# Anyone else ever tried being vegan/vegetarian?



## Loudon Wainwright (Jul 23, 2014)

I like meat too much(no ****) to go vegan, but I do eat a ton of vegan food products and health food in general. I drink kombucha like crazy, use tofu and tempeh regularly while cooking and I've never met a vegetable I didn't like.


----------



## CJ (Jun 28, 2011)

Hell no, I like the taste of meat too much.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

why2cj said:


> Hell no, I like the taste of meat too much.


This, basically.

Changes in my diet have never really helped me feel healthier because it's already pretty strict and balanced. Being more physically active, which sometimes injuries have prevented me from doing, is what makes more of difference for me personally.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Yeah I dabbled in it just for the challenge. I failed. It's my favorite failure though.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Have very much considering going pescetarian at least.

The way animals are treated prior to slaughter is absolutely disgusting.


----------



## LlamaFromTheCongo (Mar 30, 2014)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Have very much considering going pescetarian at least.
> 
> The way animals are treated prior to slaughter is absolutely disgusting.


Exactly! That's a big reason I decided to give up meat. Watch this for insight.


----------



## TheJack (Mar 13, 2006)

Yes. 


Problem is: 
I like Honey, Spaghetti Bolognese, chicken and half my family is meditrranean.

I pretty much got rid of all milk products like cheese and yogurt and substituded milk with almond/rice/coconut milk.

Meat is a tough one, I just love chicken too much, but I cut it to once a week.


I do feel better and lighter (more toilet visits) and it helped me with my liver.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

I dabble. 
But I could never give up steak and burgers.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Well, I am a vegan. First few months as a vegan were kind of hard; but I kept reminding myself why I turned vegan, and I care more about my conscience more than I desire a tasty chicken wing. It's not so bad tbh, I mean I'm not kidding when I tell you I got used to it and it's quite easy getting the food I want. Also on the plus side, I'm way healthier now than I ever was in my entire life.


----------



## Mike Smalling (Sep 30, 2005)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Have very much considering going pescetarian at least.
> 
> The way animals are treated prior to slaughter is absolutely disgusting.


Have nothing against meat eaters like some sanctimonious veggies, but I've been considering going pescetarian for a while now (Having been semi-vegetarian for a while, that is I only eat meat very rarely and only chicken), the meat manufacturing industry is absolutely devoid of any kind of ethical code. [Lacto-ovo vegetarianism (or) Pescetarianism would be an ideal long term diet for me to settle down on]

I cannot picture myself completely sacrificing animal products of all kinds though, that would be a bit too extreme.

It has nothing to do with religion either.


----------



## SUPA HOT FIRE. (Jun 21, 2014)

I turned vegetarian and then I switched to a vegan diet. Then back to vegetarian, back to vegan and back to vegetarian (current) once more. I'll most likely stay as vegetarian.

I neither like nor miss meat. But I could probably live with cheese, oat, corn and milk-based products for the rest of my life.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

For anybody considering the vegan lifestyle I suggest watching the documentary _"Earthlings"_. The documentary will rip you apart and will make you feel utter disgust at the sight of anything non vegan, or atleast, it did with me and I LOVE meat. Also my advice, if you plan on watching it; ONLY WATCH IT when nobody is around. Let's just say I, uhm, I'd like to keep my manly image around folks I know. :side:


----------



## Darkness is here (Mar 25, 2014)

I eat both veg/nonveg, and op what makes you think meat is unhealthy?


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

I tried it for like a month purely to prove a point to someone. During the thing I was convincing myself I was fine, but nah. Worst suffering ever.


----------



## DeeGirl (Aug 18, 2014)

I could probably live on eating vegetables and fruit as I love eating them. 

However, I love me some thin cut steaks and almost every other meat product so it would be pretty difficult for me.


