Well /fit/ the veganism is upon me. The past couple days every time I ate meat I felt as though I'm setting my progress back.
Can anyone try to bring forth some decent arguments against veganism before I succumb to this out-cast lifestyle? Keep in mind I'm still getting all my macro's.
Not really, if anything I can make it cheaper
>meat tastes good
its possible you can brainwash yourself into not enjoying it
>Hard to reach protein macros w.o meat
its just as hard, if not harder, to get my protein macros with meat
>Vegan people are typically cunts
Its true, but i guess i'm becoming one of them
this book is called "meat is for pussies" its by a super fit as fuck 52 year old named john joseph
i havent eaten meat or dairy in 6 years and i look and feel better than i have in my entire life. im 29 and look younger than i did when i was 25. i also look way younger than most of the people my age, lots of them already have pretty bad wrinkles and i dont.
also killing an animal when its not necessary seems bizarre to me, i dont get when people say they love animals and then go to mcdonalds
Meat tastes good is a fantastic argument.
people should do what the fuck they want with their lives and comments like this are exactly what people mean when they say
>Vegan people are typically cunts
>what are lentils, tofu and black beans
all of those are like 60% protein at the most, same as a burger, I dare you name something with at least 80% protein, I can easily: Tuna, Chicken Breast and Shrimps
no, not really
this, this is one reason I avoid it. why the fuck does he look so green.
as far as the crazy good health benefits that make you feel great, look great etc I have yet to see any proof outside of claims on 4chan and airy fairy studies.
Isn't virgin gains green because of shit camera? Now, I'm mildy curious.
This is true, Chris Evans (Cap. American actor) claimed that his skin was turning 'green-ish' after doing a veg diet for a few months.
You can google it easy and find it in the net.
>What are lentils, Tofu and black beans
>being dependent on a few specific plants without which your entire diet would fall apart
In what world is 'meat tastes good' a fantastic argument? Mass murder might feel good but how exactly does that justify it?
You'll struggle to find arguments supporting the consumption of animal products in a first world country. This is why reactionary meat eaters almost always resort to silly namecalling or something of that nature.
Go back to Reddit and post on about the epicness of muh bacon strips
to me, you can't 'murder' an animal. do you think stone age man felt guilty about killing birds as equally as he did about killing humans? killing a person vs killing an animal are two totally different things.
if i like meat i'll eat it, no matter how many studies you throw at me lad.
>quit comparing domestic animals bred for the sole purpose of consumption to murder
1. This doesn't make grammatical sense ("quit comparing animals to murder" - what)
2. Whatever you're trying to illustrate, I didn't do in my initial post anyway
It's an analogy you fag. If an ethical evil like mass murder is not justified by saying it feels good, then how is an ethical evil like meat consumption (completely unnecessary in a first world country, involves an immense amount of suffering, inefficient in terms of land/water/etc usage, environmentally toxic) justified by saying it "tastes good" (or feels good to eat)?
Why do people so often view murder/suffering within humans and animals in terms of binary rather than as a spectrum? Killing a human is more of an ethical evil than killing a sentient animal, yes, but this does not necessarily mean the latter action is not murder.
"killing a person vs killing an animal are two totally different things." - can you give me a reason as to why you choose to adopt a binary (yes/no, on/off, etc) position here? What special trait do humans possess that separates us from all other sentient animals in terms of a capacity to suffer and die? Why does our suffering matter and theirs not at all?
"if i like meat i'll eat it, no matter how many studies you throw at me lad."
>if i like to rape/steal/torture people i'll do it, no matter how many studies you throw at me lad.
>You'll struggle to find arguments supporting the consumption of animal products in a first world country. This is why reactionary meat eaters almost always resort to silly namecalling or something of that nature.
"I bred this child for the sole purpose of raping it. What's the big deal? It's the only reason they even exist. You want them to go extinct?! Molesting just feels good to me, don't judge me!"
I'm in a similar boat OP, I find myself slowly phasing meat out of my diet more and more each day. Not doing it for health or ethics, I've just the lost the taste for meat.
There's no reason not to go full vegan if that's what you enjoy, just don't be a cunt about it.
unless you become one of those annoying pic related type people who preach veganism, it's going to make very little tangible difference towards animal cruelty, the environment, etc
health claims are overblown and there are definitely nutrients you'll need to be constantly supplementing and keeping a close eye on or you'll face serious health consequences. i've personally never met a person who's stayed vegan for a long time without getting diagnosed with any deficiencies or conditions caused by their diet. eating meat only seems to slightly increase risks for cancer and other diseases - there's a lot of correlations but not too many convincing causations. most dieticians still recommend some meat and dairy. (source: a semester away from finishing my bachelor majoring in nutrition. not a great source, but I definitely know more than vg)
quite difficult and annoying to follow and stick to.
meat *does* taste good, and so do animal products in general
basically, it's just easier and almost as healthy following a traditional healthy diet. I guess there's no harm in trying, but most people don't seem to be able to stick to that kind of diet, it's just not very sustainable for most. probably morally superior and hippy chicks will like you for it though
Typically fruits and vegetables have a less even distribution of amino acids and therefore have more limiting amino acids than meat. If you eat a variety of fruit and veg from various sources though this is mostly a non issue. Vegans do get enough good quality protein. They're still assholes though.
It's almost never a good idea to base your diet around one book by one guy. So many books saying contrarian advice just to get attention to sell more books, very few diet books give good diet advice as currently interpreted by most dieticians.
Looking better is almost definitely a placebo effect, aka, all in your head. As long as you are eating similar macros and micronutrients, the source that these food come from have virtually no effect on your appearance. Feeling better is also likely in your head too, unless you've just significantly cleaned up your diet from before when you were a meat eater.
"Being a vegan was associated with a higher mortality risk (1.59; 95% CI, 0.98-2.59) . . .when compared with nonvegetarians. . .accounting for all other variables"
Carnivorism is perfectly compatible with Positive Utilitarianism, and Negative Utilitarianism (from which vegfags derive their "morality") is ludicrously grotesque, as Smart put it:
"Suppose that a ruler controls a weapon capable of instantly and painlessly destroying the [world]. Now it is empirically certain that there would be some suffering before all those alive on any proposed destruction day were to die in the natural course of events. Consequently the use of the weapon is bound to diminish suffering, and would be the ruler's duty on NU grounds."
We see then that veganism is the not merely the subjection of the moral for the amoral, but the subjection of the moral for the immoral. The Vegan is shown to be either a monstrous degenerate who wishes to extinguish Life itself, or simpleton you doesn't understand the philosophical underpinnings of their 'morality'.
Of he grew out his hair, he'd look like a brown/green jimmy neutron.
Nothing makes us different, we're animals too and animals eat other animals. We make the rules ya fuck. We are at the top. Don't like it? Fuck off. Honestly is harsh but this is truth.
>Overall, 60 subjects were vegans
Nice sample size. You certainly [cherry] picked the best study to post as evidence about the health of vegans.
Nice stats on meat consumption and heart disease, too.
>It's almost never a good idea to base your diet around one book by one guy.
>humans & vegfags have the same all-cause mortality
>b-but humans have higher rates of heart disease!!@
Few studies include vegans, with the few studies coming to the same conclusion, veganism is horrible for you.
Further, well-controlled studies on vegetarians do not support the idea that vegetarianism is any healthier than omnivorism, which, however, is beside the point, as veganism isn't vegetarianism.
>[British vegetarians] death rates are similar to those of comparable non-vegetarians, suggesting that much of this benefit may be attributed to non-dietary lifestyle factors such as a low prevalence of smoking and a generally high socio-economic status, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish.
cry moar, gommie
This is the most comprehensive text on nutrition ever written. Over 2,600 scientific studies cited, outlines the 10 leading causes of death and how a plant-based diet can prevent them, while giving a checklist of foods you should eat everyday. Anyone who wishes to know what is objectively the best diet should give this book a read, you owe it to yourself.
>>humans & vegfags have the same all-cause mortality
Quoting the authors: "It should be pointed out, however, that even among the nonvegetarians in our study, there were only 0.4% (1.6%) who reported consuming meat (meat products) daily, 6.5% (4.9%) frequently (≥3 times/wk but not daily), and 28.1% (18.7%) occasionally (more than once a month but <3 times/wk). Therefore, the meat consumption was quite moderate compared with the general population (21, 22).
Sounds like to be a healthy meat eater, you have to basically be a vegetarian. The heart disease trends reflect that pretty strongly. Even fish was associated with higher risk.
I'll read this one later but I do know that the Health Food Shoppers study is infamous for misclassifying non-vegetarians as vegetarians. Here's a review of vegetarian and vegan studies before I head off
Even with 2600 studies you can still be cherry picking evidence. There are tens of thousands of nutritional studies out there, some are quality and others are a bit shakier. It's rare you'll find someone who wrote a nutrition book without a chip on their shoulder.
