Does /fit hate raw food veganism...

I just don't like people who claim moral superiority from their fucking diet

Stop eating raw food.

If your diet involves stabbing animals in the neck and their diet doesn't then they do have moral superiority in that regard

>implying morality is objective

Rights don't exist. Checkmate.

>mortality is subjective, it's different for everyone
>oh? what's your morality based on?
>do whatever I want and fuck everyone else hehehe

So profound

>mortality is subjective

Cooking and eating meat to unlock the complex proteins is literally what brought us out of caves and into cities, veganism is pathetic and you are an insult to your limp wristed bloodline

Clean your room

that appeal to nature fallacy

>animals don't kill eachother

either explain what's fallacious about it or kys

You can believe whatever you want to believe
Cows and chickens do.

Appeal to nature. An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

I think it's a great thing and I respect people who stick to that. I mostly care about the health aspect of food so I would never do it. Cooking has been a huge milestone in human evolution for a reason.

... and in this case, it's true. eating in a way that contradicts millions of years of evolution is idiotic.

Still far superior to the standard western diet and most other diets if done right (meaning B12 supps and caring about a few other nutrients like iodine etc).

>what did he mean by this?

Humans are never going to evolve any further. Evolution is natural selection. Natural selection happens when an individual with an undesirable trait fails to pass on their genes. This will no longer ever happen again because doctors help everyone survive and pass on their genes, as evident by the humongous growth of the worldwide population following the advances in modern medicine and the industrial revolution. The only way humans might evolve from now on is genetic modification, which is completely unrelated to what we eat.
And even if the contradiction you mentioned was really a contradiction, what makes it idiotic? Humans needed meat and cooked food to increase digestibility and calorie consumption. Neither of the two is an issue that modern cuisine, vegan or not, hasn't taken care of already.

Tldr you are an idiot

i think you have a poor understanding of evolutionary biology, nutrition, and most of all debate

I acknowledge the benefits of veganism but I like meat too much to make the change.

>I acknowledge the benefits of having a normal weight but I like hot pockets and Dr. Pepper too much so I'll keep being an obese fuck

Not even him but projecting much?

The norm in a relative sense, as in what they think should be the norm

No, I am a vegan with a normal body. Just pointing out the flaw in the logic

There was no logic, just him saying he likes meat too much to change to a healthier diet.

I don't think meat is inherently bad, there's nothing wrong with eating it occasionally, same with dairy products. I know the age old argument "you could have eaten healthy veggies instead" but you can still easily hit all of those nutrients.

>I don't think meat is inherently bad
You should think it though
>there's nothing wrong with eating it occasionally
Except you raise your cholesterol, you consume way too much food and water (second hand) which is just wasteful and produce way too much CO2 and CH4, while at the same time torturing and killing someone
> same with dairy products.
Same as above
>I know the age old argument "you could have eaten healthy veggies instead"
Then why just not eat the veggies

The DASH diet has some of the best results health wise and it allows some meat/dairy. I eat even less than that, I severely doubt it will ever have a significant effect on my LDL levels. And that torturing/killing shit is pretty stupid, separate nutrition from ideology here.

>And that torturing/killing shit is pretty stupid, separate nutrition from ideology here.
1) why
2) Contradiction. You stated that according to your ideology worrying about a non-human's torture and death is trivial.
3) nice dodge on the environmental aspect of veganism

You cherry-picking, semantic-twisting friend.

Too lazy to address everything, raising animals for their meat is not inherently unethical. I'm not talking about feedlots, force-fed cows and caged chickens. If you disagree that's fine but that has nothing to do with health that's just ideology and I said that shit doesn't matter. We're talking about health benefits here and you failed to address that. Same with the envoíronmental aspect, not the fucking topic here.

>You cherry-picking
I did not cherrypick anything
>semantic-twisting
I did not twist anything, I am giving you outside perspective
>friend.
Thank god that's metaphorical, you're insufferable
>Too lazy to address everything
K
>raising animals for their meat is not inherently unethical
Ideology. Also, repeating it again and again like a 3 tear old throwing a "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" tantrum doesn't make it true
> I'm not talking about feedlots, force-fed cows and caged chickens
99% of the meat you purchase from the grocery store or a steakhouse is like that though
> That has nothing to do with health
True but I did make a health point
>that's just ideology and I said that shit doesn't matter
Again, that's your ideology
>We're talking about health benefits here
Who is "we"? Did you read the OP?
>and you failed to address that
No, you failed to read (tldr cholesterol) and You also failed to read the OP which does not restrict the allowed answers to nutrition/health
> Same with the envoíronmental aspect, not the fucking topic here
Don't be so mad that your diet is inherently bad

Wat I answered all of those posts and you yourself are admitting most of what you said is ideology based and not strinctly health related. You're the one who picked the idology angle instead of the health angle. Calling me insufferable, how ironic. I usually like to defend veganism but you're exactly the the obnoxious ad-hominem spitting person everybody hates.

