He fell for the vegan meme

Wetas I presume. Or any related mole cricket.

Just look at this goofy bastard.

>insects are like so gross ewww
>proceeds to stuff herself with shrimps

...

...

Are you trolling or actually retarded?

...

are you dense

>he doesn't enjoy stuffing themselves with external estrogens

...

They could experience a different consciousness to us. There's no proof to support that but also no proof against it

...

...

THIS IS MY NIGHTMARE

...

where can i get this plant? i want to grow a dog

...

What the FUCK are these

Sorry user, I merely saved it from the internet, and do not have sauce as a consequence. :

This is one of the gayest threads I've seen in a while

Wetas or mole crickets.

...

one of the worst arguments for eating meat I've heard
>hurr durr I'm causing destruction either way, might as well eat meat

...

kek

Agreed, I'm not judging anyone who eats meat but at least admit that the sole reason you do that is because you don't give a Fuck about animals suffering for your food fix

Well known facts:
o Strict vegetarian diets cause a progressive cognitive deficit due to malnutrition (mainly amino acid deficiencies)
o 'Veganism' has nothing to do with optimal human nutrition and everything to do with placing animals above humans; the Vegan agenda couldn't care less if Humans thrive or not, and in fact would just as soon Humans died out.
o There are actual PhD's who are Vegan who will tell you that Veganism is not an appropriate diet for Humans.
o If you attempt to feed a growing child a strict vegetarian (as per Veganism) diet, they will not develop correctly, they will become sick, possibly die, and any doctor that discovers you're feeding a small child a strict vegetarian diet will tell you to stop, and if you don't will call the police and have you charged with child abuse. Documented.

..and finally:
o Veganism IS NOT A DIET. It is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE, and strict vegetarianism is one small PART of it. The rest is ensuring that you never buy or use ANYTHING that has even the most remote connection to an animal. If something was hauled to market by an animal, a Vegan won't be allowed to purchase or use those goods.

Veganism is bullshit. Stop posting Vegan threads, stop replying to Vegan threads, stop punishing your body by attempting to eat a strict vegetarian diet -- we're not evolved to eat that way WE ARE OMNIVORES.

/thread

...

why is insect protein isolate not a thing?

>you don't give a Fuck about animals suffering for your food fix
That's what it's like being at the top of the food chain. It's all natural, all good

How?

>we're not evolved to eat that way WE ARE OMNIVORES.

People don't realize that saying we're omnivores gives more support to vegans. It means we don't have strict dietary needs and that we have the choice to eat purely vegan.

Super kek

Are there less vegans than there are faggots?

Shrimp are not insects.

You should really read a book or even a magazine would do

they're mammals, like dolphins and sharks

Man that's a whole lot of misinformation. You from a 2nd world country or something?

The are fewer squares than rectangles

...

What, you don't think a Russian would be able to educate himself on Veganism, just as efficiently as yourself?

Quit fucking around. You obviously know nothing about inverts

>external estrogens
>press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>anabolicmen.com/fats-and-testosterone/
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is.html?m=1
>breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health
>authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/
>lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/veggie.html
>saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/
>rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
>deniseminger.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
>deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
>foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/
>deniseminger.com/the-china-study/
>Man that's a whole lot of misinformation.
Except he's pretty much right

A big list of barely pertinent, gimmicky blogs doesn't make a strong point, and certainly can't make your point FOR you. Express what you're trying to say and argue for yourself, don't just linkspam.

Keep telling yourself that. You may be strong in the flesh, but weak in the mind.

Read up on some philosophers and scholars like aristoteles

>A big list of barely pertinent, gimmicky blogs
>Not reading
>doesn't make a strong point and certainly can't make your point FOR you
it would if you read
>Express what you're trying to say and argue for yourself
I just did
>don't just linkspam.
I don't give a fuck if you think it's linkspam. Come back with an argument as to what my post actually is and what it says, rather than what you think it is and how you feel about it;or don't think you have any right to claim I haven't made point or haven't argued

First thing I noticed when reading about it, the number of things on our daily lives that have animal parts on it is ridiculous, nothing goes to waste.

Plastic
Glue
Fabric
Cosmetic creams
Medicine
Lab test material
Perfume
Shampoo
Sugar
Charcoal
Ceramics
Rubber
Petfood
Biodisel
Paint
Lubricants
Fireworks
The list just goes on and on and on, those are thing animals would still be killed for en masse even if everyone stopped eating meat.

It's unreadable. Someone says one thing and you spam 20 loosely related links that don't even seem to address what was said and expect people to sort through them to find what your counter-argument is supposed to be. That's not how a discussion works.

