Veganism thread

Because I have no moral objections to eating meat. Only to the treatment they are subjected to.
The best argument in that video was mobys point about antibiotics resistance, but thats a argument against the current mode of production, not against eating meat.
Meat production and hunting can be done with out torturing animals.

No, but the system in which we live under does subject humans to unnecessary pain for the benefit of others. You can't escape this under capitalism.
But there is nothing wrong with being a vegan.

no, they aren't. Primitivism is terrible.

And the most sustainable diet.

There really is no really good reason not to be vegan besides maybe the fact that imagining a high quantity/full vegan world diet would require loads of farmland forming and would also bring with it an explosion in new required animal habitats with a whole bunch of basically industrially domesticated animal types roaming free.

The only reason I'm not a vegan is because I just really like meat, dairy, eggs and other animal products and, quite frankly, under a capitalist system the only way to truly make veganism an effective, non-lifestylist thing is to actively tackle the consumption industry which is basically an attempt to make consumption under a market economy ethical.

get off my fucking board

...

Honestly it would be better for the environment if everyone fasted for days on end (i.e. no solid food, water, coffee/tea, and juice are okay though).

I'm a religious Jew who just finished Yom Kippur fasting and who occasionally juice fasts or water fasts from Sunday morning to Friday evening (we're required to eat huge meals on Friday and Saturday nights). It's superior to Ramadan fasting because you're not pigging out at the end of each day (you're fasting for days on end) AND it energizes both body and mind. I would highly recommend it over veganism.

Exactly! I don't understand why people here get so upset when I say things like this about my employees. Capitalism is natural selection.

But for example if you lived in the arctic circle you couldn't really be vegan. The other day I went to the museum and it said that eating bone marrow was very important for developing humans.
Again, veganism can't be a bad thing since it makes people pay more attention to the nutrition and learn cooking, but I don't get the moralistic parts and it seems like a lot of effort.

...

Veganism is all the retardation of humanism taken to it's conclusion.

Actually, YES!

Also, stop wasting trips for BS.

Not going to watch video because TYT are retards.

Emissions and water consumption by meat industry is a population issue. It is also completely possible to eat less meat without becoming full vegan.

Shitty treatment of animals is a good reason to boycott meat industry. However, it is completely possible to produce meat without treating animals horribly.

Indiscriminate use of antibiotics is a good reason to boycott meat industry.

Meat is not unhealthy. Too much meat is unhealthy. Can be said of literally anything.

I have and love animals. I also would eat, skin, and use for what it's worth any animal as long as it has been treated well up until death. I see no issue with this.

...

tell that to the Eskimos

As a vegetarian, vegan food is great. I remain an ovo-lacto-vegetarian for 3 reasons:

1) I can't see the problem with eating bird menstruations. Would I have to give up eating out women who're on the blob, too?

2) Soy milk costs a fortune. I drink a lot of caffeinated beverages.

3) Vegans are sanctimonious shits and their incessant preaching irritates me. I might not be able to stomach eating meat again but I'm going to wolf down all the cheese sandwiches I can while you ringpieces keep reading your sermons.

A diet consisting entirely of meat does not mean they only eat beef. They eat walrus, fish, whale, birds. It doesn't mean they necessarily stuff their face with food all the time.

You see, this is the problem with vegans. Even if you keep it to yourself, you still think that what your fellow omnivores are doing is disgusting. You might not say it, but you still think you are better than everyone else.

You're right. So what? You think you're better than me too. Simple logic just happens to be on my side.

Why would anyone in their sane mind move to the arctic circle?

review.ucsc.edu/fall07/Rev_F07_pp22-23_WeAreWhatTheyAte.pdf
cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

Also, Inuits had terrible health…

cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00062-X
nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/

not an argument/webm related

...

okay

It is completely possible to render an animal, painlessly, unconscious before killing.

shocking!

Dear christ, not another one of these.

???

Growing meat in a lab is more efficient than having animals full of guts and bones.

I also dont give a fuck about your fad diet obsession. Meat is damn tasty and I'd rather live til 70 on meat than til 80 without it.

Thinking something someone does is disgusting does not equate with thinking that person is an inferior. If you go to China, I guarantee you will find the public toilets there sickening. That doesn't mean you're instantly going to turn into a foaming Holla Forums tier bigot.

It's no one's place to tell me what to do for my health. And there's plenty enough meat eaters who live to 80 and beyond in perfectly acceptable health.

To be fair, some guts (if you're counting organ meats) are tasty. and Bones add flavour to anything that'll be simmering for a while.

This is now a /leftyck/ thread
Will chicken noodle soup exist in communism?

Fuck off Chaim.

the first two actually were arguments

The problem with that analogy is that we are omnivores by our biological design, and stinking toilets as described by you are due to third world conditions.

...

Bones can probably still be made, but theres not a perfect demand for all of the separate bits of the animal, so we should just grow them individually as demand requires.

Also, while chicken wings are cool its still trash meat and a bit of a waste to grow. I would think mass growing chicken would be the ethically best first choice since meat chickens live in the worst conditions. But it doesnt make money since its already cheap, so its probably going to be beef.

We are though. We can eat meat and plants, we have teeth for both.

We literally are omnivores by our biological design. Denying this is like denying we are biologically designed to see light.

That's not what I'm arguing though. I'm just pointing out the act of killing is mistreatment.

>Respondents aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived.

lol

Nice, why don't you shoot up heroine while you're at it and to the world a favor?

I'd rather tear out my eyes than eat aninals again.

You do that, that is your choice to make.

fucking cannibal

I would eat people If not for the laws of this land

Obviously. 'Human nature' doesn't mean something to strive for though or something that can't be overcome. You're the same as the people who say social darwinism is good.

Shit! How about this guys for animal equality? We allow eating people instead of prohibiting eating animals. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

Do not eat central nervous system of own species.

I have the option not to eat meat and have chosen not to do so as a personal ethical choice. You don't agree with me. Fine. I think you're wrong but I'm not going to loose sleep over it.

No. They just shit everywhere. They're known for it.

Yeah, and your doctor who doesn't know shit about nutrition and sells you drugs is perfectly fine right?

Anecdotal. Also,

Enjoying dying in pain.

...

Most people die in pain, you stupid faggot.

Me being alive has a bigger impact as a whole. The little meat I eat has an impact insignificant to the other carbon emissions that exist in the world.

fite me, if I want to eat myself to death with all this poisonous meat that means I have less of an overall impact on nature because I die sooner.

Cannibalism is eating meat from the same species as you are, which i don't do because i find it revolting and it poses very serious health risks.

No you idiot, you said humans are not omnivores by design. We are omnivores by design, we are designed in such a way we can eat both. I said nothing about your own autistic choice to not eat meat.

at least consider this option

No, I said 'human nature' is not an argument.

Not really, meat accounts for like 25% of emissions

Hurf durf. You know that's not how it works.

Haha, so pompous. Answer me this: would you eat a lion if you were a lion? Would you eat an ant if you were a ant?

The only species who even considers eating others is human

animals > you

Can still be hunted for sport and used as compost for growing apple trees from whose fruit you brew cider.

no, you idiot, you'd die. it's your biology

Answer me this: would you eat a lion if you were a lion? Would you eat an ant if you were a ant?

nice troll

yet people who dont eat meat dont die and usually live longer. retard.

Are you really this stupid?

Not if you were eating shit.

I don't give a shit about what you eat, I'm just here to tell you're wrong.

Animals only resort to cannibalism is extreme survival situations m8…

Yeah YOU can do that because it's in your genes. How many others on this board could go six days without eating any solid food?

Except they look like ghouls, need to take supplementary vitamins, and the claims behind its benefits are mostly dubious science. But hey, it's not like we need meat or anything.

...

nah

Not necessarily but in the modern diet most likely, but then you probably should take them too

Hardly, meat is obviously linked with obesity and heart disease for one

Glad you're finally coming around

1/3 of people die of cancer? Do you think cancer is a painless death in your sleep? What about liver disease? What about being bisected by a train or crushed by a car?

Dying in your sleep is the exception not the rule, horse buttock.

I eat whale about once every three years. Just saying. It's delicious.

