Both of these make rape essentially non-existent in nature.
Again, outside of crickets and shit. And as you've already said in this thread, citing exceptions is not a good way to prove your point.
most animals do not do this except when in the direst of circumstances, where they themselves would die if they didn't. Those that do just randomly eat their kids are usually really dumb and don't even realize what they're doing. You know, spiders and jellyfish and shit: they just respond to the stimuli of something moving close to them when they're hungry, and eat it. They actually cannot think about their situation and recognize that the creature they're eating is their offspring.
And lots of animals, even when put in a situation where it's either them or their children, will actually sacrifice themselves for their child. So even taking the most extreme (one eats the other or they both die) scenario, lots of animals will still choose their offspring over themselves.
Again, animals do not do this except when put in situations where it's their only food supply. At least usually, as with everything there are exceptions.
Also, I'm not sure this is a moral argument...? I mean, eating your own shit is gross, but immoral? I'm not so sure. If it's self-inflicted and you're totally OK doing it, how isn't it OK to do?
coprophilia is a thing after all, and I don't think it's illegal. Just, you know, disgusting.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
So, most animals don't rape, therefore we should only take moral inspiration from the animals that don't rape? 70% of animals are herbivores. Why don't we take inspiration from them?
1 e-guy 2018-07-02
because 90% of the biomass on earth is plant. Just numbers-wise, more species will evolve to eat plants than not. It's the most available form of food on earth.
also because most animals require plants, some animals require meat, and some animals require both and we fall into the last category. Certainly we could survive without meat or animal products. We could also survive by dripping nutrients into our arms via tubing and drinking a lot of water. Neither are sustainable forms of existence, though, and certainly wouldn't work on a societal scale.
Vegetarianism can work. There have been, historically, wholly or almost wholly vegetarian societies. However, pure veganism has never worked on a societal scale and rarely works on a personal one. Most people who go vegan relapse. That's a simple fact: it's is a very hard lifestyle to maintain for a number of reasons.
to be honest, veganism requires you to live a VERY privileged life. Most cannot afford to do it, and even of those who can, many work jobs that make it unfeasible. Another simple fact: meat provides more energy than plant matter. If you do strenuous labor, you cannot afford to not eat meat or animal products.
I'll give you the example of my brother: he was a vegan for a long time. Nice about it, not preachy, but was hard vegan. Then he got a job in construction. His body literally started eating itself because he could not consume enough raw calories to keep himself going. He had to switch over to vegetarianism.
So, TL;DR:
humans are omnivores, we evolved to eat both meat and plants, a diet limited to just one is sub-optimal, though doable.
pure veganism is unsustainable nutritionally on both a personal level for many and on a societal level for all
veganism also can pretty much only be actually done by rich white people living in Brooklyn or San Francisco from an economic standpoint. It is an expensive lifestyle that requires a pretty cushy, low-effort job.
Even more TL;DR: Check your privilege
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Sounds like he didn't plan his diet well.
Humans are herbivores. Omnivores that are used to eating meat like dogs don't get atherosclerosis, we do. Eating meat actively kills us and increases the risk of several chronic diseases.
How so? On average, vegans have fewer micronutrient deficiencies.
?!?!?!?!?!
Rice and beans are not more expensive than meat
1 e-guy 2018-07-02
He needed to be eating around close to 3,000 calories a day. He found this was incredibly difficult without any animal product, to the extent he needed to be eating all the time just to stay caught up.
literally, no. If you feed meat to an herbivore, it dies. They are not adapted for it, cannot metabolize it, and they starve. This has been tried in both directions: feeding only red meat to a cow kills it eventually. Feeding only plant matter to a cat kills it eventually.
Dogs are not omnivores. They occasionally eat small plants and partially digested plants from other animals' stomachs. However, they are scientifically classified as carnivores, and for good reason.
Also, dogs do get atherosclerosis. Fam, please, I study animals for a living. You clearly do not. Stop trying to tell me who eats what and gets what disease.
Sort of, but that's not the whole picture. And the issue here is mostly that we live too long these days.
Our bodies are adapted to both eat meat and die around age 30-40. Cancer, heart disease, atherosclerosis... these are issues that rarely affected out ancestors. Their issues had more to do with malnutrition, infection, poor immune systems, etc. They did not live long enough to get killed by cancer caused by carcinogens in meat.
This is true for a lot of things, actually: hot food causes cancer. Hot food also kills bacteria. Evolutionarily, it is better to not die from infection now and get cancer later than to be a really, really healthy dead guy. So, eating hot, cooked food is therefore better for us than eating raw food.
If you want, the best way to live a long time is to cook your food and then let it cool until room temperature or below. But who does that? At some point you draw the line. Health reasons do not always outweigh personal desire.
Same for meat: evolutionarily, it's great for us! Gives us all we need for bigger brains, faster thinking, stronger muscles, etc. Yeah, it kills us in 40 years, but since we only live 40 years anyway, it's better to have a leg up early and die when you'd die normally than be sickly and weak for maybe longer...or maybe a lot shorter, because you can't run as fast from that tiger chasing you.
Might that be because on average vegans are also much wealthier than most, and therefore have more balanced diets in general than the average populace? Just a thought.
your privilege is showing, white boy. Think! There are other costs besides just $$$!
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Certain foods (mostly animal products) cooked at EXTREMELY high raises their carcinogenicity. This does not mean a blanket "hot food causes cancer."
I am not saying herbivores can survive on purely animal matter. Humans certainly cannot. A zero carb diet has been shown to induce death.
Only citing the researchers, friend.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603726/
Dogs are scientifically classed as opportunistic omnivores. And the longest lived dog in the world was vegan.
Not true.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61554-8/fulltext
60% of Inuit corpses examined actually died of atherosclerosis.
But we don't live till 40 years now. Therefore, eating meat kills us now.
Or maybe it's due to vegetables having a higher nutritional profile compared to meat?
I'm not white and I'm not privileged. I'm from fucking Saudi Arabia.
Time? Well, I mean, it doesn't take much time to buy grains and potatoes and beans. I don't understand your point here.
1 e-guy 2018-07-02
literally all hot foods, when eaten, cause cancer. Hot drinks, hot vegetables, hot meats, hot breads. If it goes in your mouth and it's hot enough to tingle/burn, it's hot enough to increase your risk of cancer.
I'm not talking about raising it's carcinogen level, here. I mean causing your body to replace cells at a higher than normal rate, as eating hot foods does, causes an increased risk of cancer.
If you're truly devoted to "my body is a temple and I will not harm it", putting hot things in your mouth isn't helping.
Um. Wrong. Just plain wrong. The liver can break down enough glycogen from meat to provide the vital nutrients normally gotten from carbohydrates. Provided you eat organs as well as muscular tissue, you'll get everything you need.
And in case you want to say bullshit: https://thenortheasttoday.com/anderson-family-on-meat-diet-for-17-years/
these are some very healthy and alive looking dead people.
Perhaps I should rephrase: I'm not saying that people in olden days didn't die of heart attacks or clogged veins. However, when those issues start to pop up is right about the end of the childbearing years, which back then was...pretty much old age. Therefore, there is no evolutionary benefit at all to not eating meat, while there is one for it. Therefore, to argue that humans are primarily herbivores is...just...baffling! No other word for it!
The wonders of modern medicine that let us live longer in other ways also offput the negative effects of eating meat. It's still overall better.