----------



## Loudon Wainwright (Jul 23, 2014)

I'm a vagatarian. All I eat is pussy. #SWAG


----------



## Darkness is here (Mar 25, 2014)

^ Disgusting


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I was on a vegan diet for about 2 weeks once when I stayed with a cousin of mine who is vegan, and she prepared most of our meals. Honestly didn't mind it at all, and agree with all the reasons most people go vegan. When I'm left to my own devices though I tend to go with what's easy and familiar and that's a diet heavy in meat. :side: It's something I'd like to change one day but still haven't got around to it. Think I'll get there, though.

The appeal of lording my moral high ground over others alone ought to be enough of a motivation.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Nah. I actually find the idea disturbing. Not to bad mouth those how do mind you.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Tried going vegetarian when I was a lot younger, it didn't work out too well because of my family (extra cost for vegetarian food when I can just eat meat like everyone else?). I'd very much like to go vegan, moral reasons aside I just feel better physically when I don't eat a lot of animal products.


----------



## LlamaFromTheCongo (Mar 30, 2014)

Darkness is here said:


> I eat both veg/nonveg, and op what makes you think meat is unhealthy?


Well the thing is, as many documentaries such as Food Inc have pointed out, in this day and age farm animals are treated like crops, Meat packing companies want more of them and they want them larger, So they begin to use Growth Hormones and genetically modify animals. So basically its all about getting a shit ton of meat out regardless if it is bad quality/really fatty. I'm not saying all meat is bad but for the most part MOST meat is just mass produced genetically modified crap.


----------



## Skermac (Apr 6, 2012)

LlamaFromTheCongo said:


> I haven't eaten meat in a month, sadly I cant say I'm a vegan yet cause I occasionally drink milk, But yeah, shit feels pretty good. I feel a lot healthier. I used to think "How the fuck can people go without eating meat?" But now even the thought of eating meat makes me gag.


I thought about it but how would I get protein?


----------



## Zen (Nov 11, 2006)

No-e never have, never fucking will


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Meat is too damn good. I love animals, don't get me wrong. I just love eating them more.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Lol. No. And I think it's beyond stupid. Even more so are those parents that fucking force their kids and pets to be vegan/vegetarian WITHOUT educating themselves on how not to kill them in the process. 

I don't care about vegans/vegetarians generally, but I will judge those fuckers who go vegan/vegetarian and fail to provide adequate compensation for a meatless life for their kids and pets. 

Worst imo are vegans that force cats to be vegan as well and I wish more of those people were charged with negligence and hauled away to jail or something. There is no such thing as a vegan diet for cats but too much misinformation on the internet about the issue ensures there are still idiots today believing that cats can be happy and healthy on a vegan diet.

I like my place in the universe as an apex predator because if _I _wasn't an apex predator, I would be another predator's food.

And yes, vegetarians are also predators ... The ones that refuse to eat meat because of "sanctity of life" are just pretentious liars and turn the other cheek when confronted the idea that plant life is also life. 

They simply refuse to acknowledge that every one of their arguments about sanctity of life etc etc can be reversed on them because they refuse to acknowledge plant life as life and finite as well.

You're *all *killing something for food otherwise you'd all be dead. If you really want to "save" "life" and be "altruistic" go eat rocks or something that's already dead.


----------



## Super Sexy Steele (Aug 16, 2002)

I live for Meat, I will die for Meat.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

I could maybe be a pescatarian if I needed to be, but as long as I had a choice i'd never voluntarily be a vegan. My soon to be former Sister in Law was one and I remember trying some of the stuff she would eat and I could handle it from time to time but not everyday.


