“A human body in no way resembles those that were born for ravenousness; it hath no hawk’s bill, no sharp talon...

Yes, fish fats are fat

Here's something to jog your nog

Why is the assumption with these things that meat is eaten for sustenance and nothing else? Yeah, I could eat a fuckload of beans and lentils or alternatively I could have a steak purely because it's more enjoyable/tasty to eat than half a kilo of pulses

If you spend your days worrying about how much Vit D, etc. you have in your diet then you aren't following a healthy lifestyle - taking supplements means that you are having to shore that lifestyle up in order to keep from dying

I don't even care that much (I tend to only have meat 2-3 days a week) but still fuck this and fuck that

because maybe a decent number of people are dying in their 50s because of their diet choices, and if your answer to that is 'i dont want to live forever anyway, let me enjoy my steak', then thats fine, but can you comprehend if not everyone felt that way?

I'd like to see him cultivate a field without using tools. Or scavenge enough every day to support his caloric expenditure. And there's similar amounts of preparatory work that goes into making meals with vegetables and you'll still not get all the amino acids you need to function properly.

I'm just saying that health is something that seems to preoccupy veganism/vegetarianism a great deal whilst at the same time supporting a lifestyle that is itself as unhealthy and unsustainable as chomping down meat every day if supplements are taken (which they are for a good deal of veggie adherents)

I just don't like the weird conviction of "THIS IS HEALTHY AND NATURAL" when it flies in the face of logic, but if people want to do it then that's cool as long as it's not putting others out

>A human body is ravenousness incarnate; it hath no hawk’s bill, but a nose that adds pleasure to devouring; no sharp talon, but hands that will scour the earth for objects to wield to access what it pleases; no roughness of teeth, but the skills of cookery to make eating no chore; and such a strength of stomach and heat of digestion, as can be sufficient to convert 50 hog dogs in one sitting into shit.

>But if you will contend that you were born to an inclination to such food as you have now a mind to eat, do you then yourself kill what you would eat.

Is it in season? Is it young and so still tender?

>But do it yourself, without the help of a chopping-knife, mallet or axe, as wolves, bears, and lions do, who kill and eat at once. Rend an ox with thy teeth, worry a hog with thy mouth, tear a lamb or a hare in pieces, and fall on and eat it alive as they do.

I don't like the texture of struggling prey.

>But if thou had rather stay until what thou eat is to become dead, and if thou art loath to force a soul out of its body, why then dost thou against nature eat an animate thing? There is nobody that is willing to eat even a lifeless and a dead thing even as it is; so they boil it, and roast it, and alter it by fire and medicines, as it were, changing and quenching the slaughtered gore with thousands of sweet sauces, that the palate being thereby deceived may admit of such uncouth fare.”

Tell me again about these sweet sauces.

>Was Plutarch right? Do you guys eat meat? What do you guys think of veganism and vegetarianism? Any books on the subject?

There is much fascinating history on eating as well as speculation on why we cook and why even we eat meat.

Did we develop in the manner that we did because some apes prospered and adapted better than others from doing so and this lead to the development of a large brain? It's hard to deny the benefits of meat eating, but it's also hard to deny that veganism has a strange history as well. The security of agrarian societies and the need to organise and plan could be shown to have led to healthier societies, but I'd be surprised if you could produce another human species with a vegetarian diet. Along with some robustly sourced proteins, it seems like a good diet to feed those at the back of the train.

>a lifestyle that is itself as unhealthy and unsustainable as chomping down meat every day if supplements are taken (which they are for a good deal of veggie adherents)
I would disagree, the only supplement needed is B12 which is also found in a lot of meat alternatives and soy products.

Also I do think that vegans and vegetarians make have a strong ethical and environmental argument against lowering our consumption of meat.