Could be. I mean, I'm not saying that's not a valid option. It's just that your results don't show much there. Vegans are in general rich. Rich people are in general better fed and have a more balanced diet. Sure, eating your vegetables is a good idea, I'm not saying it isn't. But only eating your vegetables and nothing else? Nutritionally it's OK, but suboptimal.
You mean one of the richest countries in the world? This doesn't help...
Everyone is. Intersectionality, bitch!
Closer, you're definitely on the right track. Think broader, though.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Source?
That anecdote doesn't automatically discount all the peer-reviewed data showing the lethality of zero carb diets.
https://www.thepaleomom.com/adverse-reactions-to-ketogenic-diets-caution-advised/
Most kids have clogged arteries by age 10.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/72/5/1307s/4730131
No, they don't. Heart disease is our number one killer. Cancer, the second. Diabetes is also a major killer. All of these are chronic diseases, caused by eating meat. Modern medicine doesn't magically fix most of the cases.
You insinuate that vegans are generally nutritionally deficient. I showed how that's not the case. Continuing this discussion is fruitless.
I'm not personally rich. Also, note, a country where gay people and atheists are executed and there's no freedom of speech. Doesn't sound like privilege to me.
Either spell it out or I have no interest in discussing this
Which is why they get atherosclerosis.
1 HagenKopter 2018-07-02
Yes it is, now fuck off.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Fuck off isn't an argument
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Non human animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to humans.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Rights are something we made up. We can grant rights to animals if we wish, which we should.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Nah, animals should not have any rights. Human lives are the only lives that have any moral weight.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Why?
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Because they aren't human. That's all there is to it.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. That's not a sufficient enough justification. If moral justifications were as arbitrary as that, we would have people saying "Let's enslave black people!" and when they ask back "Why?"
They can reply with "Because they aren't white. That's all there is to it."
Obviously, black people and white people are both sentient beings that do not want to be enslaved. That is a logical argument for not enslaving black people. Arbitrarily saying "they're black so it's okay to enslave them" or "they're animals so it's okay to kill them" isn't a sufficient justification, or this line of reasoning can be used to justify almost every senseless form of discrimination.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
> comparing black people to animals
good job!
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
If you think I'm comparing black people to animals in that comment, you're a hyperbolic moron with no grasp for nuance.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Remember when you said doing work for charities is more worthwhile than spending time on reddit? Maybe now is the time to logout and go do something worthwhile.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
You selling your belongings and living frugally and donating your money to charity would do more benefit overall. Why don't you do it?
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Because I’m not the one arguing in favour of protecting the animals, you are.
You do realise that you don’t have to sell everything or live frugally to help charities. You can give them your time for free, do a bake sale and give them the profits, do a 10k run and get sponsorship. All things you could have done in the last 24 hours. They would all have been positive too!
But instead to carry on wasting your time on here.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No, but the best thing to do is sell everything and live frugally and donate to charities? Why don't you, hmm?
Why don't you aspire to make the absolute maximum impact?
The reason I don't do these things is because they are impractical for me right now. This does not mean I cannot care about animals and cannot employ a different method of online activism.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
Impracticality is now a justification for moral failing? Wew lad, there's a hot take.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Impracticality is a justification for not going above and beyond your moral obligation. It is not my moral obligation to donate to animal shelters. It is my moral obligation, however, to do the bare minimum and quit eating meat.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
idk it sounds like what is and isn't obligatory is mostly arbitrary. shaky ground
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. Not murdering is obligatory. Donating to the police department and doing your best to prevent murders 24/7 is not obligatory. Pretty clear lines here
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
okay but you can't just say "it's obvious" and not offer any sort of argument. that was what got you all upset about "because they're not humans".
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I did explain my reasoning. Moral obligations are obligated. Morally good actions that are not obligated are not obligated, or we would all sell our homes and live frugally.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
then not eating meat isn't a moral obligation
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Not eating meat is a moral obligation, because it causes active and direct harm coming from the individual. You don't have to donate money to vegan companies. That in itself is not a moral obligation, because that prevents harm committed by others. Moral obligations apply to harm committed by the individual. The individual is morally obligated to stop harm emerging from his actions as practically and as reasonably possible.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
killing animals is active and direct harm.
eating and buying are passive and indirect harm.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
They are direct. You are paying for the slaughter to happen.
In the same way telling someone else to kill Selena Gomez is direct harm emitting from the individual, buying meat is direct harm emitting from the individual.
And again, it being direct or not doesn't matter. Any harm emerging from the individual is morally obligated to be reduced to its least practical value.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
i don't know what your issue with Selena Gomez is but please stay away from her.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Animals are not have to man, they do not have rights. It's that simple.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Rights are something we made up. Again, why shouldn't we give rights to animals.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Because only human beings deserve rights.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
why
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Because they aren't human.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Again, that's an arbitrary difference that can be used to justify slavery. What's in humans that's absent in animals that justifies killing animals for meat and fails to justify killing humans for meat?
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
I don't give two fucks about animals being enslaved.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I don't care is not an argument. I could stab a child to death and a man could ask me to stop doing that, and I'll respond with "I don't care"
Again, I don't care is not a moral argument. It is a statement that can justify literally every immoral thing ever. If you want to be a psychopath and disregard morals entirely, up to you.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Animals don't have rights. An animal being enslaved has no moral weight.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Again, rights are something we made up. Something having no socially constructed rights doesn't mean anything.
An animal being enslaved definitely has moral weight in commonly used moral systems, as animals are sentient beings that do not desire to be enslaved. Animals aren't magically exempt out of morality because you like chicken nuggets. We value animals for the same reason we value humans, sentience.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Sentience has no moral weight. We value humans because they are human. Animals have no rights.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Yes, it does.
THAT IS STILL NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT. That argument can be used to justify slavery. You repeating that argument over and over again does not magically make it true. Respond to my objections to your arguments and stop repeating them like a petulant moron
ugh
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Animals have no rights.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Black people didn't have rights back then either. What is your point
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Black people are humans, therefore they have rights. Animals are not human, they do not have rights. You're a pretty racist person.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
They did not have rights back in the time of slavery. Do you think a slaveowner replying with "Black people have no rights, so it's fine to treat them like this" is a morally justifiable position?
You likely would've supported slavery during its time judging by how you're talking right now.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Black people always had rights. Rights are not granted by the state, rights are inherent. Racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Rights are a human construct. They do not exist objectively.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Nope, rights are inherent. They are derived from human nature. Black people always had rights. You are a racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. Rights do not exist as an objective concept. They are a concept made by humans. There is no mathematical equation showing that rights exist.
No, they did not, in some societies.
