You don't have to torture and kill animals to get good gains

You don't have to torture and kill animals to get good gains

Other urls found in this thread:

eco-action.org/dt/roads.html
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/784788
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16219987
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6299329
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486478
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092700
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087975
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16188209
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12323090
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12323085
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21753065
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2756917
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1628441/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11043928
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3354491
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12748410
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613354
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873950
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Clarence is vegetarian, not vegan, and he hasn't always been vegetarian. Stop shitposting.

Why are you calling those men "boy"

lol you are wrong, he is vegan (for ethical reasons) just watch his latest Q&A videos

he explicitly details his exclusively vegan current diet in at least four of his latest videos

You're literally wrong and hilariously so.

how does it feel to be mentally handicapped?

>You don't have to torture and kill animals to get good gains
Well if I want to live in a house, not have my city infested by rats, wear clothes that don't cost 200$ per pair of socks, have electricity, have a computer and the internet, not die of pneumonia at age 40, drive a car or take public transport or own a bike - I have to make peace with the fact that all those things cause animals to suffer and die.

If I ate eggs and the occasional chicken+vegan diet, would I still have all the usual deficiencies vegans get? My backyard is large enough to raise chickens and modern farming techniques are really fucking unethical

>You're a powerlifter harry

Some suffering is unavoidable. Veganism seeks to eliminate the unnecessary suffering. Also, if you look at the scale of suffering, the suffering you do inflict by wearing woolen socks, eliminating rats etc pales in comparison to the suffering caused by the meat, egg, and dairy industry.

Its honestly a really bad argument to say because some suffering is unaviodable, there's no reason to eliminate undue suffering. I mean, really?

[citation needed]

what does that have to do with anything. are you referencing biomedical research? because thats been debunked sweatie :-)

Good thing things don't suffer as much as you claim.

Lemme guess, you watched Food Inc and are now a food activist?

>eating animals kills fewer of them than the simple act of living in modern society
the only way to be "cruelty free" is to kill yourself
>inb4 but you can at least try to minimize the suffering
even if non-faggots cared, the simple act of paying taxes causes the death of more animals than you could eat on a pure meat diet. good luck explaining that to the IRS.

natty omnivore > fraudulent vegan

What do you mean by "all the usual deficiencies vegans get"? Some vegans are low on vitamin B12 but supplements for that is cheap. Cattle is also enriched by B12 so it carries over to meat, which is why meat eaters arent deficient. Some vegans are low on Vitamin D3 but the body produces it naturally on exposure to sunlight, so D3 deficiency is mostly related to sunlight exposure (and not really diet-related).

Most soy/almond milks etc are fortified with these vitamins so its not really a problem tbf

I like eating dead animals and won't stop

he's vegan, watch his videos

>Eat crops
>Have to execute hundreds upon hundreds of birds with shotguns

Funny that when I destroyed your shitty argument, you have to revert to ad hominem attacks. And as a matter of fact, I have not watched Food Inc. Is it any good?

...

>having to modify your food to prove a point
Absolutely howling

>[citation needed]
eco-action.org/dt/roads.html
Here, and that's just roads. No roads = no civilization.

>are you referencing biomedical research? because thats been debunked sweatie :-)
[citation needed]

>Its honestly a really bad argument to say because some suffering is unaviodable, there's no reason to eliminate undue suffering. I mean, really?
By not buying sweatshop clothes and electronics, buying solar panels, moving to the countryside, eating only local food etc. - you can do far more to minimize suffering.

I have nothing against people who do that, but idiots who post on their iphone about how great their exoitc fruit salad tasted while wearing nikes, and then post about how they are so fucking saintly for being vegans - are utter and complete hypocrites and faggots.