Also, actual, qualified dieticians and nutrition experts generally just work as dieticians and aren't trying to get money by writing books with clickbait-tier titles. It's best to either study this shit yourself for years and years, or just trust government health bodies and large-scale meta analysis of quality studies. I'm not aware of a single government body that doesn't recommend at least some lean meat as part of a balanced diet.
I'm sure not eating meat is difficult
but the real challenge would be not eating meat and not telling every single person you meet at any time for any reason no matter where you are or what you're doing
>vegans are physically incapable of shutting the fuck up
>le popsci book
Every longitudinal study & every interventional study has come to the same conclusion: diet is irrelevant.
The DDRs between the lowest quantile and the highest quantile of e.g. Fruit & Vegetable consumption are on the order of 1.1-1.3.
Meanwhile, the DDRs between being thin & being fat, or being active & being sedentary, or being a non-smoker & being a smoker, are on the order of 5.0, 10.0, 20.0.
The idea that diet inciting because it's EASY:
>jus eat more broccoli :^)
>jus cut down on sodium an' saturated fat :^)
>jus eat a black bean burger instead of a burger :^)
but it's all BULLSHIT that doesn't amount to a hill of beans to your overall health.
>Even with 2600 studies you can still be cherry picking evidence.
Yeah I guess, but seeing as how no one else in nutrition is even willing to go out of their way to support their case with evidence, I would argue this is still the most throughout text in nutrition.
>Also, actual, qualified dieticians and nutrition experts generally just work as dieticians and aren't trying to get money by writing books with clickbait-tier titles.
100% of the book sales go to charity. Michael Greger is a licensed physician who studied and Cornell and Tufts, two of the best colleges in the world, especially for med school. Greger specifically went to Tufts medical school because they have the best nutritional program in the U.S.
Look, I know you want to pretend that you are an intelligent skeptic who believes in moderation, but you need to open your eyes. Even if this book wasn't incredible for it's academic content, which it is, there are literally thousands of other texts supporting the plant-based diet, many of those texts done by well known prominent physicians, something no other diet can attest to. In addition, the medical community agrees that the plant-based diet is the most optimal diet for our health. IT IS THE ONLY DIET SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO PREVENT AND REVERSE HEART DISEASE, this is not up for discussion.
I'd tend to disagree. There are definitely observable correlations between certain dietary factors and some chronic diseases. Whether these are causative and not just correlative is still up for debate but the theory of say, saturated fat intake and heart disease, is definitely there and definitely sound. The world cancer research fund, probably the most respected body in cancer research, recommends no more than 10% of calories coming from saturated fat to minimise the risks of cancer.
The effects of diet on health are certainly overblown, partially because of people shilling popsci books like above, but they're definitely not irrelevant.
Fuck off cuck.
They don't factor for BF% because they believe obesity is divine punishment for eating animals (not even joking). It should come as little surprise that Adventist garbage studies are the only studies that find significant differences in health outcomes between humans and vegfags.
Admittedly, I know nothing about the book, but you're making a lot of points there that are entirely up for debate.
I'm not pretending to be an intelligent skeptic at all, I'm just a nutrition student, on my way to eventually becoming a dietician and someone with reputable knowledge in nutrition.
The medical community definitely does not agree that a plant-based diet is optimal for health, there is *so* much debate about what's optimal just like we're having now. I've had many doctors in my life, and not one of them was a vegetarian.
>IT IS THE ONLY DIET SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO PREVENT AND REVERSE HEART DISEASE
Definitely a bullshit claim. Source pls
The general meaning is vegetarians can still eat animal products (eggs, dairy, etc), just not animals themselves. Vegans don't eat animals or animal products, nothing that requires an animal to eat basically.
Aye mang, you're not gonna be an outcast either way. Most of the shit is in your head as to whether or not you allow it to affect you socially.
I'm a vegan, I keep it to myself. Its more embarrassing to me to hear people give me shit about it while they're in poor health and have little to no understanding of nutrition.
Keep your diet to yourself, no one told you to become one and no ones going to make you be one; whatever best suits your lifestyle, stick to that. Don't make it other people's issues.
Most of the replies here are going to be ad hominem cancer.
>The medical community definitely does not agree that a plant-based diet is optimal for health, there is *so* much debate about what's optimal just like we're having now. I've had many doctors in my life, and not one of them was a vegetarian.
American Heart Association, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, American Diabetes Association, Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic, American Cancer Society, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, all these groups and more advocate a plant-based diet. Show me who advocates Atkins or ketogenic diets among this caliber.
>Definitely a bullshit claim. Source pls
Look up research done by Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish, and Colin Cambell. Hell, this was the diet they gave to Bill Clinton so he wouldn't have another heart attack. This is by fat the most studied and most effective diet for heart disease, no question. Read the book.
>The world cancer research fund...recommends no more than 10% of calories coming from saturated fat
They also recommend everyone eats less than 2g of sodium a day, despite the fact that sodium consumption isn't associated with cancer & 2g is sub-optimal for an active individual.
Recommendations from medical organizations are little more than amalgamations of conventional thought, and even in the face of overwhelming and inarguable evidence that diet is irrelevant are going to caution with banal recommendations over stating that diet is irrelevant (though it should be noted that The American Cancer Society comes close, focusing squarely on being thin and active, with diet recommendations as an aside and lifted near-verboten from the USDA)
Haha that's a good one.
In reality he probably hasn't attained a high enough level of Veganism to have been brought in to the Inner Circle yet; he's just a Neophyte still. Sad, he's making a fool of himself in this thread in front of the real Vegans.
>IT IS THE ONLY DIET SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO PREVENT AND REVERSE HEART DISEASE, this is not up for discussion.
Never been proven, and 0% evidence supports this position.
Studies have shown that a lifestyle intervention of weight-loss and exercise are beneficial, not that a "plant-based diet" is beneficial.
>Look up research done by Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish, and Colin Cambell
All were lifestyle interventions that derive 100.2% of their benefit from weight-loss and exercise.
Nah bro it's worse than what you think.
It's an Agenda to prevent all aggression in males. You see it every day: preventing competition ('everybody wins!') in early childhood, 'sharing' everything, and then later they start in on your about 'meat is bad' and try to talk you into a high carb diet, which is known to reduce testosterone production. Then we have an increasingly woman-dominated society, and male-shaming. All the above is aimed at producing a more docile male. Except the rich, of course, they can eat whatever they want; being Real Men in the future will be reserved for the 1%, but they want the 99% (aka 'the poor') completely docile and female-dominated, so there won't be any unrest or protests. Sadlu assholes like the Sunni extremists that laughingly call themselve the 'islamic state' are just giving them more credibilty for their agenda.
Except we also know that Atkins/Ketogenic diets do fuck all for heart disease, despite being effective for weight-loss.
The benefits come from the veggies, fruits, legumes, whole grains, period. There have been plenty of studies that have adjusted for weight-loss and exercise, even the ones done by Ornish, Esselstyn, and Campbell. Read a book phaggot.
Eating organic (or at least meat which isn't American GMO meat), unprocessed lean meat can't be bad for you. Humans have been doing that throughout the history, pretty much.
If being vegan makes you feel good or supports your ideological beliefs, go for it. But thinking with common sense, I can't come up with reasons why eating lean meat and animal products would set someone progress behind. Maybe it'll ruin your diet if you eat cream and pork tons a day, but otherwise eating meat and animal products have only pretty much positive effects. Perfect protein profile, creatin, iron and so forth.
I'm not a huge fan of the taste of meat, meaning I don't eat meat because of what it tastes like. I could live without steaks and shit, but I eat dairy products cause I enjoy them, they are one of the easiest and best tasting sources of protein and they are cheap. Meat on the other hand keeps me full better than any other bean or lentil ever, and it's not the fat only. Meat makes me satisfied and gives me energy in a totally new level, and that's why I eat some red meat weekly, even though I don't especially like it. I've also noticed that as someone with skin problems (atopic skin), eating meat and getting in that creatine and shit is really important. Eating meat makes me feel very nutrioned, so I'm never going to cut it off from my diet. I have tried taking iron supplements, but when I didn't eat meat and leaned on supplements, I looked and was tired and my skin was dry. Added more meat on my diet and I honestly feel better with this diet where I eat beans, lentils and other vegan protein sources, but also animal products.
Do what is best for your body. Some people can't handle milk products and some people are allergic to stuff. One thing doesn't work for everyone. But looking back history, eating meat can't be that bad for you. It doesn't directly kill you or slow down your progress.
>Except we also know that Atkins/Ketogenic diets do fuck all for heart disease
>Read a book
Science isn't published in books, cuck.
Risk factors are reduced in accordance with weight loss, regardless of diet
>RESULTS:Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months...At 12 months, secondary outcomes for the Atkins group were comparable with or more favorable than the other diet groups.
100 grams of seitan contains 75 grams of protein, 2 grams of fat and 14 grams of carbs. 100 grams is 370 kcal.
