Processed meat

Good god you are dumb

What if I add Chicken stock, would that be too chickeny? I don't have vegetable stock, and I just went to the grocery store today, so don't really want to go back this week

22C lower than water
So what are you trying to say ?

He's trying to say that the alcohol doesn't translate to the food. You won't get drunk from cooking wine or rum or whatever, the alcohol content is basically gone

It fucking evaporates away. You won't be getting any alcohol, only a bit of winey flavor.
Like mulled wine, or are you one of those fucks that thinks he can get wasted on mulled wine?

I've seen lots of people use chicken stock to cook chicken before. It most likely won't hurt (chicken stock is basically vegetable stock with added scraps of chicken: cartilage, bones and so on). It won't be the one thing that ruins the dish. Experimenting in the kitchen often yields good results, so don't worry. I'm probably going to try using chicken or even beef stock myself, the next time I do this.

if you bring your pan to a temperature at which your chicken is cooking, which will be much higher than the boiling temperature of water, all the alcohol in the wine will evaporate and leave all the taste with next to no alcohol content (I heard that a tiiiny bit of alcohol binds to fat in oil and meat and therefore resists temperature better, but that amount would be ridiculously low. Completely impossible to get intoxicated off of that.)

Nice mate, thanks for taking the time to answer

The American Institute for Cancer Research defines processed meat as “meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives.” Cured meats like bacon, hot dogs and cold cuts have been linked to increased cancer risk overall and breast cancer in particular. A key factor may be the nitrites that are often added as a preservative in processed meats to combat the threat of botulism. When processed in the stomach, these nitrates become carcinogenic nitrosamines and nitrosamides. Hot dog intake has been linked with two leading pediatric cancers, brain tumors, and childhood leukemia.

Processed meat also appears linked to long-term weight gain. Intake of processed and other meats before pregnancy may raise the risk of gestational diabetes and may play a role in infertility and in early-onset puberty in girls. Cured meat consumption appears to be linked to risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, known as COPD. Processed meats may also contribute to aging, possibly by reducing our protective DNA telomeres.

don't mention it, have fun

"Making chicken taste good is easy!"
>Get a chicken carcass
>Mask the pungent stench of death from its rotting corpse with plant foods
>Claim chicken tastes good
I don't have a brainless enough wojack to post

200g of salami is like 600+ calories that's why, it taste really good but it's a massive waste of calories and expensive to use as a main protein source.

Beans have more protein per calorie and are not a class A carcinogen. They also have tons of minerals, antioxidants, fiber etc all in a tasty neat little package.
Also, beans aren't made of mutilated corpses, which is nice

Have one of mine, user. It also goes well with baiting.
Or denial of death and violence being an integral part of life for every living being on Earth because suddenly humans came up with muh compassion.

>denial of death and violence being an integral part of life for every living being on Earth

>If the wild animals and the sandniggers do it then that means I can do it too even if I don't need to :D

due to being leaner. Lots of carbs in beans, as opposed to fat. Nutritional values are calculated for 100g, not for 100kcal.

The rest is the reason why you eat beans with chicken rather than chicken alone.

>due to being leaner. Lots of carbs in beans, as opposed to fat.
Beans have a protein/carb ratio of about 1/2-1/3. That's not "a lot of carbs". A 90 kg adult male needs about 140 grams of protein (with the 0.8g per lb or lean bw rule). Getting that from kidney beans means you need 1900 kcal, easily below maintenance.
>Nutritional values are calculated for 100g, not for 100kcal.
Macro ratios are calculated in calories, not grams, because fat has higher kcal per gram
>The rest is the reason why you eat beans with chicken rather than chicken alone.
"Hmm I need some extra protein in my diet. I wonder whether I should choose the corpse of a sentient individual (of which the taste I have to mask by plants and more calories anyway) or a scoop of plant based protein powder."
Really gave the old noggin a good joggin

You don't need to pursue excellence either, but nonetheless you do even if it causes suffering to those around you. All the time you spend in the gym that you could spend with the ones who love you and all the envy that you generate are negative traits of a life spent improving oneself physically that you don't allow to stop you.