Honorable tbh

KEK

with enough steroids you can make babbies look like that

oh, so some things we can put in our bodies are bad for us?

are you talking about my

Maybe I should explain something to the vegans in this thread.

I dont give a fuck about animals. I only care about humans and what servers the interests of humans. Antropocentrism not ecocentrism praise humans.

Corrolation is not causation. People who are vegans are often health-obsessed nutters so they tend to not smoke n sheit either. Theres very little fat vegans, not because meat makes you fat, but because vegans are diet freaks. Not to mention the science backing it up is really shaky

And yet we can eat meat and plants and live off those just fine, even thrive. Thus we are omnivores.

You are retarded.

Lots of fish are cannibalistic by default, lots of insects are, lots of monkeys are too. Chimps are cannibals too.

These are the types of illness that are promoted by eating meat. Eating plants suppresses them.

What does this have to do with lifestyle related death?

Pulease, eating plants isnt some magical wondercure, at most it doesnt promote it.

Clearly, the science is less shaky than 'er hehe correlation doesn't equal causation :^)'

I think that's wrongheaded but even so, less destruction of the environment is good for humans

Fasting isn't about the body, dipshit. It's about the soul.

Trying to get the entire world to stop eating meat to reduce a bit of the 13% co2 emission caused by agriculture is harder than cutting our fossil fuel emissions, which account for 50+% of our emissions.

And yet we when eat meat our long term health degrades, woah…it's almost light we're not designed to consume animal products…really makes you think….

The vast majority of animals are not cannibalistic. It's never convent to risk injury fight your own species.

cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00062-X

You said:
The point being: the majority of other methods of death are also painful. So a painful death is likely regardless of someone wolfing down roast beef and bacon sarnies every day.

And we can't do both? Besides, large scale meat agriculture is responsible for more than just co2, disease resistance, forest/jungle clearing, reduction in biodiversity, etc

But this is pointless, I'm going to bed anyhow

It's nobody's place to enforce what I do to myself. It's also a lot of fucking anecdotes, found globally.
Gladly, in exchange for enjoying decent meals throughout my life. It's also not guaranteed, nor is it likely, given my families medical history.

So? Eat more plants and less meat. No reason to go vegan. I'd say the pleasure in eating meat, for my part, justifies a slightly higher possibility of cancer.

Do you deny yourself all pleasant activities that carry some risk? I don't.

...

It's never convenient to risk injury fighting your own species.*

And, the majority of pain and death are avoidable with diet and exercise. You're missing the point.

When did I enforce you to do something?

nutritionfacts.org/video/everything-in-moderation-even-heart-disease/

When did I say it was caused by eating meat? I'm advocating healthy lifestyle choices, not alcoholism you retard.

...

Bullshit, we most definitely are. Our entire ability to evolve these large brains is because we can eat meat and cook it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore#Omnivorous_species
Look, we are omnivores. Nothing is "designed", creationism is a fucking myth. Humans have adapted to be omnivores, we can eat meat.

As a matter of fact, the largest single impact on our health is grains and carbohydrates. We have to brush our teeth because our teeth aren't build for those diets, we get fat as fuck, the sugar causes lots of health issues like clogged arteries and shit.

So? You're just moving the goalpost, you said only humans are cannibals, which is simply untrue.

so it doesnt promote it. It doesnt cure cancer.

And we can't do both?
No, you are better off using your energy and time to create reduction in fossil fuels than in meat consumption because due to the stubbornness in people who dont want to change their entire diet and culture. The return on invested time is much higher in fossil fuels.

>>Do you think cancer is a painless death in your sleep? What about liver disease?

>These are the types of illness that are promoted by eating meat. Eating plants suppresses them.

Yet, you seem to acknowledge that both are bad, so you personally could try to avoid both, no?

You didn't, but your manner of speech suggests a moral background to your stance against meat.

It most likely won't, and I accept the risks and consequences.

YUM YUM

oh no, so triggered, it's not like i see meat every day

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I like eating meat so I won't completely deny myself. Do you think that because I like meat I don't like plants?

I lower my intake of certain things to where I find the risk acceptable. I am not necessarily interested in zero risk. Do you really think "moderation" universally means a set amount determined by some government health organization?

Offal meat and eggs are more nutrient dense than most vegetables. Even regular muscle meat isn't devoid of nutrients, though it tends to be heavier on minerals and protein than vitamins.

No, i dont want to avoid meat. I want to keep the human habitat in place without being forced to stop consuming the oldest consumption good in human history. I would rather stop driving a car than stop eating meat. Or better yet, create green/non-co2 energy and drive electric.

You have to understand that you are never going to gain support when you say
Humans are really defensive about their food. Me included. Fuck off with your vegan bullshit, I will eat what I goddamn well please unless I decide its too unhealthy for me or until someone forces me to stop.

[citation needed]

We're omnivores because we survived on meat, that doesn't mean we're designed to eat it:

scribd.com/doc/94656/The-Comparative-Anatomy-of-Eating

No the other user said that, I said animals resort to it for survival reasons, Humans on the other hand do it because intelligence and mental disorders

Ok then, don't say I enforced next time and don't be so offended by someone telling you, you're doing it wrong

Don't forget the environmental damage and the implications of that on our species survival on this planet.

It's not like vegans never ate meat before, you post like a crybaby.

It's not a conclusion; you implied I'm denying myself pleasure because I'm not eating meat, little do you know, eating plants can also be pleasurable. Christ, you're daft.

No, I'm just pointing how fucking dumb the moderation argument is.

What are whole foods? Food is packaged deal, meat and eggs also have other qualities that you should avoid if you want optimal health and nutrition.

It's not a conclusion; you implied I'm denying myself pleasure because I'm not eating meat, little do you know, eating plants can also be pleasurable. Christ, you're daft.

No, I'm just pointing how fucking dumb the moderation argument is.

So I'm a guy that plans to die in combat. I can eat as much meat as I want, right? It's very convenient, after all. My macros work themselves out.

Veganism is for rich cunts that need to be reminded about how life was like before we could afford to cut off half of the food chain.

Eggs are natures most nutrient dense food, we would be so far behind without using animals.

That study is shit. It never accounted for the fact that meat eaters also smoked more, drank more, ate more sugars, and exercised less.

Listen, there is nothing wrong with being a grass-munching faggot. Just don't try to give me bullshit studies and tell me it's science.

This whole veganism shit can solve by eating the vegans. That way they stop complaining and we also stop hearing them complain about so fucking animal that going to die anyways. Also if you eat a human you inherit that person soul. It a win win.

Nigga, you are literally retarded. I implied that I WILL NOT DENY MYSELF A CERTAIN PLEASURE JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A LITTLE RISK INVOLVED. For example: I like driving cars, I wear a seat belt and do my best to avoid accidents, and i continue driving cars. I like firing guns, and protect myself from lead poisoning with a mask, and I continue firing guns. I like hiking and skiing and prepare for accidents or bad weather, and I continue hiking and skiing.

I IMPLIED: DO YOU AVOID ALL THINGS THAT YOU LIKE BUT ALSO BRINGS SOME RISK?

Also:

Of course I know eating plants can be pleasurable. Jesus fucking Christ.

Missed this part:

[citation needed]

Processed foods are unhealthy, this is why we should consume whole foods like whole grains and fruits instead of bleached flour and refined sugar which cause dental problems.

Your macros would be lacking glucose and thus energy, your endurance would be shit in any combat situation.

youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6dj7rQ818

Dude, I'm not advocating veganism. I'm just saying that if the finds in the study were sound I might just reduce intake of meats to reduce risks to a level I find acceptable, but not go full vegan, because I really like meat.

I never said you were forcing me, what you should have inferred was that a not even a doctor has the authority to prevent me from doing something altogether. Seeing as you are (unless you wish to provide pics and timestamp) not a doctor, you have even less authority.

oh wow, that steak I ate last night might have been the last straw on the donkey's back, and environmental collapse will happen because of it.

Unless you manage to simultaneously convert the grand majority of earths meat eating population to going full veggie, and immediately closing all livestock production, nothing is happening. This is like leftists who just want to wait for a spontaneous world wide revolution and. It's not fucking happening.

🍀🍀🍀(you🍀🍀🍀)

Nah, bruh, I've been to the sandbox. I eat carbs too. I'm not retarded enough to cut out an entire group of foods from my diet.

