Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
It's not really a secret that I love animals. In my life I've had two beautiful dogs and I see animals as sentient creatures that can feel pain and emotion the same way that we can. I even went vegetarian for a short period, although it did not last that long a period of time and I could have found better alternatives to the influx of Margarita pizzas, cheese crackers, biscuits, chocolate and meagerly compensating all this junk with my intake of five fruit and vegetables during that two month time period. Nevertheless, I did "try".
I'm not here to moralise then, or tell meat-eaters that they're bad people or whatever (I hold governments, media and commercial industry a hundred thousands times more accountable than the individual consumer who has basically no influence, by the way). What I am going to do is ask people to try and see the other point of view, and debunk some of the common arguments against veganism and vegetarianism. In case you didn't know (and some people I have spoken with do not), vegetarians can still consume dairy products (milk, cheese and eggs) whereas a true vegan will not consume any animal products whatsoever.
#1 Vegans & vegetarians should stop being so "butthurt". They can live their life, so just let me live mine.
Wouldn't you be "butthurt" if the majority of the world did something you had strong ethical convictions against? I'm not going to make the comparison here between animals being slaughtered and humans being killed because animals do not have the same sense of purpose or meaning in their life that a human being can create because of the power of their mind. That means that while an animal can feel pain and suffer a great deal, you are not stripping it of the full potential or robbing the creative ambition that a human would have.
But to say, I should be able to live my life how I want is not a strong argument for meat-eating. If we let people do whatever the heck they wanted whenever they wanted, we would not be a very civilised culture, now would we? We have laws in place precisely because we don't want people doing whatever the heck they want all the time. If people were allowed to do whatever the heck they want, they could burn toxic waste in their backyard, get a taxi somewhere and run off without paying, bottle someone round the head in a bar with no lawsuit, keep the neighbours awake all night with loud music, and just be obnoxious douchebags in general. And all of that's assuming, we still have some basic laws in place to prevent murder and really horrendous acts of cruelty. Things could obviously be a million times worse than that still.
However, the laws we have in place to protect animals, are relatively slim, and some of these described heinous activities really do happen on a very regular basis to millions of animals worldwide, often for very little reason. I can understand that we need to experiment on animals for human medicine related reasons - it's a necessity for our survival. However, we do not need L'Oreal to test more freaking shampoo products by burning out rabbit eyes. We've got hundreds of thousands of cosmetic and shampoo products that we know are safe (relatively safe, I mean there's a lot of unnecessary chemicals in these things, not to mention the environmental damage they cause) but we keep on letting commercial industry test this stuff on more animals for no reason.
#2 We've been eating meat for hundreds of years, it's just nature
I don't know where to start with the multitude of things wrong with this one. Anybody with any basic knowledge of logical fallacies (and everybody should at least know what the basic logical fallacies are, by the way) knows that this is both an appeal to nature and an appeal to antiquity. Basically, the person is assuming that,
(a) something's natural must be justified / healthy / pragmatic just because it's natural
(b) something that we've always done must be justified / healthy / pragmatic just because we've always done it
So why is that person wrong then? Well, first of all not everything natural is good for us or ethical. Mould is natural, so is poison ivy, but we don't eat those things. Similarly, hurling balls of turd at male competitors is a "natural" way of securing female mates, but you don't see this as a common practice any more. And now look at all of the stuff in the modern world that is NOT natural: medicines, agriculture, technology, cosmetics. Yet all of that stuff is good for us, and some of it is very, very ethical indeed. So this is a nonsense argument.
As for the appeal to antiquity, it's the same basic sentiment that's being expressed. Just because something has always been done for many, many years does not make that right or common sense for that matter. To see this, we've just got to compare all the things we've done for hundreds of years that were terrible like slavery, feudalism, wars, and human trafficking then compare those things to the good things we have now, like democracy, fair trade, medicine and so forth. So again, another really terrible comparison.
#3 No such thing as ethics: we can do what we want
So, this point is related to #1 in a lot of ways and it's pretty tough to argue against, BUT that doesn't mean there isn't a case. The argument is basically that it can't be objectively immoral to inflict unnecessary cruelty on an animal because that's just one person's view point. I'm not going to sit here a make a meta-ethical argument for objective morality because it's really difficult, I'm sceptical of such a thing myself and it will probably go over most people's heads anyway. Besides, there's a way of refuting this argument that's one hundred times easier.
Again, going back to #1, humans did not create laws and social order for people to do whatever the heck they want. Why? Because they were afraid of getting beaten up, robbed, raped, murdered, enslaved, mutilated, etc., etc. Ok cool, but what does that have to do with animals - after all, it's not our problem if animals get experimented on.