Then again, you are probably baiting and I'm having fun responding. If your intention was riling up angry responses, you should know that you can't rustle me.

fine, the first point I can concede. I'm no nutritional expert. The second one is a lot iffier, because basing qualitative evaluations on composition-based numbers for objects with different compositions allows for a lot of play. Why shouldn't we base everything on grams, something common to everything in nature and absolutely observable, rather than on calories (something that can only be estimated)?

the rest is just a mess. You claim that one has to mask the flavour of meat with aromatics, but anything tastes bland without some. You can't tell me that you can reach your macro requirements on a steady diet of thyme and rosemary. I've had rice protein and it tastes like floordust; I've eaten beans and they taste like flour without some proper spicing. If you don't elaborate on your cooking, anything can taste bland.

Then you salk of animals as "sentient individuals". Sentient I can agree on; on the individual thing I can't. You use that word to humanise the animal in question. Do you think that eating something with human-like qualities is wrong, or that eating anything sentient is wrong?

I am not a veganfag, I am actually /keto/, but there's several things wrong with processed meat.

In all the studies showing things like cancer, processed meat is the one thing that consistently shows positive assocation. Look at the WHO cancer report that vegans throw around, if you actually read it stuff like chicken, fish and eggs show zero cancer association but processed meat actually does show it. This has been shown across many studies now.

Secondly is salt if you have any blood pressure issues, lastly is the fact that normal people tampered with it so they surely did something bad to it.

I am much more of a fish/chicken/eggs person myself, but you make your own decisions in life.

>All the time you spend in the gym that you could spend with the ones who love you
There are more things in life than spending time with each other and "the ones who love you" know that, don't suffer (lol what were you even trying to say) and have alone time hobbies as well.
Regardless, I live 2500 km away from most friends and family so spending time with them is a challenge most days.
>and all the envy that you generate are negative traits of a life spent improving oneself physically that you don't allow to stop you.
I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Meat eating is justified because self improvement makes other jealous? What sort of mental gymnastics is this?
>Then again, you are probably baiting and I'm having fun responding. If your intention was riling up angry responses, you should know that you can't rustle me.
Is it this inconceivable that I don't want either angry responses or whatever other fanfiction you imagine, and I just want people to stop murdering sentient animals for literally no good reason?

By the way pic related is literally you. In b4 "le I am silly"

>Why shouldn't we base everything on grams, something common to everything in nature and absolutely observable, rather than on calories (something that can only be estimated)?
Because I usually check mfp, see how many calories I have left, see how much protein I have left, and adjust my meals or snacks accordingly. You can't do that with grams.
Counter example from your own pov to convince you:
Milk has about 3g protein per 100g. According to grams, that's low, that's lower than pasta or spinach. But you wouldn't call milk "low protein", would you?
>the rest is just a mess. You claim that one has to mask the flavour of meat with aromatics, but anything tastes bland without some.
My point was that it isn't meat that tastes good, it's the spices. Only fatty cuts of meat smell good on their own, and you can't tell me you eat those for macros.
>You can't tell me that you can reach your macro requirements on a steady diet of thyme and rosemary.
I didn't.
>I've had rice protein and it tastes like floordust;
I know, and pea is even worse. Try soy. Inb4 "le soyboy meme xD"
>I've eaten beans and they taste like flour without some proper spicing. If you don't elaborate on your cooking, anything can taste bland.
As above
>Then you salk of animals as "sentient individuals". Sentient I can agree on; on the individual thing I can't.
Why not? Regardless of my intention, what exactly am I wrong about?
>You use that word to humanise the animal in question.
Is "someone is too different than me" good reason to kill that someone?
>Do you think that eating something with human-like qualities is wrong, or that eating anything sentient is wrong?
The second, obviously. A chicken is not a human, but it is sentient and it is an individual.

Have you ever had pets?

>But you wouldn't call milk "low protein", would you?
Milk is a source of carbs and fats more than it is a source of protein. I wouldn't call it high protein either.
>Only fatty cuts of meat smell good on their own
that's really depending on personal taste. Does tofu smell good on its own?
>le soyboy meme xD
soy production is currently one of the most destructive practices in existence for the environment. There are good reasons not to consume great amounts of soy.
>Why not?
as I said, an intentional humanisation
>Is "someone is too different than me" good reason to kill that someone?
strawman argument. I don't kill chicken because they are different, I kill them because I want to eat them and I don't associate humanity to them, one reason why I wouldn't kill and eat a human being.