----------



## HiddenFlaw (Jan 29, 2014)

nah that meat is too good :homer


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

I used to eat a lot of red meats and cold cuts. One day I decided to go vegetarian. It lasted about a month. I couldn't do it, but ever since that all happened, I only eat poultry or fish for protein. On rare occasions, I will have pork or beef. Yes, I do feel better overall.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

i had a salad one. it only had some chicken in it. does that count?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

LlamaFromTheCongo said:


> Well the thing is, as many documentaries such as Food Inc have pointed out, in this day and age farm animals are treated like crops, Meat packing companies want more of them and they want them larger, So they begin to use Growth Hormones and genetically modify animals. So basically its all about getting a shit ton of meat out regardless if it is bad quality/really fatty. I'm not saying all meat is bad but for the most part MOST meat is just mass produced genetically modified crap.


Get out of here with that GMO shit. Every living thing in the world is genetically modified because genetic modification is a natural process that's been going on since life began ... 

Even you are genetically modified because you're a result of thousands of years of selective breeding based on looks, ability to survive etc etc. 

Genetically engineered is also not a bad thing. The only difference is that humans realized that genetic modification is a natural process and simply found new ways to make it faster and better. 

All plants are genetically modified. 

Do you even realize that humans today could not eat most stuff that grows in the wild and have to eat what's been selectively bred for them by them for thousands of years?


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

Reaper said:


> Get out of here with that GMO shit. Every living thing in the world is genetically modified because genetic modification is a natural process that's been going on since life began ...
> 
> Even you are genetically modified because you're a result of thousands of years of selective breeding based on looks, ability to survive etc etc.
> 
> ...


Get the fuck out of here with your logic.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Lou_Skunt said:


> Get the fuck out of here with your logic.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Goddamn, I do love it when sanctimonious vegans/vegetarians get put in their place by people like Reaper who know what they're talking about.


My addition to the thread was just to point out that not eating meat gives you vaginitis.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> Goddamn, I do love it when sanctimonious vegans/vegetarians get put in their place by people like Reaper who know what they're talking about.


Yeah. I personally don't fall for the "lower form of life" and "plants don't feel pain" arguments as well because there's some evidence of both. 

The smell of freshly cut grass is actually the plant releasing chemicals in the air in response. It does that because it thinks that it's being attacked by an insect and that chemical will call a larger insect to protect it. Can it be interpreted as pain? Even if it cannot, it can definitely be interpreted as an act of self-preservation. 

There's also some evidence that the roots of a plant act like mini brains and might have some very base level of cognition.

Regardless. Plant life is life. Don't call us meat eaters killers if you don't want to consider yourself one as well.

Edit: Here's the video that provides some evidence that plants might have some form of cognition.


----------



## WWE (Jul 16, 2011)

Lol hell no​


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> Yeah. I personally don't fall for the "lower form of life" and "plants don't feel pain" arguments as well because there's some evidence of both.
> 
> The smell of freshly cut grass is actually the plant releasing chemicals in the air in response. It does that because it thinks that it's being attacked by an insect and that chemical will call a larger insect to protect it. Can it be interpreted as pain? Even if it cannot, it can definitely be interpreted as an act of self-preservation.
> 
> ...


Yah, I've seen documentaries before that show plant intelligence. It's a different kind of intelligence compared to animal life but it is intelligence nonetheless.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> Yah, I've seen documentaries before that show plant intelligence. It's a different kind of intelligence compared to animal life but it is intelligence nonetheless.


Yup. Most vegetarians then act all hurt by our judgmental attitudes towards their beliefs and lifestyles when challenged with this stuff. 

It's just sad and pathetic. I can't remember a single vegetarian that stopped eating meat because it's "barbaric" ever acknowledge that eating plants is just as "barbaric" to people who don't pretend that plants aren't living beings.

If you don't consume. You die. If you don't want to hurt anything in this world, then you can't live. End of story. Vegetarianism because "save animals" or "killing animals is barbaric" is just pretentious self flattery.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life.

Do vegans have a problem with lions eating gazelles? It's an animal eating an animal. I'M an animal who eats animals. The only difference between man and lion is level of intelligence. What if the vegan says it's okay when a lion does it because it's natural? Okay, so then your problem is not with meat but with the meat industry. So... if I go kill a deer in the woods, cook it over a campfire and eat it, then there is no problem? Because it's natural?