You're a moron
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Black people have always had rights. Animals do not have rights. You are a racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
you're an idiot. Talking to you is like discussing algebra with a turtle
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Black people have always had rights. Animals do not have rights. You are a racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. Rights do not exist as an objective concept. They are a concept made by humans. There is no mathematical equation showing that rights exist. There is no scientific evidence of human rights. It is a concept made up in laws and thoughts, therefore, it is subjective.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Black people have always had rights. Animals do not have rights. You are a racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I hope you have an unpleasant day.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
You too, racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Acting like an irrational 8 year old won't get you anywhere
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Black people have always had rights. Animals do not have rights. You are a racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Acting like an irrational 8 year old won't get you anywhere. Do not debate with people and waste their time if you don't want to actually learn anything from the debate and are just going to stubbornly repeat your points like a schizophrenic parrot after they've been thoroughly falsified.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Black people have always had rights. Animals do not have rights. You are a racist.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
You're a speciesist. I am not a racist.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
You vegans are always racists.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
You omnis are usually uneducated morons.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Bloodmouth huh? Sounds pretty badass.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
right. in your attempt to explain why animals have rights, your first thought was black people.
of course you could have used "animals can't feel pain because they aren't human" or, as you put literally anything else, as an example of how "cuz they're not human" isn't a valid argument.
tbh i'm fine with you comparing blacks to animals. i wouldn't personally have made that choice, if you think it's appropraite that's fine. you're a little too defensive though imo
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I am saying that his argument can be used to justify anything, including slavery. Therefore, it's a bad argument. It's not a comparison, you're just a moron or intellectually dishonest or don't understand basic philosophy.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
except that's the literal definition of a comparison
in your example black people are analogous to animals, slavery is analogous to denying animals rights, and "blacks aren't white" is analogous to "animals aren't human" thus illustraing why "x isn't y" isn't a valid justification
why are you acting like i don't understand that?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Ugh.
The logic of "This being is not in X group, so we can treat it however we want" is applied.
Therefore, because animals are not human, we can treat them however we want.
Similarly, a different version of this argument can be used by racists to argue that blacks aren't in their group, which is white people, so they can treat them however they want. Both versions are wrong because they are arbitrary and unjust, the second significantly moreso.
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
so you're making a comparison between the two?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
wow
1 Keith_Moonpie 2018-07-02
now you know how i feel
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-07-02
MDEgenerates Vs vegans: Whoever wins we lose.
1 Foxehh3 2018-07-02
Except when many people are giving you *dozens and dozens * of examples maybe it's time to accept this argument is just objectively wrong.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Most meat consumed is seasoned. Most people enjoy seasoned meat moreso than unseasoned meat.
1 Foxehh3 2018-07-02
And what are you basing this off of? I primarily eat steak and I only use salt for my reverse sear. Also my issue with how stupid your comment is:
Do you think the seasonings are good on their own? Have you considered that the meat is making the seasonings better by giving them a good base? Are you implying that dumping ground pepper and onions into your mouth tastes as good as eating it with meat? Why do you think it tastes better on meat? You have an incredible one-sided bias for an argument that holds no ground outside of your very, very specific opinion you're for some reason presenting as fact.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
You primarily eat steak? I feel sorry for your arteries.
I base this off the fact that most meat consumed is seasoned in some way, shape or form.
No. Seasonings obviously require a base. But regardless if the base is meat or tofu steak, they taste somewhat identical due to harboring the same seasonings.
1 Foxehh3 2018-07-02
Literally objectively wrong. You think that all things taste the same when seasoned? Holy shit dude just take your loss LOL. By your argument a steak is the same whether or not is A5 Wagyu or Choice from Walmart as long as you season it the same.
And I'm telling you that's wrong. You realize humans have been eating meat longer than we've been making oregano, correct?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. I am saying the texture of fake steak and real steak are identical. With the same seasoning, the taste can be identical, yes.
Ok?
1 Foxehh3 2018-07-02
And I'm saying you're wrong. Like there is no actual argument you can make here: You are objectively wrong as someone who frequents steak and can tell the difference between cut quality. The discussion ends here.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
ok
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
this is your brain on a vegan diet
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Reasonable?
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Even better.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
Most veg-dishes (salads excluded) are literally vomit inducing without at least a bit of cheese on the side. Wtf are you on about, retard?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Haha! I called someone a retard on the Internet! This will surely make me look mature and socially appealing.
If you think vegetable dishes are vomit-inducing, I feel sorry for your digestion.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
Says the anemic cretin that survives on a bean-heavy diet. How does it feel that your uncontrollable farts are considered human right's violations on par with Assad's nerve strikes on Syria?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
My anemia is genetic, and has only improved with a plant-based diet.
While I did experience periods of flatulence while starting a plant-based diet, they have quickly gone away. Flatulence is experienced because I am introducing healthy gut bacteria.
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
I doubt your anemia claims. You sound like you had an awfully limited diet before your change. How old are you?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No, I was pretty omnivorous. Ate chicken and fish.
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
You know you can meat with vegetables, right? It’s called having a varied diet....you sound like you have no idea. How old are you?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I do know that I can eat meat with vegetables, yes. But I choose not to, for ethical and health and environmental reasons.
I am not interested in revealing any personal information
1 aef823 2018-07-02
http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Ok? It shows that meat is responsible for CO2 emissions. What do you want me to say?
1 aef823 2018-07-02
No look at how much pollution there is in general.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Yes, and animal-based foods emit the most by a large margin. Point?
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Correction farms emit the most by a large margin not the food itself.
I don't know what retarded math you're doing but not eating meat doesn't magically make farms make less meat m8.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Yes? And most farms in the world are operating due to animal agriculture.
The "retarded math I'm doing" is called supply and demand.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
You retard math is retard math because you don't realize that the total population is in gigatons while each person only makes about 3.3 on average, with vegan diets about taking off only 15%.
In various methods to "save da wurl" your attempt is laughable at best, a point gesture spurring on hedonistic egotism that you could argue is worsening the environment at worst.
This is also another part of your retardation.
Farm makes meat, so not eating meat will stop farms.
Because a couple people will stop bad farm practicies by not eating meat.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Ok?
No. The CO2 emissions are measured by looking at the production of the food.
I'm really not sure what you're saying.
No. I'm not saying a couple of people need stop. I'm saying we as a collective need stop.
Uhm, yes? We did it on slavery.
There is no efficient way of making enough meat to feed 7 billion people.
Not eating meat lol
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Youre really bad at nitpicking m8
Exactly.
Your evangalizing attempts is hilariously inefficient, and a waste of oxygen.
loool
No not really.
You really should read history, nobody agreed. Slavery is still a thing, retard.
Says the guy trying to convince 7 billion people to stop eating meat because he thinks slavery doesn't exist anymore.
Then you're a delusional retard.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Cool. Meat eating releases way more emissions than a vegan diet according to this graph. So?
This is also not accounting for waste pollution, deforestation, habitat destruction, food loss, soil erosion.
Childish ad hominem, can't spell evangelizing. Can we please get to an argument, or am I just wasting my time here?
Slavery is illegal in the context of first world countries and a lot of third-world countries as well. If meat eating were to be made illegal in the context of first world countries, it would make a tremendous impact.
boring ad hominem, please quit wasting my time if you just want to insult me
1 aef823 2018-07-02
You're really bad at this shit m8, indirectly asking for the point when you're the one that wanted me to clarify the point is retarded.
Oh look it sounds like improving farming practices is good, who would've thought?
See, that attempt only works if I didn't already put how this would go down two weeks ago.
And you're still going in exactly the same way.
Congratulations.
Really not good at this m8.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I am still not sure how the point is retarded. Your argument is, a non-vegan diet releases more CO2 emissions? Is that seriously your argument?
Those practices are inherent to raising livestock to feed large swaths of people. There is no way you can eliminate them unless the demand is eliminated.
Not going to bother with this. Come back to me when you want to debate.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Then theres this part
So you're saying farming practices CAN'T be made to lessen emissions?
Or are you implying the only "happy ending" is to eliminate farming agriculture in general.
Because happy endings are fictional, and again, have fun with that. Since last I checked vegans are still a minority, even in the vegetarian field.
Bitch please, you never wanted to debate.