I would like you to define "sentience".
I have had pets, and I have had great emotional connections to them as single entities. Doesn't mean that, given a need great enough to sacrifice this emotional connection, I wouldn't eat them.
Do you value your life as much as an animal's?

an animal's life as much as yours* English is not my first language.

>Milk is a source of carbs and fats more than it is a source of protein. I wouldn't call it high protein
Milk is 1:1 carbs:protein. Depending on fat content it is 25-50% protein. That's pretty high.
>that's really depending on personal taste. Does tofu smell good on its own?
No, but my point was about meat. Tofu isn't unethical to produce and consume
>soy production is currently one of the most destructive practices in existence for the environment. There are good reasons not to consume great amounts of soy.
Most soy production becomes livestock feed. If you want less soy to be produced and harvested, eat soy instead of meat. Counterintuitive yet true.
>intentional humanisation
No, you don't understand. Why is an animal not an individual? Don't animals have their own personalities, desires, bonds etc?
There isn't an evil Jew agenda behind everything,try to keep an open mind. I don't have anything to sell you.
>I don't kill chicken because they are different, I kill them because I want to eat them and I don't associate humanity to them, one reason why I wouldn't kill and eat a human being.
You're just playing with words here, I won't even bother
>I would like you to define "sentience".
"Ability to subjectively experience reality"
>I have had pets, and I have had great emotional connections to them as single entities.
What is the difference between your pet and a livestock animal that justifies eating the one but not the other?
>Doesn't mean that, given a need great enough to sacrifice this emotional connection, I wouldn't eat them.
And here you're becoming manipulative. Two lines ago, you said "I eat chicken because I want to", now it is a "need"? What? Did your local grocery store suddenly stop selling plant food?
>Do you value your life as much as an animal's?
Huge strawman. Obviously not. I'd gladly kill one million animals to save my little finger. That doesn't mean that I'd kill them for literally no reason other than "I want to"

>That's pretty high.
fine if you think it is, I don't drink milk because of the protein content, since it's pretty low per gram.
>Tofu isn't unethical to produce and consume
except it is. Most soy production goes to feed mass livestock industries, which one can choose not to finance by eating exclusively grass-fed meat and produce. Something I've been doing ever since I was 5 years old. One family at a time, the result was that no farms around my parts use soy to feed animals, just like they use no harmful pesticides or monocultures.
>Don't animals have their own personalities, desires, bonds etc
personalities as in ways they behave; bonds as in people they trust more. Desires? What constitutes an animal's desires besides what their instincts tell them? What is sentience? What makes a human a human?
>There isn't an evil Jew agenda
and yet you accuse me of using huge strawmen? that is an ad hominem friendo, and a pretty big one.
>You're just playing with words here, I won't even bother
killing and eating a chicken is now a racist act. Got it.
>Ability to subjectively experience reality
By your definition, plants are sentient.
>inb4 no sources
google is your friend and I have little time to lose rn
>What is the difference between your pet and a livestock animal that justifies eating the one but not the other?
as I said, personal emotional connection. If my need to eat ever overcame this connection, I would not hesitate to eat them. My desire to eat beef easily overcomes my emotional connection to livestock.
>Huge strawman. Obviously not. I'd gladly kill one million animals to save my little finger.
would you say the same for any other class of human beings? People you never met and you never will hear the names of? Because if you did, you would admit that the lives of human beings and animals have no intrinsic value; only yours does. Which bases your entire argument on hypocrisy. If you don't, you admit that a human life is worth more than an animal's.

cont.
and if a human life holds so much more worth than an animal's, what's to prevent a human to consume an animal? Does all life has an intrinsic worth? Then plants' lives have an intrinsic worth as well. You are reducing your argument to pure feelings; only, you extend your feelings to anything that moves and I extend them only to those who I deem close to me.