True, but there is this other little problem called 'empathy'. If all most people cared about was themselves and laws were designed to only protect the self-interests of the strong and powerful, then that probably would not be enough to keep a good social order because then anybody that showed any sign of weakness whatsoever would fall straight through the non-existent social security net and the majority of us would live to serve a very small, elite minority.
Thank god for empathy right? See, empathy actually has a pragmatic function as well: it's not all just about wishy-washy emotions. If we just let weak people in society rot - homeless people, autistic and downs-syndrome people, people with mental health issues or mental illness, etc., etc. - if we just let them fall down the metaphorical rabbit hole, then we ourselves would not be in a good position. Think about it: any time we show weakness, any time we demonstrate a lack of utility to someone stronger or more powerful than us that only cares about themselves ... in any of those situations, nobody is going to care about us so, we're just going to get screwed over as well.
It's not a good situation. But fortunately for society, empathy is just as cohesive - if not a more cohesive bond - than plain old guns and greed. So, if we feel empathy (and it's genetically coded that we do feel empathy) then, most of us that are not complete psychopaths probably do feel at least a little bit of empathy towards animal suffering as well as human suffering. The more knowledgeable we become about the ethics of animal treatment, then the more we are likely to be disturbed about the way things are. So why sit back and do nothing?
Everything in this world is interconnected, and not only does the animal industry have severe ethical ramifications, but a lot of animal products are bad for our health and bad for the environment. To summarize my argument here, sometimes being ethical is the practical thing to do. I'd like to tell people that they should just be ethical just because, but realistically some people actually need that 'self-interest' motive to actually listen to points of views any compassionate human being would at least consider. So there you have it.
#4 Animals eat other animals
So this is another one of those arguments that has about 10 things wrong with it, and when you hear that perspective, your head feels like it's about to explode because there's too many things to say all at once and as a result you're left speechless and boiling with rage. Meanwhile, the person is smirking to themselves because they think they've made a good point.
I really can't get my head over what a dumb argument this is. I think the person that makes this argument must think that ...
(a) the meat products he buys comes from this kind of animal...
rather than this breed ...
or such a vicious predatory beast as this one:
(b) humans in the west are in a primitive survival mode where they don't have any option but to kill and eat raw meat, just like the lions in Africa are
(c) predatory animals inflict anything like the horrendous suffering and torturing that goes on in laboratories and the meat industry
(d) animals have the self-awareness or logical capacity to make moral judgements like humans can
So you see, this argument is stupid beyond belief, right? But for some reason it doesn't stop unintelligent youtubers spouting their dumb one liners in the comment section. I guess that's just the internet for you...
Conclusion
Animals are not the same as human beings: they are not moral like we are, and they do not live lives enriched with meaning and creativity like we do. Furthermore, we cannot survive in a world that does not kill animals: we need medicine and products that have been tested on animals; we do not have enough land that would support agriculture alone; and we need to destroy natural habitats and use products that indirectly kill animals as well sometimes.
However, this does not justify behaviour that is unnecessarily cruel or vicious towards animals. This does not mean that animals cannot feel pain or emotions like we can. This does not mean that we cannot make a move towards using more humane, free range farming methods to minimise suffering. Vegans and vegetarians have a right to be angry about the actions of commercial industry and how to some extent, the individual consumer allows unethical behaviour by staying ignorant and making arguments such as the ones I have listed in order to justify their choices and stop themselves feeling guilty.
What Girls & Guys Said
15 15Somehow made it through the the whole thing 🙌
Great mytake!
I agree and understand on a person making a decision for themselves no how they see fit for their good conscience. However, I do not agree with them forcing their views or ideals on to someone else, nor do they have the right or duty to tell another person that their views or choices are evil or wrong. You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts. It is often a fact that natural unprocessed foods are far superior, and heatlhier than highly processed adulterated foods. Meaning humans have yet to fully understand what we should consume in order to live a healthy long life. A loaf of bread made from scratch with your own hands from grain to table has more nutrition than Wonder bread will ever have. Thats a fact. They have to add vitamins back into it just to give it some nutrition. Food is what we consume for us to survive. And what is food to people of the world can be so very different. It can have no meat, it can be nothing but meat. You can have a diet such as those of the African desert whose diet consists of many twigs, bark, and grasses that we might consider inedible, or to those in Alaska of the eskimo, who eat the blubber of seals, meat of the seals, and have no fruit or vegetables in their diet at all, and yet both groups are very healthy. What matters is that they eat off the land, and they are active, they dont eat preservatives, and fillers, that make up most of processed food found here in the united states. So though I find someone's decision to be a benefit for them, and what they consider to be for their well being. I wil always consider myself to be an omnivore, and will eat anything if I have to so I can see the next day with a stable mind and body.