Even if I were vegan, I would still hunt, especially hogs. It's necessary to kill them to keep producing those veggies you love, and if I happen to eat that hog, well, that's my business.

And the study was done on mouse, lmao

W E W
E W E
W E W

Your stomach can only hold so much, if you're consuming meat then you're obviously sacking carbs and fiber (which are important for gut flora health) for more fat and MUH PROTEEENS

Are you aware 7 billion plus people exist on this planet?

It seems the vegans have a problem of seeing nuances. It seems they think eating a chicken fillet will instantly do the same damage as continuously shoving your face with lard.

opensample.info/richard-wrangham-catching-fire-how-cooking-made-us-human

Meat is actually very calorie dense, so you don't have to eat a lot of it to get the right nutrition. Plus, you don't really get a choice with MREs. Buying local meat is risky, but delicious.

Have to maintain that muscle. I lost weight like crazy as it is.

Yes, idiot.

No, idiot

Time to start purging.

And? Still gotta kill the hogs and maintain population levels in other animals. Are you baiting me, m8? Agriculture requires animals to die, one way or another. I might as well eat them too.

Because I like eating animals corpses and there's nothing you can do to stop me, you hippie.

Saying you did something, but not telling us how you did it, makes it bad science. Looking into methodology, it does not look like proper controls were implemented.

It seems the "omnivores" don't understand clinical science and think that eating shit moderately is a viable solution to avoiding dietary illness.

If it's calorie dense then it's also filling and suppresses hunger. There's a reason why endurance runners are always carbed the fuck up and don't eat steaks before a run.

Overrated micro nutrient

Maintaining animal populations is a literal meme by hunters. There's only a handful of situations where animals become overpopulated and start causing havoc and that's the only the case because humans decimated their natural predictors.

It says exactly how they did it the full text, what are you even on about?

No, it's the opposite. I can eat a pot of cauliflower(which is what I eat for breakfast) and not get as many calories as I would from a bit of meat. This is why I'm functionally closer to a vegetarian, but I base it all around a small meat base, which I do out of convenience.

They also don't eat a pot of vegetables. Plus, you don't carb up right before something. This is something you need to do constantly because saturation in the muscles doesn't happen instantly. I have my carbs everyday, though. It's all about balancing that diet.

macro*

Enjoy your vitamin b deficiency.

This is how we know vegans are fucking retards.

High intake. Also percent, not percentage points. Age 50–65, the following 18 years.

No it's not. It's fucking true.

You mean natural predators, and they got killed because they wondered onto farms and killed animals and people. Agriculture displaces animals. Some of those animals have to be killed as consequence.

Even if this wasn't the case. There is nothing wrong with hunting for sport just because you like it.

It's vague at best, and a deeper analysis shows that they failed to account for all sorts of factors.

The meat and eggs you eat were deficient in b12, which is why porky invested in stock supplementation programs to avoid getting fined by the gubbamnt. I'll just get my b12 the most viable, safest way, and healthiest way possible, a supplement.

Generally when you're eating meat, you're consuming a lot of protein.

No shit.

Yes, consuming more plant proteins is healthier after 65

It's true sometimes, most of the time it's used as a excuse to make more money, see the fur industry for example.

If biodiversity is decreasing and thus the earth's life support systems, who you think is at fault here? The wolf or the human?

kek, you only like hunting because your red neck father liked it. Go accidentally shoot yourself or something.

Sure bud. Try debunking this laundry list of sources:

nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/
nutritionfacts.org/topics/dairy
nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs
nutritionfacts.org/topics/animal-products/
nutritionfacts.org/topics/animal-protein
nutritionfacts.org/topics/cancer
nutritionfacts.org/topics/cardiovascular-disease/
nutritionfacts.org/topics/mortality/

Starting to look a lot like Holla Forums there.

...

The most bio-available nutrients are in your food. Supplements are basically placebos.

spectacle tbh

...

Which is why the vast majority of vitamins are produced for livestock and meat eaters? Generally avoid supplementation, but some nutrients are worth supplementing B12 and D for example.

I don't normally post here, but I will say this.

I very recently (last few weeks or so) was given a vegan pamphlet at university.

It was, to use Zizek's terminology, Pure Ideology. No intellectual content beyond 'oh my god look at these suffering pigs' and so on. I mean are you aware how fucking delicious bacon is?

After completing my analysis I promptly used it to wipe my ass.

I am a conservative stereotype.

and I love it

People's diets should consist mostly of plants.

That said, giving up animal products is fucking retarded.

Not an argument.

Veganism is fucking stupid

Vegetarianism is kind of based though, but since ethical consumption is impossible under capitalism it's kind of pointless.

If we were in a socialist society I'd probably go vegetarian

Why no argument?

HELICOPTER
E
L
I
C
O
P
T
E
R

Doesn't actually know what a placebo is

Your argument, as far as I can tell, was that the most nutritious parts of your diet come from plants and people that eat too much meat can be malnourished.

I don't disagree with this.

What I disagree with is the notion of giving up animal products entirely.

Nazifag, if there is one thing you and I agree with is that vegans belong in gulag/oven.

You're argument against the source wasn't really an argument either.

(checked)
We will set vegans to work building ovens in the gulags tbh.

Veganism is ideology. Vegetarianism is just a byproduct of someone choosing to eat healthier. I am nearly vegetarian just because I choose to eat right. I don't do it because I want to be vegetarian, it just ends up that way. Vegans are brain-dead retards, though.

Wrong 'your', faggot.

lrn2 english tbh

Sugar pills. "Medicine" that has no effect beyond making the user feel better because they think they're going to get better.

There's not much evidence that your body actually absorbs much or any of the nutrients in supplement pills. They are, in effect, placebos.

faggots

No matter how many times /lefypol/ says veganism is stupid or ideology, they can never debunk it, it's funny really.

A university anything is usually garbage, kill yourself.

Ok, explain your problems with a whole foods plant-based diet.

You seem triggered tbh.

Primarily that it doesn't include meat and eggs.

You don't need to debunk what doesn't have any evidence behind it. Ideology needs no debunking. It's already trash.

What's wrong if a chicken lays an egg and I decide to eat it

nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/
nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/

wew

nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/

time.com/4346551/vegan-diet-vegetarian/

A simple google search answers the question. The only reason to go vegan is because muh morality.

PURE IDEOLOGY

Veganism is only supported by the worst kind of scientism

Not only are you taking a specific few people at their word because "science" or "biology" but almost all these people are manipulating their studies and outcomes to support their ideology

PURE DENIAL

Your site doesn't even cite studies. Half the time it links to itself. I'll say it again:

PURE IDEOLOGY

What if I decide that the minor health risks are worth it

t. alcohol drinker

...

Again, most of their science is flawed. It's like citing early studies that suggested global cooling, when most predicted otherwise.

Veganism isn't science. It's ideology. Either accept it and live your life as you like, or don't and continue to be delusional.

youtube.com/watch?v=HhpzV_HAYiU

=PURE EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT=

...

that guy is such a fucking faggot

theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/14/childprotection.uk

The biggest producer of cholesterol in the human body is your own liver. Your body simply produces less cholesterol in the presence of dietary cholesterol. Cholesterol is actually an incredibly important nutrient in the body that simply has the potential of clogging arteries if concentrations of LDL cholesterol are too high, it's not some sort of poison.

rawstory.com/2014/12/toddler-dies-from-malnutrition-caused-by-radical-christian-parents-faith-based-vegan-diet/

...

ottawasun.com/2015/04/10/parents-of-toddler-whose-vegan-diet-led-to-death-sentenced-to-30-months

top kek, m8

theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us

top jej, m9

Only hippie vegans kill their fucking kids due to their idiotic ideology. They are also bad for animals.

heraldsun.com.au/leader/west/kitten-nearly-dies-from-vegan-diet/story-fngnvmj7-1226682108386

I don't really relate to the entire "animal suffering is relevant" part of the argument, but I do agree with Moby in the part that agriculture industry is destroying the environment and by eating meat you're encouraging said industry to continue to do so.
I also agree that animals do have rights, one of them being the right to be delicious and to be treated with love and care until they serve their final purpose.
Also, I'm still waiting veggies to prove that animals are Dasein. If they do so then I will stop eating meat.

