2017

>2017
Why havent you gone vegan yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

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
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/#!po=57.9365
suppversity.blogspot.com/2016/10/latest-study-shows-that-33-gkg-high.html
breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Dammit cows are delicious.

animals have the right to be delicious

i like shooting animals and i like eating them too, sorry you're a low-aggression low-test evolutionary dead end

...

Because I enjoy eating meat. I try to eat stupid meat though, like fish and chickens.

Gotta eat muscle to make muscle

the only intelligent meat is dog, pig, monkey, dolphin and elephant.

Cows seem smart enough to know what is going on to some extent.

Htat's kinda a low standart. They're really not as smart as they seem. pigs on the other hand are arguably more intelligent than dogs.

Yea, I agree with all the animals you listed as being smart enough to really suffer. Cows are definitely dumber than them. But it seems like cows are still aware enough to understand that they are captive and that they are going to be killed. I still eat beef, just less of it than chicken and fish.

because eating plants is wrong, they bleed red like us
you inconsiderate swine should become a Breatharian like me.

you'd be surprised to find out how smart intelligent birds are

air is basically tree farts, you savage

I'm not a low-test nu-male or a tumblerina.

One cow can feed on one acre of fertile farm land, and feed one person for about a year. It takes about an acre of plant matter to feed a human for a year, too. Mechanical harvesting kills 20-80 small animals. Further, pastured animals sequester more carbon than plants. And plant fertilizer is made from animal poop.

So you're literally wrong on every single account, OP. Kill yourself.

Some birds like crows and parrots are intelligent. I think chickens are regarded as pretty fucking stupid though.

Oh shit that's not a real tree, it's someone dressed as a tree

Chickens are actually fairly smart, too

>Why havent you gone vegan yet?
My mother didn't drink alcohol when she was pregnant :/

I guess you're right. Fair enough.

Hey guys, it's cool to eat meat. Everyone is doing it. Excuse me while I take my medications to deal with the problems caused by animal products.

Don't mind the morbid obesity, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction. We need animal products to live a healthy life. it's sugar that's the real problem even though sweetener consumption has dropped since 2000 and heart disease/diabetes have continued to rise along with dairy consumption. it's definitely sugar, guys.

>guy that has never owned cows
They incredibly dumb.

Any animal that will walk knee deep into its food source, and shit, which it then will not eat the food touched by said shit, is not too smart.

Why should I care about animals suffering and being killed? I don't see how that's immoral in any way. Seems like an emotional issue to me.

wew laddy, i dont even know where to begin..

can you give us some examples of what you would consider immoral?

Bullshit.

I own chickens and they are bloody retards.

Serious question, how am I suppose to get 200 g of protein daily going vegan?
>inb4 soy products

Perhaps they learned it all from you?

200 grams is a top kek amount, I can't think of any human being needing that much. Don't fall for the 1g/lb meme.

I'll go vegan if you post your body and stats with a time stamp.

No, you won't, liar.

If Vegan is the healthiest diet then why is it that it's only possible to live long term on a vegan diet(get enough calories and nutrients) if there is a big farming industry importing the foods you need from all over the world?

how does health relate to the practicality of a diet? you are not making much sense.

btw what you're saying is also simply not true, but that's irrelevant

I' m French

>how does health relate to the practicality of a diet?
What I'm saying is being vegan isn't possible naturally.

It is possible, but even if it wasn't, so what? How does that have anything to do with health or ethics?

>/r/ cuck
topkek

>Not sniffing tree braps.

International Society of Sports Nutrition disagree with you though after their latest literature review they recommend 1.4-2 protein per kg

Easy bruh eat 15kgs of cabbage, you want to make don't you?

>It is possible
How? If there wasn't a massive farm making extreme amounts of food could you thrive on food that was only in your immediate area?
>but even if it wasn't, so what? How does that have anything to do with health or ethics?
It relates to health because having to eat food chemical foods made for specifically for vegans is less healthy than eating natural foods that our ancestors have been eating for centuries.