"I do not agree with them forcing their views or ideals on to someone else, nor do they have the right or duty to tell another person that their views or choices are evil or wrong." We already do force our views and ideals on other people: they are called "laws" and are a part of a healthy, civilised society. "You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts" It's a fact that animals experience pain, same as humans. "So though I find someone's decision to be a benefit for them," When we make laws, we don't just consider if people's decisions are going to benefit that individual. We also consider what the impact might be on others. The ethical human might want to consider animals as well as other humans since animals can feel pain as well. It's true that animals don't live the same meaningful and enriched lives as us, but I don't think it should be down to choice alone whether people act ethically. If all ethical decision making was...
... down to choice alone, we would be in a very nasty predicament, because then people could do whatever the fuck they liked to each other.
actually not all animals can feel pain. nor do all animals understand what is happening to themselves if they are found in a bad predicament. Many mollusks for example feel no pain, and amphibians have been known to cook themselves if they are in a bath of water and the water is slowly heated. Animals do not experience the same life as we do. It is relative to the different species. Some species can see and others can not. Some species have the ability to perceive sound, and others do not. Some species are intellectual but others are not. Biology student here so dont make up facts that dont exist. Laws do not force certain peoples views on others. They state what acts are wrong and right. Laws have no physical force on a persons well being. It is the peope who choose to follow or enforce those laws. In fact every law can be created and destroyed, or changed by an act of congress. Basic US Govt 101.
If you want to consider that many states do not consider the rights of the individual today, you are correct to a certain degree. However, under due process of law, the United States constitution was based on the rights of every individual, and not be people as a whole. That is why we have civile rights, and why many changes of been made to make the rights of every individual to be recognized no matter by what class, race, sex, etc. Its a long process but our founding fathers have always considered the rights of the individual, even if the definition of a man or woman, has changed over the decades.
are you seriously going to use frogs and snails as examples? what about all of the other animals that feel pain? and yeah, they don't live the same meaningful existence, but that wasn't my point. my point was that we should minimise their suffering because pain is not nice regardless of how meaningful your existence is. "They state what acts are wrong and right." that's profoundly incorrect. a law cannot pass subjective moral judgement, a law can only define what you can and cannot do without fear of retribution - a court of law. basically, laws mean nothing without physical force. if we did not use force or the threat thereof to uphold laws, nobody would pay attention. these are two completely pointless arguments.
"If you want to consider that many states do not consider the rights of the individual today, you are correct to a certain degree. " Basically, there's no way to argue me without going full-hog anarcho-capitalist libertarian and even then you're going to have to explain to me why animal species get property rights but humans don't.
LAW lô/Submit noun 1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. The systems of moral reasoning and conscience tap into, or more accurately emerge from ancient neural systems grounded in emotion, in particular in attaching emotional value or valence to different stimuli, including the imagined consequences of possible actions. Hence because we feel that what is right and wrong we as human beings write down these rules as laws for everyone to follow because we all agree with them.
We should minimize suffering for all living things, however to just live on this planet, we all suffer at one point or another. It is life. In fact if you follow certain beliefs of the native americans you will find that even plants suffer, and feel pain. It is their belief in a Great Spirit that fills up everything that generally feels everything. Even Mother Earth is known to be a suffering planet to these people, and she will retaliate against humans who mistreat her. Yet we also use the resources to survive. So the false idea of keeping animals from suffering is ridiculous. I do agree we should not abuse or "man handle" animals. It is said that even the Torah, God provided rules and a guide on how to perform ritual animal sacrifice, especially for animal slautering that was les painful for the animal. It was to provide respect for God, and that the Creator existed in all things seen and unseen. But he never said you couldnt eat meat.
"The systems of moral reasoning and conscience tap into, or more accurately emerge from ancient neural systems grounded in emotion" Yes, obviously. They are still separate as in the act of imposing a law is not the same as the moral reasoning that goes into actually making a law. But this does not have anything to do with my point whatsoever, you're just stating the obvious. the point is: humans impose laws on one another because humans have reservations. if we is left everything down to personal choice there would be chaos/anarchy. therefore, why should we leave animal rights down to personal choice but nothing else?