I've seen you do this in a lot of threads now. You never argue, you just throw down blogposts that have little to do with anything and pretend it makes a concrete case for whatever you're trying to say.

>It's unreadable.
Only if you literally can't read
>Someone says one thing and you spam 20 loosely related links that don't even seem to address what was said
It addresses it perfectly fine if you read
>and expect people to sort through them to find what your counter-argument is supposed to be.
Oh you mean actually actually read what I posted? Yeah I do expect that
>I've seen you do this in a lot of threads now.
And i still see you not reading what I posted
>You never argue
>this level of projection
Except I do
>you just throw down blogposts that have little to do with anything and pretend it makes a concrete case for whatever you're trying to say.
And you're bullshitting about what I posted again and still not reading

> placing animals above humans;
Animals suffer, things that suffer deserve rights.

>Vegan agenda couldn't care less if Humans thrive or not

lol wut

>Veganism is not an appropriate diet for Humans.

But utilizing CAFO's and consuming meat to the point of negative health effects and environmental externalities is ok

>feeding kids by vegan diet is bad

feeding them a lot of shit diets are bad

>Veganism is bullshit. Stop posting Vegan threads, stop replying to Vegan threads, stop punishing your body by attempting to eat a strict vegetarian diet -- we're not evolved to eat that way WE ARE OMNIVORES.

Ahhh, some Vegan chad fucked your girl

All products that do not need meat, and could be better off without animal byproducts gj

>things that suffer deserve rights.
why

ethics 101

careful with that edge

Why not?

Again, someone makes one point and your response is "here's 20 links that have little to do with what you said or even with each other, my argument might be within them somewhere if you would just take the day to read them"

It's the tactics of someone who isn't confidant in his own beliefs and can't argue one basic point, hoping to distract from the argument rather than respond to it.

>All products that do not need meat, and could be better off without animal byproducts gj
It's not about meat it's about the the other parts of the animals such as bone, leather and fat. All those products are produced and bought in such a high quantity that animals would still be killed for and.

And actually many of the things I cited specifically need animal parts to be produced.

C. Cyaneopubescens?

> All those products are produced and bought in such a high quantity that animals would still be killed for and.

You got that backwards. The reason we use animal products to make so many things is because we eat so much meat. The waste has to go somewhere. Nobody would raise cattle for the purpose of refining sugar, but if you have billions of dead cows' worth of bones and bones can be used in sugar refining, you use it.

>What are treadmills of consumption

No, these animals dont need to be mass produced for these byproducts, nor can the land reasonably support all of it

We explicitly use more animals than we need to to justify these ends

gryllotalpa gryllotalpa

>not explaining why "if something has senses it needs rights"

achieveable natty ?

>Nobody would raise cattle for the purpose of refining sugar, but if you have billions of dead cows' worth of bones and bones can be used in sugar refining, you use it.
It's not simply cow, it's the fact that their parts are used in so many different things that it's extremely lucrative to raise them for it, even if you don't take into account their meat.

>this sheep has the right to life because dying is spooky, therefore no wolves are allowed to eat it BUT the wolf also has the right to life so we have to destroy the natural order of things and figure out how to refine dirt into steak for those wild puppers

just because you are alive doesn't mean you deserve rights.

>We explicitly use more animals than we need to to justify these ends
Yeah come up with a source for that claim, because I can't really see how you decided the standard of "more than we need" for this.

>it's the fact that their parts are used in so many different things that it's extremely lucrative to raise them for it

The only example I can think of is maybe leather, and leather obviously has a synthetic alternative. What other industry would raise their own cattle for non-meat parts?

>synthetic alternative
Which doesn't work like the natural one, c'mon I don't have to say this.
>What other industry would raise their own cattle for non-meat parts?
That's not how raising cattle works, the industry of farming is not the same industry of food for example.

A farmer raises his cattle, and would do so even if nobody ate meat anymore because many industries would still buy all the other parts.

>I dont need to do your basic research, but this is well supported and accepted across the planet. As an introduction to why we can't consume without limits:
footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/

We've taken so many steps to segment "wilderness" that it is our responsibility to limit this "suffering".

Conversationist vs preservationists dilemma etc.

Basically, we DO step in and manage animals, we do take animals, we have too - our systems and structures have limited nature so much that we actually have to manage animals - the wolf can eat its meat; but this does not justify our mass production of meat.

>the wolf can eat its meat; but this does not justify our mass production of meat.
so you have no problem with people that buy half a cow and eat it for the whole year, or people that hunt for their own meat?