>vegetarians are LITERALLY soyboys
top cuck

>"Since I have begun to confide to you, with what exceeding ardour I approached the study of philosophy in my youth, I shall not be ashamed to confess the affection with which Sotion [his preceptor] inspired me for the teaching of Pythagoras. He was wont to instruct me on what grounds he himself, and after him, Sextius. had determined to abstain from the flesh of animals. Each had a different reason, but the reason in both instances was a grand one. Sotion held that man could find a sufficiency of nourishment without blood-shedding, and that cruelty became habitual when once the practice of butchering was applied to the gratification of the appetite. He was wont to add that it is our bounden duty to limit the materials of luxury : that moreover a variety of foods is injurious to health, and not natural to our bodies. If these maxims are true: then to abstain from the flesh of animals is to encourage and foster innocence; if ill-founded. at least they teach us frugality and simplicity of living. And what loss have you in losing your cruelty? I merely deprive you of the food of lions and vultures." -Seneca, Letters From a Stoic
I'm not a vegetarian though

meat is like oil or nuclear compared to veggies solar

soyboy is LITERALLY a bigdairy marketing scheme

Their argument fails to consider the human race in the same manner as it does cows. You want to save the environment by reducing meat consumption than stop the world from breeding meat eaters. And yes that is as ridiculous as is the notion that if we all become vegans that we'll not still continue to overpopulate the earth. You can not make a environmental argument for reducing meat consumption that results in less degradation of the earth over time. And in fact, I won't be the first or last to call you out on using that argument as means to paint a virtuous veneer over cracked and weathered surface. Best stick to the ethical argument. Though even then you're just ignorantly allying with anti-abortionists in the defence of an insignificance.

Eat and be merry. Or else.

Overpopulation is a big issue indeed, but if you lower the environmental impact the overall population has on the planet you can sustain our current population growth and gives us more leeway with dealing on this issue.
>that results in less degradation of the earth over time.
Why is that?

cows produce methane gas from their farts

BBBBRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

You're switching one noxious animal for another. You are also inadvertently claiming that human environmental impact will always have a level as it does now, but you can't be certain of what impact each human will have in the future unless you are talking about enforcing rule to how we live and what we eat. You are in fact hoping to paint a picture of the future as a fenced in green meadow in which the herd can graze on.

This is a cultural war. You hold nothing on the end of your stick. Humanity is not good in and of itself. It is good by and because of its place in nature, and it's end is inevitable. To let the world populate more and more by your method is to pass on an exponentially mass suffering to future generations. That doing nothing is worse is a matter of debate. And some people have a lot of time.

More efficient and far larger quantities of energy?

Are you really just putting together that the term "soyboy" comes from insulting people who have a high intake of soy, AKA vegetarians and vegans?

what are you talking about? Either the environment can be damaged enough to severely negatively effect the future world population or it cannot, if it can, it would be smart to not let it

lol, when I wrote that I didnt even think it could be interpreted as the way you did, I meant it as the way you said

What a retarded statement. Your damaging the environment more with a meat heavy diet. This will not change in the future unless we switch over to some replacements. China for example is spending millions into developing lab-grown meat. Also you talk about not being able to make accurate predictions of the future then contradict it by doing it yourself. Your pessimistic outlook on the future might be shared by some but it doesn't justify the actions of meat eating in the present.

>I have to eat 14 potatos a day to get my protein

Ah yes. If you're dead, you won't eat meat.

dumbass

>cooking food makes it easier to digest
>this is evidence that we shouldn't eat cooked food

I officially retract every criticism I have ever leveled at Diogenes if this is the sort of nonsense he went insane dealing with.

We're not unhealthy though; we don't need to take supplements; we eat tastier food. Most meat eaters don't know what variety and flavour are since most meals they eat are centred round a handful of bland meat foods.

Hey Plutarch buddy,
when the monkeys figured out they could use rocks as tools are extensions of themselves to easier open nuts were you criticizing them?

I wasn't the one who figured out how to use fire or tools that other men created but I as we all did inherited them from humanity as a whole and use these tools to save time so we aren't living in caves and so we can develop things like you know, art, music oh and yeah the fucking language you are using to fucking question me with right now you dumb cunt fucking clown, go live in a cave no-one gives a fuck.