What's your excuse?

What's your excuse?

Other urls found in this thread:

fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/broccoli?portionid=59022&portionamount=100.000
nap.edu/read/10490
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S/T3.expansion.html
news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/
worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf
i.imgur.com/uAREt8B.png
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

my excuse is that your picture is full of lies

>no leucine in broccoli
welcome to the land of nogainz
also, meat is delicious, so fuck yourself

the excuse it that you would have to eat a very very high volume of broccoli to get 100 calories compared to a bite of beef.

beef is far more calorie dense

1. Animal fats taste better
2. Meat increase test
3. Meat Protiens are more readily usable
4. Plats have feelings too
5. Plants understand they are being eaten
6. Theres violence in slaughtering a bunch of thriving plants for food

So your logic of not eating animals is??? What??? Its not Morally sound? But killing other living things for food is okay? Please explain.

either bait or truly retarded

either bait or truly retarded

Either you are autistic or you have nothing to contradict what was said. So you go to defense is, "its bait".

Plants have no nervous system, baka. You have no legitimate. I'm still hoping what you said is bait, because if not, you are actually retarded.

because I'd have to eat 4 kilograms of broccoli to get my daily protein

The only excuse you have is the first one, the rest are bullshit.

You're serious? That you dont understand that a nervous system does exist for plants. When plants are cut, bitten, damaged or whatever, it sends a bunch of chemicals as a response to either produce a sticky substance or to produce enzymes to start repairs. Its not actual nerves sending electric signals. Its just chemicals being passed by the plant. But none the less, the plant DOES respond to you cutting it, it DOES respond to you eating it. This is why lots of plants have natural defenses. Have you ever read a bio book thats outside of your middle school library?

Listen here dumbasses, amount per 100 calories, obviously the calories of the beef will be greater on one gram than the brocoly, so aprox the amount of calories in 10 gr of beef could be 100 while in the brocoly being 15 calories per 10 gr. That's the fallacy, they're using as reference calories instead gr, if we're talking about gr to get that amount of protein you've need to eat at least five times more broccoly than beef.

I'm not american, so shut up grammatical nazis

If you think killing a plant is any less offensive than killing an animal. Then you sir are a peice of poo in a loo.

Thought is was weird it was per 100 calories.
Looked up the nutritional value per 100 g for both, and i came to the same conclusion.

Listen you shitstain, the image clearly says. DO YOU REALLY NEED MEAT TO GET PROTEIN?

Plants have all the protein you need without the violence.

What you just said had nothing to do with the point of the post. So back up and calm your tits. Maybe read everything and not add questions that are not there.

DO YOU REALLY NEED TO BE SO UPSET TO MAKE YOUR POINT?
You sound like a retard, fuck off

>Plants have all the protein you need
everything has all the protein you need if you eat enough of it. there's a reason the pic is "per 100kcal". because plants have nearly no calories at all so that's the only way to make any of them seem high in protein density.

>there are 34 calories in 100 gram of broccoli
>hence to get 11.1 grams of protein you'd need to eat like 300 grams of broccoli

fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/broccoli?portionid=59022&portionamount=100.000

who the fuck even wants to eat that much broccoli

Cuz, theres this many types of cuts. Plants dont have different cuts and textures

vegetarian cuck spotted

Except he's right. Eating '100 calories' of broccoli is going to require you to eat a fucking bucket of the stuff.

Meanwhile, 100 calories of beef is maybe half of a small steak.

The two simply aren't equivalent.

I eat a 500g of steamed vegetables a day every day of which 100-200g is broccoli but it's more like a nice low calorie side dish to fill my stomach on a cut, I don't actually eat it for the macros.

Says that moron that doesn't contribute to the actual discussion other than ignorant remarks that have little to no information. Bravo.

Yes, i understand this. But thats not what the question was about. Now was it?

U mad? Lol

The question? "What's your excuse?" Yeah that is pretty relevant. I don't want to eat 4 kilos of broccoli a day and broccoli is even a relatively high protein vegetable compared to others.