" to just live on this planet, we all suffer at one point or another." yes, hence the keywords MINIMIZE and UNNECESSARY suffering. as opposed to ELIMINATE all suffering on the planet. strawman. "even plants suffer, and feel pain" this is not a logical argument. for one thing it's such an incredibly dubious claim. for another thing, even if it's true it doesn't follow that because I accidentally stepped on a snail it's ok to go butcher a pig. we're talking about two totally different levels of consciousness / sentience here. again, keywords: MINIMIZE and UNNECESSARY suffering. " Even Mother Earth is known to be a suffering planet to these people, and she will retaliate against humans who mistreat her. " Such a grand emotive speech but doesn't actually address any points, so it's effectively useless. "I do agree we should not abuse or "man handle" animals." Right, so we're agreed... why are we even having this discussion?
"God provided rules and a guide on how to perform ritual animal sacrifice, especially for animal slautering that was les painful for the animal." I'm not religious, so this isn't going to sway me in the slightest. "It was to provide respect for God, and that the Creator existed in all things seen and unseen." And people do see and unsee a lot of things, including mythical unicorns and fairy goblins. "But he never said you couldnt eat meat." Oh grand unifying authority, conqueror of all.
meat is essential for a balanced diet. just look at our teeth, we evolved teeth to eat meat. meat contains nutrient that are simply not present in plants. we need meats its that simple. we just dont need the fat that comes with it, the fat in contains is bad, not the meat itself.
'meat is essential for a balanced diet.'
Nope. You can get protein, carbohydrates, fats (most importantly non-saturated fats), vitamins, sugars and everything else you need from a plant based diet and with significantly less cholesterol intake.
suprose.files.wordpress.com/.../...getarian-01.jpg
www.vegancoach.com/images/vegan-food-pyramid-3.jpg
'just look at our teeth, we evolved teeth to eat meat.'
you might want to revise that statement:
makeupinindia.in/.../Carnivore-Teeth.jpg
'meat contains nutrient that are simply not present in plants'
If you're thinking about B12, it's not that hard to get it from organic fruit and vegetable, and even then, there's still B12 supplements.
you said it supplements. when vegans go to the doctor to check their blood they are advised to take supplements. also you can prepare meat on a grill so you dont have to add extra fats, to keep the cholesterol down. also what about iron, magnesium, zinc? meat is essential. i am going to eat the widest variety of foods that i can eat, im not going to exclude anything so meats are part of my diet and its gonna stay that way. why only eat vegetables when you can also eat meat? not all meat is bad meat, it depends how you prepare it and where it comes from. i intend to live of my own grown animals sooner or later so they are not gonna have bad stuff in them. and you know what, meat is just too good tasting, we only live 80 something years. meat is too good to exclude from you diet.
I think the reason you're focussing on supplements now (btw I think those vegans are doing extremely well considering the lack of scientific information available about vegan diets) is because I basically destroyed your other arguments. Whatever, it doesn't matter because I'm a meat eater also. You'd know this if you'd read the take a little more closely: - "I'm not here to moralise then, or tell meat-eaters that they're bad people or whatever" - "What I am going to do is ask people to try and see the other point of view, and debunk some of the common arguments against veganism and vegetarianism" - "Animals are not the same as human beings: they are not moral like we are, and they do not live lives enriched with meaning and creativity like we do." etc., etc.
i think the paleo diet is superior to the vegan diet and the modern diet.
The meat itself contains fat, which is what, amongst other things, makes the meat bad in the first place. If we need meat in our diet why are there millions of vegans and vegetarians alive and thriving on a plant-based diet out there? Me amongst others. I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but what you said is untrue. It's merely an excuse to make yourself feel better about your choices.
@Flex4Ever do you know how people in the paleolithic era cooked their meat? they did so by grilling it over a fire. this means that all fat from inside the meat falls out. traditionally we cook meat in a pan, where we use some kind of fat to prevent the meat from sticking to the pan, so we actually adding fat, which is extra unhealthy. just buy a grill. also, are you aware about how many other primates eat meats as well? its not just humans. primates who eat meats have bigger and better brains than those who dont. compare a chimp to a gorilla, the gorilla only eats fruits and vegetables and has a big body but small brain, the chimp sometimes does cannibalism and hunts and eats smaller monkeys. chimps have much bigger brains compared to their body than gorillas. this shows that meat and respectively also shellfish are responsible for our human intellect. i know that you are going to dismiss these facts, but what ever go back to the stone age then vegan.