>I don't drink milk because of the protein content, since it's pretty low per gram.
Just admit you were wrong dude jesus how mathematically illiterate are you
>Most soy production goes to feed mass livestock industries, which one can choose not to finance by eating exclusively grass-fed meat and produce.
Grass fed isn't anywhere near able to meet worldwide demand. If all animals were grass (and silage) fed, meat would be insanely expensive and scarce
>personalities as in ways they behave; bonds as in people they trust more. Desires? What constitutes an animal's desires besides what their instincts tell them?
How are you any different?
>killing and eating a chicken is now a racist act
Never said that, but it's immoral nonetheless.
>By your definition, plants are sentient.
No brain or CNS, no capacity to experience anything. Even if they could, the animals you eat eat plants. Argument doubly moot.
>>inb4 no sources
There are no scientific papers on plant sentence what are you talking about
>I have little time to lose rn
Yeah it shows
>as I said, personal emotional connection. If my need to eat ever overcame this connection, I would not hesitate to eat them. My desire to eat beef easily overcomes my emotional connection to livestock.
If there was a human in the woods, alone, no family or friends, and you were in a country where it wasn't illegal to eat humans, and prions disease wasn't an issue, would it be ETHICAL to eat that human?
>would you say the same for any other class of human beings? People you never met and you never will hear the names of? ... Which bases your entire argument on hypocrisy.
I don't think you know what hypocrisy means, this word doesn't apply here at all.
>If you don't, you admit that a human life is worth more than an animal's.
Yes it is, I admitted it in the previous post.
My life is more worth to me than yours. That isn't a reason to eat you.

>and if a human life holds so much more worth than an animal's, what's to prevent a human to consume an animal?
Empathy, morality
>Does all life has an intrinsic worth?
Everything is as important as you make it
>Then plants' lives have an intrinsic worth as well.
Plants aren't sentient,they matter as much as rocks and water
>You are reducing your argument to pure feelings
Morality and ethics ≠ feelings, you're getting the terms confused
>only, you extend your feelings to anything that moves and I extend them only to those who I deem close to me.
So would you steal an old lady's wallet (if you knew you wouldn't get caught?) She's not close to you so fuck her right?

Salt, preservatives, flavouring and chemicals. If an ingredient list has 'dioxide' or 'sulphate' in it, it can't be good.

You're more concerned with an animals life then a persons.
If you're willing to walk passed a starving child in the streets to go give money to peta and eat gmo foods that were harvested by litteral slaves then you're a hypocritical monster.

>Grass fed isn't anywhere near able to meet worldwide demand
DINGDINGDINGDING
eating less meat is good. Never said anything about that.
>How are you any different?
I am not. My point as stated above is that I extend my feelings to those I deem close to me, not that I am not an animal.
>There are no scientific papers on plant sentence what are you talking about
except there are.
researchgate.net/profile/Anindita_Roy_Chowdhury/publication/291086163_Effect_of_Music_on_Plants_-_An_Overview/links/569df9c308ae00e5c98ff50c/Effect-of-Music-on-Plants-An-Overview.pdf
"plants are known to respond to stimuli". Wich fits your definition of sentience, "Ability to subjectively experience reality".
>If there was a human...
I don't care about legality: I consider humans close to me. Do you not?
>I don't think you know what hypocrisy means, this word doesn't apply here at all.
if you claim to give intrinsic value to life, yet the only life you give value to is your own, wouldn't that be hypocritical?
>That isn't a reason to eat you
besides the whole cannibalism thing, it's not a reason not to either.
>Empathy, morality
there you go: emotional argument. Which is not bad, it just proves my point that this whole discourse is based on emotions. And don't come at me saying that morality and ethics aren't based on emotions, that's just laughable. Every single ethical decision on this Earth is based on arbitrary definitions of "right" and "wrong". Again, this is not a negative thing, it's in human nature to have a sense of justice. The discussion here is to what extent this sense of justice is to be applied.
>So would you steal an old lady's wallet (if you knew you wouldn't get caught?) She's not close to you so fuck her right?
she's a human being and therefore closer to me than a cow, as I stated above.