100 calories of lean steak is a forkful. 100 calories of broccoli is a small deciduous forest.

The question was, do you really need meat to get protein?

Answer is, obviously NO.

Whats your excuse, is a follow up question. My answer (excuse) being plants are no more morally sound to kill for food than animals. So, just eat both.

Do you get it now?

>argue about the statement I've made but you should follow my rules and you must agree with me

RETARD

Oh my, its prett6 sad when you dont understand simple context of things.

Do you really need meat to get protein?
Plants have all the protein you need with none of the violence. Whats your excuse?
.
.
What don't you understand about this?

>4. Plats have feelings too
>5. Plants understand they are being eaten
>6. Theres violence in slaughtering a bunch of thriving plants for food

How fucking dare you assume plants don't feel pain like animals do.

A plant feels just as much pain as aim also do when they get harvested.

ALL LIFE MATTERS

>100g of broccoli, 3.7g protein
>100g of fillet steak, 21g protein

Please refer to It's not new knowledge, that plants can and do "feel" pain and respond accordingly to external stimulus. Its all chemically passed through the plant. But its been proven they infact to respond to cutting, damage, or stress in very specific ways.

This, where the fuck did they pull these numbers from kek

Nigger like I give a fuck.

So how long have you used the personal incredulity fallacy dude?
>u don't understand!! X5
>that's not the question X5

It must be painful to be so retard

Exactly. This is why you should just eat both. Morally it makes no sense not too.

This lol

>its pret66
There's no need to be upsed user

Oh boy, letme put this straight
YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND NOBODY CARES

Do you understand it moron?

Lol, who te fuck eat that shit for proteons?
Whey master race here

Yeah yeah yeah, still haven't seen you put any logic into your replies. Still waiting to see your oh so awesome response that actually makes sense with the question that was presented.
The fact you're so autistic you see the picture of broccoli you believe the entire thing is about broccoli vs beef. When its PLANTS vs MEAT. Its also not based off the gram to gram ratio. Its based off the calories to gram ratio. Which aslo changes alot. So stop being selectively ignorant and READ more.

You need a CDL to transport 100 calories of broccoli.

True. The per 100 calories is very misleading. You would have to eat like 2 plates of broccoli

That wasn't even my point, you still don't get it, listen carefully,
YOURE AND RETARD AND NOBODY CARES YOU VEGETARIAN KEK

Do you understand?

Let me put this into words you may actually understand.

You're an idiot IF You believe; that there is anything different between killing plants or animals, that that image was soley comparing broccoli to steak, that you think you calling anyone a moron means diddly when you can't even respond to a simple question presented by a infographic.

4SCOOPS CMON SON

You have to eat more than 1 whole bush of broccoli to get 100 calories

Plants may feel pain but they are not sentient, that's the keyword, "sentient". The pain is just a reaction, not an emotion.

Seems like you care quite alot. You must be so autistic that you can't even come up with anything more intelligent sounding than your belligerent spouts of idiotic insults.

Stop feeding the troll already

You think if i just stab your hand, you think you'd feel the emotion of pain? Or would you just "react" to the actual pain you feel?

Yes, yes, silverback gorillas are also vegetarians, but they eat something like 15 kilos of greens daily.

You just make me remember Harambe :'(

They are not vegetarian. They eat primarily plant matter yes. But they eat lots of bugs and small animals up to sizes of small monkeys as well. Its not seen all too often but it does happen. Even chimpanzee gather in groups of like 4 or 5 and hunt smaller monkey's to eat.

I eat both, whey too

Fixed that for you.
And by 'fixed' I mean I RUINED your shitty, used-up, worn-out, tired-ass troll-meme.

OP, as usual, is a fag.

Why not eat both in the same meal?!

Thanks

They don't have a central nervous system brah. And let's say that plants in fact do have deep emotional feelings and 'cry out' in pain like an animal does when its beaten, more agricultural produce is required to feed livestock, so more plants are 'hurt' to feed livestock if we don't abstain from meat.