Yeah because feeding children meat because it's "healthy" isn't idiotic ideology. They are also bad for animals.

petobesityprevention.org/pet-obesity-fact-risks/

You sure are getting desperate, m8.

You sure are getting desperate, m9.

Disease and illness are normal, dipshit. Everyone will suffer and succumb to them at one point, even vegan faggots. Does your dumb ape brain tell you it's going to live forever?

...

they literally are faggot

are diseases some made up magic trick?

Yeah, they're normal when you consume meat

lmao

the disease and illness you keep kvetching about has a minimal occurence of happening even with excessive meat consumption and are paltry compared to some of the medical conditions you can suffer from on a vegan diet (which includes everything you can get from an omnivorous diet, just marginally less likely)

top kek this faglord

without meat, there would be no bacteria, and my feels would be felt by all

Just passing here to remind all the meat eater apologists that if you wouldn't be fine with killing pet animals like cats and dogs for food then you are a fucking hypocrite.
Just saying.

athlete.io/2369/6-reasons-why-vegans-and-doctors-are-wrong-about-animal-protein/

If vegans can cite blogs, then I can cite blogs too.

[citation needed]

My cat would probably eat me too if I were a corpse right now. Alas, the loving omnivores dilemma….

I am fine with it, there's just no reason to do so unless we enter some post-apocalyptic dystopia as other animal products are cheap and commercially available

I would eat you if I needed to survive. Man didn't get to be number one by being a fucking pansy. Not only would I kill my dog, I would do it gladly if it meant I survive. Dog is my friend, but he is also spare rations.

I've already put bullets in my old pups heads

fuck you

that is literally fucking irrelevant

hervibore animals experience all kinds of diseases and illness

stop being a literal dumb person

You stupid omnivores, look how many people your meat eating has killed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

Truly diseases would not exist without people eating animal products

If no one eats meat the farmers are just going to slaughter all of their livestock and throw them away. Even if they are released into the wild they would just be wiped out by wilderness animals that are not vegan.

What's the end game?

You don't get to enjoy something you like and a vegan gets to feel smug about it. That's literally it. They're like the feminists of the culinary world.

Safest, reliable, and healthiest way to obtain b12 is supplementation.

If vegans had protein deficiencies they would literally be dead

3s are primarily found in plants >what are flax seeds, typical american diet is what causes omega ratio to faultier because it's high in 6s

nutritionfacts.org/topics/kidney-disease/
nutritionfacts.org/topics/alzheimers-disease/

zinc, iron, selenium, calcium and iodine are all found in plant foods

Is this blog a joke?

How is that irrelevant you retard? That's the entire point of going whole foods-plant based, to avoid, reduce, and eliminate risk of diseases and illness. Can you diet reserve heart disease?

It's like I'm arguing Holla Forums on half-chan, holy shit.

It's almost like context matters.

You clearly didn't read it. As it stands, no scientific institution promotes vegan diets as anything other than adequate. Veganism is silly ideology.

Livestock would be in the same situation has horses; they were breed for the sole purpose of transportation and now they live in sanctuaries. The end game is a healthy population of people; you should know millions of people are dying every year due to simple lifestyle choices. Also being the most sustainable diet it would help in not destroying the earth's life support systems.

Does it hurt to think or something, this is all pretty obvious and common knowledge, or at least I'd like to think…

The president of the American College of Cardiology is vegan you delusional idiot.

...

No, a gazelle must run faster than the slowest gazelle.

...

And yet the American College of Cardiology does not share his ideology.

acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2016/05/05/07/45/diet-and-heart-disease-what-every-cardiologist-should-know?w_nav=Tab

In fact, they promote certain meats. It's almost like a balanced diet works. Gee, ain't that somethin'.

...

Who would have thunk it.

Alas, vegans think "moderation" and "balance" are specific amounts, that are also dangerous no matter what.

Edgy

...

Vegan food is like making a sentence completely out of adjectives. You still need those nouns to make it worth anyone's time. Meat is the noun.

wew

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan-cardiologist/?_r=0

They don't promote certain meats, actually read the article, pic related.

And the American Dietetic Association:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

Not to mention the oldest living populations are those that eat mostly and all plants see for sources.

I did, and last time I checked fish are made of meat.
See my previous posts. I've already addressed this. They do not promote it as the superior choice.

No, he doesn't. Him being there does not mean the organization holds his opinions as fact. This is the same as promoting a scientist who is Christian to the head of an organization. This does not make the organization a promoter of Christianity.

You would need to not be a fucking retard to know this, though, so I can see where you made the mistake.

...

t. Americlap

Name a culture that doesn't use meat in their cuisine and I'll show you a culture of fail.

Tbh veganism has no benefit over vegetarianism for moral reasons, just for maybe health and/or sustainability reasons.

Interesting, but then how would you implement that? There are a lot of animals.

Meat and fish are two different things. Anyways, fish:

nutritionfacts.org/video/diet-and-amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis-als/
nutritionfacts.org/video/fish-and-diabetes/
nutritionfacts.org/video/red-fish-white-fish-dark-fish-atrial-fibrillation/
nutritionfacts.org/video/maternal-mercury-levels/
nutritionfacts.org/video/fish-consumption-associated-with-brain-shrinkage/
nutritionfacts.org/video/xenoestrogens-sperm-counts/
nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-pollutants-may-affect-testosterone-levels/
nutritionfacts.org/video/improving-mood-through-diet/

They don't promote anything as a superior choice.

Hot opinion bro

Lmao

You said meat was a requirement for each dish. Under those terms, Italian and Indian food meet the standard you propose.

Yes he does.

They elected him, surely he must know something about nutrition.

They put fish and meats in two different categories, are you really this retarded lmao?

Dogshit analogy.

Italian food has meat, dipshit. Indian food also has meat.

They ain't Dasein, they ain't shit. Just like those filthy jews weren't Dasein either.

Because it's a matter of preference, at this point, idiot. That's what you've been told already. There is no advantage to veganism. It's just shit you like.

I would say it's a pretty safe bet. It doesn't take a lot of research to see what's in front of your own eyes.

That's not how things work.

They didn't elect him because of his personal diet. They elected him because of his work and credentials.

It's like you don't even read the various sources in this thread.

cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00062-X

Red meats and processed meats, dumbass. Fish is still meat, or do you claim vegans eat fish?

The president of the ACC literally promotes veganism are you really this delusional?

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan-cardiologist/?_r=0

And his work and credentials lead him to be vegan, what a big surprise.

I have no interest in your biased sources. No scientific community pushes veganism as a superior choice.

Nice proof you got there.
Your next line is "but they have a central nervous system"

Not in each dish, fuckwit. Indians are majority vegetarian, just look at the recipe for Vada Pav or Saag Aloo. Or look at McD's Indian menu. Similarly, Italians are likely to be as happy with a plate of vegetables as they are meat.

No, I mean it's pretty obvious. I could stab a dog and it would be in pain wouldn't it?

What's harder to show is that plants suffer.

You're a fucking idiot.

If he tried claiming that the organization represented his views, he'd be out so fast his head would spin. This is why he doesn't say that meat is bad, period. This is why he tempers his claims and adds caveats, because he knows that bullshit wouldn't fly. Unlike you, he understands what is and isn't science.

Can you just admit that you have no objective proof about it and you just choose to believe that they suffer the same way a human does? It's not that hard.

I asked you for a culture that doesn't use meat. You couldn't provide it. Nice job failing at life. Kill yourself.

Fish is fish you idiot, why do you think they separated fish and meat into different categories?

PURE DENIAL

I said the president, not the organization, we all know conflict of interest exists. Reading compression you twat.

How do you mean "the same way a human does"

I don't understand why human suffering would be more special than any other animals. What quality of suffering defines it as human suffering?

So vegans can eat fish? It's not meat, right?

It's not about conflict of interest. If something is scientifically accurate, then the organization would put that out in their publications. They don't do this because it's obviously not backed up by the evidence. This would be an uncontroversial move if you were right. You are not. Veganism being superior is your opinion.

No, you didn't ask me. I'm just tired of both your bullshit.