>Which doesn't work like the natural one

In what way does leather "work" that faux leather, which is already widely used, doesn't "work"?

Would farmers really continue raising hundreds of millions of heads of cattle yearly if it wasn't for food demand? That doesn't sound likely at all. What else would demand that, especially when alternatives exist?

cause insects don't sell.

That's not how justification works, the amount of how much we "need" is not the same as the amount of how much the planet "supports".

Besides that calculator is pretty sketchy.

So vegans just eat plants because something has to feed them and it has to be something they don't empathize with?

Oh so just because plants don't have eyes and aren't constantly animated by electrical impulses and muscle reflexes they can be eaten now? Oh look at us, we think plants are dumb so we're going to eat plants. Fucking savages. They [i]purposefully[/i] look for something that is hard for humans to empathize with so they don't have to do any emotional processing. You know who else avoided emotional processing? NAZIS.

If you want to improve the quality of animal life how about forming a guerrilla group and raiding McDonald's factories to free them? Instead they avoid food and act like everybody else is morally inferior. fucking. hypocrites.

>We've taken so many steps to segment "wilderness" that it is our responsibility to limit this "suffering".
>Conversationist vs preservationists dilemma etc.

also, none of this explains why things deserve rights for having senses.

The message im getting at is sustainability,

Suffering is natural, but we can limit it.

Go hunt while you can, and if you have too, and if its beneficial to your ecosystem.

>In what way does leather "work" that faux leather, which is already widely used, doesn't "work"?
For clothes for example, it doesn't allow the skin to breathe like normal leather would, and some people have allergic with either fake leather or the real one.

>Would farmers really continue raising hundreds of millions of heads of cattle yearly if it wasn't for food demand?
Yes, they'd simply find another lucrative way to use the meat, probably on the production of coal.
>What else would demand that, especially when alternatives exist?
Those alternatives don't have an infrastructure built to supply the already in place industries, those alternatives also do not have the same availability of meat, meaning that the price would increase a lot.

Only because the richfags involved in the meat industry don't want people to stop buying expensive beef and chicken. Same reason why they just made hemp schedule 1

Bunny

*protein

its both

>enjoying meth in moderation

I would respect anybody with the ability to do hard drugs in moderation

but I would question his reasons for doing them in the first place

Looks tasty.

is this fit?

...

>Again, someone makes one point and your response is "here's 20 links that have little to do with what you said or even with each other, my argument might be within them somewhere if you would just take the day to read them"
>little to do with what you said or even with each other
Now I'm really starting to think you didn't even take at what I posted before responding
>It's the tactics of someone who isn't confidant in his own beliefs and can't argue one basic point, hoping to distract from the argument rather than respond to it.
And your tactics are those of someone who doesn't read my post. If you want me to spell out it then look at my first response read what I posted and explain where exactly those "external estrogens" are supposed to come from when meat, animal products and fats have been scientifically proven to increase testosterone. Where the hell did "external estrogens" even come from when comparing
>he fell for the vegan meme
>he doesn't enjoy everything in moderation
>he doesn't enjoy stuffing themselves with external estrogens
or even when referencing OPs pick, insects? Which have also been proven to be great sources of protein? And saying were omnivores gives more support to vegans? . If anything it gives more support to regular omnivores that include meat in their diet since, and like what's talked about in my post; meat eating has been in our diet for about as long as humans have been around. The fact that we have a choice merely means exactly that you can just choose what to eat. Us being omnivores is merely a scientific fact, it doesn't give credence to excluding certain food from your diet and doesn't proove doing so is better than including animal products
And please tell me your not equating animal products to drugs

You can eat bivalves. Most probably don't experience any more pain than plants do.

Any risk of mercury poisoning?

lol i know this is trolling or just a malnourished vegan whose body has turned to his brain for nutrition but in ethics the first thing you learn about rights is that they only apply within a system. Systems of society to be exact. Last i checked an animal doesnt offer any service or contribution besides its physical body. There are no benefits of sheep thoughts or their labor.

Dogwood forest. It's bark is worse than it's bite.

You should be safe for a couple meals a week.
Because food safety laws aimed at keeping grains from being contaminated set legal guidelines for how much bug there can be in commercial food, and the answer is significantly less than "all of it".
I eat meat because it is delicious and I enjoy it

90% of the meat in my diet originated within 30 miles of where I live, however, so my beef is lower impact than things like bell peppers in mid winter though.

this desu
how is "taking a stand" against the meat industry for bad practices better than supporting free range farmers

Holy shit. This is actually really high quality bait. Props.