>>having to modify your food to prove a point
>Absolutely howling

>forgetting that most non-vegan foods are also fortified with the same vitamins and minerals

btfo boy

>how dare you call me out on my bullshit
>y-your food is fortified too
Absolutely howling

how does it feel to be below a fucking CHICKEN?

faggot

>THINK OF THE ANIMALS

You sound like a pro diversity activist

Even plants laugh at you

If you claim my diet is deficient because it requires some fortification (but yours also require fortification) that nullify your point

>some are unavoidable
>sigh*
>well I decide what's necessary for human and what's not

Fuck off. To my standard you should tear down your house and everybody burn down the city we should all go back to ancient world where we don't hurt animals and environment

Ducking double standard unreasonable liberal fag

Ok, so because some suffering is unavoidable with modern life we should just say fuck it and accept all suffering.

Any action that causes LESS suffering is more moral compared to the action that causes the same or more suffering. This is also naturally proportional to the degree in which the undue suffering can be eliminated. Cell phones, computers etc are an integral part of existence in todays society but meat products are NOT.

Jesus christ dude

kill urselfvs

Take your own advice

You havent really proposed any good arguments against veganism, all you're really saying is that because your existence is dependent on inflicting some suffering onto animals, that legitimizes all suffering inflicted onto animals, and that includes the suffering that is completely unnessecary to live a healthy and prosperous life.

You see why you are wrong?

roid rage?

>if I make excuses and jump to conclusions I'm right
Absolutely howling

>Your diet requires fortified foods
>So does yours

wow good point bro

Which diet will keep you alive in the wild?

are you in the wild?

Prove what I'm eating is fortified
I'll wait lol

Why are you avoiding the question and attempting question deflection?

Funny how vegans ALWAYS gets stranded on a deserted island, or in the woods or wild or some other crappy scenario during discussions. Its like the last shitty argument they have hurr durr u cant survive in the wild, ur diet must be shit then, going to the supermarket to get ground up animals for food that was raised on factory farms must be okey dokey then

>Any action that causes LESS suffering is more moral compared to the action that causes the same or more suffering.

Not necessarily , there are three mechanisms of judging an action as "good":
>Hedonic
This clearly doesn't apply to this debate. If you don't eat meat because you don't enjoy it - fine.
>Utilitarian.
An action needs to be efficient in achieving a goal - as I pointed out veganism is far less effective at minimizing suffering than many other things. Just shopping only for local goods and foods has more of an effect. Contributing to corruption, explotation, polluting the seas and causing all manner of mayhem - so you can have a computer is only utilitarian if you are reasonably sure you will use it to end a huge portion of human suffering. Otherwise it's an hedonic choice.
>Moral absolutism
Black or white - let justice be done even if the heavens fall, as they say. If you subscribe to this then throw your computer/phone in the trash, burn down your house and move to the woods.

People mix and match all three all the time, you choose to be absolutist or hedonic about some stuff, I choose to be it about other stuff. But don't fucking tell me you're automatically better than me - you're not.

>You don't have to torture and kill animals
I don't, I let other people do it for me :^)

*autistic screeching*

And the elimination of the meat and dairy industry would cause domesticated animals to suffer to extinction, not to mention the environmental ramifications of converting to a scientifically optimal diet for the mass populace

I'm not avoiding it. You're not in the wild and it's a weak argument. Who wouldn't kill an animal to stay alive? But are you in a situation where you need to kill to stay alive, user?

>ignoring 2/3rds of the planet that kills their own food or go to the local butcher and dont have the luxury of supermarkets
First world problems

kys

>I'm not avoiding it
>I'm making excuses
Whoa!

To clarify:
>An action needs to be efficient in achieving a goal - as I pointed out veganism is far less effective at minimizing suffering than many other things
... that you could do just as REASONABLY as not eating meat and that you CHOOSE not to do.

>Who wouldn't kill an animal to stay alive?
You mean your diet isn't natural?
Shocked I tell you

I pretty much affirmed your argument, yet you accuse me of making excuses? For whom? For you?

>trains like a work horse eating meat and steroids
>stops eating meat for a few months
hehe look how strong vegans are XD

wtf are you talking about?