Ever heard of biology? "this shows that meat and respectively also shellfish are responsible for our human intellect." Well, no it doesn't. Please stop comparing one species to another (I know that we're very closely related to chimps, but still two completely different species). And correlation doesn't mean causation. By your logic we should eat meat because chimps occasionally do and their brains are bigger compared to their body than gorillas brains are compared to theirs? Let's apply that logic to something else: "the gorilla only eats fruits and vegetables" and has x10 times the upper body strength of a human being. Does that mean that eating fruits and vegetables will give us the strength of a gorilla? No. We're two different species and our biology is completely different and so it's unreasonable to compare them. Meat is nowhere near healthy and it's totally unnecessary to keep an optimal functioning body :-)
@Flex4Ever then explain to me, why is it that OUR species, started developing bigger brain size and capacity after we started eating meat and shellfish?
Even though it has nothing to do with the original argument, let me present this: Brain size increased over the past 3 million years—especially between 800,000 and 200,000 years ago. A large brain capable of processing new information was a big advantage during times of dramatic climate change because of adaptation. Have you ever heard the word "neuroplasticity"? The brain adapts to stimuli, whether that's forming new patterns, adapting to new environments, survival situations, growing or even shrinking. A lot of studies also indicate that it has nothing to do with the animal product ITSELF. It had a lot to do with the discovery of fire. It made us able to cook hard vegetables and legumes, but yes, also meat. Studies also indicate that it was the overall intake of more calories, again NOT the animal product itself. But if you want to keep eating meat because you think it's necessary or it makes you smarter, be my guest. It's just untrue.
@Flex4Ever eating animal protein and various micro nutrients found in shellfish is associated with dopamine levels which allows us abstract thought which is one of the hallmarks of intelligence.
All food is associated with dopamine. We're addicted to food. Feeding your addiction releases dopamine. Cocaine is also associated with dopamine release, but you don't claim that cocaine "allows us abstract thought which is one of the hallmarks of intelligence." Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Da vinci, Van Gogh, Pytharogas and Ghandi were all vegetarians. Are you going to discredit their work because of the lack of meat in their diet or claim that they're less smart than people who do eat meat?
@Flex4Ever let me put it this way. Higher cognitive functioning develops better in an environment with adequate nutrition, and diets deficient in iron, zinc, protein, iodine, B vitamins, omega 3 fatty acids, magnesium and other nutrients can result in lower intelligence either in the mother during pregnancy or in the child during development. While these inputs did not have an effect on the evolution of intelligence they do govern its expression. A higher intelligence could be a signal that an individual comes from and lives in a physical and social environment where nutrition levels are high, whereas a lower intelligence could imply a child, its mother, or both, come from a physical and social environment where nutritional levels are low. Previc emphasizes the contribution of nutritional factors, especially meat and shellfish consumption, to elevations of dopaminergic activity in the brain, which may have been responsible for the evolution of human intelligence since dop
why do vegans have a lack of magnesium? because they dont eat diary. why do they have a lack of vitamins B? because they dont eat meat and eggs. also iron is found in meat. just accept that the paleo diet is superior, it is our first diet. we stopped with it 10.000 years ago, we started doing agriculture. since then NOT A SINGLE gene has been added to the human genome, we might as well go back to that diet.
Well that's a way to generalize. You can get everything you need from a vegan diet. Some vegans aren't fully aware which foods contains a given vitamin and mineral or how much to eat of it which may lead to lower or higher levels of a given vitamin or mineral. Besides, non-vegans are also "diagnosed" with deficiencies so that kinda shoots your argument to the ground. Oh and... let me put it this way: why is the rate of diabetes, some types of cancer, hypertension and cardiovascular diseases higher amongst meat-eaters compared to plant-based eaters? A plant-based diet can reverse and cure all those diseases if done right. I'd like to see a diet including ONLY animal products do the same. Just accept that a plant-based diet is superior. The evidence is out there, do you want to embrace it or keep your blinders on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKNfyUPzoU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ
Here is some knowledge if you bother to expand your horizon.
@Flex4Ever a plant based diet CANNOT be superior. vegans are more likely to have deficiencies. there are micro nutrients that can only be found in meats and fish not in plants. a vegan diet can never be a complete diet. why only limit yourself to plants filled with pesticides and insecticides? of course you can go bio, but i dont see why you can't go bio with meat. the way i see it is that vegans are going to have to be on supplements for their entire lives if they want to remain vegan. why eat only plants? it makes no sense if you can also eat meat. you have more foods to choose from so you can answer to your nutritional needs better, you can't get around that fact. by the way it is just impossible to be vegan and an athlete at the same time. where you going to get your proteins from? beans. lol ok. also diary products contain various bacteria essential for a strong immune system. a part of our immune system is regulated from our bowels. consumption of diary prevents allergies.