>for literally no good reason?
it tastes good

>researchgate.net/profile/Anindita_Roy_Chowdhury/publication/291086163_Effect_of_Music_on_Plants_-_An_Overview/links/569df9c308ae00e5c98ff50c/Effect-of-Music-on-Plants-An-Overview.pdf
>"plants are known to respond to stimuli". Wich fits your definition of sentience, "Ability to subjectively experience reality".
No, it doesn't. You are confusing sentience with intelligence. A mouse trap and a calculator "respond to stimuli". That doesn't mean they are subjectively experiencing reality.
And you still haven't addressed my final argument about the animals that eat plants.
>>If there was a human...
>I don't care about legality: I consider humans close to me. Do you not?
I do, and I consider animals close enough to not warrant murder on a whim
>>I don't think you know what hypocrisy means, this word doesn't apply here at all.
>if you claim to give intrinsic value to life, yet the only life you give value to is your own, wouldn't that be hypocritical?
Who said I only value my own life? I'm not the one who eats dead animals lmao
>>Empathy, morality
>there you go: emotional argument.
As I said before, you are confusing emotions and feelings with morals and ethics
>Which is not bad, it just proves my point
it doesn't
>that this whole discourse is based on emotions.
It isn't
>And don't come at me saying that morality and ethics aren't based on emotions
They aren't
>Every single ethical decision on this Earth is based on arbitrary definitions of "right" and "wrong". Again, this is not a negative thing, it's in human nature to have a sense of justice. The discussion here is to what extent this sense of justice is to be applied.
Ethics and morals stem from empathy and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
>old lady
You wouldn't rob her because you know robbing is wrong, because you wouldn't like to get robbed yourself, not because it makes you sad.
Every word in that post is wrong, have a charity (You)

You're still like the right hand side stick figure of the comic, who is not pulling over because driving in the fast lane "feels good"

>there is literally no difference between blocking an ambulance and eating meat

>what is the difference between biological response to stimuli and mechanical response to stimuli
the first designates a living being, the second designates a machine
>final argument about the animals that eat plants
I think it was obviously of no care to me that animals eat plants.
> I consider animals close enough to not warrant murder on a whim
exactly what I argued.
>Who said I only value my own life lmao
if you don't get it, you're hopeless.
>do unto others as you would have them do unto you
if you think that's not based on what you would feel if it was "done unto you", you are sorely mistaken. Do you think that moral rules are more than something made up by man? If you do, you are either a religious sort of guy (which I can respect) or a complete retard (which I can't).

I ran out of time for the day, so I'm gonna let you discuss with someone else.
I'd just like to clarify that I respect the coice of going vegan/vegetarian. it's up to you to choose what to do with your nutrition and I'm nobody to criticize your choice. I do agree with the fact that eating lots of meat has a negative impact on the world, which is the reason why I try to limit that in my life, especially when it's not grass-fed or the product of bio-cultures (not sure how it's called in English. Organic?) What I have beef with is the self-righteous attitude with which people like you go at trying to convert others. It's cultish, and it promotes a really bad image of your cult at that.
Maybe all those phytoestrogens succeeded in giving you PMS.

>there is literally no similarity between blocking an ambulance when you could just change lanes and eating meat when you could just change aisles at the supermarket
pic related
>>what is the difference between biological response to stimuli and mechanical response to stimuli
>the first designates a living being, the second designates a machine
No you idiot, you're still confusing sentience and intelligence
>>final argument about the animals that eat plants
>I think it was obviously of no care to me that animals eat plants.
Then you don't get to use the "plants feel pain" argument
>> I consider animals close enough to not warrant murder on a whim
>exactly what I argued.
Exactly NOT what you argue, you do kill animals on a whim
>>Who said I only value my own life lmao
>if you don't get it, you're hopeless.
(You)
>it's up to you to choose what to do with your nutrition
I get every nutrient.
>and I'm nobody to criticize your choice.
There is nothing to criticize, I'm not eating dead animals
>What I have beef with is the self-righteous attitude with which people like you go at trying to convert others. It's cultish, and it promotes a really bad image of your cult at that.
If there's wrong in the world it needs to be fixed
>Maybe all those phytoestrogens succeeded in giving you PMS.
And there's the ad hom. 5/5 tapu tapu breddy gud :DDD

If you live in a country that fills processed meat with chemicals then you *might* have issues if you eat a metric shit-stirring of it.

Otherwise the "processed meat is bad" shit is just more excuses from fatties who simply can't accept they're at fault for eating too much.

>obstructing a function of a modern human civilisation designed to save human lives
>totally the same as killing animals to fulfill a basic human need

I mean im not a vegan but you totally missed the point there, "Basic human need" vs "Basic human want" taste isn't a need bruv

I'm not saying eating meat is a need, I'm saying that it's used to fulfill a need.

>eating animals is a "need"
>still can't see the similarity between unnecessarily contributing to suffering (blocking an ambulance) and unnecessarily contributing to suffering (eating meat)
Your next line will be "Vegans think humans and animals are equal!"
Food is a need. Suffering isn't. Eat plants instead, they can't suffer.