100 grams of textured vegetable protein contains 48 grams of protein, 0 grams of fat and 28 grams of carbs. 100 grams is 320 kcal.
There are also many vegan protein shakes, Soy, hemp, rice and pea protein shakes all have great macros. The soy isolate I use from myprotein is delicious and in a 50 gram scoop contains 40 grams of protein, 1.7 grams of fat and 3.5 grams of carbs.
I care about cows and chickens. I grew up in a rural area and a few of my friends kept cows, they are fantastic animals. The ones that are comfortable around you behave like massive dogs, they enjoy being stroked, they show affection and they play with the other cows.
gluten contains NOLYSINE
>I care about cows and chickens.
found the autist
>every time I ate meat I felt as though I'm setting my progress back.
I'm sorry, anon, it's too late, the vegan mentality has already taken hold of your subconscious.
No matter how consciously you want to stop being a pussy about eating things that can display emotion, your subconscious will always try to tell you it's wrong.
Only thing for it now is to fight through it to eat one more bacon sandwich, have a little cry about it to yourself as you imagine Babe's face looking up at you in disappointment, and just accept that from now on you will be a whiney little bitch about your dietary choice.
Start from here, ties into the A to Z study. It's not a study of diets really but of peoples' compliance to different diets.
Not a reversal of atherosclerosis here, but a change in carotid artery thickness due to weight loss induced changes in blood pressure, not removing plaque from the arteries. If I remember right, the study conclusion was even rewritten to include this because the authors got heat for writing it as if they had regressed arterial plaque, which of course they wanted to give the impression of because they were paid by the Robert C. and Veronica Atkins foundation to perform the study, and Atkins had tried for decades to show this in a study, something he got bantered at a public conference about back in the day
Not a regression, but shows that nuts are protective against heart disease, as is the mediterranean diet in general. "delayed progression" is still progression though. Dr. Plant-based himself has a video on this
>Not a reversal of atherosclerosis here
True, but I'm fairly sure coronary angiography, which Esselstyn used, does not take into account the extent of plaque in the vessel wall either.
Besides Esselstyn's original trial had participants eating low fat dairy and egg whites, on top of the fact his results were not independent of weight loss or blood pressure changes. Same with ornish.
>Not a regression, but shows that nuts are protective against heart disease
But it did...
"whereas it regressed in the MedDiet+nuts group (-0.084 mm [-0.158 to -0.010 mm]; P=0.024 versus control"
Despite consuming animal products.
>paid by the Robert C. and Veronica Atkins foundation to perform the study
Do you have any evidence of this?
"Sponsors and Collaborators:
The S. Daniel Abraham International Center for Health and Nutrition
Harvard School of Public Health
University of Western Ontario, Canada
Soroka University Medical Center
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Harvard Medical School
The Nuclear Research Center, Dimona
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev"
I'm fairly sure the above are not tied to fatkins.
The study was funded by the following sources: (1) Israeli Ministry of Health, Chief Scientist Office (grants received by Drs Shai, Schwarzfuchs, and Tirosh, Israel); (2) Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP6655) and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (Ontario; NA5912; grants received by Drs Fenster, Parraga, and Spence, Canada); (3) Disabled Facilities grant (KFO 152; grants received by Drs Blüher and Stumvoll, Germany); and (4) the Dr Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Research Foundation.
anyone who actually weighs decently heavy is going to struggle to stuff their faces full of enough food to get enough protein and calories. that's my main beef (pun intended) with veganism
I mean without eating shit full of sugar. People who need to lose weight generally are too fat because of sugars, not meats. If they had half a brain they wouldn't be so fat. Anyways, I guess that's more of a personal example, because I don't really enjoy eating, so if I had to do more of it to reach my Calorie/protein goals I'd probably resent eating altogether.
this isn't true. Nuts and seeds are the second most calorie dense food on the planet, second only to oil. Dried fruits are up there too. Avocados are about 250 to 300 calories each. In terms of calories and protein seitan which is made of wheat gluten is only slightly less than chicken. It's easy to eat a lot of calories as a vegan.
>In this randomized clinical trial conducted in subjects at high cardiovascular risk but no CVD at enrollment, we found that, compared with a control group based on advice to follow a low-fat diet, intervention with a MedDiet supplemented with 30 g/d of mixed nuts for a mean of 2.4 years induced regression of ICA-IMTmean and delayed the progression of both ICA-IMT and plaque
The researchers here separate carotid artery thickness and plaque as two different things, with IMT improving, but plaque progression just being delayed.
>The novel results of this PREDIMED substudy in 175 participants are that supplementation of the Mediterranean diet with 30 g/d of mixed nuts for a mean of 2.4 years induced regression and delayed progression of internal carotid artery intima-media thickness and plaque, respectively
In improving intima-media thickness, it decreased the risk of future cardiovascular events, but Esselstyn's studies practically eliminated the disease altogether in patients who at the start had severe atherosclerosis
Cool thread. Thanks.
Have a picture of my food.
>Vegans citing killing of animals set apart for food as "murder"
Do you believe in evolution anon, Or are you a vegan based on religious grounds?
Any other "ethical" motivation for veganism isn't founded in anything solid, there are VERY few religions and cultures throughout history that encouraged (never mind enforced) a vegan diet
How does it feel to believe something that only hippies thought was a good idea and in the 60's and even now is still considered a fringe belief at best?
The inflammation from eating meat is extremely important for muscle growth. Read up on arachidonic acid. It's probably why bodybuilders get much better results from meat protein than vegan protein.
Being a radical feminist kinda trashes her credibility though. There are plenty of rational and sane people who warn about the dangers of veganism. Try Dr Doug McGuff.
it is easy to make yourself. I buy a kilo of wheat gluten from amazon for £5 (uk fag) and that makes about 2 kilos of seitan making it a lot cheaper than chicken too. It's easy to make just do some googling.
She isn't even 30...
>basing your morals on religion
I base my morals in reality. The reality is that animals are able to experience fear, pain, suffering, loss etc. I cannot and will not support an industry that causes these things to innocent animals.
If I lived in the wild and hunted wild animals I would not be a vegan. A quick kill of an animal that has lived a free life as nature intended for it is completely different to an animal that has been bred, imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered just so I can eat meat.
That last name...
If you look at your morals, they trace their roots in a belief system of some sort anon.
If you just cherry pick your beliefs based on what feels good, people won't respect them.
Rest assured that eating vegan isn't an evolutionary belief, nor one that reflects the beliefs upon which society as we know it were built upon (which are actually overwhelmingly religious.)
Veganism is something that has been pulled from obscure belief systems that people cherry pick to have in their lives because it makes them feel like special, moral snowflakes.
Its resurgence is nothing more than a fad, but it has brought concerns about animal welfare to the table which is great, as animals that are treated better and slaughtered humanely taste noticeably better.
Face it anon, if you're a vegan; you're basically BTFO from the start if you try to convince people that it's anything more than your personal choice.
>Can anyone try to bring forth some decent arguments against veganism before I succumb to this out-cast lifestyle?
why? if you want to go vegan then go vegan. your choice, your problem. not ours.
for me: meat just tastes good, requires little preparation, is a good protein source, and readily available.
and, most importantly, the arguments for veganism all seem very weak to me.
i simply dont care. if i had to i'd slaughter lambs and pigs left and right. they're animals, their lives and happiness simply dont matter to me.
negligible and debatable. either way, some 5% relative increase in some cancer rates don't impress me. not worth giving up most of my favorite meals for.
coulnt care less. climate change is coming anyway, whether we eat meat or not. it's unavoidable. might as well keep enjoying meat, doesn't make a difference in the long run.
if you are an emotional girl who gets sad for pigs and cows, go vegan.
if you're easily scared by fearmongering 'health experts', go vegan.
do whatever you want.
my morals have no roots in any belief system, I just told you that I don't support an industry than harms sentient beings, it has nothing to do with religion and it has nothing to do with anyone else.
Animals experience pain, fear, loss etc. This isn't a belief it is a fact. Based on this fact I choose not to be a part of the cause of that suffering.
I grew up around animals. I had dogs and cats, rabbits and guinea pigs. My friend had horses and cows, pigs and chickens. I grew up playing with them, seeing them as my friends and pets, companions to play with and have adventures with. I rode horses, ran with my dogs, chased cows on my motorbike and quad bike, cuddled with pigs and enjoyed watching my cats hunt. These animals are creatures that I share the planet with, I can survive without having to eat them, without having to hurt them and I am going to do exactly that. I feel sorry for people that have never had the chance to experience living among animals but I understand that people that haven't do not know what animals are like. They see them as food and that is all, I see them as more than that.
no they aren't you can see the shading move as she moves and the lighting hits her differently. It's just photoshoot lighting and it's what makes literally every fitness model look better than they do in real life.
>These animals are creatures that I share the planet with, I can survive without having to eat them, without having to hurt them and I am going to do exactly that
interestingly, these animals (cattle, pigs, chickens) could NOT survive without humans breeding them for slaughter. in the wild, they'd simply die and go extinct. if it werent for humans wanting to eat them, they wouldn even exist in their current form and numbers.