You wanted to vomit your retarded ideals in some hopes of turning someone, anyone vegan. In some deluded hope that it'll make the environment better somehow.
Again, you're really bad at math.
You don't get to gigatons to 0 using 33 as fast as you can by reducing said gigatons by 0.0001%
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
Child alert 🚨
You know nothing about flavour. I guarantee you won’t be a vegan within 5 years
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-02
mayos smh
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
Sweaty, what is salad dressing? Eat a salad with no seasoning, yuck. Even just a bit of olive oil makes it infinitely better.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-02
You can say the exact same about veggies tho.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I suppose you can say that about veggies, although I find unseasoned veggies delicious.
My point is, when people say "I can't go vegan, I like the taste of meat too much!" they mean they like the taste of the seasoning.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-02
It's the mix of both that is tasty, tho.
Have you tried eating pepper like that ? Did you find it enjoyable ?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. That certainly isn't my point. Seasoning on anything somewhat edible on its own will taste nice. 90% of the taste is not meat, just seasoning.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-02
Which leave ten percent.
Everyone with a bit of taste would know that it's way more than sufficient to eat meat.
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
Do you not understand the powerful taste of meat? Fat and umami flavours are present in meat, especially red meat. We are hard wired to seek out these flavours. I don’t know what shit meat YOU have eaten in the past, but a very good steak that has been aged correctly can be eaten just seared. It certainly doesn’t need anything else, and salt is just icing on the cake. Vegetables also need salt....and pepper. If you eat vegetables at restaurant they’ll also have fat ( oil) and a little sugar. You know nothing
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
We're hard wired to be attracted to calorically dense foods, yes.
Never said vegetables aren't seasoned as well.
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
So people don’t like the taste of vegetables they just like the seasoning?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Possibly
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-07-02
So you like veggies without seasoning but can't accept that others might like meat without seasoning?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
read what i said
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-07-02
No, read what I said. I see that you admitted that veggies may taste better to some people with seasoning, but that you think they are still delicious without seasoning. Now why doesn't the same exact reasoning apply to meat?
I'm the first to admit that I like both my meat at veg more with seasoning. But there are certainly people out there who like either or both unseasoned.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-07-02
Stop being so intentionally dense. What do you have to say to people who don't season their meat?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I don't have anything to say to them. What I'm trying to deliver is that most people like meat due to seasoning. You can always find exceptions to a rule, though.
1 genericunimportant 2018-07-02
Isn't that true of you as well? I'd say most people only like the taste of veggies due to seasoning. You can always find exceptions to a rule, though.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Yes! It might be true that a lot of people only like veggies due to seasoning. That's the point. The taste of meat isn't irreplaceable due to most of it just being seasoning.
1 genericunimportant 2018-07-02
It might be true, sure. It might also be true that meat tastes good without seasoning, and can be improved with seasoning.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I think most people enjoy meat due to the seasoning.
1 genericunimportant 2018-07-02
That's nice
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-07-02
So despite not eating meat you are an expert on why people like eating it. Ok bud it's clearly going to be impossible to reason with someone whose position is completely irrational.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Apparently, I can't have an opinion on something I used to eat because I'm not currently eating it?
1 HagenKopter 2018-07-02
You have any sources for that statement? , except your ass I mean...
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
The fact that most meat consumed is seasoned.
1 HagenKopter 2018-07-02
I'm sorry but that is the dumbest thing I read today.
1 pleasespankme 2018-07-02
You think that's the dumbest? Read this argument he wrote https://www.reddit.com/r/starterpacks/comments/8vgv4b/the_i_like_the_taste_of_meat_though_starterpack/e1o5tj3
1 HagenKopter 2018-07-02
Fuck that is even more retarded. How much shit can one person spew.
1 bigwordalt 2018-07-02
>Not acknowledging the glory of Nippon sashimi
🤦🤦🤦
1 Gryzblyxx 2018-07-02
That’s why I eat a handful of salt and pepper instead of meat every meal
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-02
Let's assume this is true. So what?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
So saying you can't go vegan because meat tastes too good is fairly inaccurate.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-02
I don't see how that follows.
Sure, you salt steak to make it taste better. That doesn't mean that crunching on raw salt is a good substitute for steak.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. But salt on a vegan substitute steak makes it taste identical to an actual steak.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-02
Then why not argue that? You're going down a really weird tangent.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I'm stating that the seasoning is most of the taste. If the seasoning is employed on a tofu steak instead of an actual steak, the difference is hardly noticeable.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-02
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. I remember what steak used to taste like. Used to eat it frequently.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Boy.
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
find me one person in the world who cant tell the difference between tofu and a steak
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Jeremy Clarkson, apparently
https://youtu.be/3opRTD6nHWg?t=35
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
Omg no it doesn’t! What steak have you eaten in the past? This is so a troll, no one can be this retarded,
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Vegan steaks taste pretty accurate to me. Calling me retarded is not an argument
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
You’ve been doing this for 12 hours now. Chill out.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
The animals are getting murdered every second of every day.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Join green peace m8.
Complaining to people on reddit won't change much, if anything.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Spreading awareness wherever will definitely make a positive impact.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
How?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
How? I offered logical arguments.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Pretending to have logos won't make your persuasion attempts better.
Especially since every study you've cited were underrepresented glorified censuses on a small area by some no name research firm.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I responded to that objection in other comments. If you have an issue with my responses, feel free to.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
See, the thing about trying to "offer logical arguments" and trying to make "a positive impact" is effort.
I'm not claiming I'm trying to do either, you are.
So stand and deliver.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I've offered logical arguments throughout this thread. What do you want me to say?
1 aef823 2018-07-02
What your logical arguments are m8.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Animals are sentient, thinking beings that do not desire to die. We subject them to pain and agony for nothing but vain pleasure. How is this morally justifiable?
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Same goes for plants.
I've been down this road before m8.
If you're going by the pathos attempt and appealing to whatever the fuck using fear response, plants have it too.
Then you're going to argue they don't because they don't have a nervous system like ours.
Then we go to fish.
Then jellyfish.
Etc. etc.
Chances are you're going for the environment angle afer this, complaining about farms or some shit.
Then you figure out why I put the carbon footprint shit because it's going to end up there.
Then it's going to be measure air for some retarded reason.
And it's going to keep going on and on.
If you're going to preach, don't do it to the choir, much less the songwriter m8.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Plants tho is an idiotic argument. Plants aren't sentient
What?
Yes, plants don't have a nervous system.
Fish have nervous systems and likely feel pain.
Jellyfish aren't sentient nor do they feel pain. But there's the issue of bycatch.
Sorry, what?
Making assumptions about my arguments without actually arguing me? This is moronic.
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
you only say that so you can justify brutally murdering them
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No, I say that because it's a fact to any non biologically illiterate person.
I am happy to engage in a debate with you. What is your position?
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Wow it took you that long to do exactly what I just replied.
Plants grow away from danger m8, that's a fear response.
And then we go to "it's different" then we go to fish yadda yadda.
> Making assumptions about my arguments without actually arguing me? This is moronic.
Only sorta right, I'm making right assumptions about your arguments, and you're moronic enough to STILL use them.
Congratulations.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Source?
And fear is separate from a reaction to stimuli.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
https://www.google.com/search?q=Plants+grow+away+from+danger+m8%2C+that%27s+a+fear+response.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
The best you're getting m8.
You've made too many claims without actual backing for me to give enough of a shit.
Seriously, do you have ANYTHING new to say?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Nothing in that link states that plants grow away from danger, just that they grow towards light.