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Reaper said:


> Every living thing in the world is genetically modified because genetic modification is a natural process that's been going on since life began ...
> 
> Even you are genetically modified because you're a result of thousands of years of selective breeding based on looks, ability to survive etc etc.


That's not how it works though. Maybe that's a discussion for another time, but yeah


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life.
> 
> Do vegans have a problem with lions eating gazelles? It's an animal eating an animal. I'M an animal who eats animals. The only difference between man and lion is level of intelligence. What if the vegan says it's okay when a lion does it because it's natural? Okay, so then your problem is not with meat but with the meat industry. So... if I go kill a deer in the woods, cook it over a campfire and eat it, then there is no problem? Because it's natural?


To me, I think veganism is a result of the following:

1. Lack of understanding of evolution and a disconnect from the feeling that humans are also animals

2. A complete refusal to acknowledge that plants are a) intelligent b) might feel pain c) have self-awareness. In other words, pretend that plants are not alive. 

This is something I got from a vegan's page:



> ". For every injustice that has ever existed, there has always been a group of people fighting to end that injustice. People for the Ethical Treatment of Carrots doesn't exist because everyone knows the difference between taking a carrot out of the ground and slicing a pig into pieces. Everyone also knows the difference between mowing a lawn and tossing a live baby male chick (egg industry) into a rendering machine. If one does not understand the difference, then that person is disingenuous, irrational and illogical."


It clearly demonstrates a lack of education on the subject of plants as living beings and why plants are considered alive in the first place. 

It isn't just because they grow and reproduce .. it's also because they have demonstrated an ability to adapt to the environment (which shows self-awareness), modify their future generations in order to continue to exist (by developing poisons and thorns etc) and display a sense of legacy in a way. 

Now there's also evidence that in the wake of a major natural disaster, some of the largest trees in a certain forest will transfer their nutrients to their young ones before they die. 

It's all lack of education and a desire to self-flatter themselves into thinking they're some sort of altruistic messiahs. 

I call it the Jesus complex.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

samizayn said:


> That's not how it works though. Maybe that's a discussion for another time, but yeah


Isn't it considering this is a thread of vegetarianism? 

I see the link between GMO crops and vegetarianism, so I suppose we could get away with it. 

If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why and what you're thinking.

Edit: I'm sure the mods won't mind us taking the thread off topic for a bit in the name of education 

Or you could just PM me.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Reaper said:


> a disconnect from the feeling that humans are also animals


This simple fact is the cause for many a problem in life. People in all their intelligence simply forget that we are animals too.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

I say we all just go with our instincts and force Tater into Hot Sauce making slavery.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

I doubt most of the people here could handle just how ridiculously hot my ghost pepper sauce is.


----------



## Rocky Mark (Mar 27, 2011)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Have very much considering going pescetarian at least.
> 
> The way animals are treated prior to slaughter is absolutely disgusting.


as oppose to the way they're being treated in the jungle when predators tear their insides open while still alive ? 

it's a food chain bro, but whatever makes you happy


----------



## LlamaFromTheCongo (Mar 30, 2014)

Rocky Mark said:


> as oppose to the way they're being treated in the jungle when predators tear their insides open while still alive ?
> 
> it's a food chain bro, but whatever makes you happy


As opposed to never seeing the light of day? Being extremely overweight? (sounds like I'm describing some people on this forum lmao) Developing arthritis from lack of movement? Living in a clusterfuck and constant pool of your own bodily waste (which sometimes gets into the meat hence some e coli breakouts)? I wont deny it, meat is really fucking good (no ****) but it just comes down to a personal choice. First I gave up fast food, then all junk food in general (soda, cookies, chips etc) and then meat. I'm not suggesting meat is totally unhealthy like those other things but a lot of vegetarians get protein through other foods besides meat so I said fuck it why not try it?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Oh brother, the _"plants are sentient"_ argument from non vegans again. Yaaaay. Gonna have fun with this one.