Killing without cause, stealing, vandalism, cheating (the gambling kind not the infidelity kind), pedophilia, rape, lying, cannibalism

Because eggs are insanely good and nutritious

>How? If there wasn't a massive farm making extreme amounts of food could you thrive on food that was only in your immediate area?
What do you mean by immediate area? This is kind of an insane standard anyway. Could you live off the animals in your immediate area? Animal agriculture requires MORE land. Your argument makes no sense.

>It relates to health because having to eat food chemical foods made for specifically for vegans is less healthy than eating natural foods that our ancestors have been eating for centuries.
I don't eat any food made specifically for vegans. It's not a requirement, just like eating big macs and gummy bears is not a requirement to be an omnivore.
What our ancestors ate is also irrelevant to health. We can do studies on actual human beings alive today to find out what's healthy and what isn't. You keep rolling out fallacy after fallacy. No offense but you have to think this shit over honestly.

Humans are animals

>Why should I care about animals suffering and being killed?
>Killing without cause is wrong
Hmm...

Heart disease and diabetes are progressive diseases. And it isn't just sugar, it is simple carbohydrates. Also, exercise is extremely important for preventing those diseases you mentioned.

>What do you mean by immediate area? This is kind of an insane standard anyway. Could you live off the animals in your immediate area? Animal agriculture requires MORE land.
I just mean the area around you that you can get to without expending more energy than you can generate back. I probably phrased it wrong by saying immediate area. I'm not talking about animal agriculture either I'm talking about hunting.
Small agriculture can be fine but I think the massive farms for animal and vegetables brings poor health to humans due to chemicals and animals with poor nutrition.
>I don't eat any food made specifically for vegans. It's not a requirement, just like eating big macs and gummy bears is not a requirement to be an omnivore.
So what do you eat? Do you take vitamins or something?
>What our ancestors ate is also irrelevant to health. We can do studies on actual human beings alive today to find out what's healthy and what isn't.
I think it would be foolish to say that what our ancestors ate is irrelevant because they were healthier than we were, so learning from them can benefit us. Not to mention most studies are fucking bullshit so you can hardly even follow those as a guideline for what to eat.
There are exceptions but people pay off scientists all the time to put out information that will benefit companies.

just eat a nice kg of nuts, at only 6000kcal or 30KG of spinach. VEGAN POWER !

So let's assume a farmer has two choices:

Option A--Kill a cow painlessly with no suffering
Option B- Torture a cow for days on end before it dies an agonizing death

There is no difference in the food produce by killing the cow, and there is no cost difference between the methods. Would you consider one of the options more moral than the other?

I wasn't referring to humans, I was referring to animals.

Killing an animal and eating it serves a cause.

Since I started seeing pigs and cows in person they are too much like my dog. So I am trying to go veggie boi and eating only fish.

The veggie burger was not too bad and veggies can be tasty.

Because veganism is vastly inferior to other diets and lack vital nutrition which leads to, among others, alzhimers like symptoms.

Because its un-natural and vegans can't stop religiously trying to force their ideas on people instead of bringing real facts from real sources and letting people decide for themself.

Never have there ever been a society based on veganism.

Because plants have shown to communicate with eachother/ share nutrition and when some plants "hear" other plants being eaten, they activate defenses. They are somewhat sentinent, bacteria too. Which removes any moral highground you deaperatly cling to and masturbate over.

The problem is not omnivores, the problem is that there any too many humans

Assuming no difference in time cost, I don't see how one is more or less moral than the other, no.

Totally option B. Food has to earn the privilege of being eaten.

>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html

Why would b ever exist the meat would taste worse, the productivity decreases decrease profit etc... literally all these would be scenarios are so far fetched from reality it reaffirms my suspicions that philosophy fags have joke degrees

>I just mean the area around you that you can get to without expending more energy than you can generate back. I probably phrased it wrong by saying immediate area. I'm not talking about animal agriculture either I'm talking about hunting.
Any area that provides you enough game to hunt is easily enough land to grow crops.