Do you want a specific citation of any claim I made? Please ask, and I will cite.
No. An argument being commonly used does not render it invalid. You have yet to offer a sufficient response.
yes
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Literally just searched a thing.
But fine I'll do your job for you
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=4o5IW9WPNueQ0gKvx7mgCA&q=Plants+grow+away+from+danger&oq=Plants+grow+away+from+danger&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21k1.6872.7049.0.7269.2.2.0.0.0.0.104.201.1j1.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.95....0.IZUhCWShSwc
All of it.
See, the thing about that is the entire retarded cycle of logic is supposed to be there so we could skip your retarded attempt at logic via autism and head straight for anything interesting.
So far, no. Not really interesting.
So.
Again, do you have ANYTHING new to say?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Again, no link makes that claim. Stop being a moron and provide a link. The burden of proof is on you.
Uhm, no? Ask for something specific. I'm not citing every single fucking claim I made.
Boring ad hominem. Address my arguments instead of yelling around like an autistic 12 year old.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
You're complaining about burden of proof now? After you've made an assload of unsolicited claims, made red herrings, and tried to filibuster your way out of this shit?
lol.
Also, actually click the links retard.
And then you complain about burden of proof on the same reply.
double lol.
fallacy fallacy in an attempt of derailing using autism.
Again.
Good job.
So, again. Do you have anything NEW to add?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Citation needed.
I did. Nothing there.
You are making a single claim. I have made a large amount of claims over this conversation. Are there any in particular you want me to cite, you absolute useless fucking moron?
You don't understand what the fallacy fallacy is. A fallacy fallacy states that the premise of your argument (eating meat is fine and vegans don't make an impact or whatever retarded tired carnist bullshit you're saying) is false because you used a fallacy. I am saying that your ad hominem is invalid and you should provide an argument, not that the premise of your argument is false because you used a fallacy.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
This entire thread.
Read it if you want.
You're really bad at this.
The Nile is in Egypt.
All of it, you lazy fuckwit. I know why you won't, but I like it when retards get deflective.
Trying too hard m8.
I'm saying you think what I just said had no credence on how retarded you are because you got triggered when I said autist.
Congrats on showing your true colors by the way.
I called elitism a while back and I was right.
So again. Anything new to add? Cuz this is starting to get sad.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Proof by assertion
Proof by assertion
Oohh boy, fine.
Fish feel pain and have nervous systems.
Source 2
Plant anatomy and the fact that they don't have nervous systems.
Image
Jellyfish have primitive nervous systems and don't feel pain due to lacking a central one: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(13)00359-X.pdf
I am quite angry because you're acting like an intellectually lazy moron. You have no interest in actual conversation, you're only interested in exchanging a shit throw contest like a deranged monkey.
Knowing what you're talking about is elitism? Wow.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
fallacy fallacy again.
Congrats.
Oh boy, when I said you were generic I didn't know it was this rehashed.
Did you even find these things on your own?
1.
Seriously. Anything new?
I have no interest in a retard trying to imitate my disinterest in rehashing the same debate over and over again while missing the point of trying to skip through said rehashing, and then getting pissy when I refuse to rehash something while at the same time trying to fist his way through said rehash. Word. For. Word.
Who knew?
LOL
Yes sure, it isn't using carnists like nigger. No sir.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
So, you're repeating points after I've already debunked them. No point debating with you. Goodbye
1 aef823 2018-07-02
The guy who does exactly what was said NOT to do, expected me to take him seriously after said thing, WITHOUT bringing anything new to the table, thinks I gave a shit about anything he replied to enough to consider this a debate.
lol.
Seriously, all this just so say "no I don't have anything new or interesting to add to a debate."
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
An argument being in common usage does not render it invalid. I have explained that to you many times.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Going on about debunking shit without debunking shit while ignoring when your shit's been debunked sounds like a good idea on paper doesn't it?
The guy ignoring my points and then complaining when I do the same is complaining about me ignoring his points.
Oh no.
Complaining about intellectual dishonesty while pretending to have knowledge in something you didn't even bother to look up properly is pretty retarded m8.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
It's really strange how you ninja edited that in, but okay. I'm not sure how that's related to anything?
1 aef823 2018-07-02
It's called trying to rationalize your faggotry.
It didn't work.
Surprising I know.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
k
1 aef823 2018-07-02
desu
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-07-02
No it won't, it will at best maintain the CO2 output because the increase in food supply will lead to increased populations.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Not to mention yearly Co2 output is measured in gigatons, and mostly from farms who don't give a flying fuck what a few million people eat.
But yeah sure, a couple thousand people will surely magically save the environment by doing nothing but eating tofu.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-07-02
The only sad thing about that fact is that the humans aren't part of the murdered pool.
1 timsboss 2018-07-02
Dead animals make my dick hard.
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-07-02
Um, vegetables also need seasoning to taste better....potatoes taste amazing roasted in duck fat, so try again sweaty :)
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
if you dont even eat meat how do you know?
Bad is subjective anyway, who are you to say what I do or dont like?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Because I used to eat meat till I recognized that it's morally wrong.
I'm not saying everyone in the world ever like meat due to seasoning. I'm saying the vast majority of meat consumed is seasoned, therefore, most people enjoy eating seasoned meat. The fact that fake meats are realistic and possible is a testament to the fact that most of the admirable flavor found in meat is merely seasoning.
1 nomad1c 2018-07-02
Good for you. You enjoy tortured cow flesh without seasoning. Most people don't.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
The torture is the best seasoning, faggot.
1 nomad1c 2018-07-02
This right here makes you part of the problem not the solution. You know what this exact statement says. It says that when the concentration camps we're built to imprison and kill Jews, you lived in the town right next to it. With full knowledge of the attrocities and you did nothing about it. You didn't just to nothing about it, you let it happen.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
This bait is bad you should feel bad.
1 nomad1c 2018-07-02
you already fell for the first one b*tch
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
Hoe, you post stuff like 'left-wing people have significantly lower testosterone levels'. Vegans might be whiny, delusional and retarded, but are rarely this self-contradictory.
1 nomad1c 2018-07-02
i was quoting the lolcow you dummy. and left-wing people do have significantly lower testosterone, mantits
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
grats on not reading the linked thread
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
I know you joke, but animals really are tortured on farms.
I gained a lot of respect for vegans after watching Earthlings: https://vimeo.com/209647801
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
This is about as reliable as a N. Korean documentary on the workings & functions of American democracy. What are you gonna post next, What The Health? lol
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
How is it incorrect?
What do you think about Farm to Fridge? https://www.nsfwyoutube.com/watch?v=icOD7hxUGI8
Or https://www.aussiefarms.org.au/
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-07-02
Trust me, when we killed them on the ranch, they weren’t tortured.
But they were delicious. 🤤
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
well i mean, i don't like vegetables with no seasoning either. why the fuck eat literally ANYTHING with no seasoning, when seasoning exists?
1 StingAuer 2018-07-02
They're less tortured than in the wild.
1 Elite_AI 2018-07-02
bitch what do you think that is
1 nanonan 2018-07-02
Herbs and spices are not vegetables you moron.
1 strathmeyer 2018-07-02
Get out of the garden Grandpa!
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
It appears herbs and spices are plants, so they are vegetables.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
Oh my, OP is one of those people.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
People who have read up on nutritional studies?