Before I say anything about veganism, Repear, let me say I am against forcing anyone become vegan. I do not agree with parents forcing their children to be vegan, forcing someone to be a vegan is as horrid as forcing someone to be a muslim/atheist or whatever. The _"forcing pets to go vegan"_ part though isn't something I think of, pretty odd discussion here and I don't think of it much since I don't own a pet anymore and when I did own cats I wasn't a vegan. I don't think I'll get a pet anytime soon tbh. Though I'm thinking I somewhat agree with you with forcing cats to go vegan and I too think that it's asinine, but I still think you're getting a little too extreme with this _"make people go to jail for making their cats eat vegan food"_. Relax.

Also _"apex predator"_? Yeah, how compassionate of you. Guess bullies who are big and strong are justified to bully smaller kids because their place in the universe is bigger than that of the kids right? If those bullies didn't flex their muscles, they'd be bullied themselves right? Let's all have this _"grrrr I'm big and strong and take what I want"_ mindset, excellent stuff here. Yes I know we are savage animals naturally but we don't have to act like savage animals because savage animals for the most part are oblivious to concepts like rationality, empathy, compassion, and sympathy because of their lack of intillgence compared to humans hence they listen to their natural instincts and urges more and are as we say _"more savage"_. You are the same person who dislikes gynocentricism, you know, that natural instinct all humans have that is unjust. You are a human; you're the most powerful being on this earth BECAUSE of your intelligence, you are NOT under the threat from other animals it's the other way around and it's been this way for a LONG time. Humanity has turned earth into it's bitch, please tell me you're not actually saying _"if we stopped eating meat animals would rebel and eat us"_ because that sounds bloody retarded.

Now on to the _"life"_ thing, well no shit plants are alive. However plants are not _sentient_. Do you know what sentience is? Plants do not have brains, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli but they don't choose what they do. They track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants. Like I said, plants are not sentient. They do not react to situations of danger to survive, they do not choose what they do and are attached to the earth, and have no way of avoiding danger when it comes. Why do I bring up danger? Well, what is sentience? What is the point of it? Sentience is the ability to sense, perceive and consciously react with the natural world to survive. Sentience is essentially a biological evolutionary advantage animals have over plants, the idea that plants are sentient is ridiculous. Yes, vegans/vegetarians kill too but we don't kill sentient life. Also vegetarianism is pretentious self flattery? I hope you realize how dangerous your argument is, because it can actually justify a lot of immoral acts and I'm not talking about killing animals. Everytime non vegans/vegetarians go on with this _"well you kill plants"_ stance it's like a person killing a bunch of people then going _"well you kill baby chickens, lay off me"_. It's just people trying to convince themselves that vegans/vegetarians are just as guilty. Cheap attempt tbh.

Also Tater, yeah I don't have problem with lions eating gazelles because lions are stupid and you, a human, are not. Your intelligence is an advantage that makes you more aware of concepts like empathy & compassion and form concepts like morality in general.

And no, I don't think non meat eaters are better people than any of you, I just think you're pretty ignorant when it comes to this subject.



Rocky Mark said:


> as oppose to the way they're being treated in the jungle when predators tear their insides open while still alive ?
> 
> it's a food chain bro, but whatever makes you happy


I'm going to go rape people now, just like animals do it in the jungle. Morality that's created by human intelligence to be more aware of empathy sympathy & compassion? Meh, who cares I'm an animal!


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> Also Tater, yeah I don't have problem with lions eating gazelles because lions are stupid and you, a human, are not. Your intelligence is an advantage that makes you more aware of concepts like empathy & compassion and form concepts like morality in general.


So, because I'm smarter than a lion, I'm not supposed to eat meat because I should have empathy and compassion for cows and chickens?