Why don't vegans eat milk and eggs?

Because "m-muh animal exploitation".

That's worse because it means you can't read.

I pose that any true vegan should not use vaccines, because they are made with animal products. They should actually stop using a lot of modern medicine because it's tested on animals.

This bish loves meat. How do you stop her from wanting it?

Let's look at what you posted:
This post here:

That's a clear stipulation that the overwhelming majority of the dishes require meat. My prior posts clearly evidence this is not a requirement for good food based on the cuisines demonstrated.

Not only did I read your sources, I looked up their credibility
Nutritionfacts.org is about as far from a credible source as you can get and is written by an ALF activist (he's literally part of a cult that promotes veganism) posing as a dietician using cherrypicked and often debunked studies to falsely promote his diet.

please explain, are milk and eggs really that important?
That's not what the phrase means though, Ethical Consumption is impossible under Capitalism because workers will always have their surplus value extracted and resources will always be allocated for profit rather than use, stuff like animal rights and feminism and diversity or whatever are completely possible under a Capitalist framework, which is why they shouldn't have a major voice on a Socialist platform.

pretty cool well researched series if you like spooks.
youtube.com/watch?v=BXlR8if5hok&list=PLmIqdlomtuSvjj5OqnILWQbXEJlFNmE_2

That's not the post you responded to, though. Why are you being selective in your reading of this thread now?

No, fish is fish you idiot.

Who's behind this post?

nytimes.com/2011/03/29/health/29ethics.html

By all means debunk any of his articles or videos.

My posts are quite clear a response to the post I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the poster I responded to was quite clearly the same poster defending his position.

Fish is a subset of meat.

I've met vegans who protest bee farming, which is beneficial to bees, the environment and produces a relatively healthy sugar substitute

But I think when you get the honey you have to kill all the bees, so it would make sense.

You don't. You just throw some smoke on them and shit.

circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.abstract

Vegans that keep claiming that meat is magical in its ability to make you sick are lying shits. It's processed meat that is the problem, but you should still eat balanced diets. Eat fish, a bit of chicken, and other good stuff. You don't have to be an insufferable jackass to be healthy.

No shit it's a subset, but the link you posted has meats and fish in different categories and you were implying the ACC promoted meats when meats were clearly placed in the "eat less" category. Be specific next time and just say fish.

not even that, new beehouse designs are mate to leak excess honey into vats and jars, actually saving many bees from drowning in their own produce

It has subsets of meat in categories: red meat, and processed meat. Fish is a meat, so they promote some meat consumption.

Analysis of one of his clickbait videos from a real dietician on a website not dependent on clickbait videos:
sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/

hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/red-meat-consumption-linked-to-increased-risk-of-total-cardiovascular-and-cancer-mortality/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22412075

So, they just promote fish consumption, great. Now avoid the sat. fat, cholesterol, mercury poison and eat flax seeds for your omega 3s.

This was debunked the same day Hall published it:

donmatesz.blogspot.com/2013/02/harriet-halls-critique-of-gregers.html

And if you didn't know Dr. Harriet promotes the literal fad diet, which Greger has destroyed countless times:

nutritionfacts.org/video/paleo-diet-studies-show-benefits/
nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/
nutritionfacts.org/video/paleo-diets-may-negate-benefits-of-exercise/
nutritionfacts.org/video/paleolithic-lessons/
nutritionfacts.org/video/whats-the-natural-human-diet/

No. That's not how this works. I'm going to continue eating the way I like, and there's nothing you can do to stop me, especially since you are probably a skinnyfag with no speed or strength.

>hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/red-meat-consumption-linked-to-increased-risk-of-total-cardiovascular-and-cancer-mortality/
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22412075
Obviously. You can't seem to grasp the concept of a balanced diet. Your ideology just won't let you.

A vegan diet is a balanced diet, humans are one of 2 primates who eat meat, we're not wolves.

That's exactly how it works see my links

Cool.

You got me.

The person I was responding to was implying red meats don't make you sick. And I already told you moderation is a bullshit argument and your ==emotional attachment== won't let you grasp that point.

ccjm.org/view-pdf.html?file=fileadmin/content_pdf/ccjm/content_efd4fd2_ccjm67_8-0560

Vegan means no animal products, period. That's not balanced. However, due to modern supplements it's definitely adequate if well-planned.

Look, I'm 80% of the way to vegetarian. Most of my food comes from plant sources. However, I still eat meat. Anyone that tells you that you shouldn't eat any meat is an ideologue who doesn't know anything about nutrition. It's one thing to tell you to tone it down on a burger (which you really shouldn't be eating regularly), and it's another to tell you that all animal products are forbidden.

Vegans are ideologues, and they, not regular people, are the ones who always seem to end up killing their children and pets by starving them.

No. You don't get to tell me what to eat.

Define balanced.

I'm not telling you what to eat you, I'm telling you what you're eating is harmful.

They don't if you don't fucking overdo it.

So because you said it, it must be true. You also can't redtext because you're a retard.

PURE RETARDATION

After this thread, I think I'd rather have Holla Forums shitposters than vegan faggots, god damn you people are fucking retarded and batshit insane

All your macros are met, as well as micros, and you don't get too much fat or cholesterol. You will find that even if you don't place restrictions on what you eat, you end up eating more veg anyway. There's no reason to go vegan other than preference or animal rights shit.

You have no idea what I'm eating. You just think you're better because you have a retarded diet.

Again with the moderation argument

No, it says it for me in the source you didn't bother to click.

Or maybe because I don't bother with meme formatting and I'm attempting to mimic your retardation.

Yet another non-argument.

wew
Are you okay with eating genetically engineered people?

You don't need to mimic what you embody.

You can do this on a vegan diet, the only nutrition exception is B12 but I've already explained by supplementing it is the best way to obtain it.

What are you even trying to say?

Yeah I'm the retarded and you're still trying to peddle the moderation argument, pure genius.

>ccjm.org/view-pdf.html?file=fileadmin/content_pdf/ccjm/content_efd4fd2_ccjm67_8-0560
This study only applies to people already very sick with heart disease. Of course, once you are sick, you have to stop that shit. You already can't handle it. If you are not sick, there is no evidence that consumption in moderation is harmful.

If veganism was really science, you wouldn't need to lie to support your position, and basically every single doctor out there would be pushing veganism.

someone whos not a dietician defending someone whos not a dietician
also:
why not link me to Steven Universe fanpages wile you're at it

PS: picture related is not an argument and debunks nothing

Also this study was about fat in diets of already sick people, and the study cited a plant-based diet, not a plant-exclusive diet.

I'd rather eat synthetic, non-cellular based foods.

How else would you reserve their disease?

A plant-exclusive diet is still plant-based diet, the way they reversed heart disease was by eliminating cholesterol completely.

Doesn't invalidate the source

Try reading the rest of the page, he's just putting out a fallacy.

...

wew

EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT

...

But it is true, it's the only reason you decide to consume animal products.

E

Or maybe that's just what I've always eaten and I see no reason to change.

M

You haven't adequately substantiated any of these. You just keep posting the same blog that uses outdated sources and selective truth. If veganism was really that superior, there would be no question about it in the scientific community, and yet, no body of scientists pushes for it.

Why would I make an effort for no gain?

The environmental impacts are probably real though

You're doing it to get laid with vegan girls, aren't you? Try starting a family and contributing something for once, you degenerate faggots.

I have:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22412075
cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00062-X

environment:
fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

There's nothing wrong with my sources, it's just you have confirmation bias.

You're appealing to authority again. Socialism is the key to solving many of problems but you don't see scientists pushing for it, I guess socialism is wrong too huh?

O

That's mostly a symptom of capitalism. I hunt for my meat and raise some animals as it is. Only rarely do I buy meat, and I really don't eat that much meat anyway.
Meat is good when done right. If you see a family of hogs digging up your crops, there is no reason not to eat them after you shoot them. They're there, all delicious and shit. Our ancestors were probably opportunistic meat-eaters, which means that they didn't raise animals for food as much as just ate animals when they got the chance. If you go like that, then I don't see you getting sick from meat-eating because you'll rarely have it anyway. I hear squirrel is quite good.
On the other hand, if you're like me, and you like dishes with meat, then I don't see local, small-scale animal agriculture having a large effect. The amount of meat Americans eat is too much. If everyone ate like me, we wouldn't need a huge industry. you could probably get by with whatever you could find on your own.