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
Please tell me you're also a fan of Gary Yourofsky. It'd be the last box in the "Nutty Vegan Cultist bingo" I'd have to tick. Please.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
No. Guy's a psycho.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Is produced by bacteria in soil. Both meat and vegan products are fortified with B12. B12 doesn't come from meat naturally.
1 TheLordHighExecu 2018-07-02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Animals
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Antibiotics given to farm animals erase the B12 comments they'd give out naturally, much like washing our vegetables erases the B12 content they give out naturally. Therefore, we give farm animals B12 supplements.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
This might be one of the stupidest things I've read today.
Wild caught salmon has 40% of your DV in 3 oz, as do many other wild caught fish. Cattle that are pasture-fed/free range or fed hay (which is the majority of cattle on the planet, unlike what your Amerilard-centric worldview might have caused you to think) have, likewise, no need of B12 supplements.
And B12 doesn't come 'from the soil', you scientifically illiterate mongoloid, it originates from the fermentation of fiber by gut bacteria (even in humans, though we can't absorb it easily). It gets into soil because that soil has been excreted on by animals. So unless you're eating food with feces on it or taking a supplement (or eating a lot of fortified foods, which probably means a lot of processed foods), as a vegan/vegetarian, you're not getting your B12. Which wouldn't surprise me if you did because 99% of vegan ''food'' is virtual indistinguishable from shit.
And very few people feed their animals those expensive-ass B12 supplements, retard. Most farmers buy cheaper cobalt ones, which is B12's central metal ion.
Jfc, what's even the point of explaining all this shit to you? You've been spergposting for hours here, are responsible for the creation of a 100+ comment chain and still going strong. Legit re-evaluate (or, better yet, end) your life my dude.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Antibiotics are often employed on free-range cattle operations all the same.
You're right on that. I stand corrected. Though resorting to insults like a petulant 12 year old isn't earning you any favor with anyone.
Not all processed food is bad for you. Fortified soy milk has a decent nutritional profile.
Boring outbursts from a child yelling against vegetables.
Ok? I never made any specific claim about B12 supplements. Calling me a retard over and over again won't make you look cool or edgy, just a desperate moron.
Haha! I told someone I disagree with to kill themselves on the Internet! Look at how cool I am, guys!
1 aef823 2018-07-02
Nice logical arguments duder.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I think you two are the same person.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
About as pathetic as thinking people disagreeing with you are socks.
Glad to see I'm 100% right about you being old hat.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Same typing style. Same tendency to call me a retard. Both created 2 years ago. I don't know.
1 aef823 2018-07-02
You got us, the entirety of /r/Drama is just one person.
1 Matthew94 2018-07-02
I love you. The entire post was thoroughly enjoyable.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
And completely irrelevant to my point lol
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church loons and is funded by them, as is most pro-vegan science. One of the co-authors of the official position of the AND on vegeterian diets, Winston J. Craig, is a literal SDA vegeterian cultist. The other, Vesanto Melina, is an open 'ethical vegan' nutjob.
As for the British Dietetic Association, straight for the horses mouth:
Why do subhuman vegan cultists never, ever manage to support their shitty arguments with sources that aren't horrendously biased? Even Scientology makes more of an effort to appear impartial lmao 😂 😂 😂
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
How are SDA, vegetarians, and vegans cultists? That sounds like you just want to disparage groups you disagree with.
Source on the AND founder's backgrounds?
How is being an ethical vegan make someone incorrect or a "nutjob?"
Source that most plant based nutrition research is funded by SDA?
Source on the BDA quotes?
How are vegans subhuman?
Scientology is a cult, veganism is not.
Ah yes, because the dairy and egg industries are completely impartial. We all have biases. For example, you are obviously biased towards eating meat.
Either way, humans can still lead a healthy life on a vegan diet. Otherwise, the vegan SDAs would have a lower mortality than the meat eaters.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
SDA is a literal cult with legal recognition, like most cults in the US. Their founder, Ellen G. White, adopted most of her vegetarian stances after God told her so in a vision lol
Search it yourself, faggot. The names are all there. Just type them on google along with 7th-day Adventist Church. But, to give you a clue, since you appear to be a borderline invalid, most of them are also members of this group, which is acknowledged as the official pro-vegetarian wing of the AND.
Vegans are by definition nutjobs. See your conduct and that of all other similarly-minded retards such as yourself in this thread. "Bee slavery" lmao 😂😂😂
Again, do a simple reverse google search, you mook. Jfc, do you nedd my help to wipe your own ass, too?
Veganism is promoting neither.
That's exactly what a deluded vegan cultist would say. Pot, meet kettle.
Except I never linked to a blog/website obviously funded and run by those industries as citation for my arguments. You already did that like 3-4 times in the few posts just the two of us exchanged. And you have the audacity to talk about impartiality 😂😂
lol, I don't even eat much meat, you mong. It's expensive where i'm at. People calling your inane cultust screeching retarded =/= people being biased. Your troglodyteness is objective.
You mean the same SDA that also promotes regular exercise, prohibits drinking, smoking and has its own network of clinics to provide quality healthcare to its members? You bet they are going appear healthy compared to the average Amerilard poopulation.
What you're doing is textbook example of healthy user bias. The average health-conscious and exercising omnivore is in no way or form less healthier than the average health-conscious and exercising vegetarian.
Except it's the BND's "Plant Based Nutrition Group" that wants to promote that. A textbook example of small group of ideology-based 'health activists' that's infiltrated and attempts to influence a larger dietic organisation. Not disimilar to how the 'Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group' and SDA cultists have infiltrated AND.
And 9,000 is an astonishingly small number for the UK, ya dweeb lol. BND is considered an extremely low-importance NGO by the national dietic organisations of Europe.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
I'm glad we can agree that vegans/vegetarians can be healthy. Thus, eating meat is unnecessary.
Look, all I want to do is prevent things like this (https://www.nsfwyoutube.com/watch?v=_c7b2Yp6JU4) from happening.
What's so wrong about that?
1 v_is_one_person 2018-07-02
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
and yet, if i cite what any large reputable dietician organization says about diet, you'll throw out conspiracy theories, and then post vegangains videos or a shitty vegan blog with no credibility.
i know this because this ain't my first rodeo with your kind.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Haha yes! All members of people who follow a certain dietary philosophy are entirely the same! People aren't individuals!
Go ahead. Do your worst.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
you say other things that those kind of vegans say too, i can you're the exact type i'm describing.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
What you're doing is saying empty statements about things I say. Would you like to refute them?
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
dieticians have already refuted most things you've said in this thread. debating your vegan blog pseudo science would be redundant.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I don't think I've cited a blog. In fact, I've only cited the work of experts.
I am not certain how dietitians have refuted my claims? In fact, a lot of them support them.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
go to sleep dude, you've been at this for 24 hours. do you have a job? a social life?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
boring ad hominem
1 OfficialBeetroot 2018-07-02
imma just say it brother your opinions are just wrong and that's just unlucky innit?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
saying they're wrong doesn't make them wrong
1 OfficialBeetroot 2018-07-02
ay you are correct but me saying it had no effect on how wrong you are
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
"hurrr durrrr ad hominememememememememememe"
peak reddit vegan soy boy comment
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Spouting a moronic pseudoscientific myth, and you're calling me pseudoscientific?
Also, putting mememememe after a statement and hurr durr before it doesn't render it false. "hurr durr tho" is not an argument
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
it's not about the soy in your diet, it's about the soy in your heart.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
ok
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
BTFO
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
ok
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Isn't this what "any large reputable dietician organization" says about a vegan diet?