Look, if you want to have a problem with the meat industry because of how the animals are treated, that is something I can understand. I don't much like it either. It doesn't mean you shouldn't eat meat though. 

I live in Hawai'i and go fishing. Those fish live wild and free in the ocean unharmed by evil man's meat processing plants. Should I have a problem eating the fish I caught wild and free just because it's meat?


----------



## Rocky Mark (Mar 27, 2011)

LlamaFromTheCongo said:


> As opposed to never seeing the light of day? Being extremely overweight? (sounds like I'm describing some people on this forum lmao) Developing arthritis from lack of movement? Living in a clusterfuck and constant pool of your own bodily waste (which sometimes gets into the meat hence some e coli breakouts)? I wont deny it, meat is really fucking good (no ****) but it just comes down to a personal choice. First I gave up fast food, then all junk food in general (soda, cookies, chips etc) and then meat. I'm not suggesting meat is totally unhealthy like those other things but a lot of vegetarians get protein through other foods besides meat so I said fuck it why not try it?


 You have every right to, like I said, but my point or to be more accurate, my question is why not just boycott the firms that do that kind of torture? if you hate eating an animal that suffered for months before it's death, why abolish meat from your diet instead of going somewhere else to eat ? not all suppliers follow that kind of method, just look for another supplier that's gonna capture them and skip to a quick mass slaughter instead of capturing them, torturing them, then apply mass slaughter.. because not eating meat isn't saving these animals nor is it even delaying the inevitable

and honestly I'm trying to call you out specifically or trying to flaw your beliefs, but I've always wanted to understand that view from vegans, I respect standing up for animal rights and not wanting animals to suffer but aren't humans doing what happens in every ecosystem only with tools and taste ?

as for the abuse, herbivores in the wild are on 24/7 caution alert, they're always a prey waiting to be attacked and turned to an instant meal to thousands of species. Some of them might be a victim to an attack but doesn't die instantly, instead goes on for days or weeks with a major injury until they die from infection or exhaustion, and some watch their infants/parents teared apart in front of their own eyes, so it's not like paradise to them, living on the run


----------



## LlamaFromTheCongo (Mar 30, 2014)

Yeah the reason I stated why I tried vegetarianism was for the people suggesting being vegetarian is a form of self flattery. Boycotting would basically be impossible because there are about 4 major meat packing companies that control most of the market. I know that people have to eat and it is impossible to mass produce food without killing millions of animals and being a vegetarian doesn't make anyone better than anyone else but avoiding meats has definitely helped me with will power, self control and all that shit


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> Now on to the _"life"_ thing, well no shit plants are alive. However plants are not _sentient_. Do you know what sentience is? Plants do not have brains, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli but they don't choose what they do. They track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants. Like I said, plants are not sentient. They do not react to situations of danger to survive, they do not choose what they do and are attached to the earth, and have no way of avoiding danger when it comes. Why do I bring up danger? Well, what is sentience? What is the point of it? Sentience is the ability to sense, perceive and consciously react with the natural world to survive. Sentience is essentially a biological evolutionary advantage animals have over plants, the idea that plants are sentient is ridiculous. Yes, vegans/vegetarians kill too but we don't kill sentient life. Also vegetarianism is pretentious self flattery? I hope you realize how dangerous your argument is, because it can actually justify a lot of immoral acts and I'm not talking about killing animals. Everytime non vegans/vegetarians go on with this _"well you kill plants"_ stance it's like a person killing a bunch of people then going _"well you kill baby chickens, lay off me"_. It's just people trying to convince themselves that vegans/vegetarians are just as guilty. Cheap attempt tbh


Definition of Sentience:

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience).

1. Can plants perceive and feel (and thereby satisfying the requirement to be considered sentient)?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-...may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants



> "They have analagous structures," Pollan explains. "They have ways of taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ... integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it, because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information."