> An action needs to be efficient in achieving a goal - as I pointed out veganism is far less effective at minimizing suffering than many other things. Just shopping only for local goods and foods has more of an effect. Contributing to corruption, explotation, polluting the seas and causing all manner of mayhem - so you can have a computer is only utilitarian if you are reasonably sure you will use it to end a huge portion of human suffering. Otherwise it's an hedonic choice.

If the only thing you change is to move your diet to a vegan diet (but remain the same in all other aspects) you have indeed decreased suffering and increased pleasure as Bentham would have called it. As for J. S. Mill and his qualitative utilitarianism would also say that a society in which ethical values such as avoiding undue suffering has its own intrinsic value.

In the utilitarian perspective, veganism wins.

> Black or white - let justice be done even if the heavens fall, as they say. If you subscribe to this then throw your computer/phone in the trash, burn down your house and move to the woods.

Immanuel Kant argues in favor of natural law because humans have rationality. It is easy to understand this rationality as conciousness, ie it is immoral to perform actions that inflict external heteronomy onto the individual, and especially if the action cannot be generalized to law etc. Animals have conciousness so the idea supporting natural law would also apply to them; if you disagree and you state that they are too "dumb" to get rights, then what about a handicapped person? if he is a mental 3 year old (which is the same cognitive level as a grown pig) is it then moral to kill and eat him for food?

what's wrong with going to the local butcher?

*his been vegan over a year and have been breaking new pr's constantly

I didn't know Filthy Frank lifted.

>What do you mean by "all the usual deficiencies vegans get"?

Veganism causes b12 deficiency:

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/784788
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16219987

Veganism causes d3 and calcium deficiency:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6299329
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486478
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092700

Vegans are deficient in omega threes:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087975
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16188209
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12323090
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12323085

Vegans are deficit in carnitine:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21753065
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2756917
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1628441/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11043928

Vegans are deficient in taurine:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3354491

Vegans are deficient in iodine:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12748410
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613354

Vegans are deficient in Coenzyme Q10:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873950

>I pretty much affirmed your argument, yet you accuse me of making excuses?
Elaborate how it isn't a excuse
You avoiding the question and used question deflection
>For whom?
Yourself
>whom
Autism

Nigga didn't start vegan, he changed his diet about a couple of months ago. I wonder what he ate during that time to get most of his gains. Omnivore diets > meme diets

Nothing at all
But vegans think everyone gets their meat from the supermarket.

Rednecks and hillbillies are known for hunting and killing their food

Most of the third world have scarce/limited access to meat. Increased prosperity in third world countries increase meat consumption which again increases lifestyle diseases.

>Definitely not roids or genetics, its his vegan diet goy. Put down that chicken and buy my organic, gluten free, grass fed eggplants

>Most of the third world have scarce/limited access to meat.
Innuts, Amazon and African tribes prove you wrong.
And they are below third world

Yeah I'm sure you (and every other meat eater out there) hunt and kill your own food. Its not like your main source of meat is the factory farmed meat found at your closest super market. Nope. You hunt your own food.

Gimme a fucking break

>people live longer
>therefore more of them die of cancer and heart attack instead of non-age related inflictions
>this is the meat's fault

You might want to be vegan, but your vegetables do not. Plants need meat. Crops require manure and blood and bone to thrive. Flora has evolved for billions of years to coexist with the fauna that feeds on them by feeding back on the animals once they have died and are reclaimed by the soil.
Then humans came along and invented agriculture. We started selectively breeding crops to produce bigger and sweeter edibles, whether grain, leaf, fruit, or root. We bred freaks of nature to sustain our populations. But nothing comes from nothing. These freaks of nature that are greatly more nutritious to us have greater nutritional demands themselves. They put strain on the soil that could not be sustainable under a wild condition. What could by chance wander into them and shit or die at their feet and decay into the soil would still be insufficient to nourish them. They require human intervention. They require the procuring of plentiful carnal supplements.
We could stop eating animals, but we would still need to butcher them to feed our vegan diets. It makes no sense to do that when so much of the animal is perfectly, even superiorly in many aspects compared to plants, nutritious for us.