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
but that isn't what this guy is claiming though. he is claiming that a vegan diet is the HEALTHIEST diet, which no large reputable organization anywhere claims is a solid fact.
they claim, it can be a healthy diet if planned appropriately, pretty different statement.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
True, I guess we don't know the absolute "healthiest" diet yet. Once we do, it'll probably come in drink form with the perfect amount of nutrients, calories, fiber, etc. (Soylent, anyone?)
Until then, it's reassuring to know that everyone can live without eating an animal. It gives me faith in humanity. If everyone was vegan, the world would be a better place.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-02
i have no problem with people being vegan, i just have problems with people spreading lies and pseudo science about anything. there are vegans who claim that a vegan diet cures cancer and lets you live to 5000 years old. the vegan "raw diet" cult gets pretty fucking whacky, the kid i was arguing with is one of those nuts.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Unfortunately, there are a "very loud" minority of people who eat a vegan diet (but may not follow the vegan philosophy) who peddle pseudoscience. I prefer the science and logic behind actual veganism.
Fortunately, r/vegan is a great community that shuns pseudoscience and welcomes anyone who has questions (just don't troll please).
1 niczar 2018-07-02
High HDL cholesterol protects from atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease.
Saturated fats appear to raise HDL, while sugar consumption lowers it.
Saturated fats comes mostly from animals (except tropical oils such as cocoa and coconut), and sugar is found exclusively in plants.
High butter and cheese consumption is strongly associated with better CHD outcomes.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Just, no.
Large LDL raise cardiovascular disease risk by 44%, small LDL by 63%.
Regardless of size, LDL particles are atherogenic.
HDL raising medication increased all-cause mortality and worsened cardiovascular outcomes.
Plasma HDL cholesterol does not reduce risk of myocardial infarction.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(12)60312-2.pdf
The ideal range for LDL cholesterol where no atherosclerosis can occur is only found in vegans.
Only with methodologically invalid mostly industry funded studies.
Consumption of saturated fats leads to atherogenesis.
Total cholesterol is clearly increased by dietary cholesterol.
Heart disease is clearly linked to high cholesterol levels.
Cholesterol crystals activate NLRP3 inflammasomes, leading to atherogenesis.
Most children by age ten have signs of atherosclerosis in their arteries. We are clearly not supposed to consume animal products for optimal health if atherosclerosis begins at such a young age due to their consumption.
1 niczar 2018-07-02
Hdl-raising medication.
Not high HDL from diet or exercise, which is associated with a >10% decrease in CHD risk.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Again, plasma HDL cholesterol does not affect overall cholesterol levels. And a medication that raises your HDL levels causing poor cardiovascular outcomes should be a red flag that HDL is bad for you.
Comparatively, medication that lowers LDL has been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
Oh, and my other points still stand. You've yet to address them.
1 niczar 2018-07-02
Older people with higher cholesterol live longer. See for example this study, which followed over 3000 people over 60 year old in Sweden for close to ten years:
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
That is a poor study to point to. It examines older subjects who are on cholesterol lowering medications, and subjects who aren't. They then say that low cholesterol is associated with high risk of all-cause mortality.
That's not a very wise conclusion. The people on cholesterol lowering medications are likely suffering from a multitude of chronic diseases, and are therefore more likely to die compared to people who aren't taking medications.
All the studies that examine a healthy population with healthy levels of LDL vs a population who are not on medications but have high levels of LDL come to the conclusion that LDL is associated with higher all cause mortality. Finding some strange poor methodology study doesn't change the fact that LDL cholesterol is associated with heart disease, as I've cited to you through a plethora of papers.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Ok, be realistic, saturated fat also raises LDL and total cholesterol levels. Higher total cholesterol level is associated with a higher risk of heart disease.
I highly recommend this lecture on plant-based nutrition to physicians by a leading nutrition researcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BueepS78mI
1 niczar 2018-07-02
LDL is not considered much of a risk factor any more. On the other hand, low HDL is.
Furthermore, while some do, a vast majority of people do not experience a significant LDL increase on a high sat fat diet anyway; no change in my case. My HDL is through the roof, and my TGC are low, while they were way above the recommended range before.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Source? A vast majority of people are an unhealthy weight. Most people already have high LDL levels, so it makes sense the absorption sensitivity would be low. Either way, high total cholesterol is still a risk factor for heart disease, which is why eggs can’t be advertised as “healthy.”
Also, if vegans live an unhealthy life, why do they live longer than the average person?
1 niczar 2018-07-02
For example, on my blood lipid test results, there's a "CVD risk factor scoring". 1 point for smoking, 1 point for high BP, 1 point for high TGC, 1 point for age, 1 point for HIV. You can decrease 1 point however if you have high HDL. LDL does not factor in.
Dietary cholesterol has little to no impact on blood cholesterol, as 90%+ of cholesterol is endogenic (not coming from diet), EXCEPT for people suffering from familial hypercholesterolaemia.
In any case, The Kuopio study, which has lasted for 2 decades, has produced many results that tend to show that higher egg consumption is associated with better outcomes, such as lower incidence of type 2 diabetes, which is itself strongly associated with all kinds of problems.
Here's something Gary Taubes points out. Seventh Day Aventists have excellent health outcomes, particularly compared with the average American. They are also mostly vegetarian, and also eat some fish. Case closed?
Well Mormons have the exact same health outcomes as Adventists. They also eat meat. But like Adventists, they don't smoke, and they have similar social practices.
More generally, vegetarians in the West have better outcomes than the rest of the population. They pay attention to their diet and don't typically eat lots of processed food and particularly, processed sugar. Now there was a study on some buddhist nuns or some shit in Taiwan who don't eat meat for purely religious reasons. They don't care about their diet like a Western vegan would, and they don't fare any better than the rest of the Taiwanese population.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Since a vegetarian/vegan diet can be healthy (or healthier than average), killing animals for food is unnecessary. Why would you want to harm a cow/pig/chicken needlessly?
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
You’re wasting all your time being a keyboard warrior trying to convert people to be vegans by telling them they are wrong. You’ll never get anywhere by spreading negativity like you are. Why don’t you put your effort into fundraising for charities that work for causes you believe in, or go out and do something yourself about it.
Go outside, take a breather and move on.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Trite empty statements. Either actually say something or don't bother me
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
How many animals have you saved from commenting on reddit?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Likely a few. Some users have gone vegan or changed their mind about meat consumption due to the arguments I put forth.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Evidence? Or did they just get sick of being spoken at by you?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Quit waving your dick around. If you continue to shove your penis at my face, I have no interest in discussing this politely.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Why did you start thinking about my penis when I have never mentioned it? That’s on you.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
You're being rude, condescending and childish. That is a clear textbook example of dick waving. I will consider discussing this with you politely when you quit waving your dick.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Can you give me an example of my comment but with the dick waving removed?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I am not interested in holding further discussions with you. You are deliberately intellectually dishonest, as amplified by that puerile post you just made.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
How am I intellectually dishonest?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Sounds like someone is deflecting as they can’t answer a simple question.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
lol
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
I take you not answering as you admitting you are wrong, or you could answer...
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I'm not answering because I don't want to try and beat a pigeon at chess. You're clearly not in the business of intellectually honest argumentation.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Do you watch Rick & Morty?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Amusing meme
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
the vegen's body is craving some meat, its not his fault
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Do you do any work for charities or do you just whin on here?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Do I need to do work for charities to debate people on veganism? How is that relevant in any way?