You've already been told why your studies are shit and what the problems with them are.

And I told you why your arguments are shit.

T

>fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
Notice that at no point does this study suggest that everyone must be vegan. It introduces the concept of decentralization, which means local animal agriculture as opposed to corporate. Nobody agrees with you, even your own studies.

No, you just re-stated your tired arguments and debunked sources.

On that scale? Yes. Industrial agriculture is bad all over, or do you think that modern agriculture is only bad because of animals?

When did I say it promoted veganism? The source is identifying the problem. And localizing animal agriculture isn't going to do anything when the demand for meat is the same. If anything "corporate" operations are doing it as efficiency as possible to save on land and resource use.

No you kept peddling your moderation argument. Just give me one study suggesting moderation to eliminate your risk of cardiovascular disease, I'll wait.

The ladder, pic related

god damn

Which will be even more costly without manure.

So, starve yourself?

How much crops do you think we need to feed the billions of animals as opposed to only growing crops for human consumption? And there's various methods to maintain soil health without manure, composting from left over plant parts, growing certain types of plants that put nutrients back in the the soil. Manure is the convenient, inexpensive thing to use.

youtube.com/watch?v=pKIM-lgPDUQ

I'm not into minimalist soylent fart sniffing bullshit if that's what you mean, pragmatism and transhumanism aren't mutually exclusive, I raise goats, chickens, and grow my own vegetables ffs.

it ain't emotional attachment, it's taste attachment and cost effectiveness. Give me a perfect replacement to flesh and dairy that tastes as good or better and isn't expensive as hell and I will certainly do it. Also if it doesn't cause a massive die off or whatnot with current livestock, because you are doing this for moral(spooky) purposes correct? A genocide would go against vegan principles I'd assume.

also
I forgot how close it is to halloween

(Seig Heil)
Oxymoron

Because I'm not a pussy

I'd never torture whites so then I guess the answer is no.

not a reel man

I'm not vegan because I still live in mommy's basement and she brings down tendies for me.
I guess eating more veg flesh is ok nutritionally, as long as toxins/mutagens are avoided, but I ignore arguments based on empathy for animals because previous anecdotal lessons have taught me to be heartless. If the Koch Brothers are actually correct (unlikely) then maybe support of the soccer mom/hipster vegan wing may have been an attempt to build a market for bleeding hearts.
go away HuffPo readers

So growing plants to maintain animals is wasteful, but growing plants to maintain plants isn't?

Your source disagrees. It seems to put it forward as a part of the solution.

No diet eliminates the risk of cardiovascular disease. You're reaching now.

That pic makes the same fallacy of assuming that any land used for cattle can be turned to farmland. It cannot, and eliminating animals won't let you make more food.

It's certainly more sustainable

Their solution boils down to muh market, muh technology, and muh political commitment. None of this is going to bring the demand for meat down, they admit it's not a real solution but it certainly would help reduce waste and emissions. It's like asking porky to please think about the externalities and ignore his profits for once. The real solution is reducing consumption significantly or eliminating it completely.

A whole foods plant-based diet is proven to reverse heart disease. No other diet does that.

The vast majority of farmland is being used to feed livestock, what are you on about?

fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_what_is_a_sustainable_healthy_diet_final.pdf

In the next decade or two lab meat will become commercially viable so I don't see a point to become vegan. It'll be better in terms of emissions, energy use etc etc. Not only that but it'll be healthier than regular meat because they can add all kinds of healthy shit to it.

Other than the usual crap ('animal agriculture is the biggest reason for climate change' which is semi-true, but it's still industrial farming on the scale of which capitalism induced and the profit madness that drives it primarily - and shit like 'animal agriculture is the reasons behind famine!' which is utter bullshit and nonsense - the lack of access to food is the reason for famine; not that there is a lack of available food to provide, i.e again capitalism is the primary issue); which always comes from pro-cap (or uncaring, "capitalist nature is nature itself") 'greens' and vegans:

I've yet to see any logical argument against veganism. I am myself, a vegan. It makes sense, and there's even some pretty sweet health benefits (if you were to even care about that, it's more like an extra bonus).

That whole vegan merger into being another commodified market and a 'lifestyle' into 'new era' capitalist consumer markets, though, honestly repulses me.

Most vegans you meet you probably wouldn't even know were vegan, unless they told you when you went out to eat together. It's pretty damn positive in most regards. Health benefits are real, even if you have shit habits in every other aspect of your life.

>fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_what_is_a_sustainable_healthy_diet_final.pdf

Your source, again, does not say that meat production is unsustainable, only that it would be substantially lower. This would be the case if everyone ate a low-meat diet, not a no-meat diet and no animal product diet like you propose. Most people eat too much meat. This does not mean meat is harmful. Kill yourself, you ideologue.

Plant-based meat substitutes exist that taste just as good as the real thing, not even those are healthy:

youtu.be/up-zka86EVs?t=315

Industrial farming is on this scale because it's necessary to feed the entire human population, the most sustainable way to feed the human population would be with plants.

Climate change is causing famines though.

environmental terms or more broadly to include socio-economic dimensions."
of the relationship between health and sustainability. It identifies areas where of synergy, of
conflict, and where impacts are neutral. It finds a clear win-win in a shift to a less animal- and
more plant-based diet."

I proposed no animal products for optimal health, lowering animal products for sustainability.

Most people aren't americans.

It is harmful see my previous link:
fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

But you're the one harming yourself and your emotional attachment is blinding you.

youtube.com/watch?v=Yxs_mTRjLAU

youtube.com/watch?v=z07SOyZKqM0

Oh look, a muckraking video with a predetermined conclusion. The standards applied in that video could be applied to any food. Ergo, all food is unhealthy and we should eat nothing.

Mmmm, this cheese sandwich is delicious.

The reason for why industrial farming and animal agriculture as well as why consumption of meat is at the rate it is today, is because of capitalism. It's not because it's "needed to feed the entire population", it's an industry feeding the whole demand and its own relevance via marketing, and already being a dominant player (affecting political decisions).

Mcdonalds, thousands of ready made hotdogs and premade meat products, cheap pig meat by the tonnes, does not exist because it's "needed" to feed the populace. (nor because people asked for it, the demand and desire is exploited and fed, and as an industry it doesn't follow 'resource logic', it follows profit logic. Grow and expand, if demand isn't as high as you want it? Control the market, try to create a higher demand, PR campaigns.)

Food production is not based on a 'use' value, is where I think your logic went wrong to begin with. Market logic != reality (nor does it barely even reflect reality in regards to what is actually required, needed or has use)

I agree, the most sustainable way to feed the human population would be with plants. But trying to turn everyone Vegan is not going to fix either famine, nor the massive production of lives for slaughter.

I am a Vegan. But I'm an anti-capitalist first. (it's not just food that the agriculture industry and meat industry is tied into, all the waste produce that they can get away with or use chemical derivatives of for other aspects of the massive machinery of modern industry - they'll use it for.)

...

Not to pile on, here…
Explain to me your logic?

What do you think juice is? Vegetables and fruits, and water. Some types of vegans barely only eat smoothies and fruits.
How would a temporary fast (or a temporary vegan diet, of one kind), be superior to just… always being vegan?

Yes letting your digestive system rest for a bit, is going to make you feel better shortly after. It's something you can do much more easily already being a Vegan, though…

Sorry, I don't find your practice superior.

What makes your type of fast so special? Also comparing how the average muslim celebrates ramadan or conducts their fasting - towards a religious (as in, you identify, as religious) jew, isn't exactly fair. There's fasting outside Ramadan, for religious muslims, and they'll take it much more seriously (just like you are) than 'pigging out' at the end of it.

ITT: Very emotional, childish vegans that can't handle that other people eat meat, and their lifestyle isn't 100% healthy.

butternutrition.com/10-vegan-diet-dangers/

That's why I said "plant-based" instead of "whole food plant-based." Things like coconut oil, heme iron, and protein isolates in meat substitutes aren't healthy.