I can't tell if you're still serious or you're starting to troll. I haven't taken a supplement since I went vegan and I had my blood checked two months ago. Everything was fine and I'm not dead, so... exactly what nutrients can you only find in meat? And no, a lot of people don't want to eat animal products because they know the practices that goes into making them. Being healthier and better for the envinronment is just a bonus. (watch the lectures I've linked) And yes, beans is exactly where I get my protein from... and lentils, chickpeas, soy beans, broccoli, quinoa, brown rice, oats etc. All these contain protein, do you not know that? And for your information, vegan athletes: Jon venus, brian turner, torre washington, carl lewis, jim morrison, nate diaz, mac danzig, patrick baboumian, derek tresize, robert cheeke, david carter, john joseph, serena and venus williams, tim shieff, tia blanco, fiona oakes, steph davis. So stop the bullshit.
@Flex4Ever you can have your shit grains and carbs, paleo all the way. how the fuck can i possibly fill in all my proteins from being vegan? i need 180 grams of protein a day? thats not gonna work mate, and also fish tastes too fucking good to be vegan. it rather eat some good fish and eggs, fruits and veggies but no starchy shit like bread and pasta and potatos thats all just shit, paleo all the way.
Out of arguments eh? Run over by logic and evidence eh? And no, you don't need 180g of protein a day. Noone does. Whatever makes you sleep at night bro.
@Flex4Ever if i calculate my macro nutrients and it says that i need 180 grams of proteins a day to make muscle mass then i need to hit these macros... the average man needs 120 to 150, 180 is not so crazy, but i can't do it with only vegetables.
@anonman32 Do you know what seitan is? Made from wheat gluten, it contains 75 grams of protein per 100g. That's enough to put your meagerly 26 grams from a protein rich meat like beef to shame.
i need multiple different proteins and many different amino acids as well.
*that's not to mention other protein rich vegan products like lentils, beans, nuts (20g of protein per 100g - not far behind beef), green peas, etc.
you can have em.
Well, you just haven't let go of the protein myth yet. Jon venus, look him up on youtube. He gets around 140g of protein a day from vegan foods and he's a pretty big guy. And no, the average man definitely does not need 120g of protein, that's insane. 50g a day for a sedentary, normal guy is enough. 80-90g with exercise. Look up guilt-free TV on youtube, he has build muscle and lost fat on a vegan diet at around 100g of protein a day.
'i need multiple different proteins and many different amino acids' Are you for real? You can get all of this from a vegan diet. Apart from the protein sources already mentioned, you have quinoa, buckwheat, beans, nuts, hemp seed (not marijuana!), chia, soy, peas and many others for amino acids. I'm not a vegan either but this is just poor reasoning and obviously you are trying to justify for the atrocities that happen in the meat and dairy industries. If you really need a justification, you should read my take more closely because I have a more sophisticated case.
Dude, you're not some giant mutant who has to follow some complex food ideas. The essential amino acids you can find in animal products, you can also find in plants. Plants are just as good as building muscle as animal products are. I've listed several perfect examples of this. Why won't you accept it? It's not like you can deny results or science.
@Flex4Ever I was responding to opinion owner. It's gonna get too confusing if we start debating also.
@Flex4Ever i dont know about these people but i have always calculated my macros according to such calculators and achieved fine results. https://imgur.com/yTC7KWl
All of my comments was and are directed at him :-)
Yes, I can see where you're coming from. I have personally been in the exact same position as you. Trusting websites without any obvious reason to do so. I would eat 220g of protein a day. Now I eat 110-140g of protein a day, getting the same exact results and feeling much better because I can eat more of the things I like, ie. bread, pasta, rice, fruits, smoothies, biscuits etc. without worrying too much about my protein intake. I've been where you're at now and even I changed. You haven't tried lowering your protein, I challenge you to try it, lower it with 10grams a week for 4 weeks, and keep your protein at 140g, see how you feel, let your body adjust.
@anonman32 The basic point here is that for a bodybuilding diet, you definitely do not need a vegan diet. If Patrik Baboumian, one of the world's strongest men can see strength and muscle gains from a vegan diet, then you or I most certainly can also. So please, let's get rid of this myth that you can't be vegan and build muscle because it is verifiably false.
@Flex4Ever well i have read encyclopedias of bodybuilding and they say similar things, by the way if you eat too much protein you get diarrhea. i have never gotten diarrhea before from protein. the rule of thumb is 2 grams of protein for every kilo of body weight or something like that. or 2.5 grams but thats pushing it.