No thanks, I have better things to do than read your incoherent bullshit and inability to argue points.

Blue pill: the post

...

...

This is so hilariously wrong

i hate this layout so fucking much

I oppose the political agenda of veganism/vegetarianism, but I don't give a fuck if someone wants to follow a different diet for whatever reason.

giving a fuck about animal rights is beta behavior and part of the cuck mindset.

if you dont even have the balls to justify killing your food, you're a pathetic excuse for a man.

Does that make carnivore meat okay to eat then, fuckface?

>raw food veganism
Humans have evolved to cook shit, it is one of the main factors that contributed to our increased intelligence.
>animal rights
They don't exist. Unless you are trying to say that a universal moral law exists, I have no obligation to feel empathy for anything, much less a literal fucking animal. Hunting sustained my ancestors, meat is rich in protein like literally no other food, and it tastes good. Just cause something can squeal or cry doesn't mean we can't kill it. Grow a ballsack OP.

who cares if you said that it doesnt matter? Thats exactly why you are being called immoral. People generally believe life is sacred, whether or not it is or isn't. But you just claiming that it doesn't matter is retarded.

Im sure you're the pinnacle of masculinity user

The whole fucking point is that it's ideology based and it's a claim that the ideology of farming animals for meat is inherently wrong. Are you actually this retarded?

Provide citation or fuck off.

>this disagrees with my political agenda, so it must be wrong

I'm telling him to not involve the "YOU'RE AN IMMORAL BASTARD" ideology and focus on health benefits, which he utterly failed to do. Forcing your dieology onto others is why veganism has such a bad reputation. Hence why I would never ever call myself vegan, plant-based is way better and positive. This is Veeky Forums not /an/.

That whole vegan infighting and shaming against "dietary vegans" is so utterly retarded. You better live autarchic then because there is always another line of less harmful. You are just pushing your arbitrarily set line.

while what you are saying about us not evolving anymore based on what we eat makes sense, the issue isn't about us further evolving. If we evolved specifically on meat, wouldn't it make the most sense that that is what is best for us as a species (im not claiming that this is the case, as it's likely that we evolved due to the ability to cook and consume starches, which is a valid argument against raw veganism). Its not even refutable that if we were built specifically to consume certain things, that that would be what we should keep consuming.

Provide it in text format and I will refute every single point
CBF to write paragraphs upon paragraphs to educate someone who doesn't want to
>Showing compassion, dodging cholesterol and carcinogens and improving my carbon and water footprint is an evil agenda
Ok
>I have no obligation to feel empathy for anything, much less a literal fucking animal
True, but the strong should protect and help the weak
>. Hunting sustained my ancestors
Irrelevant
>, meat is rich in protein like literally no other food
Seitan
>and it tastes good.
Learn to cook
> Just cause something can squeal or cry doesn't mean we can't kill it
Just because it tastes good doesn't mean it should
>Grow a ballsack OP.
Epic>m telling him to not involve the "YOU'RE AN IMMORAL BASTARD" ideology
Why should I listen to you, who are you? Also, I'm on topic, read the OP. Just because it triggers you doesn't mean it's false
> and focus on health benefits, which he utterly failed to do
I tldr-ed it into ONE WORD and you failed to read it
> Forcing your dieology onto others is why veganism has such a bad reputation.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, you entered the thread yourself. If you need a safe space where there are no mean people that will trigger you, go to tumblr or reddit
>Hence why I would never ever call myself vegan, plant-based is way better and positive
True
> This is Veeky Forums not /an/.
Having a healthy heart is Veeky Forums
>That whole vegan infighting and shaming against "dietary vegans" is so utterly retarded.
True but irrelevant
> You better live autarchic then because there is always another line of less harmful.
If you aren't doing a single thing to be less harmful, why post that?

>I tldr-ed it into ONE WORD and you failed to read it
I guess you don't know what LDL is in that case. Haha, into the trash with your posts. Also your typing is autistic as fuck.

No, Im asking you to provide a citation proving that "hilariously wrong".

I see your point. We also evolved to die at 45 though. We certainly didn't evolve to pop blood pressure and cholesterol pills from 45 years old ;)

It isn't about health benefits. Veganism for people is heavily about the morality. You can't seperate the two things.

I don't hate someone who knows all of the I formation and doesn't talk a lot of shit about how proud of themselves they are for going vegan.

The first problem I have with veganism is that vegans and other animals rights activists create these click bait style sympathy videos filled with half truths to try to recruit people on their side. They also make up dumbass claims like "meat causes cancer" and so on when this is not the case.