>So what do you eat? Do you take vitamins or something?
I take b12, and vit d in the winter months. These are not exclusively vegan supplements. Most people take way more supplements than I do.

>I think it would be foolish to say that what our ancestors ate is irrelevant
It's not foolish. Why do you think they magically knew what to eat to be healthy? They didn't know shit, they just ate to not die immediately. We will be "ancestors" one day, and most of us eat like garbage, despite having access to healthy and cheap foods. Humans are idiots today, and our ancestors were even bigger idiots because they lacked the hundreds of years of accumulated nutritional knowledge that we have now.

>people pay off scientists all the time to put out information that will benefit companies.
This is true, sadly. Also note that scientists often are making actual honest mistakes, especially when it comes to summarizing research and drawing conclusions. They very often make leaps of logic, coming to unwarranted conclusions. This is why you actually have to read whole papers and look at the methods and numbers for yourself.

>Killing an animal and eating it serves a cause.
Oh, so normally rape is wrong, when you're just doing it willy-nilly, but I if rape someone for my personal enjoyment - a great and highly important cause - that's ok?

I suspect you are just being stubborn now. Let's take it to an extreme then. Why is cannibalism morally wrong? We are killing a human, sure, but that single death can feed and nourish an entire tribe of people.

This
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is.html
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/#!po=57.9365
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2016/10/latest-study-shows-that-33-gkg-high.html
>breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health

The example is exaggerated to prove a point. You leave everything the same between two scenarios and change one detail and, if a person feels differently about it, then you know that one detail has an effect on morality. The point I was making is that morality seems to be rooted in the suffering of an intelligent being.

>Any area that provides you enough game to hunt is easily enough land to grow crops
>city kid agriculture

I think I probably know a bit more about agriculture than you. Feel free to prove me wrong, though

In cases where it is necessary to eat am already dead person to survive, or if someone volunteers to be eaten, I think it is ok. However eating human flesh for fun is simply perverse at a visceral level, much like pedophilia is perverse. I don't need to explain it in terms of social utility.

Im not lying I only eat meat because its easy way for me to stay strong and build muscle. All the vegans I know are dyels outside of them they are on roids

With that statement I doubt it.

You do need to explain it in some way though. You have just said "Eating human flesh for fun is wrong because it is wrong". You can use that reasoning to justify anything.

Why would it be wrong to kill a human against their will, and then eat them afterwards? Why is that any different than eating a dead person?

Then you are an idiot. Why does is matter what some random user looks like? How is that the deciding factor, you absolute moron?
There are plenty of vegan bodybuilders, there are entire forums dedicated to this. There are world level athletes who are vegan. wtf man, just google a random pic, there you go

That's ok, doubt is a good thing.

I tried that shit and it made me significantly /less/ healthy

fuck your communist diet plan, kill vegans

Because he can easily see randos here on fit that eat meat and look good the ones you listed there is high risk of extra curriculars

That escalated quickly.

Thanks city boy

so, basically he's looking for someone who looks good, but at the same tiem, also doesn't look good, because that isn't believable?

>Why do you think they magically knew what to eat to be healthy? They didn't know shit, they just ate to not die immediately.
I don't think they magically knew what to eat to be healthy. They knew because they learned from their ancestors. That's why people knew to not eat poisonous plants or animals because they learned from history. There were dumb ancestors, but no one learned from them. Why? because anyone who did would die.
>We will be "ancestors" one day, and most of us eat like garbage, despite having access to healthy and cheap foods.
Yes and hopefully no one follows our example, otherwise we'll keep continuing into the decline we are currently in.
>our ancestors were even bigger idiots because they lacked the hundreds of years of accumulated nutritional knowledge that we have now.
This is completely wrong. Out ancestors had had nutritional knowledge from their ancestors. That's how they survived.