Alright let's pretend we live in a socialist society. Oh look, the demand for meat is still there. You people would rather do nothing than take personal responsibility, that's pretty much what it boils down to.

I'm still waiting for someone to name another diet that can reserve heart disease.

kill yourself

not my comrad

I have never met a Muslim who vasts outside of Muslim fast days, and they almost always end their fasts with a huge meal. Perhaps you can point me to a day where they don't?

Fasting is good because you're not wasting food AND it forces you to control your body and mind.

EMOTIONAL

PR for a book by a dentist. By the way, plenty of cultures had a mostly vegetarian diet, some borderline vegan. All depends on the region, the climate available, etc. Peasents had a healthier diets than kings, famines were plentiful before good crops were available that could grow consistently in harsher climates, malnutrition (hey just think of Scurvy, alone) was a-plenty.
On the flip side, you also have eskimos eating raw seal liver. So there's that. Vegan is considered a full and healthy diet (for all ages), this isn't actually disputed (except by people trying to sell books, or desperately look for something to make an argument against it). (don't take this as me saying you must be Vegan, but don't try and tell me that there's a logical argument against it - there isn't. Other than 'I like the taste'; that's it.)

I was writing up a response to each note but it's pretty much complete pop-sci "buzzfeed top 10 list". It's pretty much all myths. It even harps on the bloody protein myth.

Yes, let's pretend we live in a socialist society, and where social use value is predominant. There you go, now your logic works. You're ignoring the way capitalism works, the current consumption levels are not based on people's initial demand nor need (or even initial want).

I don't disagree with turning people Vegan, but seeing that as the solution, is ridiculous. You have to get past the base of capitalism first, which has its grips on all these industries to begin with (and is why they are in the state they are).

And I am a Vegan you dope.

You are a vegan, you will move heaven and earth, desperately maintaining your cognitive dissonance and trying to convince yourself how "superior" you are to non vegans.
You have no objectivity, you want to be self righteous.

Unfortunately, the average western leftist lacks the amount of social discipline it takes to successfully imitate the "good" parts of Islamic societies.

It's incredible, how much the contemporary left is willing to combat eurocentricism and atone for its sins of being born and raised within a western paradigm by insisting that they need to become more like those noble savage Muslims, right as we're seeing how easily capitalism is adopting to the Islamic World.

But to go back to my first point: Islamic societies are based in an entirely different social structure as the modern west. The Islamic family, for example, is a tightly controlled institution and is quite hierarchical at that (i.e. the father works, the mother stays at home all day and pumps out babies, the kids always obey their parents no matter what, the father's job is basically decided for him by his parents, and so on). There is very little free range in those cultures, which is something most leftists in the west would struggle to adopt.

That was my point… you're comparing yourself, a self-titled "Religious" Jew, to 'a muslim'. 9 out of 10 'members' of a set 'religion'- of the major ones (that bestow it as birthright); obviously are not regular religious practitioners.

How does that make your fasting superior?

How so? Are you self-sufficient? Sage for off-topic.

Feel free to point out my cognitive dissonance.
Also, I'm this guy.
So apparently to at least one of the other Vegan posters in this thread, I'm a meat eater not wanting to take personal responsibility.
To a meater eater I'm a Vegan who'll move heaven and earth to prove how superior I am, whilst turning you Vegan.

I'm off to a great start.

This isn't a response to what I've stated. Let me reiterate: I can make the same sort of arguments in the video you posted about any food. Absolutely anything you'd care to eat has compounds in it that could be used as a basis to claim that it is "unhealthy". I can even claim:

Licorice: Deadly poison
Water: Deadly poison
Coffee: Deadly poison
Apples: Deadly poison
Grain: Deadly poison
Cake: Carcinogen
Kidney Beans: Deadly poison
Cauliflower: Infant Deformities

Not exactly healthy. Best starve yourself to death.

Because I fast for longer than 40 days, duh.

Right now I've been juice fasting for six days a week for almost five months.

I can only go 2 days at a time right now but some day I'll get it.

The demand for meat is increasing, why do you think this would change an any other economic system? My point is people shouldn't wait for the system to change.

Just look how many people in this thread like to mention lab meat, they would rather wait and do nothing, than to take personality responsibility.

He's making an argument against processed foods (the meat substitute). What are you even talking about?

This is why we use the term *WHOLE FOODS*, they're generally *HEALTHIER* than *PROCESSED FOODS*.

By that logic, wouldn't a raw Vegan be 2,4 times as superior to you out of the year? I don't get you. You're pretty much saying that something Vegans of some 'brands' do, continuously their entire life, that you do for a brief amount of time, gives you clarity and makes your religious practice superior.

Wouldn't that make those people the bloody ubermensch in comparison? (and no, I'm not a raw vegan, but there's plenty of them)
I'm still not following your logic.
And long duration fasting is a practice that is being upheld by most religious institutions or 'cults' all across the world. It's not new, it's not specific (at all) to abrahamics, nor even the duration of it.

Even the old Chinese emperors 'fasted' periodically. This is a practice that judaism is actually quite young, and certainly not unique in. Animists, Shamans, whatever - monks in cloisters, new age hippies, welcome to the club.

This isn't a trashing of fasting, mind you. I just find it funny you tie it to judaism, and proffer it as a superior fast compared to other fasts, when the winners of the conditions in which you've placed on deciding just that, aren't even a religiously practicing grouping. They're a bunch of raw vegans.

So basically, muh feels. Sage.

Due to capitalism, and marketing. Same reason Japan's meat consumption went up after the US occupying government and the introduction of US interests.
Spreading of say, Mcdonalds, a trendy thing in many new eastern markets - massive increase of marketing and frozen meat products. Produce made for exports within many of those nations before even being made for their domestic markets - to already heavily advertised to and 'market ready' consumers in western nations.

Consumers do not choose the advertisement campaigns or the lobbying money that industries and heavily vested economic and financial interests place on their governments, agencies, TV stations or local outlet for big store chain XYZ.

You're starting the story in the middle and saying the consumer has the full responsibility. This is the rhetoric of the capitalist. That it's become so seeved into present day society's thinking is a damn shame.

I'm talking about the fact it's a complete pile of bullshit.

No, this simply isn't true.

Interesting digression: The human digestive system is noticeably under size compared to other primates. As a result, humans on raw vegan diets lose weight. They are essentially living on the edge of starvation.

Not really, much of the nutrients in raw fruits is much more easily digested than anything from meat. If you'd said raw vegetables I'd be prone to agree, but it'd still depend on the vegetable. Typically you'll find raw vegans eating much more - much higher quantities, in general.

Obviously not being a raw vegan, cooking solves all that.

The only vegans that live near starvation are the same ones that did so previously, anyway. (people who don't know how to eat, or cook, or sadly just can't afford or have access to what they need, food deserts, etc.)

If you wanted the most efficient intake, it would be juice, and smoothies. More efficient than meat, as well as more efficient than my own (cooked) vegetables.

Obviously capitalism makes worse but humans have always gotten a significant portion of their calories from animal products, before capitalism, before feudalism. It's worse today because again, human population. What's going allow us to continue living on this planet, with this many people, is significantly reducing animal consumption.

I never said the consumer is responsible; I said people should take personality responsibility over their diet. If not, you can wait and let capitalists take control of it like the delusional idiots on this board.

Tell me why it's bullshit, he clearly put sources in the description:

cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/75/5/870.full.pdf
press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-020849?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed&
cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/cebp/11/11/1441.full.pdf
researchgate.net/publication/13530119_Effects_of_dietary_coconut_oil_butter_and_safflower_oil_on_plasma_lipids_lipoproteins_and_lathosterol_levels

Kys.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422440800229X

Yes, really.
opensample.info/richard-wrangham-catching-fire-how-cooking-made-us-human

Yes, but cooking can be argued to make your food poisonous. Honestly. Look up acrylamide formation in baked goods for example.

It's a junk interpretation of the research and you are utterly full of shit. Here's a source to show you how many common food items are in fact deadly poison as I asserted earlier:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153292/

You're full of shit. Go and get your dick peeled.

What does this have to do with processed foods being good or bad for you?

You seem really upset, you should stop posting and go take a walk.

You've premised your argument on misrepresentation of the evidence.

Kek

By all means explain how I misrepresented the evidence.