The second problem I have with vegans is the same one everyone else has with them, the smug attitude about how good of a person they are for going vegan. Can I just get through a meal without you talking about how vegan you are? Fuck. you already ordered your salad it doesn't need to be brought up again.

>the strong should protect and help the weak

Im not disagreeing with you on any of it. It's an argument against raw food veganism. As I recall, it's pretty much proven that humans can't thrive on all raw food. With the example being that it's been shown that women stop menstruating on an all raw diet. Either way, it's far more likely that cooking starches was the biggest thing for our development. And it's also far more about diversity of food eaten. we wouldnt have just eaten some veg and some nuts and shit. we had to eat an insane amount of different nuts, vegetables, legumes and whatnot because we weren't sedentary. So even if veganism is the best thing, the variety is still very difficult to attain.

Not for everybody and veganism as a movement won't grow on ideology alone. People just don't give a fuck and I specifically asked about the health angle without the moral-club. Also if you ask 10 vegans what veganism means to them you will get 10 different answers.

One calorie of meat requires more than one calorie of grains and soy to grow, hence more "muh brown worker exploitation". I assume that you don't need a citation for that. If you agree, you see yourself how it is wrong. If you don't, you are not worth arguing against.
Also I don't have a problem with poor meat eaters in food deserts, although if I was poor I'd be eating pasta, lentils, pb, rice and beans all day because they are cheapest $/calorie and harder to perish
>I guess you don't know what LDL is in that case
Wow, a man of science. Please educate me on what ldl is and how it makes meat consumption necessary. I will latch on the flimsiest excuse to get back to eating corpse.
>Haha, into the trash with your posts
Haha I won !!!11!1!1!11!!!eleven1!!
>Also your typing is autistic as fuck.
Ad hominem too
You are either 15 or uneducated. Either way, extremely immature. I feel bad for wasting my time on you.

Oh I see, misunderstanding. I'm too, I'm against raw veganism.

>talks about cholesterol
>doesn't know LDL and HDL
Wew no wonder you immediately went to moral bashing. Well thanks for the laugh.
!!!!!!111!!11!!!11

And once again incredibly ironic you're calling me uneducated and immature.

I disagree on getting 10 different answers. Id bet most would say cruelty free and its healthier whether or not they have reason to believe either. Im also not saying veganism is right or wrong. Im just trying to clarify arguments between two parties. I dont believe that raw food veganism is viable from a health standpoint, but i also think that people far underestimate how important the variety of fruits, veg, nuts and legumes were to our development as a species. Our ancestors were eating hundreds of different species of plants on a regular basis. Even if we can thrive on veganism, we can't thrive on current infrastructure for veganism without supplements, and even with them, likely still far less effectively.

>They also make up dumbass claims like "meat causes cancer" and so on when this is not the case.

>who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

>WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

>7. RED MEAT was classified as Group 2A, PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC to humans. What does this mean exactly?

>In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as STRONG MECHANISTIC EVIDENCE

>Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

>What is sarcasm
>Still no answer on what makes meat necessary

>Political agenda
It's an ethical issue

Im not agreeing or disagreeing on any points. I think that exploitation is wrong on all fronts, but as i have said and in other things, current infrastructure doesn't allow for the huge variety that from an evolutionary science standpoint (Which many are using in this thread) to not allow us to effectively thrive. If we improved the variety we of those things we consume, im sure veganism would be enough. But it absolutely does not currently. I also think that there is a large ethical issue in the form of exploitation of animals/workers, obviously. But unless you are farming yourself, you are contributing to exploitation somewhere along the line. That moral standpoint is ridiculous if you are not growing/maintaining your own food.

>>Showing compassion, dodging cholesterol and carcinogens and improving my carbon and water footprint

what a fag

I hope my footprint looks like a fuckin sweet dinosaur

People have known eating too much red meat is bad for your colon since the 80s, but that doesn't explain vegan hate for lean meats. Which like I said in my op, half truth vegan propaganda formed by animal rights activists.

>If we improved the variety we of those things we consume, im sure veganism would be enough. But it absolutely does not currently.
Those who can find a variety of food in affordable prices should consume it.
> I also think that there is a large ethical issue in the form of exploitation of animals/workers, obviously. But unless you are farming yourself, you are contributing to exploitation somewhere along the line.
Veganism by definition exploits less workers because a kg of beef consumes many kgs of grains, so more workers. And I have to eat SOMETHING. And farming a huge variety of food that guarantees all the nutrients is literally impossible.
>That moral standpoint is ridiculous if you are not growing/maintaining your own food.
Google nirvava fallacy

veganism is a religion

I don't hate lean meats and I don't think science will ever find a link between heart disease or cancer and sardine or turkey meat. However, I'm not craving lean meats, I'm craving bacon and burgers and four cheese pizza and carbonara with eggs and pancetta, all of which are unhealthy.
Most vegans are ethical and environmental vegans, not health vegans. Health is a bonus.
Haha epic friend! *Upvotes*

raw is the only way to eat vegetables if you're serious about nutrition.