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
You don’t need to, but it’s 100x more worthwhile than what you’re doing here.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I agree that working for charities is worth more than spending time on Reddit. So?
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
So if you want to make a difference don’t waste your time on reddit. In this time you could have organised some fundraising, or go out and volunteered at an animal shelter for example.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Spreading awareness online is one form of activism. You are suggesting other forms of activism that are not practical for me right now.
1 Doomblaze 2018-07-02
hes been posting for 17 hours straight so im guessing the latter
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Definitely, all talk, no action.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
How many have you? lol
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
I’m not arguing in defence of not killing animals. I’ve shot animals myself. I don’t have an issue with animals dying. My argument is, that if saving animals is so important to u/lepandas why don’t they do something about it?
Me:
lepandas:
OP even agrees with me but carries on pointlessly arguing over it instead of actual positive action!
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Why?
I am. Discussing it on Reddit is one form of activism.
Spreading awareness online is one form of positive action. Working in a charity is another.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
“Spreading awareness” on a starterpack subreddit does nothing. Going out and doing something does.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Spreading awareness by educating people on the merits of veganism, no matter the location, can absolutely change most rational people's minds.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
I’m sure the cancer research and stroke rehabilitation charities I’ve raised money for would have preferred me writing comments on reddit over the money. You’re dumb. Goodbye.
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
I didn't argue that they would have.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Why not? That sounds a little harsh.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
If they are not wasted then I see no issue. I wouldn’t kill an animal for the sake of killing, only if it will be used. That’s the rule live by.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
You really need to be careful with that kind of argument. Remember, people are animal too.
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
See, this is why no one takes you misanthropic little cultists seriously. Imagine comparing a developing a child and/or a person with mental disabilities to a pray animal that's not even self-aware. I bet you're also one of those vegan troglodytes that is against eating honey because of the 'enslavement of bees' lmao
And people do eat dogs, retard. Just not in our, Western, culture.
Btw, how does it feel to know that mean consumption will continue to rise all over the world and veganism will never amount to nothing more than short-lasting diet fad for most people, despite all your impotent efforts?
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
What is misanthropic about peace and non-violence?
How is a cow different from a mentally disabled person? Neither are self-aware, and both feel pain.
Does culture = morally right?
1 Matues49 2018-07-02
All food production involves animal deaths or 'violence', as you say.
Mentally disabled people aren't self-unaware, you scientifically illiteratet troglodyte. They aren't comatose. You can't compare their psyche, or than of a child, to that of a farm animal.
And cows do not want to 'live' or 'die' because they have no concepts ofeither. They don't think of the futture, the operate on baseline animal instinct. Quit anthropomorphizing animans, cretin.
Nothing to debate here.
We're talking about food, ya stupid bint.
I get it. There's absolutely no reasoning with you people. I mean, I already realised this when I tried to talk with the previous retard, but you appear even more fanatical and head-to-anus single-minded than him. You're not here to debate, you're here to preach.
Well, do so and be a lolcow-- but pester someone else. I have no interest hearing the same inane vegan diarrhea I've heard and debunked countless in the past. G'bye.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
By eating an animal, we directly participate in its slaughter. Yes, some animals die when grain/beans are harvested, but remember than animals eat food too! For every kg of beef, 10-15kg of feed is required. Thus veganism still = less violence.
This video shows otherwise: https://np.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/7jzp6m/animals_do_not_want_to_die/
I'm not "anthropomorphizing animans," if anything you're overestimating humans.
You replied to me lol "G'bye"
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
In the UK I would need a slaughter licence to kill a dog which I don't have. I would have no use for a dead dog as I have no good dog recipes, but I have some great chicken recipes.
I believe it stinks of hypocrisy to tell one culture that they are wrong for eating a certain species whilst eating other species yourself. If someone wants to eat a dog, let them. I wouldn't want a Chinese man telling me I shouldn't eat a deer, so why should I tell them not to eat a dog?
At no point have I argued for killing a child or mentally disabled person as they are human. That is probably the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
If you want people to be won over in a debate, accusing them of wanting to kill a child is not the way to do it.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
You said you would kill an animal. A human is an animal, so you have indeed argued that you will kill a person.
I don't believe you would really eat a dog.
Would you agree that your compassion does not stem from the fact that:
1) humans use language 2) humans compose symphonies 3) humans can plan in the far future 4) humans have a written, technological culture, etc.
Instead, I think you will agree that compassion stems from the fact that humans can suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. Nonhuman animals can also suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. (See Earthlings if you do not believe me)
Thus, by not according moral status to nonhumans, one is acting morally inconsistently.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
It seems you've put him in a rock/ hard place situation. You may not like his method of activism, but he is being a activist.
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Look through the comments, how many have they converted? In the time they have wasted on here they could have done something useful instead of entrenching meat eaters.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Yeah, volunteering for Mercy for Animals or Direct Action Everywhere would probably be more useful, but some activism is always better than nothing. Maybe he hasn't converted anyone, maybe he has.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Michael Scott
1 PoorLilMarco 2018-07-02
/u/lepandas if chimps are omnivores, why wouldn't humans be?
Also, if humans are herbivores, why do we have canines?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
Chimpanzees are opportunistic "omnivores", like humans. They are frugivores, really. Their body is adapted to consume fruits, but they are able to eat meat out of necessity. Doesn't mean it's good for them. They get atherosclerosis.
We have canines for tearing up tough fruits and nuts. Other herbivores also have canines.
1 PoorLilMarco 2018-07-02
What if my fursona is a wolf? Is it okay to eat meat then?
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
yes
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-07-02
you're alright veganboi
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Ah yes, because chimpanzees are ethical role models. /s
Honestly though, vegans typically live longer than the average person, so it appears that eating meat in modern times in unnecessary.
1 PoorLilMarco 2018-07-02
None of that is related to the original point tho.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
You asked why humans shouldn’t be omnivores because chimps are. I said that chimps aren’t ethical role models.
1 PoorLilMarco 2018-07-02
Lepandas argued that humans are biologically herbivores.
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Well, he is wrong about that. Still, as seen in r/vegan, veganism is an ethical position, not a nutritional one.
1 PoorLilMarco 2018-07-02
Imagine arguing ethics in /r/drama of all places
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
The topic is on veganism lol
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
Fixed the starterpack for u/lepandas
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-07-02
/u/lepandas I agree with you here, that's why I eat my steak with my favorite american vegetable: mac n cheese
1 BKindYall 2018-07-02
Ah, the good ol' Heart Attack on a Plate, a vegan's kryptonite.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-07-02
So much skinny soy-boy rage
1 saltedpecker 2018-07-02
So much obese fat-man rage
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-02
Imagine defending your stupid vegetable/meat argument for 10 straight hours, only to wind up in r/Drama and keep defending it.
Also, can I buy some adderall from you?
1 bnpy 2018-07-02
They’ve been going for 24 hours now
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-02
vegans are degenerates
1 d-amazo 2018-07-02
you use salt? you don't ACTUALLY like meat! BOOM CARNISTS ROASTED
go be a worthless vegan to your other worthless vegan friends, u/lepandas nobody else likes you
1 lepandas 2018-07-02
way to strawman
1 strathmeyer 2018-07-02
Oh no we have so much fun eating meat it upset a vegan oh no.
1 Mentioned_Videos 2018-07-02
Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
Play All | Info | Get me on Chrome / Firefox