@anonman32 so what's your point? you can get all of this from both vegan and vegetarian diets.
the point is that i dont want to. electric cars are also better for the environment and all that shit, but fuck em they suck.
@anonman32 so why don't you come out with this in the first place? why waste so much of our time bullshitting about nutrition, and paleo diets and how you can't get the essential nutrients from a vegan or vegetarian diet?
BECAUSE I CAN
@anonman32 correction: because you are looking for a moral justification for the perpetual torture, mistreatment and slaughter of animals which fuels your diet and lifestyle. not because you think there is a scientific or health based rationale for the way we as a society treat animals. you don't want to resolve those issues out of laziness and desire.
frankly you are correct, i dont give a single shit about the unnecessary torture of animals at all. by the way, the science on veganism is biased. its all pop science which diluted as fuck.
'i dont give a single shit about the unnecessary torture of animals at all.' so you see, there's the difference between us. I actually empathise and do care about animal suffering if it is unnecessary. either you are simply unempathetic in general - maybe even a psychopath for all I know - and don't give a shit (in which case there's no reasoning to be had with you and both me and the other guy are wasting our time in discussion) OR you are lying because it makes you feel easier about the way our society treats animals in order to fuel your way of life. so which is it?
you see i was years in therapy as a kid and my great feeling of empathy was at the cause of this amongst other things. the thing is that i dont do these hedonist ideas that 'if it makes me feel good it is good'. when i was a kid i saw a pig being slaughtered at my grand parents house, they have a farm with pigs and cows. it was shot in the brain by a bullet with a little device a little longer than a handgun. the pig bled and pissed and shat all over the place while having muscle spasms. our western society is a death denying culture, everything associated with dead things we would rather not have. i condone the way the meat industry treats these animals of course. but do you think they suffer less when a predator eats them in the wild? no they dont. im planning on going 'back to the land' as the movement is called and going to start my own little farm with my own animals, so i can sustain myself. i dont care about suffering, it is part of life.
Wow man. That... was an unexpected turn. That is most definitely psychotic. And selfish. So you don't care about possible suffering happening to your family either? Rape? assault? mutilation? I mean, it's just part of life right? Or yourself? If someone tries to rape you or murder you, you better let them do it, because it's just part of life, right? I'm out. You're officially lost in your own unempathy and stupidity. I can't believe I actually used my time talking to a rock. Fuck you.
'i dont care about suffering,' see this is an evasion from my question, because I asked about unnecessary suffering. I wasn't necessarily criticising humane farming methods per se.
@Flex4Ever if i am psychotic, how come all my tests for mental illness came back as negative? also id better rely on a random internet guy than on my my shrink? of course sure! i advice you to read the book the antichrist by nietsche and on killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. the first book talks about how pity through Christianity has entered life in the western world. the second book talks about the cost of killing and how our society is a death denying culture. you see, we are brainwashed by the idea that we as westerners are privileged and that we need to have pity for the suffering of others. on the other side we deny death so hard, most people dont even have mourning periods anymore. people used to prepare their loved ones themselves, now companies do it for them. doctors do everything to deny death, they tell you that you are terminal, they use a bunch of words not to tell you you are dying. the same in the military, eliminating threats they call murder.
look at the movies, adding drama to a person that dies. they remove the gore, but death remains. people dont understand what death is anymore. we are influenced by Buddhist ideas like karma and ending all suffering. but they use quite a different approach than the west, buddhists dont have a desire for pity, they dont have any desires at all. i agree with socrates that pity is the lowest emotion and that it is weakness. and i agree with nietsche that chhristianity has made us into a society of pity. and i agree with sgt col. grossman, that we are a death deny culture. there is no moral obligation to end any suffering. suffering is conflict and conflict is stress, stress causes evolution. cease to evolve and cease to exist. there is no unnecessary suffering.
it's impossible to argue with a man that does not see the merits of conventional morality.
the highest law is self preservation, it puts all morality to shame.
great principle, but you are missing out on a world of communication by adhering to it. that world of communication is empathy.
You can preserve yourself without stealing something that isn't yours. Your arguments are pathetic, selfish, ignorant and can be trumped any day.
@Flex4Ever all the atoms we are made up from belong to the universe, nothing here is yours, nothing here ever will be yours. i will feast upon the the flesh of the animals that end up my plate to sustain my life, as sooner or later i will pay the ultimate price and animals will feast upon my flesh to sustain their life.
@anonman32 that's first class poetry there.