Here we go, another retard takes the picture of broccoli and blows it out of proportion. The infographic is about plant proteins not only broccoli. Also it only asks if you need meat to get protein. Just cuz you see a picture of a thing doesn't meam thats whats being discussed. Its being used as a very small example of a bigger picture.

>being an omnivore

Kill yourself

And even THAT isn't the end of the story.

That's only 7.1g of shitty crap vegetable protein for almost NINE OUNCES of broccoli. If you ate enough broccoli to get ALL your protein, not only would you be deficient in aminos you NEED, but you'd be eating so many times more fiber than you need, your digestive system wouldn't be able to handle it; you'd be sick as a dog with diarrhea like you've never seen as your gut was totally overloaded. You'd never want to see broccoli ever again after that.

With the traditional Western diet, the average American consumes about double the protein her or his body needs. The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein for the average adult is 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. To find out your average individual need, simply perform the following calculation: Body weight (in pounds) x 0.36 = recommended protein intake (in grams) nap.edu/read/10490

However, even this value has a large margin of safety, and the body’s true need may be lower for most people. Protein needs are increased for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. In addition, needs are also higher for very active persons. As these groups require additional calories, increased protein needs can easily be met through larger intake of food consumed daily. An extra serving of legumes, tofu, meat substitutes, or other high protein sources can help meet needs that go beyond the current RDA.

Citations for my post: ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S/T3.expansion.html

You need 30kg of forage just to get back 1kg of meat from a cow.

C'mon guys, just eat them both

Could you possibly write anything that makes less sense or sounds more retaded? Not a totally rhetorical question, you can't be that fucktardedly stupid and still be able to use a computer and form complete (if nonsense) sentences, so you must be acting retarded on purpose; please try to write something even more retarded and senseless, I want to see how far you can go with this.

You didn't answer my question.

Also, you don't need a nervous system to "feel" pain. Pain is a term we use for over stimulated nerves. Plants dont have nerves, they have just plant cells and chemicals that are produced to tell the otger cells what to do depending on the stimulus of the plant cell thats affected. The response is a bit slower, but none the less, just as effective and responsive.

0 studies have found that plants are sentient beings that can subjectively experience reality, pain, and suffering. Plants don't have a brain, they don't have a nervous system, and they don't have nerve receptors that are required to feel pain. And it doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary perspective for plants to feel pain since they can't move. We feel pain because it makes it easy for us to avoid things that are harmful. But plants on the other hand can only stand still and they only need to have chemical reactions to external stimuli. That doesn't mean they're conscious and that doesn't mean they experience pain.

Are you aware that if humans are deficient in the amino acids that vegetable protein is deficient in for too long, they start to develop a cognitive deficit? Feeding developing children a vegetarian diet will cause their brains, among other things, to not develop properly. These are medical FACTS that you can look up. Soy is not the answer, either; many are allergic, and it's just not overall good for humans. We are omnivores; WE NEED MEAT IN OUR DIETS. You can deny it all you want but it does not change well-established and accepted medical and scientific facts. Your 'lifestyle choices' are not rational, either, and the cognitive deficit that you develop as a consequence of your 'lifestyle choice' just deepens your belief in your irrational choice of it.

>C'mon guys, just eat them both
WE ARE OMNIVORES; of COURSE we eat both. But anyone trying to tell you that you can be healthy and thrive on a vegetable-only diet is selling you a bill of goods. WE ARE OMNIVORES and there are severe health consequences in denying that.

And I am entertaining the notion that plants experience pain, fact is the meat industry requires lots of plants to feed the animals, by cutting out meat from our diet, less plants have to suffer in comparison to feeding plants to livestock.


"U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists"
news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

Listen, fucktard: WE NEED MEAT FOR COMPLETE, HIGH-QUALITY PROTEIN, aside from the other substances in meat that are highly beneficial, ESPECIALLY to someone who is strength training or bodybuilding. You can try to wish it away ALL YOU WANT, but it won't change the FACT that vegetable protein is INFERIOR and you will develop health problems due to amino acid deficiencies over time due to it, it is a FACT.

