Veganism IS healthier than an omnivorous diet. Debate me

...

maybe cuz eating skittles all day isn't a healthy diet
just because youre a veg doesn't mean youre healthy
but if you actually eat properly it is much healthier

i don't even care much about the health part
it's the resource consumption and how much more sustainable it is

That response attacks only the current methods as though no alternatives exist. Dairy cows can be raised in a healthy and happy environment. Therefore, it is possible to raise and milk dairy cows ethically. Additionally, you don't address my statement regarding eggs, which can come from cage-free, free-ranged, antibiotic-free, etc. chickens. Neither do you address my statement regarding sustainable aquaculture or the raising of insects for food.

...

If the cows are allowed to raise their kids, the milk goes to the kids. This is a thing called logic.

You can feed a calf a milk replacer that offers the same nutritional content as the mother's milk.

but this causes separation anxiety on both the mother and the calf.

The calf can still live in close proximity with the mother, even if it is not allowed to suckle. Admittedly, it is not commercially viable, but it is still possible and there are small organic farms that operate with such practices.

That's still unethical. There is a bonding process involved with breast feeding that happens apart from pure nutritional content.

i'm a hypocritical vegetarian myself but your arguments is just lame

this is not an argument, you are saying nothing of rational value here.

Are you assuming the is causation simply because there is correlation? -> In the summer people eat more ice cream and there are more forest fires, ICE CREAM CAUSES FOREST FIRES

i do know what you mean with your arguments, but if you don't actually say what you mean most people won't, and there is no point on debating.

True, but there are still alternatives. A number of different methods exist that allow for calves to continue nursing from their mothers or from a foster cow. Again, these practices are not necessarily commercially viable, but they are a much more ethical alternative to the current methods.

appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(15)00315-9/fulltext?cc=y=

in case tl;dr, here is the abstract. Do note that although the listed methods have some drawbacks, they offer a better solution than current industry standards.

show me someone who was exclusively vegan for 10+ years in a lineup of none vegans, even crack addicts, and i will point them out to you 100% of the time
most vegans are full of shit and eat "vegetarian" most weeks out of the year because they are so mentally weak they wont even refuse food socially

half-ass posts get half-ass replies, user
stop holding people up to university debate club level of discourse on fucking Holla Forums

oh, and no. it's well documented that the reason their ecological footprint is so large is because of their diet, and nothing else. so i assumed somebody could google it and take 30 seconds to verify what i said

in what way?
if you want to be a skin and bones stick always at risk of one malnutrition or another go for it
I will have my cheese and my meat my fish and my eggs and even on the days I eat nothing but cottage cheese and oatmeal, i will be healthier than you

That's not what happened.

in conclusion:
1. nice strawman
2. nice fedora-molymeme-not-an-argument psuedo-intellectual wannabe philosopher who actually knows nothing about what a logically consistent argument is with valid premises and a conclusion that follows using sound reasoning

take a philosophy101 primer and stop being a neckbeard

animals, just like plants, have been bred by humans over the years to provide an abundance of stored nutrition which they do not need to reproduce
have you heard your wheat scream? by the millions (inb4 im the 0.004% of celiacs on the planet) your legumes scream with the voices of a billion bacteria

like i said, if the level of discussion is not what you call "university level" there is no point in debating at all, since everyone will just be talking utter bullshit.

Not an argument. Circular reasoning

A question is not an argument?
Rly makes u think

ONE
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

Vegans are food.

TWO
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

THREE
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

FOUR
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

ONE
SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE

TWO
SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE

THREE
SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

LET THE BODIES HIT THE……..

Earth's water doesn't just go away into space. It's just a matter of time before that water will fall from a rain again. Even with the growing meat production caused by growing population won't enough to ever use up even half of all currently available drinkable water for the next thousands of years.

FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

ll XD funny maymay!!!111!!!1!
SAGE haha XD ::P

You understand groundwater (aka drinking water) which is only 2.5% of the earth's water is only a semi-renewable resource right? It takes TONS of time for it to replenish in aquifers and to be reused for agriculture. It can takes hundreds to thousands of year to replenish what is taken out

CUT HIM OFF MIKE. ONE FUCKING DOLLAR??!?!!?!?!

Not in areas that are near flowing bodies of water.

voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/28/to-understand-water-learn-the-math/

Yes, this is correct. And you use more water exactly for this purpose when eating a meat-eating diet. It's not an attack, it's just a fact. This is why California is projected to run out of water in coming years and they are trying to regulate water usage.
upriser.com/posts/california-will-run-out-of-water-in-a-year-nasa-scientist-says
ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/

waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/national-water-footprint/virtual-water-trade/
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0969160X.2011.593864?journalCode=reaj20

This is what people mean when they say eating a vegan diet is less resource-intensive and better for the environment

Furthermore, as far as trophic levels are concerned, energy moves upward in the foodweb, and you use more resources when you eat animals who are farther up the foodchain because energy conversion is more inefficient the higher you go.
Plants (primary producers) are the most effective, in that they convert the energy of the sun to make their own food (autotrophs). The primary consumers and secondary consumers (herbivores/vegetarians) take up the second-least amount of resources because they eat these primary producers. Then when you get to omnivores/carnivores who eat both the consumers and producers, they take up the MOST resources.

I could explain this better but I don't feel like writing a paper.
Further reading: "keystone species" and "trophic cascades"

If anyone thinks they have an argument against veganism, i shall refer you to yourveganfallacyis.com/en

Your argument is somewhere in there I guarantee.

we are omnivores that eat meat
deal with it
you cant control over peoples lives

kek. literally yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humans-are-omnivores

I'm not trying to
I'm trying to give people information to make a more informed decision, I'm not dictating anybody to adopt a certain diet.
And - in this day in age we do not have to be omnivores to sustain a healthy diet. That is a misnomer. There is nothing wrong with being an omnivore, but it's good to at least be aware exactly the resources that go into your lifestyle.

In the malthusian model as population growth keeps exponentially growing, there may be a catastrophe or serious need to adopt different lifestyles (not necessarily diet)

I feel bad but i eat meat anyway. Its easier than being a vegan and thats really the only argument

The populations probably not gunna exponentially grow. According to some un projection, the 15 billionth human will never be born

It's currently exponentially growing. The earth's carrying capacity and different environments biomass will not allow any species population to grow exponentially forever. There will be a topping off point where we either overshoot our biomass and then a catastrophe happens or we naturally decline to around earth's carrying capacity. then it'll be logistical growth.

There is different projections of what Earth's carrying capacity insofar as humans are concerned exactly is.

so (yeah i agree but in a more nuanced way)

dumb

linking to a site by someone that is wrong doesnt make you less wrong
have you tried making better arguments?

devil pls go

No, I don't think so, matey.

LET'S GET MORE STRAWMAN FALSEHOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST VEGANISM IN HERE PLS

The malthusian catatrophe is just a prediction, it's been revised by many ecologists and environmental scientists. Human population growth WILL have a catastrophe as it reaches near carrying capacity of the earth, but the projections of Malthus are outdated as they didn't take into the account the Haber Bosch process of allowing us to get more food with our biomass

*biocapacity

required reading for the uninitiated

the intiated eat meat
get wrekt

He fails to realize that the activities regarded as unhuman, such as stealing and raping, aren't necesary to survival, meanwhile eating meat is.

Most of the arguments presented in this page are easily refutable with just my thought, not even pouring great effort on it.

Not to be confused with the "Personal Choice Fallacy" since that hinges upon selective treatment of animals.
I know I'm doing something bad. I just don't care.
The problem with you vegans is you think we have to play the same game under the same rules as you. You get frustrated over meat eaters breaking these rules and try to referee them. However the truth is the only rules are the ones that you set for yourself.

That's why you think your website is so clever. Deconstructing every argument that's been levied against your diet might help you win right? I guarantee you can show it to the average guy eating a steak and his response will be "You got me there!" Before he takes another bite of Bessie.