>its possible you can brainwash yourself into not enjoying it
Really? Then why is it 99% of kids will eat meat but point blank refuse to eat vegetables?
I try and get my 4 year old to eat salad and veg all the time, she'll munch through her chicken and steak like it's chocolate, but getting her to eat the veg is a task, I have to over-cook it so it's soft as fuck and then mash it up with seasoning and tell her it's "green mashed potato" just to get her to eat it....
>Really? Then why is it 99% of kids will eat meat but point blank refuse to eat vegetables?
because you're probably not brainwashing them. duh.
bombard your 4 year old with a bunch of slaughterhouse horror videos with sad music and they'll be traumatized enough to abhor meat for decades to come.
(please dont actually do this, emotionally scarring your child at an early age is not something you want to do)
so what? Because they wouldn't exist without us doesn't excuse subjecting them to suffering. They would exist anyway just not in their current domesticated form. Wild cattle exist, wild pigs exist, wild chickens exist, wild horses exist, wild cats and dogs exist.
If I have the land and resources when I am older I fully intend to keep cows, pigs and other farm animals so that my children can experience the joy of growing up with them like I did.
>so what? Because they wouldn't exist without us doesn't excuse subjecting them to suffering.
of course it does.
their very life belongs to us. we literally create them. without us they would never have seen the light of day. we literally own them.
man is to animal as god is to man.
by that logic it is okay for you to rape, torture, kill and eat your children because you created them and you own them. Are you now going to argue that it is in fact okay to do that to your own children?
>you'd still enjoy the taste
i'm not sure about that.
with enough brainwashing you could make someone associate all things meat with a ton of negative emotions, so they probably wouldnt experience the taste of meat as pleasant anymore.
i'm not an expert on any of this though
If you're concerned about the animals suffering, either source your meat, eggs milk from local farmer who treat their animals well or raise/hunt your own meat.
It's not hard to raise ducks for example, breeding muscovy ducks for eggs and meat is easy as shit and you can monitor the "feelings" of your animals as much as you feel the need to.
And of course your beliefs on veganism have a reflection back to your core beliefs: If you're an evolutionist we're at the apex and animals are ours to eat, treating them well is not at all essential.
If you look at the Christian foundings of most modern society, animals are given to us as a gift but an amount of responsibility comes with it: Animals are only to be killed if needed for food, clothing or in self defense.
There's not a whole lot of variety apart from these 2 beliefs across societies and beliefs and veganism has onlya few roots and it's mostly out of preference or seeing specific animals as sacred.
If you're a vegan and you don't actively do anything to improve the conditions animals are farmed in, instead opting to not eat meat as a form of protest; then it's just personal preference and not a form of "protest" at all.
If that's the case, then you'd have no reason to tell others they should do the same unless you actually look at your CORE beliefs, ontherwise it's just you acting on emotion and "I'm saving lives by not eating meat" and nothing more.
Not personally attacking you anon, just some mild bantz for you to consider; I personally respect your beliefs but cognitive dissonance and delusion is rife in the vegan community and I don't wanna see you go down that path and not make it as a result.
humans are animals too.
Saying that animals are beneath us is completely subjective. Many animals are much stronger than us, much faster than us, have much better senses that we do. We put ourselves above them because of some quirk of evolution we were able to develop more complex brains and the use of tools. Aliens from another planet could look at us and argue that livestock are much better animals than us. We knowingly cause mass destruction of our own planet because we enjoy consumption, we knowingly exterminate one another on a mass scale in the name of religion, or over resources, or to protect land etc etc. Cows do not do this, they peacefully graze on plants, fuck each other and reproduce. The males fight over breeding rights but that's about as violent as thet ever get.
I would argue that many animals are more useful than children also. A horse can carry me where I want to go, can a child? Dogs can protect me from those who wish to cause me harm, can a child? Cats can keep rodents away from where I live and store my food, can a child? Sheep can grow wool that can be used to keep me warm, can a child?
We are not above animals, we only believe we are because that is our perspective. In reality we are all the same, we come from the same materials, we come from the same planet, we breathe the same air and drink the same water.
Because you suck at cooking.
I ate my vegetable at home, but detested salads while visiting other families, cafeterias etc.
Same with my brother and numerous nephews.
Try giving your kid a boiled to shit unseasoned meat slab.
And you probably give example by disliking vegetables yourself. Kids pick up on that shit really good.
>Saying that animals are beneath us is completely subjective
exactly. that's why these moralizing arguments are so useless. it all comes down to personal beliefs. there's no arguing on that level.
you think humans and animals are on the same level - your business. i dont, and neither does the vast majority of humans.
chicken cow pig rabbit turkey partridge pigeon duck quail bison goat lamb etc salmon tuna tilapia cod swordfish mackerel pike trout anchovies mullet herring sprat sardines squid cuttlefish shrimp clams oysters muscles scallops crabs lobsters langoustines crayfish cockles whelks etc eggs milk honey roe organs etc So many fucking animal products i cant even think of that many in a sitting. Huge part of a balanced diet. You are all fucking dimwitted morons.
Yeah man, everyone has free will to do what we want; no assumptions here, rather I'm just pointing out the origin of these various beliefs.
I respect people that choose veganism as a personal choice and will happily defend their right to do so, the moment they try to tell me that their motivations are health, agricultural or global sustainability etc and that I should do it as well is where the issue lies.
The main reason for this is that veganism directly conflicts with my CORE beliefs, which is why i'd never take it on as anything more than a personal choice (if, hypothetically I chose to be a vegan)
I hope that clears things up.
my point is that I did not choose to be a vegan based on some arbitrary belief system that I was bought up with. I chose to be a vegan based on my experiences with animals.
I disagree and see abstaining from animals products as a perfectly valid form of protest. By depriving the industry of my money I am taking away my support for what they are doing. I would like to change the animal industry but I also have my own life to live. I have studies, I have work, I have family and hobbies etc. I do not claim to be an activist although I support those that are. For me having no part of an industry I disagree with is enough. Knowing that I am not contributing is enough.
With that said I sometimes discuss veganism on here and in other online forums. I have helped people transition from an omnivorous diet to a vegan diet and in doing so I am reducing the demand for meat further, reducing the suffering in the world further. That is enough for me to feel I am doing something, even if in the grand scheme of things it is seemingly insignificant.
What is eating 500gram of beans vs 100 grams of groud beef for around the same protein
Fuck off fag
>b12 vitamin deficiencies which can be masked up by an acid (which i forget The name of, but Google it) until sever stages where anemia, feeling tired all day, and weakness all hit hard
>no good fatty acids
>no good oils like omega 3 from fish and eggs iirc
god greenman is such a fucking child. all that shit with lexfitness just proved his immaturity. bodybuilding is such an unprofitable career that most have to make money by shit like youtube and attending conventions.
greenman deadset rocks up to this convention to record a video of himself acting like kylo ren getting bad results on a test and trying to intimidate the guy on camera followed by scuttling off and uploading the video. the guy is working you fuckwit.
imagine if lexfitness came into whatever place virgingains works (highly unlikely he has a job) and filmed himself trying to intimidate the guy. .
1000g protein from lentils costs me $7 from costco
I spend about $10 a day getting 150-200g protein from whole foods + 3000 cals total. Lots of greens, potatoes, healthy fats and everything.
>meat tastes good
only when you eat it plants
>hard to reach protein
Soy - notably tempeh. Rice protein.
>vegans are typically cunts
you just like to think they're cunts
not him but I am a vegan and am currently cutting. It is difficult as most vegan source of protein also come with carbs (beans, lentils etc) or fats (nuts, seeds etc) so it is very hard to eat low calorie and keep protein high. My diet is very restricitve while cutting. I rely on seitan and protein powders such as rice, soy and pea protein. Cutting as a vegan fucking sucks.
Lex is a liar for money.
VG tells the truth about liars while making money.
>tfw you realize you think kids are on the same level as animals
>WHY DO WE KILL ANIMALS WHEN ITS NOT NECESARYYYY
99% of that animal meat gets eaten in the end faggot, people used that meat
>This myth has been debunked
Vegan is cheaper if you eat fruit, veggies and legumes. It is more expensive if you eat fake meats, almond milk etc
>>Myth tastes good
>Not a good argument
The only good argument. Are you stupid? The only reason we eat meat is taste. Everything else is an excuse to justify our instinctive behaviour.
>>lack of protein
>What are lentils, Tofu and black beans
Full of carbs, more expensive than meat, more expensive than meat.
>>vegans are cunts
You should have said that it is irrelevant to one's dietary choices
Vegans are a lot like religious people. If they keep their beliefs private and don't impose them on others they're fine.
The problem is that most of them hold their beliefs for irrational reasons, and then afterwards they dig through dodgy science with a confirmation bias to find anything that justifies their belief system...