I wouldn't want someone to kill me and eat me, so I wouldn't do the same to them. Before you try to flip this on me though, the golden rule does not apply to animals since they don't have any agency of their own.

No he's looking for someone that looks good with high natty chance. You seem heavily aversed to it, maybe put your money where your mouth is?

Yeah, I learned shit from my grandma, too. 95% absolute tosh, no offense "ancestor", but you just didn't know any better, not your fault.

Anyway, I give up, I have to put my kid to bed. good luck to ya.

I'm sorry your grandma didn't have anything useful to teach you. I wish you luck in your endeavors as well my friend.

you ever seen someone knawing on wood?

actually high amounts of protein is not the meme, cico and "bulking" is. You can consume maintenance with a high% of protein and make lean gains.

Anyway I think it's doable on a vegan diet with lentils and meat substitutes.

1. Cows taste good
2. Farming stilk fucks over nature. What do they think of all the cleared land, pesticides, and mechanized equipment required for it?
3. There are somethings you can't find in plants easily.
4. The mechanized slaughter argument is stupid. I don't give a fuck about what a chicken feels. Why should I?

I am waiting on lab grown meat though.

I actually held the same view until a few years ago. Why don't you think animals have agency though? If animals don't have agency, then why do some dogs choose to protect their owners at their own danger, while other dogs choose to not protect their owners?

Agency is a hard thing to define. Bees attack anything that attacks their hive, doesn't mean they have any real agency or feelings.

Don't get me wrong, I think dogs do have feelings, but it's a hard point to argue.

>130 shellfish
What is that? Counting each shrimp individually? Literally no one cares about shrimp

The point I've been spiralling down towards is that an action's morality seems to be based on how much suffering the action causes. Harming something dumb, like a shrimp or an insect, doesn't seem very morally wrong. But causing suffering to a dog does. It seems like cows fall somewhere between the two.

Argument from dogs

P1: It would be wrong to treat dogs the way we do farm animals
P2: There is no morally relevant difference between dogs and farm animals
P3: A morally relevant difference is a difference that justifies different standards of treatment
C: It is wrong to treat farm animals the way we do

come at me meatcucks

P1 is false.
P2 is false.

Conclusion is therefore also false.

To me it doesn't matter desu. If dogs were ideal farm animals I'd eat them too.

There is no difference between the two. If dogs were good farm animals I'd have no problem eating them.

Bees have feelings. It might not be complex emotions like Proustian ennui, but they clearly react in predictable ways to consistent stimulus. Odds are evolution programmed them the same way it did us humans, with pleasure seeking and pain avoidance.

Of course, plants do this, too, so if you want to justify veganism on the basis of emotions, this is not a good route of reasoning.

>cows are ok to eat because we eat them
>dogs are not ok to eat because we don't eat them
nice logic there, bud

>Farming stilk fucks over nature. What do they think of all the cleared land, pesticides, and mechanized equipment required for it?

Not really. Something like 70% of grain and soy are fed to cattle. Large animal farming uses the most land, water and pesticide. Less input is needed to farm small animals than large animals, and less for plants than small animals. But lab grown meat will change that

autist detected

P1 and P2 are both dependent upon social constructions, there are other countries in the East where dogs were eaten because the culture never saw them as pets, but as meat like any other animal. In the same vein, the West eats cows whereas Hindus do not

Because I’m not an autistic idiot who fell for another meme diet.

I'm talking feelings like sadness or happiness, not simple response to stimuli that even some bacteria have. That doesn't really count as feelings.

Of course the debate is still going on as to whether or not insects even feel pain like we do. It's hard to know really.

Nice reading comprehension. Where did I say it's not OK? I'm just saying I don't eat them because they're not useful as farm animals. If dog farms were a thing I'd eat them without issue

Yeah, but that's just grain. People can't live off just grain. And pesticides are needed for all kinds of crops.

Not autism. Just honest.