Oh, I'm sorry. When you said 2/3 and stuff like that I thought we were talking about whole populations? Or are we talking about about super adaptation in isolated tribes/communities? Make up your mind

>How dare you poke holes in my argument
>muh begging the question fallacy
>give me a break
Hmmm

I dont have to.. I just dont care about animals.

Elaborate why you're making that argument against veganism, retard. I'm not in a position where I'd have to make excuses.

>No U elaborate
Yep lol

>If the only thing you change is to move your diet to a vegan diet (but remain the same in all other aspects) you have indeed decreased suffering and increased pleasure as Bentham would have called it.
You assume that only action is an ethical choice, inaction is as much one. Resource allocation, monetay/physical/mental, is also an ethical choice.

>it is immoral to perform actions that inflict external heteronomy onto the individual
I would only agree if people and animals were by nature rational. Humans try from time to time, animals don't care.
>if you disagree and you state that they are too "dumb" to get rights, then what about a handicapped person? if he is a mental 3 year old (which is the same cognitive level as a grown pig) is it then moral to kill and eat him for food.
From an utilitarian perspective? Yes. The only reason we don't is because he reminds us too much of ourselves. Maintaining human sanity and conditioning empathy, from a purely psychological perspective, has it's value.

>Oh, I'm sorry. When you said 2/3 and stuff like that I thought we were talking about whole populations? Or are we talking about about super adaptation in isolated tribes/communities?
We are talking about how eating meat is natural

But on the topic of super adaptation tribes and community's
How come none are vegan?

fuck off, troll

>WOOOWWWWW
>HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN?
>this plant is bugged

>I would only agree if people and animals were by nature rational. Humans try from time to time, animals don't care.

Then you either havent read Kant or you havent understood him fully. Who are you referring to when you are talking about moral absolutism besides Kant?

> You assume that only action is an ethical choice, inaction is as much one. Resource allocation, monetay/physical/mental, is also an ethical choice.

Is buying vegetables instead of meat a specitic action, or is the avoidance of meat inaction?

Whatever you do that increased pleasure (like not buying meat so the demand for animals decrease) is more moral than not doing it.

>REEEEEE
Still waiting on that elaboration
Stop avoiding it

You don't HAVE to, I grant you that.

But some of us just don't give a shit.

>No Carlos pic
Disappointed

I think you missed the joke

There's more than 1 vegan in this thread. I'll see if I can give you an explanation.

You state (as an argument against veganism) that the diet wouldn't sustain you in the wild. Fair enough, that true. But it is only a valid point if you LIVE IN THE WILD.

Because all people (where I live) get their foods from stores and supermarkets, the "wild"-argument against veganism is weak because it has no relevance. you cannot say that veganism is flawed because it cannot sustain a man in the wild when most of the worlds population live in big cities and most meat comes from factory farming.

Your argument wasn't avoided, it was ignored because it is so incredibly shitty and bad.

That was a joke?
Boo! lame

I got a better one

Why didn't the lifeguard save the hippie?

Because he was too far out man

It was a reference.

Do some research on the guy in the picture.

What kind of country would America be if everyone drove a pink car?

A pink-car nation!

>There's more than 1 vegan in this thread.
Prove it

You state (as an argument against veganism) that the diet wouldn't sustain you in the wild. Fair enough, that true. But it is only a valid point if you LIVE IN THE WILD.
So you admit it isn't a natural diet?
Glad we agree

>Because all people (where I live) get their foods from stores and supermarkets, the "wild"-argument against veganism is weak because it has no relevance.
Prove it
>you cannot say that veganism is flawed because it cannot sustain a man in the wild when most of the worlds population live in big cities and most meat comes from factory farming.
Yes, you can
Because it isn't natural
If it wasn't the human body wouldn't be able to process meat
But going by you logic the same applies to Vegans that don't grow their own food and how most vegetables come from the supermarket.

>Your argument wasn't avoided, it was ignored because it is so incredibly shitty and bad.
That's a funny way of saying you are wrong and then admit you avoided my argument because it triggered you lol

>It was a reference.
>Do some research on the guy in the picture.
Nah

Why don't some couples go to the gym?