>Look! The human eye proves intelligent design! Checkmate atheists!
>Look! Having canines doesn't mean we evolved to eat meat! Checkmate murderers!
Just because someone does something, doesn't mean that you can do it to. Also you've been literally making the same argument over and over. You have the ability to decide to not eat meat and live a life as a vegan, those animals do not have that choice, they do that for survival. The whole "when it comes to survival, I must eat meat because the my ancestors hunted and killed animals to eat" is bullshit, because 1. You don't even hunt these animals anymore, you go buy them at your local Walmart or whatever store, 2. If you actually do hunt, you're just causing more suffering than is neccesary. "If other animals do it, I don't get why we can't do it to" the cows, pigs, chickens, any thing you eat will never have that chance, they sit in a contained tight space all day, covered in shit and other bodily fluids tucked in with other chickens, pumped full of super powerful antibiotics so they don't die within a couple of days, and then they just get slaughtered at any time.
I'm a vegan and I agree, but I have never seen a militant vegan irl in the way that I have seen many religious fanatics.
I discuss veganism on here because the internet is a good place for discussion. If someone doesn't want to discuss it they can simply not reply or move to another thread. I am not imposing my beliefs onto other but simply starting a dialog, whether the person or people I am talking to choose to become vegans or not is no concern of mine but the very act of discussion creates nothing but good in my opinion. It is important to have your views challenged and to be able to defend them, if one goes through life without ever questioning the way in which he chooses to live it then that is just sad.
I like you anon, it's been nice discussing this all with you and your intentions seem good.
I personally think that trying to rid the world of the meat industry like militant vegans suggest is ridiculous, but that ensuring ethical treatment of the animals during their lifetime and up to their slaughter is paramount and can only be achieved through proper legislation like a well drafted humane slaughter act that is properly enforced.
Animals taste better and provide better produce when they're happy and properly looked after, and that's something that both vegans and vegetarians can get behind.
Greece. Ib4 denbt memes.
Where do YOU live that they are cheaper?
Here, 1 L of milk is 1-1.5€. I just found almond milk in a delicatessen for 3.80€, no regular supermarket or convenience store has it.
Same with black beans. Chicken breast is 5-8€/kg, chicken is 3-4 (as low as 2 if they have a sale), pork ribs around 4. Black beans are 8€ and I've only found them in a place about 80 km from home, literally. I'm not complaining about beans or legumes in general, these are everywhere and cheap as fuck. But they are low in protons.
Meat replacements: the only product I've found ever is a "soy kebab" type of thing in one store that is the same price as meat but looks, smells and tastes like dog food. Seriously, it is dry when you buy it just like dog food.
likewise, civil discussion on fit is always welcome.
I agree with that, proper treatment of animals is of utmost importance in my opinion, not only for the animals sake but for our own. The casual inhumanity with which we treat billions of animals has to have an effect on us. Just look at some of the replies that come through in threads like these, no care at all for the suffering of other beings, it's saddening.
There are other implications of animal agriculture that we haven't talked about, such as the environmental impact, which is severe but I need to go and finish an essay so that will have to wait for another day.
I think the first step is as you suggest, legislation that ensures humane treatment of animals, for their health, for the taste, for the health of the people that eat them and for us as human beings to do what we can to reduce the suffering in the world.
The next step should be a move away from the amount of meat we eat. It is unsustainable for our planet and the sheer scale of animal agriculture is causing many problems that are only getting worse.
As far as agriculture goes, the problem is both the meat and crop industry; not one or the other.
Monoculture is destroying the world as we know it, omniculture and biodiversity, use of cover crops, and use of animal fertilisers and permaculture principles will ensure we have meat and crop production that is not only sustainable but that actually improves the environment by improving soils and local environments; looking into ideas like insect proteins is also a decent fledgling idea that is promising at this point for supplementing the current industry and its footprint.
Believe me when I say that monoculture of crops and what they do to encourage disease, destruction of soil down to a microbial level and groundwater pollution is every bit as much of a problem as what the meat industry contributes; in fact much more where i'm from.
Why does this shit ALWAYS have to be black and white? Can't you eat mostly vegetables and occasionally enjoy some milk/eggs/fish or whatever? You don't HAVE to sacrifice your soul to the vegan meme god and bring boxes of lentils home to thanksgiving - you can actually be a well-balanced adult and do a bit of both.
People who can't take shit in moderation (Political views, food, work, alcohol or dick like in OP's case) are the ones who makes this world a terrible place.
there is no doubt that monoculture crops cause a hell of a lot of problems. With that in mind though it can't be ignored that animals themselves are fed from crops grown in monoculture farms. If the amount of animals were reduced dramatically the amount of farms needed would be reduced too.
The world would also be a terrible place if everyone was a fence sitter like you anon.
Actually having something that you believe in is what makes this world what it is, if you don't like it you need to git gud.
Yeah son, that's why low footprint alternatives like insect protein are a good way to take some of the strain away; though biodynamic farms where the animals are fed from diverse farming and fodder crops that are mixed in and rotated often with the addition of soil enriching crops that can also serve as food if needed would work well with the current demand for meat and open up a lot more variety of quality fruit and veg, especially if heirloom/organic variety crops, organic growth principles and other sustainable measures are used.
Changes like this are a very slow process and it's getting better, we still have a long way to go but the future is starting to look a bit better for meat eaters and non meat eaters alike.
I'm not talking about "fencesitting", I'm talking basic common sense. Fanaticism is always bad, and it's the path of the weak who do not dare to trust their self-control.
You can still have that beer once every month even if you are a world class bodybuilder. Bringing home tofu to christmas or skipping an entire meal to go starving because someone used abit of butter in the cooking means you are a massive faggot that makes decisions that only benefit a delusional idea.
The whole "go 100% or go home" mentality exists because unmotivated slobs needs that kind of thinking to even get their asses out of the chair. When people take it literal, shit goes south.
For the record, I also think that being the fencesitter that can't even pick a side also deserves a special place in hell.
>50-75% protein by means of dry weight
>Not good nutrition
>Being this misinformed
Pick one m88e
I can't even get hard to asians. I think my dick is abit racist, tho I find black women hot.
There's just something very unpersonal and bland about asians that makes them unattractive. The fact that they are the typical last resort for a sexless white weaboo also contributes.
So you don't think that having beliefs that you're not willing to give up or compromise is a good thing?
In some cases it's a terrible thing and I agree with you on that, but on some things it's a defining factor of what makes us great.
cowspiracy revealed a lot for me. Was the most convincing argument for giving up meat in my opinion.
I have no moral boundary to eating meat in itself, in fact the cows still need to be killed off but just not replaced so they stop destroying the fucking o zone.
I went vegetarian this month and I honestly have to say I probably wouldn't eat meat again unless there was nothing else to eat.
I've had zero problems getting protein in. You guys are kinda biased s you've never tried it. I've also never been this lean before in my life.
It's merely a life style decision. Kinda like wearing a Hat or not wearing a hat. Who fucking cares if your wearing it?
>I went vegetarian this month
>I've also never been this lean before in my life
>Wearing a hat or not wearing a hat
This has to be the worst possible analogy you could have used on this board.
It's impossible to be a true vegan
>Not realising that you probably use animal products daily
>Not wearing a hat
>but plaque progression just being delayed
"arrested progression (ICA-IMTmax and plaquemax, −0.030 mm [−0.153 to 0.093 mm] and −0.091 mm [−0.206 to 0.023 mm], respectively)."
A reduction of -0.091mm looks like a regression to me, how am I reading this wrong?
Not arguing just curious.
Raid***Cough***Raid this vegan pussy***Cough***Trencough
Oy vey my fellow whites! You don't need meat to be big and strong!
Let those subhuman beasts eat lots of protein and get str... I mean have heart attacks. The vegan diet is perfect for the progressive nu male that will inherit the earth.
>there are literally thousands of other (pro vegan) texts with scientific studies
Gues what, for every 1 pro vegan scientific study, there are atleast 3 studies that say vegan is bad
And sure there are millions of books, it's a damn cash in fad, just like self help books. Nutritionists put aside what they learned (aka 5 years doctor, 3-4 years nutritionist specialization) and just say good things about vegan diets, because it's a FAD and if they sell 100 books they've already made a significant profit. Why do you think a shit ton of book publishers are pretty much just green lighting anything pro vegan? Because it's money. They don't care about healthy lifestyles or even you, they care about fads that will bring then a crap ton of money. Hell, have you been to an organic market? (Not an organic isle in a supermarket chain, a real one) people are literally selling you lettuce that's already floppy and starting to brown for 25$ dollars just because "it's super organic!" Meanwhile you can get a crisp head of lettuce at a publix for 3$.
But no, I'm sure those people who sell you overpriced and browning lettuce actually DO care about your health, and not money!
I'm also sure all those vegan books that cost around 30-50 dollars don't even want your money, right? They care about YOU and your life style!