There was good info posted in this thread that's not It's website. It's good to at least know shit about this stuff

OP's

EAT VEGAN !

Heart disease.

Hahahaha this. It doesn't matter how well thought out or eloquent your argument is if someone just says "fuck off retard and let me eat my steak".

I'm not satisfied with "plants are alive" fallacy.
I mean if the animal doesn't eat plants, what is it going to eat?

Saturated fat may actually be GOOD for your heart/liver.
It's easier to cook good meat than good veg.
Most vegies (potatoes, carrots, pees, corn) and grains (wheat, rice, rye) have simple carbs than turn to sugar quickly, thereby spiking your glucose levels and damaging your cells. Same with fruit.
Meat tastes better

None of this matters anyway because the heat death of the universe is eminent, you're going to die eventually and you may as well do what you want and be a hedonist shit that eats meat, fucks faggots, and kills niggers.

Your silly website didn't debunk anything. You don't bitch about everyone other animal on earth that's not a herbivore following their natural diet, and since humans are omnivore, I'm gonna eat animal products. You know, like virtually every culture in human history bar the new vegan fad dieters have been doing.

Let's debunk some more vegan myths

False. Vitamin b12 is found exclusively in animal products, and therefore vegans need to take supplements to be healthy

False. A large percentage of land on earth is not arable, and is only suitable for animal grazing.

False. Even if you care a lot about animal welfare, you don't have to treat animals badly to get milk from them. Same with getting eggs from chicken.

vegans know it isn't natural. They also know natural doesn't automatically mean good nor healthy.

pic related.

But most animal products are corn fed. Corn that people could be eating.

You didn't even read the site, did you?

vegan or omni, anyone trying to have a serious discussion itt is a newfag

Good you admit that. Then you should also realise that most of the world's population isn't gonna follow something that is contrary to their basic instincts.

Didn't debunk my argument. If everyone went vegan we would be missing out on a massive percentage of the earth's surface that could be used for grazing and fishing.

And not necessarily. Are you familiar with basic economics? People pay extra for meat, they pay for the extra farm space and resources that go into making meat. There is no shortage of food in Western countries in the first place. If there were, then the price of food would rise, then people would start buying corn because meat would be too expensive. Saying that people shouldn't eat meat because it costs extra is like saying people shouldn't buy expensive cars because they use more fuel. Not to mention, that a lot of the feed used for animals would otherwise rot because it isn't fit for human consumption. Some crops aren't graded highly enough, or are left too long and spoilt because of a bumper crop. Cattle feed uses a lot of crops that would otherwise be wasted.

I was directly replying to your site, you realise? I was debunking your vegan fallacy that eating animal products is automatically immoral. Just because milk was produced in a certain way, doesn't mean it has to be produced that way. You can get milk without harming any animals.

Most of the world's population doesn't fuck 14 year olds, and that's perfectly natural.

I was going to think for myself to refute this, but i have a website to mindlessly regurgitate.

But it is. And by drinking milk, you are providing those people the profit they need to continue.

hey you didn' answer this one:

If you're not even gonna debunk my arguments, I'm not gonna bother replying.

but he did

No you didn't.

The whole point of the site is to demonstrate how bad the arguments are. "Plants are alive" shows how that argument used against vegans is a bad one. Of fucking course they eat plants. They want you to eat plants.

The refutation is in the fact that much of our arable land is being used for meat production.
stop meat production and we get to use that arable land for farming.

Didn't respond to the fact that there is a massive portion of the earth (>70%) that isn't arable that we could use for animal grazing/fishing. Didn't respond to the question of why we need to use all arable land for crops when we don't have any shortage of food. Didn't respond to the fact that we use a lot of crops for animal feed that would otherwise be wasted. Didn't acknowledge that the fact that you don't necessarily have to harm animals for dairy/eggs which rebuts the premise that hard-line veganism is necessary to stop widespread harm of animals.

