Vegans Are Retarded

Vegans have two main arguments that they use to advocate their dietary choices, and although I'm sure there are some variations, they can be boiled down to these two points:
1) A vegan diet is healthier than a typical omnivore's diet, therefore other ways of eating should be eradicated and everyone should adopt veganism
2) It is immoral to consume animals because animals are sentient beings that can display some levels of intelligence and emotional range and therefore they deserve the right to life, and you are committing murder when you kill them for their flesh, because it's a luxury that is both nonessential and which contributes to massive resource consumption and environmental destruction.

The problem with the first argument is that not everybody gives a shit about their personal health, so fuck you. If I want to smoke, drink, take valium, reject my personal hygiene, and spend the majority of my time on my couch, then I should be free to do those things. I have the right to destroy myself if I like, or rather I have the right to prioritize my own personal and subjective enjoyment over my own health. The argument assumes that everyone should care about their health, and since we don't have to do that, it is essentially ineffective. Additionally, it isn't even possible to prove that eating a vegan diet is somehow more effective than a balanced diet of vegetable, fruit, grain, and protein consumption, as many of the claims that vegans throw around are outright exaggerations, or based on unverified studies. retarded vegans really believe that women who consume fish will inevitably produce breast milk that is saturated with mercury, and as a result they will poison their children through breastfeeding.

The second argument has two components; the first being a moral argument, and the second being an argument against environmental destruction. The moral argument is loaded with fallacies and appeals to emotion, and it is by far the more interesting of the two, because it allows one to observe the mental gymnastics that these people go through in order to arrive at their conclusions. The second is more rational, but it too is subject to a number of criticisms and counter arguments.

Other urls found in this thread:

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

tl;dr:
vegans are shit

who cares?

yeah that's right

you care

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/

the conclusion by UNBIASED scientists is veganism is unsustainable on a global scale.

the vegan conclusion will be to deny the science or advocate a drastic reduction in the human population because "muh feefees".

I would not put it past vegans to fanticize of global genocide of all meat eaters. many are mentally deranged.

>Grazing land is often unsuitable for growing crops, but great for feeding food animals such as cattle.

>Perennial cropland supports crops that are alive year-round and are harvested multiple times before dying, including a lot of the grain and hay used to feed livestock.

>Cultivated cropland is where you typically find vegetables, fruits and nuts.

samefag

retard

i like your thread thanks for the opinion

MEATCUCKS BTFO

Look at this shit:
His awkward language is painful to try and dissect, so allow me to rewrite his arguments:

I don't think Vegan Stains actually cares about animals.

He's the clinical definition of a psychopath.

What veganism offers him is a sense of self-righteousness that he can lord over the people he thinks are beneath him.

You can't prove that human rights consist of what you seem to presume they do.
animals eat plants. more animals = more plants needed = more farm = more of anything resulting from farm

I agree, vegans a shit. But try not to include shit arguments.

So, you seem to think that the concept of human rights is itself poorly defined. Perhaps this is true. If that is true, then we as humans have a larger issue on our hands; that is to say, who gives a shit about animals when we can't even determine what our own inalienable rights are or should be? Wouldn't that discussion obscure any concerns over the treatment of animals?
That's not how it works, not all livestock require the same amount of resource consumption, and it is also true that certain types of plants may even require more resource consumption than certain animals. Therefore, it isn't reasonable to conclude that one particular group or type of item can be removed in order to suddenly reduce the massive strain on resource consumption for which agriculture is responsible.

My point is anything regarding morality is not provable. There's always a level of arbitration that goes on simply because morality is an invention. It's not a physical object or principle which can be observed, but a cerebral construct which we fabricate for the purposes of making a world which is more acceptable to live in. So when you say "They can't prove that animals deserve human rights," you're not critiquing veganism at all. You're making a statement about the fundamental nature of morality itself.

Correct. In fact, cows eat more that humans do.

It is a critique against any arguments that are predicated on morality. Many vegans make moral arguments, in fact that's veganism's entire premise.

Sure, I'm not a vegan but I sure can LARP as one.

If you believe in any morality which applies to humans but doesn't apply to animals, then the onus is on you to show that animals differ in a meaningful way in relation to this morality.

Spot fucking on, OP
Bout you forgot two more points to support your second counterargument:
1) Plants feel pain too. They are biologically capable of defending themselves from being eaten. Also, plants are more sentient than vegans care to admit, if at all.
2) Some animals are incapable of feeling pain. Fish, for example, do not have the neurological ability to feel pain. You can stab it, cut it, etc., and it won't feel a thing. Unsurprisingly, vegans don't admit to this either.

Sage negated, limp-wristed vegan cockwhore. Go fellate a cow.

You're absolutely right, and this is why vegans love their moral argument so much. It's because they know that any other statement, practical or sensational alike, can be countered or outright refuted. Morality, on the other hand, is a philosophical construct, which effectively means that, "there are no right or wrong answers" and therefore this gives them the clout by which they can annoy the shit out everybody indefinitely. No matter what I say, no matter what criteria I may try to establish in favor of my argument, and no matter how accurate or effective said criteria may be at creating a distinction between humans and animals, there will always be a dissenter who is free to pick apart said criteria from a moral perspective. Morality does not have to have a basis in scientific fact and is itself not predicated on physical evidence, which means it's easy for faggots with an agenda to incessantly peddle their bullshit under the guise of morality.

However, it must be said that any criticism that a vegan may propose against a meat-eater's morality can easily be used to formulate dissenting opinions and criticism against their beliefs. In the end, nothing actually changes, and nobody actually learned anything.

I have had the pleasure to meet some vegans (well, two, but I like to believe there are more) who have the infinitely less obnoxious idea of "I can get all the nutrients I need from plants, so I don't want to kill animals for it", and they're not a fifth as preachy about it as those OP described.
weather or not that is true is debatable, but they are much more reasonable people.

not that it makes me like shoving burgers in my face any less, just saying there are some ok ones out there.