Riddle me this my friendo, how many pro carnivore books have you seen? (Inb4 normal recepie or nutrition books) not many, you say? Maybe it's because meat isn't a cash grab fad and is nesecary to live healthy and no one is going to buy a book saying you should eat meat because it's healthy when they already know is healthy.
I don't even need to call for order 66 on vehan gains. Youtube does that enough already
Actually studies show plants feeling and reacting to pain, fruit being removed, leaves being eaten, hell and even having memory, that plant called the mimosa that closes when it's disturbed was shown to stop closing when the same repetitive disturbing was administered (like being let go and falling onto a pillow ) and it retained these memories for its entire life
>vegans will never, ever be the majority
>vegans will always have the stereotype of being the whiney little cuck in the corner no one likes
>our species will go extinct before it stops eating meat
>you will always have freedom and own guns
>Trump will be president
What a time to be alive
Hey idk if you've seen, but what he's talking about is fanboyism, look at cellphone fanboys, one group LOVES Apple iPhones and will NEVER accept that android phones have their advantages, and vice versa. An intelligent person would not have a side, seeing that both android and iPhones both have their pros and cons.
Same with vegans. Vegans feel superior to meat eaters, when in reality, a smart person would see that they both have their pros and cons, and ultimately eat both vegetables and meat.
Hope that clears it up for you my friend, have an egg meme
>hey OP here's a few hundred studies that show being vegan is actually detrimental to health
THATS MISINFORMATION HERE LOOK!
>posts 1 study that says it's good for health, 3 pro vegan blog posts, 2 news articles that say a woman was saved from heart attack by eating vegan, when it could have been multiple factors most likely weightloss
THIS IS REEEALL INFOOOOO
>umm no anon it's not
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
>links to amazon page for pro vegan book that costs 50$
If you eat meat you're killing an animal for pleasure. Its really that simple.
A cool point I heard somewhere is this:
We need to set an example for how to treat lesser species, because one day we may be the lesser species.
>IT IS THE ONLY DIET SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO PREVENT AND REVERSE HEART DISEASE, this is not up for discussion.
I think you mean atherosclerotic heart disease. And yes, anything keeping VLDLs, LDLs, chylomicron remnants, other atherogenic lipoproteins, etc low enough will do that. You don't need some super special vegan diet.
>implying we won't be always be the greater species
Unless alien but for that go to /x/
Idgaf about vegans but this is a dumb argument
>be me, qualzthorb of nebula 8
>going to invade this planet the inhabitants call earth
>they speak their own language, have writings, tools, machines, technology, they must be intelligent beings
>we move along
>be me, qualzthorb of nebula 8
>today we will invade a planet called earth to take it over for resources
>see sentient and intelligent beings
>we are superior beings so we eat them
>kill them with laser gun which hurts a lot
>see that the humans were nice to the animals
>don't give a shit, ate the animals too
Also, animals are killed painlessly with a rivet gun I think it's called which in less than a fraction of a second fractures spinal cord connection to brain causing brain death in less than half a second
I'm a closet vegan and rarely tell people about it (yes I know I'm telling you now). If you're gonna be vegan be realistic and take supplements. You will become B12 deficient and likely iron deficient if you don't. Being vegan is extremely inconvenient and does not make you better than anybody. I do it because I don't want to personally contribute to the abuse that takes place at factory farms. Most people who decide to be vegan will not continue with it long term so don't start bragging about it.
Whilst that anon is wrong about sodium and cancer, he is correct about those of us who actually cardio need a higher sodium intake to offset loses from sweating. As well as probably a higher potassium and magnesium intake, although that mainly comes from food anyways.
Advising otherwise can be dangerous.
Nobody has ever actually isolated meat consumption AS SUCH as inherently negative in any kind of study.
The conclusions of vegetarians and vegans are extrapolated mainly from three things:
>Studies concluding that the average Amerifat's high meat/protein and low veggies/fiber/micronutrients diet is, in fact, less healthy and longevity-promoting than diets high in veggies/fiber/micronutrients that may or may not have no meat in them. Which obviously proves absolutely nothing that we don't already know.
>Questions raised over the health impact of questionable processing practices done in many parts of the livestock industry. Which isn't a problem with meat itself, just certain sources of it.
>Observations of a few extremely long-lived communities where meat isn't eaten very often, followed by assuming (not concluding, assuming) 1) That less seems to look good so none MUST be even better and 2) That none of the other life-prolonging things these communities have going for them (like simple, low-stress lifestyles, super-nutrient-rich local soil, and social practices that keep people active and involved in the lives of their neighbors as long as they live) is as significant to their health and longevity as the relative scarcity of meat in their diet.
"Not eating meat is healthier than eating meat" is an extremely-tenuously-supported hypothesis, at best. "Animal products, especially meat, are extremely useful nutrient sources for people trying to boost athletic performance" is tried and true.
>I can't even get hard to asians
Not shitty estrogenic tofu.
Environmentally you would have a lesser impact by having 2 kids or less
Ethically, since reason is our axiom and just some species show signs of having a the minimum hardware for it (definitely humans amd maybe some primates, dolphins and crows), it makes no sense to ponder ethical considerations regarding species that cant even access the realm of what is being discussed.
not an argument
see: India. 1 billion+ vegetarians/vegans.
>Environmentally you would have a lesser impact by having 2 kids or less
not an argument
>Ethically, since reason is our axiom and just some species show signs of having a the minimum hardware for it (definitely humans amd maybe some primates, dolphins and crows), it makes no sense to ponder ethical considerations regarding species that cant even access the realm of what is being discussed.
reason is our axiom? How? Babies/mentally disabled people can't reason as well as most of the animals we eat - does that mean it's ethically justifiable to eat them? Animals suffer greatly as a result of meat/egg/dairy industries; given such foods are completely unnecessary for life in West, their suffering is purely for human pleasure.
Please stop self posting here.
desu i started of hating him, but you cant really argue against veganism. The only ones who do are betas who think killing weaker life is manly, or fuckbois scared of change and admitting they was wrong
make some future projection
once you are growing bigger than you currently are right now, getting enough protein through plant sources will become a constant chore. Eating 15lbs of romaine lettuce instead of 2-3 10oz steaks/day
also, veganism is fucking gay and it's no doubt a cult. Fitness is too broad with too much variety to be a cult, but something like Crossfit and veganism tend to have strict protocols, strong emotional attachments and a loud ass echo chamber = cults
remember, your gainz are not progressing because either you're not getting enough food + rest or it's your routine
this is a joke right?
only fucking delusional idiots would think that a diet will make them immortal. Eat meat, eat plants, you will all fucking die some day. If anything, you should try to "die before you die, and find that there is no death"
my god, vegans are really fucking stupid
> humans arent animals
also stfu with this bullshit, i expect this from a sandnigger. Animals have sentience and a life. Life is rare in this universe, you dont take lives away when they are innocent.
Here is an argument against it:
Vegan(No)Gains physique and stats after 9 months of lifting despite him having really decent videos about programming where he proves that he knows the base principles of it.
>reason is our axiom? How? Babies/mentally disabled people can't reason as well as most of the animals we eat - does that mean it's ethically justifiable to eat them? Animals suffer greatly as a result of meat/egg/dairy industries; given such foods are completely unnecessary for life in West, their suffering is purely for human pleasure.
You are a moron. Here is why. You are using a strawman and do not even realize it. I did not say "the axiom is to reason well" at all. If that was the case, I would not have included chimps nor crows nor dolphins. I said reason (and at least the minimum hardware for it) is our axiom and I included those other animals because they show hints of being able to use reason (and retards and babies can use reason too), such as causal reasoning and some sort of language in some cases.
And my other points are in fact arguments since they shit on the usual "justifications" to go vegan.
Oh and forgot something.
Suffering and pleasure are arbitrary criteria for a moral compass. That shit is just a mechanism we have developed through a shitload of years of evolution to encourage behaviour patterns that tend, but not always, to keep us relatively safe.
Reason on the other hand must be taken as an axiom if you want to do what we are doing right now (discussin shit) in any meaningful way. Otherwise any set of gibberish would be as valid as anything else.
i dont get it our species have been around 60.000 years if im not mistaken after all that effort we are finally at the top of food chain and can use other animals for our use why push away all the effory our spieces gave ?we are omnivores why try to change something that you were naturally born with ? why did this appear if there were any other animals at the top of food chain they wouldnt give a fuck about eating other animals why does intelligence change this i dont understand
OP, you do realize your becoming a bandwagoning faggot that fell for a literal meme right? And I you exclude meat from your diet you really will be setting your progress back
>I like scientific evidence, logic and reason and utilizing them to keep myself optimally healthy as well as enjoy a diet full of a food it makes no sense to get rid of unless I have a genetic disorder/defect that keeps me from eating/digesting it
Are you fucking retarded. Those are no where near the same and cannot nor should they be compared
>Just because someone does something, doesn't mean that you can do it to.