Well then what's teh difference between eating animals and plants in this respect?

you refuted that yourself by saying
because we shouldn't be using it for meat.
humans can eat those crops, they're just too ugly for many people. and even if you don't want to eat them, they make good fertilizer.
Taking dairy from a cow is inherently harmful as it takes away from calfs. and as i said before, the more harmful practices are universal even in small farms. so drinking dairy in its current form is just as unethical either way.
as far as eggs go:
same general argument. the fact is they do engage in these practices and you are supporting them by eating eggs.

even if i concede that "hard-line veganism" isn't necessary if such practices were stopped. the fact is the practices are in place at this point in time.

plants don't feel. they don't suffer. they have no sentience and couldn't care less if you killed them.

here's the page which you evidently didn't bother to read

Pain and suffering are just evolutionary strategies to protect the body from harm.
Practically no different than the thorns on a rose, all things considered

I read the whole page, I just don't agree with it.

One which sucks to experience. If you think it's ok to cause pain and suffering to animals, why not people?
The rose doesn't experience anything. It doesn't care if it has thorns. It doesn't care if it gets eaten. It's a fucking plant.

The only reason it sucks to experience is to keep you alive.

Exactly. Yet we're causing this suffering AND nullifying its redeeming factor by killing them.

Again. If it's ok to cause pain and suffering to animals, why not people?

also it's a fucking animal.

Suffering doesn't need to be redeemed, there is nothing wrong with suffering.

would you think this if i was torturing your family

So you see nothing wrong with human suffering?
Even your own suffering?

There is something wrong with that which causes suffering, but not suffering itself.
Just because something does not have this tool to protect it, doesn't make them free game.

And if the word's population does increase, I suppose you think they should starve rather than take advantage of all of the world's food sources?

Cows produce 3x+ more milk than a calf needs

Plenty on plenty of small farms the animals live a lot comfier and healthier lives than any wild animal could hope to

Heard of free range eggs?

You've already stated that veganism isn't necessary for animal welfare, so instead of going on about veganism (no one cares, it's just annoying) you should rail against the individual practices that are bad. Then maybe people could get on your side rather than being divisive. Most people don't accept the premise that animals have the same rights as humans and shouldn't be killed for food, but most people don't want animals to suffer unduly.

so i see you have taken the breatharian pill

perhaps we should prevent that from happening.
In such a case that it does happen, maybe omnivorous diets will become, as they once were, a necessary evil.

this applies to the dairy industry and the egg industry. but killing them IS bad.
maybe the conventional vegetarian diet would be ethically sound if all inhumane dairy and egg farming practices were done away with.

If you actually knew what you are talking about you would know that modern dairy cows produce more milk than what their offspring can drink

Source: Family owns dairy cows

Tbh, im just a really shitty troll that wanted a few laughs. It's 3:23AM though and I should sleep.

goodnight Holla Forums

That "debunking" only proves that vegans can't get enough B12 without supplements

They CAN get it from dirt. Most people don't eat dirt though.
And the fact remains that we DO have these supplements. This removes the need to eat meat.

Ok, ok. NOW I'm done.

I still need to eat to survive.
But eating plants specifically never meant much to me.
At the end of the day it just doesn't seem very meaningful.

I guess OP is trolling, but I still don't understand vegans.

...

moralfag alert
the real question comes down to CH4 emissions, buddy

watch me

how much better is goat milk compared to cow and horse milk?
almond milk is cancer inducing and soy milk prevents prostate cancer by giving you moobies so i don't think I can go vegan

You should watch a video about dairy cows.

God gave us dominion over animals, the Bible says so in Genesis 1:26. They have no souls, and therefore cannot suffer the same way humans can. Sustainable livestock practices are all well and good, but there's no reason to stop eating animals altogether.

Except for all of the environmental reasons listed in the middle of the thread

only globalist shills care about that tbh

"Globalist shills" actually actively funnel money to politicians to ensure people don't start caring about that

DERP!