That's the worst bullshit I've ever heard :D It still doesn't justify causing unnecessary suffering and murder, it's merely another excuse to make yourself feel better about your destructive choices. Got more?
If you not gonna stop animals from eating each other then you shouldn't stop us also think about the poor defensless plants
plants don't feel pain smartass
'if you not gonna stop animals from eating each other'
re-read section #4 before you make dumbass comments
'poor defensless plants'
1. We need to eat plants, we don't need to kill animals
2. Plants don't feel pain:
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...90f2722b4c.jpg
I seem to remember experiments with plants in the 60's and 70's that proved that plants actually do feel something akin to pain. Perhaps we don't think about it is because, unlike animals, they are silent at the moment of hurt/death!!. Just a thought.
do you even science? plants do feel pain, they can even smell.
@shinyunicorn what about the fly trap plant seems like a living thing dumbass
@anonman32 very few studies have concluded that plants feel pain compared to the vast consensus among scientists and the number of studies that plants do not, in fact feel pain whatsoever. even if they did, we need to eat something to survive, so it's still a dumbass argument because plants (having no brain or central nervous system) are not ever going to be considered at the same moral rank as animals. and even if you wanted to protect plants so badly, guess what? most of the plants we 'kill' are to feed... guess what? Livestock. So yeah, this is another dumb ass argument I forgot to mention in the original take. I guess there's just too many of them. @h3yev3ryb0dy venus fly traps are such a rare example of a moving predatory plant, and even if they do feel pain (which they most likely do not) who the hell eats venus fly traps anyway? do you eat venus fly traps? perhaps, you have a very small case for giving venus fly traps the same rights as some animal species.
@limousin hm yes, the 60's and 70's when science was only on it's way to its peak. totally reliable information. also plants don't feel pain, they feel instincts. when a plant proceeds to make a defense mechanism, it doesn't do it because its afraid, it does it because that's a natural instinct, the way it's coded. they don't have feelings, they aren't capable of empathy and sadness, that's why they're called PLANTS. when a computer automatically blocks a virus, does it prove the computer has feelings and is capable of being afraid? no. the computer is simply coded by its creator to act in defense whenever there's a threat. same thing with plants.
@shinyunicorn Hey dumbturd why dont you answer lol
@shinyunicorn We may have to remember at this point, that plants, (according to some) which are exposed to... nasty/cruel... husbandry, do not grow as well as plants treated with... loving/caring... nurturing.
@h3yev3ryb0dy I didn't answer because I was attacked but multiple friends of yours, and here's my answer :) again, it's the way they are coded. if you cared to read my last response, you wouldn't have to be so enraged :) the plant closes itself on the fly due to instinct, because that's how it's supposed to work. when a fly enters, its code automatically tells it to close on him. I don't get how your argument is supposed to prove anything
Eat your veggies, I'll eat my steak
Animals exist for us to eat. Says so in the bible. So fuck em.
and fuck the bible
Great post.
I am a vegetarian and buy products by brands that do not test on animals. I couldn't go full vegan though, as much as I would like to.
This was nice and everything but I'm still gonna eat meat. Yes I do feel bad for farm animals and animals being tested on, but it's the circle of life. Survival of the fittest. We're the top predator and the last time I checked human beings were omnivores. We literally evolved to eat both meat and plants. Look at our teeth and digestive system. We can only get certain vitamins from meat. I won't go vegan, but I agree that animals used in the mass production of meats, other animal made products, and chemical testing need to be treated better. Senseless cruelty is still cruelty even if it's to an animal.
' I'm still gonna eat meat.'
As do I.
' it's the circle of life. Survival of the fittest.'
Um... did you bother to read the mytake? Specifically the part about logical fallacies?
'Look at our teeth and digestive system.'
Yes, we have no similarities to carnivores whatsoever.
makeupinindia.in/.../Carnivore-Teeth.jpg
www.stevepavlina.com/.../
'I won't go vegan, but I agree that animals used in the mass production of meats, other animal made products, and chemical testing need to be treated better.'
Basically my point with this take.
"Look at our teeth and digestive system." While all known traditional human cultures ate animal products, our teeth and digestive system have nothing to do with this. Very large canine teeth are present in many herbivorous animals. Gorillas are a good example. Our short digestive tract has nothing to do with meat consumption, it evolved that way because we learned to cook food.
@koko124 yupp
Omg.. where do you think vegans get b12 from? NOT animals. They just go get some b12 vitamins from their local pharmacy and theyre good to go. SO we dont need animals for those "certain vitamins".