Seriously, are you purposely being ignorant? Cuz the information you posted with the image really had nothing to do with the image. By posting the "amended" version you just made the graphic harder to grasp. Just cuz you see a piece of broccoli doesn't mean thats what the entire image is about. Maybe read the question. The broccoli part is just a small example you moron. Its not supposed to be taken as a full replacement of meat. Its supposed to make you look for other sources than only meat for protein.

taste

The numbers presented have NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY and I CORRECTED THEM.

You must be the faggot OP, trying so desperately to defend your poor attempt at trolling using an old, outdated, deprecated troll image. Please kill yourself, you're an idiot.

Yes, but to compensate for the loss of meat and to replace it with plant counterparts would probably make it equal either way. So just eat both. Its how nature wants it.

I think you wanted to reply to another post but whatever.

>WE NEED MEAT IN OUR DIETS

No, a plant based diet is nutritionally sufficient senpai, its fine if you wanna eat meat but a well planned vegan diet will not have any deficiencies.

''It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.''
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

"Are you aware that if humans are deficient in the amino acids that vegetable protein is deficient in for too long, they start to develop a cognitive deficit? Feeding developing children a vegetarian diet will cause their brains, among other things, to not develop properly. These are medical FACTS that you can look up."

confirmation bias. back it up yourself, you can't actually seem to do that even. the american dietetic association says a vegan diet is suitable throughout all stages of life including childhood: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

"WE ARE OMNIVORES and there are severe health consequences in denying that."
funny because ive been vegan quite a while with no "health consequences" i've felt better actually. not to mention there are studies such as the adventist health proving that a vegan diet is ideal for human health. The adventist health study is comprised 22,434 men and 38,469 women from Seventh-Day Adventist church members across North America. The people of this church, despite their diet, are generally health conscious, that's why it's such a great study. And with the study we can see the 5-unit BMI difference between vegans and nonvegetarians indicates a substantial potential of vegetarianism/veganism to protect against obesity. In other words, the only group that is right in the middle of a healthy weight range is the vegan group following with the lacto-ovo-vegetarians, pesco-vegetarians, semi-vegetarians, and nonvegetarians. Increased conformity to vegetarian/vegan diets protected against risk of type 2 diabetes after lifestyle characteristics and BMI were taken into account. Pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets afforded intermediate protection
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

>its how nature wants it
Appeal to nature fallacy mate

And not really, it won't make it equal. A plant based diet would be more beneficial for the environment and as I have pointed out by citing the article, waste less plant produce which could otherwise be used to feed more poor people.


Carbon footprint of meat industry:
Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,564 million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf

i.imgur.com/uAREt8B.png

appeal to nature

Bullshit, plants reapond to external stimulus just as any living thing does. Plants have the ability to feel pain for survival, this is why they produce super sticky fluids to prevent you from further damaging them. Or they produce stuff like capsaicin to ward you off. Or what about when they are damaged by the wind? they start the chemical reaction to begin repairing the damaged part or to produce "scar" tissue over the damage to prevent infection or disease. You don't "need" a nervous system to detect stimulus.

Really? Beneficial for environment you say?

So what do you think would be done with the lack of land to produce all these new needed plants? Also in the amounts we would need to sustain the 9+ billion people on the planet would be outrageously unobtainable.

"Plants have the ability to feel pain for survival, this is why they produce super sticky fluids to prevent you from further damaging them. Or what about when they are damaged by the wind? they start the chemical reaction to begin repairing the damaged part or to produce "scar" tissue over the damage to prevent infection or disease."

"plants on the other hand can only stand still and they only need to have chemical reactions to external stimuli. That doesn't mean they're conscious and that doesn't mean they experience pain."

Either mentally disabled or just ignorant.

What do you think animals are fed? They're fed with the majority of the world's crops. And if all farms went to grazing pastures (which is practically impossible to begin with)? A significant amount of deforestation would be required to create new pastures

>what do you think would be done with the lack of land to produce all these new needed plants?