With that said, the veganism part is contrary to the idea of being strong. Eating other animals is the best way to get healthy protein, period.

You can not do 300 grams of whey protein a day IMO

It for sure exploits less, and my point was that from an infrastructure standpoint, veganism is also not enough. Whether or not it's better than an omnivorous diet. Ethically veganism is 100% the better diet. But raw veganism is not any better ethically, and is a step back from a health standpoint. My point with the moral standpoint is that if you dont farm your own food, claiming that the meat industry exploits and abuses animals is hypocritical becuase you are also contributing to an exploitative industry (albeit to a lesser degree). claiming moral superiority in this case is silly and if you don't acknowledge it, makes the person arguing it look like a hypocrite.

I don't understand this argument at all...

you do realize that those vegetables would need to be harvested regardless? If anything carnism requires more plant production because you need to produce more food not only for yourself but for the animals you eat.

also veganism is way cheaper, it only becomes expensive if you want all the mock meats and even then those cost more than animal meat because they are a niche market with not that much demand. Also, mock meats are only really used by people transitioning from carnism to veganism. Plus there are plenty and even growing number of mock meats that don't use soy...

back in the day, people ate meat pretty rarely except for on special occasions because it costs more.
as far as the b12 argument goes, there is b12 in the harmless bacteria that is on vegetables when they come out of the ground but its not there anymore because we have gotten so good at cleaning our food. There are some vegan foods that have b12 regardless like some seaweeds and barley grass but most commercial foods are supplemented with b12. A ton of non vegan foods are fortified anyway too. Also you can just take a fucking supplement and shut the hell up.

tl;dr: omnis are threatened by the moral consequences of their actions so they look for and exaggerate any bullshit excuse to justify not having examine their lifestyle critically and claim that veganism is impossible anyway, despite the fact that millions of people have been able to go and stay vegan and the number is growing

Some vegetables are mor nutritious if cooked/fried etc. Bioavailability varies a lot. Carrots for example are better cooked. Most are better raw though.

you dissing my raw carrots?

I give you that, I'm just saying in general it's safe to go raw and you kill nutrition if you cook almost everything.

"also veganism is way cheaper, it only becomes expensive if you want all the mock meats and even then those cost more than animal meat because they are a niche market with not that much demand. Also, mock meats are only really used by people transitioning from carnism to veganism."
This is simply not true. Nuts and grains are the majority of a vegans diet, and with the variety of nuts and grains needed it is not cheap. Nuts are fucking expensive commodities. You need to consume a shitload to get the same nutrition without supplements.

Yeah.

I like carrots as a snack too, just saying it's not as definitive as one might think. Raw broccoli plain sucks, I'd much rather cut and steam it.

>you kill nutrition if you cook almost everything.
[Source for claim required]

>Nuts and grains are the majority of a vegans diet,
The majority of a vegan diet is potatoes, grains and legumes all of which are the cheapest food you can get

Not him but it's almost universally true that processing removes nutrients, be that frying, cooking, freezing or microwaving. No source for that needed, you're an idiot for believing otherwise.

Vegan diets are actually really healthy and you can adapt them for strength training easily by just adding some chicken or beef.

i chuckled.

Depends on the processing. obviously frying, freezing and microwaving is bad. But all types of cooking arent equal. frying is shit, and so is juicing since it gets rid of fiber and is pure sugar basically. But steaming doesnt have the same effects as frying. It depends on what you do.

>cows and chickens
>>>anything but mindless beings

No, it isn't. Animals eat animals. Humans eat animals. We do what we do to survive and produce a better habitat for ourselves. The only ethical issue is whether we're putting ourselves first or not.

>murder and rape aren't immoral, animals do it

> Humans eat animals. We do what we do to survive

The vast majority of people don't eat animals for survival reasons.

>If anything carnism requires more plant production because you need to produce more food not only for yourself but for the animals you eat.
The point is is that much of the land used for cattle, that they can graze and live on, is not suitable for production of plants humans can live (as stated in that picture humans can't live off of just plants anyways) off of.

Now, I think that our beef production is fucking ridiculous, and only exist because of heavy subsidies that should be removed, but claiming we can ditch meat entirely is just fucking ridiculous, and offensive. I identify as an omnivore, and it's part of my cultural heritage, and a biological necessity.

>I identify as an omnivore, and it's part of my cultural heritage, and a biological necessity.