Because some relationships dont workout

>Then you either havent read Kant or you havent understood him fully.
Because I'm not allowed to disagree with Kant. He also isn't the only one to deal in this: for example the Suffi take on the concept of Niyyah is similar in his definition of good.

>Is buying vegetables instead of meat a specitic action, or is the avoidance of meat inaction?
I was talking about choosing to do any of the other things I listed that have more of an effect on the world or just even animal suffering.

>So you admit it isn't a natural diet?

What is a "natural diet"? Is cooked meat natural? Last time I checked, lions didnt eat cooked meat. But hey, if what happens in nature is the measuring stick for all that is correct maybe we should kill all the kids of our next girlfriends, because thats what lions do? Or maybe we should rape a lot because thats only natural right, I mean baboons rape a lot. They are natural. Rape must be natural then.

The natural-argument sucks because humans are capable of rational thought and technological advancements that makes "natural diets" obsolete.

> Prove it
> Prove it

Prove to me the easter bunny doesn't exist.

> If it wasn't the human body wouldn't be able to process meat

We are having troubles processing meat. What do you think atherosclerosis is? Jesus christ dude. Why doesn't lions have atherosclerosis? Because they are adapted to eating meat.

> That's a funny way of saying you are wrong and then admit you avoided my argument because it triggered you lol

I didnt get triggered, I felt like avoiding your argument since its so bad. But since you insisted I caved I guess.

Humans wouldnt have sharp teeth if we weren't evolved to be omnivores, we cooked our meat because we are smart and innovate and as a result can no longer eat it raw. Atherosclerosis seems to be a build up of fatty materials in the arteries, something thats not necessarily from eating meat, just fatty foods. Meat has fat in in it because it is from a animal and animals have fat in it. There are arguments for Veganism and eating meat, but really it all boils down to whether or not you care if some animal who isn't going to appreciate or notice that it isn't being nurtured to be slaughtered.

the guy on the right also has more FUNCTIONAL strength than that vegan harry potter

>superstar running back
>cucked into veganism by his GF a couple of years into his NFL career
>next couple years is plagued by injuries and poor performance
>retired in disgrace last year

Veganism. Not even once, lads.

>Humans wouldnt have sharp teeth if we weren't evolved to be omnivores

With the exception of rodents, rabbits, and pikas, nearly all mammals have canine teeth. In fact, several herbivores and primary plant-eaters have canine teeth such as hippos, gorillas, the saber toothed deer, gelada baboons, camels, the javelina. google them if you dont believe me.

> we cooked our meat because we are smart and innovate and as a result can no longer eat it raw

but isnt uncooked meat unnatural? or, is it ok to process our foods now and still call it natural? if your diet consists of raw vegetable (like raw veganism) isnt that MORE natural than your cooked meat? since that diet is more closer to nature?

> Atherosclerosis seems to be a build up of fatty materials in the arteries, something thats not necessarily from eating meat, just fatty foods

Only herbivores get atherosclerosis bro

> it all boils down to whether or not you care if some animal who isn't going to appreciate or notice that it isn't being nurtured to be slaughtered

Thats where human rationality and compassion intersect.

> Atherosclerosis seems to be a build up of fatty materials in the arteries, something thats not necessarily from eating meat, just fatty foods. Meat has fat in in it because it is from a animal and animals have fat in it.

From: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

> Is atherosclerosis a disease affecting all animals or only certain animals?
> Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.

Plants talk to me.

They're hurting. Please be concerted when walking on or cutting your grass.

Thank you.

By that reasoning, shouldn't you cut out meat? Since you have to feed plants to cattle, so you're essentially causing suffering to plants and cattle. If you only eat plants, you cut out the suffering of the cattle

every living organism is destroying earth.

t. indian blessed with ancient powers

Sounds like jain vegetarianism. They take it to the extreme, but they are also religious tbf

If everyone were vegan, domesticated cows would go extinct. I'm pro-cow; therefore, I'm anti-vegan.