Except we can, because like anon saide, were fucking omnivores
>If you actually do hunt, you're just causing more suffering than is neccesary.
Actually hunting can be good for the animals/environment as it thins out some animal populations and can prevent overpopulation. See why we have 'hunting seasons'
"If other animals do it, I don't get why we can't do it to" the cows, pigs, chickens, any thing you eat will never have that chance, they sit in a contained tight space all day, covered in shit and other bodily fluids tucked in with other chickens, pumped full of super powerful antibiotics so they don't die within a couple of days, and then they just get slaughtered at any time.
Then get organic free range meat and don't buy processed factory farmed shit
I got meat is for pussies when it first came out considering I was super into the cro mags and punk in general in high school. After giving up being a vegetarian of six years a couple months back, everything about me feels better. I've gotten compliments about looking healthier and feel hormonally better as well. One thing I noticed is when going out for a day of rock climbing or something along those lines, my upper back and nose would turn red instantly when I got in the sun and sunburns would be bad. When I started back I meat I would go out a couple days a week for at least three hours at noon and I never got anything close to a sunburn. Everything just seems to be working better, but that's just me saying what I've noticed. There's no one stop diet for anyone one person, and if John Joseph wants to make his raw plant based foods for every meal then that's cool, but I'm not an endurance athlete, nor am I him
Also are you retarded?
>i dont get when people say they love animals and then go to mcdonalds
When people say that they mean they love the animals they personally deal with and not every single animal. Hell, people dont even love humans that are on the other side of the globe. Way to be autistic.
I left for half a year and I come back to this? I remember when people would troll ironically as vegans... but now... I honestly can't tell if these are really dedicated trolls or vegans?
Vegans act so retarded, it can be difficult to distinguish one from another.
>THEY ARE NOT SENTIENT
Any sufficently complex network can be. A single tree might not be sentient, but the forest or a large patch of plants might be.
>THEY HAVE NO EMOTION
That does not mean shit. See >>35615748
>THEY HAVE NO DESIRE
See >>35615748 >>35615730
>THEY HAVE NO FREE WILL
Nothing has free will. Everything is conditioned by the past, even if it is probabilistic or uncertain in nature.
>THEY CANNOT FEEL PAIN
Irrelevant. See >>35615748
It seems to have to do with the composition of the plaque, which changed to a more stable fiberous core, and the effect that has on plaque volume. Interview with one of the study authors
>"All we can say is that we saw regression of the volume of the plaque, that's it. But if you look here [at the baseline images], you can see an area of shadow that suggests lipid core, and over time, this shadow turns white--this typically means less lipid and more calcium, and this points to a more stable plaque."
The 'other life' can be eaten and digested and was going to die one way or the other
A plant is not a suffciently complex network. A better comparison would be a forest (or a large patch of plants) or a dog.
Also you are not adressing my arguments. Go die in the same fire with your shitty plant and your retarded dog.
>caring about innocent lives
You should only care about your own species like any other social animal would, certainly not about species below you in the food chain, unless you're using them for work. The lion doesn't care about the antelope, and the human shouldn't care about the cow either, they certainly don't care about you (inb4 they can't, that is exactly the point). Compassion should be only for other humans.
>his typically means less lipid and more calcium
I appreciate the reply. I wonder if a relatively high dose Vit K2 would work in that instance.
I'm now considering going plant-based. Were do I find some decent info in regards to lifting on such a diet? Plz don't say VG.
Libtards will always find absurd shit to pick at
>that wasnt what happened but whatever you say fella. Dont walk in a forest you might annoy it hahahah
Except I do not care about sentience that way because I do not pick and choose arbitrary criteria and try to pass them as universal moral guidelines that everyone should follow lest they be immoral savages. Also yes, that was exactly what happened.
Have you read the posts I pointed out?
Stop being an irrational fuckwit.
>act like a human.
Exactly, as a human we are above most animals in the food chain, act like a human. You eat and shit like every other animal on earth you aren't so above then as you think. And if not eating meat is some evolved compassion thing then cows must be the most sacred animal ever like the Indians say, they only eat grass after all.
>Riddle me this my friendo, how many pro carnivore books have you seen? (Inb4 normal recepie or nutrition books) not many, you say? Maybe it's because meat isn't a cash grab fad and is nesecary to live healthy and no one is going to buy a book saying you should eat meat because it's healthy when they already know is healthy.
Actually, the paleo people seem to be pumping out more books than anyone lately. Go to a book store, go to the nutrition section, and look for yourself.
The difference is the vegan books are actually written by physicians and doctors, whereas the paleo books are written by fitness "gurus" and journalists.
you are the one arguing that killing any animal is the same as killing plants
that is irrational and you know it, but you are gonna carry on trying to be deep. But its really close to black and white as it can get.
Animals are innocent
they are sentient
they feel like we do
its wrong to kill for no reason
I could say its right to rape babies, and if you think its wrong then you are just choosing arbitrary criteria and trying to pass it as universal moral guidelines.
Your words are empty.
Humans are naturally compassionate. The first time you see blood and guts it bothered you (may not now cus of this place)
You dont take life, innocent life at that, for no reason.
We are above the food chain.
>Humans are naturally compassionate.
Towards our same species like a social animal should, even dogs and cats had to evolve to look like our young to make us more likely to care about them.
>The first time you see blood and guts it bothered you
And yet humans have always hunted and killed animals throughout history.
>and thats because we needed to.
Ok, doesn't change the fact that not once I've heard of any society where hunters feel compassion towards their prey or get disgusted by blood and guts. In fact my grandmother, an old and frail woman who cries watching soap operas, routinely would kill chicken for eating like it was nothing.
Yes, look it up faggot. I know that in the beginning this was not the reason they approached humans but as time went on they started developing bigger eyes and faces more like out babies.
>you are the one arguing that killing any animal is the same as killing plants
Never said that. And even then, it is ambiguous. The same eregarding what? Morality? I already made myself clear about that. Environmental impact? Also explained how dietary choice is just one part of the big picture *gas emissions, demographic growth technology, ect.). In the end we do not have to do everything possible to minimize environmental impact, since the logical consequence of that would be suicide, but rather just do enough so that if everyone made the same impact as we personally do, we could sustain a non hostile environment indefinitely.
>Animals are innocent
Guilty and innocent are man made concepts. They just describe moral or legal responsability within ethical frameworks we create.
>they are sentient
Irrelevant and arbitrary criteria
>they feel like we do
Not really. They feel, but not like we do exactly. But that is also irrelevant since feelings are a retarded moral compass for the previously mentioned reasons.
>its wrong to kill for no reason
You have not justified that. I believe that because I believe in self-determination as a consequence of no ethical framework being the absolutely right one and that the truth we usually arrive at is provisional (as in science). This requires to take reason as an axiom and therefore we can only talk about this kind of thing (or even consider them) within species or beings (including strong A.I.) that at least show hints of reason, such as causal reasoning.
>I could say its right to rape babies, and if you think its wrong then you are just choosing arbitrary criteria and trying to pass it as universal moral guidelines.
You could. Except I would not be choosing arbitrary guidelines, but rather follow the rational consequence of being honest with the lack of inherent morality in reality itself.
hahahahahahahahahaha ooohh my fucking god, youre hilarious fuuuck meeee
no mate just no
we find anything that looks like a child cute, they didnt fucking evolve to look like us.
And yeah you wouldnt, because by the time an adult can actually communicate and voice his opinions he/she would of been shaped and thus lost sensitivity.
One more question before this thread gets archived, what's the consensus on fish oil?
Hitting my EPA/DHA intake is much cheaper with it than the algae alternatives. I know Ornish uses it.
you really are retarded. So nothing matters and you can do whatever you want. you can kill children, keep them to fuck in a badsement and its all arbitrary if you say its wrong ayy
>You could. Except I would not be choosing arbitrary guidelines, but rather follow the rational consequence of being honest with the lack of inherent morality in reality itself.
so if i go out and rape a baby and kill its family, then rape the baby again...can you be my friend because morals dont exsist so you should be fine with me XD
>they didnt fucking evolve to look like us.
just a quick google since the thread is dead anyway:
And there is this old experiment with foxes, where selecting the most tame ones in a few generations made them physically look different:
> right and wrong are man made
> morality is man made
> so people can do whatever they want
funny you can comfortably say that because most people disagree with you. If humans ever felt like that as a majority im sure you would be singing a different tune when you and your loved ones are getting fucked up.
Most animals we eat have a higher capacity of "reason" than babies and those suffering from especially bad mental illnesses; this much is scientific fact.
>I did not say "the axiom is to reason well"
where do I claim this? You say:
>since reason is our axiom
and I respond with
>Babies/mentally disabled people can't reason as well as most of the animals we eat - does that mean it's ethically justifiable to eat them
What is your problem with this argument? Are you going to respond to it?
I would like to ask a few more questions regarding your ethical framework:
Where do we draw the line between something that can reason and something that can't? If you can't distinguish this then your whole conception of ethics with regard to reason falls apart completely.