If I was upset I'd actually spell it out for you, friend.

This is why we consume both raw and cook foods, some foods will lose nutrients in the cooking process and some foods are more bioavailable cooked.

I already have. Repeatedly.

I'm not your friend.

You haven't though, all you did was dismiss the evidence.

Ok, friend.

I kind of covered that. Higher quantites, concentrations (juice), but yea I'm not disputing the point you're trying to make I just don't see how it's applicable.

Frying and roasting being potentially hazardous is something that includes everything so… cooked doesn't just mean deep fried. Stir fried, boiled, steamed. I don't see how that makes 'cooked food' blatantly all potentially poisonous.

Again raw food vegans eat a much higher quantity of fruits. Some of the more trendy bullshit youtube cults have raw vegans complaining about putting weight on because of how much they're told to eat.

Nobody going raw vegan eats the same amount of food as they did, previously.
I'm not sure if you've seen much of the raw vegan community.

We've discussed this and you have been shown why you're wrong. If you're not willing to accept simple and clear arguments demonstrating your error because they contradict your holy crusade… okay. Enjoy being wrong, I have cheese sandwiches to eat and no more time to waste on cultists.

I'm not your :re, but in all honesty… the cancer and cardiovascular diseases are the lowest amongst vegans and vegetarians.

This hyper-defensive 'it's all poisonous so who cares', doesn't change that. (assuming I read the thread unwinding upwards properly, was a bit of a mess).

All-cause mortality, period, is lower for for non-meat eaters. If I misunderstood the discussion between you and the other guy, my apologies.

The WHO even classifies processed meat as a group 1 carcinogenic. However much weight, you wish to give that, is another matter.

I'm not sure where you get off calling (if I'm assuming correctly here) 'us' (vegans in this thread), 'cultists', you're the one responding like someone touched your dick.

If anything, this shit show of a thread only demonstrates that vegans will always refuse to acknowledge that eating meat has any benefits. Why are you being so moralistic about whether a farmer kills a cow and uses her for hamburger meat?
Are you going to prevent predators from killing herbivores and "convert" them to your kale, soy, disgusting diet?
I love human beings are "evil" for eating meat, yet predators are still permitted to eat animals, kill and torture their prey.
Most vegans I have met will go through mental gymnastics to argue that humans are naturally vegetarian and eating meat was some kind of "corruption".
Fucking cultists.

Behold,

PURE EMOTION

I asked you to explain why my sources are wrong, you have yet to do.

Honestly the attitude of vegan e-celebs (as well as their zealous followers) and all the pictures of babby animals with faggot captions like "PLZ DONT KILL ME AND MY MUMMAY :🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀( Y ARE WE NOT WORTH JUST AS MUCH AS HUMANS U FUCKIN SPECIESIST" they use have turned me off veganism for good despite knowing the effects that the conventional method of meat production has on the environment, which would otherwise be the only reason I would choose to become a vegan. At this point, even if lab-grown meat becomes affordable and replaces real meat I'm gonna remain the only person who eats real meat.

You are correct. Natural selection will prevail. Capitalism will prevail at the end.

We're the ones advocating diets based on science rather than moralism, hear-say and self-referential bullshit.

But… you are the ones that aren't. You have dismiss heart disease and cancer rate studies, dismiss the better outcomes for vegetarians of all brands, and you have to ignore the recommendations by both the UN, WHO, and (if you're an ameriburger) the American College of Cardiology. (their president, Kim Williams, advises a vegan diet for heart disease prevention)

(I don't actually know if he's a vegan himself)

So…

All this butthurt is certainly not on the veggie side, here… it's a defensive (understandably so, don't get me wrong) reaction from people who aren't. Which is fine, whatever.

Sorry, but a veg based diet makes sense - from far too many different angles to ignore it. Does it mean you have to be one? No, for many it's understandably difficult. I'm not morally judging you, for fucks' sake.

If you want a moral or ethical argument, though, it gets even easier. I haven't made any, in this thread, but here you go: you don't need it (this is fact, you can ignore it but it is a fact - other than indirectly needing it like medication using certain compounds derived from animals, etc.), and the value equation is that of you preferring the taste of it over a life. (milk etc. do not fall into this category, speaking of meat strictly)

It changes, based on circumstance. Are you in a situation where it's the only reasonable option? Well, there you go. Now you need it.
You're the one positing that the opinion that you like the taste of something means that its entire life being ended is 'ok'.

In fact, the entire meat-eater argument is feels over reals.

You vegan faggots really grasp any straws you can find, don't you?

And, yes, people who are health-conscious are typically healthier than those who are not, and vegans and vegetarians are typically much more health conscious than the general population, but, as you should have learned in science class, correlation does not mean causation. There's no evidence to suggest that vegans are healthier than health-conscious people with a normal diet.

The problem is that you constantly moan and groan about people's personal choices, when even the science proposed here isn't "go vegan" but rather "adapt according to age, and generally eat less (especially red) meat and more veg".

You go on about veganism as if it's a surefire way to avoid heart disease and cancer. It's not. Your holier than thou, arrogant, cuntish attitude is extremely off putting and people might even resist a more veg based diet just in spite. You also come off as hysterical, and people tend to not take hysterical people seriously. So any risk of heart disease and cancer is unreasonable to you? Guess what, it's not for most people, people usually accept some risk. GET OVER IT.

As for ethics of killing animals: no point in discussing this.

As for ethics of meat industry, mistreating animals, emissions, and misuse of antibiotics: Most people on the left are likely to agree on these points, but the fact that they are discussing with people like you (arrogant and cuntish) makes them want to not agree.

I don't do any of those things.
The argument being posited here is that it's not "really" a healthier diet, when it is, and then the argument is "you're just making moral arguments", when nothing of a sort was made (at least not by me), and when that is addressed… it's back to this: "You act as if it's a surefire way to prevent disease and you're holier than thou attitude sucks!"

It's clear as fuck which "side" here is constantly on the defensive and using ('grasping at straws') any angle and tactic it can to completely put the very idea of what is being suggested (a plant based diet) out of their minds so they don't have to even think about it.

Even shit like this:

Studies on heart disease prevention (not a specialized diet for 'specific people') and cancer rates take these factors into account.

Any large sample study worth a damn considers things like 'hey, there are other factors involved here'.

Why exactly, is there no point in discussing this? If you need to, you have an argument, if you don't - then the only argument is that you like the taste of it.

The equation is a life of a living feeling being for something you enjoy the taste of. I did not bring this shit up, in my previous post I responded with a note of it, because it was being addressed.

But if you want to go down that route…

You have no argument. None. Feel free to try to bring one. Circumstantial arguements exist. (i.e you're living in the wild yourself, you're not capable of growing the said crops required, there is no larger infrastructure available to you other than large chain stores or fast food restaurants that almost solely within your price range sell meats, etc.) - and I don't deny them.

But some sort of ethics debate on the validity of killing an animal when there is no need, for your taste buds? I'd like to see you try.

I like the taste and see no problem killing animals to please my taste buds. Be it dogs, cows, fish, horse, whale, or whatever. Of course, considerations are to be made. There is no discussion. I have no problem with you not killing animals, and you can moralize all you want because it won't stop me from killing animals. Animals are not human. This all comes down to their level of self-awareness, understanding of what is going on, and so on. No point in discussing it.

Again:

So you accept some risk and realize a vegan diet won't completely remove risk (this has been implied in previous posts, maybe not by you). Good, it means you are not as retarded as I assumed. Maybe you are not the one who implied that even small amounts of meat is as dangerous as huge amounts, and that these risks are always huge as long as any amount of meat is consumed. A lot of people accept a higher risk. Some people drink alcohol, some even smoke, some go shooting without a filtration mask, some drive cars, some dive, some go rock climbing, some throw themselves of cliffs and antennas and planes, some sit still behind a computer all day long. I'd say most people are at least somewhat aware of the risks but continue despite them because they enjoy it.

When you go on and on about something as trivial (when you ignore a factor like the amounts consumed) as the dangers eating meat people tend to resent it and even reject it despite their better judgement. Honestly, I'd go as far as to think vegans are a main cause of the bacon fad, that it is a reaction to spite stereotypical arrogant vegans.

...