More land would be needed to contain livestock senpai, did you not see any citations I just posted about the environmental impacts of the meat industry?

i.imgur.com/uAREt8B.png , just look at the co2 emissions for meat on that graph as opposed to plants.

Big deal, what does standing still have to do with anything? That literally has no relevance to what you're trying to prove. Pain is just a stimulus that causes discomfort. Also, plants even have been know to communicate with one another through airborne chemicals. So to act like they cant feel just because they can't directly tell you they are in pain doesnt mean they dont experience it in some form.

"It doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary perspective for plants to feel pain since they can't move. We feel pain because it makes it easy for us to avoid things that are harmful. But plants on the other hand can only stand still and they only need to have chemical reactions to external stimuli. That doesn't mean they're conscious and that doesn't mean they experience pain."

Sad how much I have to repeat myself. The meat is getting to your brain, bud.

And again 0 studies have found that plants are sentient beings that can subjectively experience reality, pain, and suffering.

You are literally just in complete denial of science and ran out of fallacious arguments to eat meat. Infact this argument is incredibly fallacious.

This is why you need both. If we industrialized and made it indoor farming we could be able to save land and be able to grow the crops and livestock with very little impact on the environment. The only flaw is when money is involved with those things you get neglected animals and poor living environments also you have failures with quality. Damn you capitalism.

>per calorie
lol meme statistic

"If all farms went to grazing pastures (which is practically impossible to begin with)? A significant amount of deforestation would be required to create new pastures"

I don't think there is any sustainable way of breeding, raising, and murdering animals for consumption.

There is No need to be "conscious" (subjective) to feel pain.

All you need is a THING that responds to external stimulus and that THING responds with discomfort and sends signals/chemicals accordingly to the stimulus.

Since when are animals the only things that can "feel"? Also to say animals feel emotional pain is retarded. You cannot put a human only emotion and perception onto a non human thing.

You're essentially saving more lives by leaving plants alone in the wild allowing ecosystems to grow and what not than just killing one cow and feeding a village.

So how can you feel pain if you're insentient and unconscious? Are you saying people in comas can feel pain? If you're going to be in absolute denial of science there's no point in talking to you. They call a coma a vegetative state for a reason by the way.

"All you need is a THING that responds to external stimulus and that THING responds with discomfort and sends signals/chemicals accordingly to the stimulus."

And for the last time plants on the other hand can only stand still and they only need to have chemical reactions to external stimuli. That doesn't mean they're conscious and that doesn't mean they experience pain.

I'll give you an example. Your individual organs have chemical reactions, that doesn't mean they feel pain or have any experience of life like you do as a whole. A brain, a central nervous system, nerve receptors are absolutely necessary for you to be sentient and feel pain and whatnot. Plants lack those things

Really? Can't just make an indoor farm/ranch? Also you can build up instead of out so no need for deforestation. Since its indoors you can actually help slow the bs co2 emissions issue. The biggest part is going to be for the crops. Since they take up time and capitol. really livestock only need minimal space except for a free roaming area, which wouldn't be any larger or smaller than any normal pasture, just indoors. Industrial farms have worked well in the past, but the issue that has always made them fail is the fact money is involved.

If it's indoor, obviously it won't be grazing. So you'd have to feed the animals. How could that possibly be sustainable? You're basically filtering your nutrients through somebody else's body.

>shoot a guy in the head four times
>cut his arm
>blood flows
>hemostasis kicks in
>proved corpses feel pain
>get nobel prize

Just because our brain (the thing that makes decisions) is shut off and doesn't respond to the signals presented by our nerves, doesn't mean we dont feel the pain. Its means we are experiencing the pain, Or at least the nerves that are being stimulated are experiencing pain or and extreme discomfort which is still a part of you. Just because our subconscious or conscious brain are don't respond to move our bodies from a stimulus doesn't mean the nerves are not experiencing the discomfort still.

But, you can have indoor pastures. An Actual field of grass and whatnot, Just indoors. Which means year round growth and no weather damage done to the livestock or crops. They can definitely graze. Shit you could even have free roaming livestock.