Why are you basing your ethical system on a capacity to reason? How does our capacity to reason separate us in any meaningful way from other sentient beings (i.e. animals we eat) in our capacity to suffer?
>Suffering and pleasure are arbitrary criteria for a moral compass. That shit is just a mechanism we have developed through a shitload of years of evolution to encourage behaviour patterns that tend, but not always, to keep us relatively safe.
I don't see how this negates suffering as a bad thing. If I said the same thing before I torturing you horribly you would gleefully accept your fate, then?
Can you find a single academic paper published in a respectable journal defending the consumption of meat/dairy/eggs in the West? (there are literally thousands attacking consumption of meat/dairy/eggs in the West)
>And my other points are in fact arguments since they shit on the usual "justifications" to go vegan.
Care to explain how?
Some (but not all) dogs have clearly been selectively bred to meet, or even exaggerate, these characteristics, and, indeed, humans are affected by this selective breeding:
i cant change demographic growth and human population but i can control my diet and so can most people. This would have a major effect on climate change
im sorry but no matter what you say. It does matter that animals are sentient, you wouldnt condone the holocaust by saying the allied forces were just drawing "arbitrary lines"...you have killed that now, it stopped making you sound clever a while ago.
Erm yeah guilty and innocent maybe man made but that does not mean animals are not innocent. They dont deserve what we do.
Ofcourse feelings matter...
what happened to you to be so void? Do you have feelings for anybody?
>So nothing matters
Inherently nothing matters. We assign importance and value.
> and you can do whatever you want. you can kill children, keep them to fuck in a badsement and its all arbitrary if you say its wrong ayy
That is quite the jump and a fallacy. I already said I believe in self determination as a rational consequence of the lack of absolute morality. Going apeshit would mean you dont use reason as an axiom, but rather force.
>funny you can comfortably say that because most people disagree with you. If humans ever felt like that as a majority im sure you would be singing a different tune when you and your loved ones are getting fucked up.
It is irrelevant how they feel. This is a fact. There are other control mechanisms besides a flimsy moral feeling.
>Most animals we eat have a higher capacity of "reason" than babies and those suffering from especially bad mental illnesses; this much is scientific fact.
Not really. A deer will never have causal resoning. A baby even has notion of quantity and identity (as in A equals A). You are comparing vastly different hardwares. Not all hardware can support reason.
>What is your problem with this argument? Are you going to respond to it?
Already did. In the end it is a question of hardware. Most animals do not have a brain capable of supporting reason or show hints of it, unlike humans (and maybe some primates, dolphins and crows).
>Where do we draw the line between something that can reason and something that can't? If you can't distinguish this then your whole conception of ethics with regard to reason falls apart completely.
This is a complex question that is still being adressed in different scientifc fields (computer science, biology, neuroscience, ect.), but that does not mean we cannot draw some lines already, such as fish and crabs not being able to reason.
Will continue in the next post.
il come rape your sister and when you are crying and begging for it to end, il just say nothing matters.
you will probably just agree to this statement to and say its fine to rape
>posting literally the best book written and peer reviewed on form
>comparing it to a 30 page diet pdf on some internet marketing landing webpage
Not to mention starting strength isn't meant to be your routine forever.. it's by definition for starters
>The first time you see blood and guts it bothered you
It's entirely cultural, it might bother you if it's your own or another human being, but seing skinned lambs, entrails and so on at the butcher only filled me with curiosity as a child.
Also you seem to think that we sheltered post industrial middle class westerners are somehow desensitized to violence as opposed to literally anywhere and anywhen else, with people actually slaughtering their own animals and violence and war being something their exposed to first hand not trough a screen.
>Why are you basing your ethical system on a capacity to reason? How does our capacity to reason separate us in any meaningful way from other sentient beings (i.e. animals we eat) in our capacity to suffer?
It is not that it makes us special or something like that, but rather that since reason is the necessary axiom so that it does not get to the point where anything goes (askdfg would be as valid as the entirety of fucking calculus) and that reason only seems to emerge from certain hardware configurations so to speak, is that I pick it as an axiom...so we dont end up throwing our assumptions at each other repeatedly as ever increasingly convoluted rethorical constructs.
> don't see how this negates suffering as a bad thing. If I said the same thing before I torturing you horribly you would gleefully accept your fate, then?
It does not negate it. It simply points out that you have not proved shit. If you say X is bad, the burden of proof is on your side. About the torture, read again the part about self-determination. Since I have a hardware capable of reason, which is the axiom, then torturing me for no reason would be shitting all over the principle of self-determination and reason itself, and instead using a principle of force, which is not rational.
>Can you find a single academic paper published in a respectable journal defending the consumption of meat/dairy/eggs in the West? (there are literally thousands attacking consumption of meat/dairy/eggs in the West)
It is not my interest to defend meat consumption nor bash it.
>Care to explain how?
By showing how it is not a vegan/not vegan dichotomy but rather about a sum of lifestyle choices, specially those regarding demographic growth, and that we should consider every factor and do our part for sustainability, but not necessarily the same way. Look at it as some sort of maximum pollution possible for indefintely non hostile environment quota.
It is a strawman of my position since it does not account for the self-determination principle, the axiom of reason, its physical conditions (hardware that could be considered as the requisites for personhood, but that is another debate) nor the idea as a whole.
I have no sister. Also you have not understood shit. Go die.
I find it quite liberating actually. If facts and reason make you sad, I suggest you go and hug a puppy...or suck a cock.
You can change demographic growth by not having kids or having less kids.
"Deserve" is just another word that fulfills the same function.
I am quite happy actually. I do have feelings for my loved ones. I just separate very strictly what is rational from my feels.
Under some circumstances, yes. Only if that torture would without a reasonable doubt prevent further transgression of the self-determination principle.
Then again, I doubt those circumstances are common or that torture is that effective, since it tends to yield false positives if you want to extract information, or something like that.
I much prefer pacifist revolutions, such as counter-economy and direct action. Specially since those do not tend to replace a tyrant for antoher...although I am going off tangent here.
mate we are understanding you, you are just saying nothing matters and if it doesnt directly affect you then it doesnt matter.
Sentient life should not be tortured and killed for no reason. Yes that aspect may be "man made" but that doesnt mean its right to treat other sentient life that can feel like shit just because you are emo
Wanna know how I know you are trlling (or retarded)? Nothing I said even remotely implies that "if it doesnt directly affect you then it doesnt matter. "
What. No. Sentience is not the reason, but rather reason (being able to understand, but not necessarily doing so, causal reasoning, some sort of language, no contradiction principle, ect.) and the psychical condition for it to emerge.
no. Veganism is against killing sentient beings for no reason. That is the reason behind it, so it isnt arbitrary. Or it would have no reason behind.
What are you trying to say then mate, sum it up fella
I am saying sentience, defined as the capcity to perceive, feel and experience subjectivity, is being used in veganism as an arbitrary moral criteria, just as an hedonist would use pain and pleasure.
My framework on the other hand emerges from reason and the physical conditions that allow it to exist. Without this, we would not be able to even have this discussion and would be, like I said before, throwing our assumptions and arbitrary criteria at each other in the form of increasingly complex rethorical constructs.
the fact that it the sentience exists is enough.
Again regardless of what you say, the reason vegans do what they do is because of sentience, thats the system and reasoning. So that means it isnt arbitrary.
If something can feel pain, experience pain and percieve things then why the fuck are you trying to justify causing pain and suffering?
Youre just trying to be a philosopher on 4 chan, its already been covered. Yes in the grand scheme nothing matters, but why would you make our 1 chance of life full of suffering and pain, when you wouldnt want it done to you?
it doesnt matter what youre saying. Veganism is against causing suffering to sentient life. That is a system and reason....
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
It is a personal whim, since they assign importance to sentience because of their personal preference for that system or the values they dearly hold.
>If something can feel pain, experience pain and percieve things then why the fuck are you trying to justify causing pain and suffering?
I am not trying to justify that. I am trying to be strictly rational on my position.
You people sure love strawmen.
no its because if you feel suffering, then its not nice. So you dont make another sentient life feel that...
you are trying to justify that though, by saying those who are against it are being arbitrary.
not a strawman at all. Why are some animals seen as pets, some as slaves, some as dinner?
>no its because if you feel suffering, then its not nice.
This sentence means nothing. It is akin to saying a sleeping pill makes you sleepy because of its "sleepy" properties.
>So you dont make another sentient life feel that...
That is like your opinion, man.
>not a strawman at all
It is. My position is not "causing suffering is rationally justified". It is usually just a byproduct.
>Why are some animals seen as pets, some as slaves, some as dinner?
Kinda. It is arbitrary in a moral sense. Then again, I am not saying everything must be rationally justified, but rather self-determination is a rational consequence of how shit actually is given we use reason as an axiom.
>they assign importance to sentience because it means they can feel and that our actions towards them will have a consequence be it good or bad
Yes, I can.