There is a huge body of science that is dedicated to researching whether plants can perceive things around them. The thing is that humans don't know how they react to the environment around them does not mean that they don't. 

The evidence for chemical release and ability to communicate with other insects during distress is an immediate reaction to an immediate event. The fact that a plant can release a chemical when it's being eaten is clear cut evidence of some sort of sensory perception .. even if it is done without a nervous system. 

I don't see how you can simply discount that. 

Can plants think and communicate? 

That's one that is most disputable and even though there's a rich body of science out there that claims that we need to re-think how we think about how plants communicate because we cannot use our narrow understanding of what communication and thinking is to plants anymore and we need to expand beyond that. 

As a whole, the problem I have vegetarians is the input of morality into the argument that somehow it's less moral to kill animals but not plants. 

I understand the hypocrisy of claiming a moral high ground when it comes to murder of other humans vs murder of other animals and plants, but the fact is that you can't use that argument to claim that you're more moral for killing plants which do perceive the world around them differently from animals. 

I accept that I have drawn my lines and I can be considered a hypocrite because of that in your view - 

But can you deal with being called a hypocrite for finding your own justification - a justification that's dubious in terms of definition (i.e. Plant Sentience vs Animal Sentience) in order to justify your lifestyle? 

To me, based on evidence that I've seen, Plants are sentient ... and likely more sentient than we know as of today.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)

Lastly: you're defining sentience based on humanity's defintion and understanding of sentience .. Can you not see the inherent arrogance in that assertion that something alive needs to be sentient according to your (humanity's) definition of sentience in the first place before we consider that life un-snuffable?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> So, because I'm smarter than a lion, I'm not supposed to eat meat because I should have empathy and compassion for cows and chickens?


Yes. 

The greatest evil is ignorance and the greatest good is knowledge. The more intelligent we became the more aware we became of empathy & compassion. This isn't some hippie mumbo jumbo, in a sense it's survival as well because it strengthens the idea of defending others, from humans to animals to the earth itself so that we all live in a safer community. It's humans conditioning themselves enough so that they can leave their wallets on their desks and not have to worry about someone stealing it. Altruistic morality can reach levels of ridiculousness _"rarely imo"_, but empathy & compassion for the most part don't.

Also, other than lions being buffoons compared to humans, lions literally need meat to survive. This is why I find it odd how some vegans force their cats to eat vegan foods, because naturally cats too for the most part, need meat. However you don't need meat the same way gorillas don't need meat, yes, you don't need meat to survive. Maybe during the ice ages humans had to go kill off some mammoths, or maybe in poor countries in Africa, but you don't need to eat meat. Meat is only a necessity when plant foods are not available enough, it is originally desperation.



Tater said:


> Look, if you want to have a problem with the meat industry because of how the animals are treated, that is something I can understand. I don't much like it either. It doesn't mean you shouldn't eat meat though.


I don't eat sentient beings, period. Animals are not my property, they are individuals.



Tater said:


> I live in Hawai'i and go fishing. Those fish live wild and free in the ocean unharmed by evil man's meat processing plants. Should I have a problem eating the fish I caught wild and free just because it's meat?


The fish you caught did not want to get killed obviously, the fish you caught were sentient, and I know you might not like to see it that way but it's similar to a tiger running up to you and tearing you apart then having you as a meal. Did you deserve to get killed? The tiger did not care about how you, a sentient being felt. You are doing what the tiger is doing, only instead of doing it to humans you do it to sentient life that isn't human and unlike the tiger who needs the meat, you mostly eat meat because of plate pleasure and ignore the reality that you are gaining pleasure from a tasty tuna meal that was caused out of you causing pointless suffering to another being, which goes against concepts like empathy & compassion which keep humanity stable and sane.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

:HA

I'm sorry, Ghandi, but all that you just posted is pretty freakin' absurd.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

The law of nature clearly dictates Animals will eat other animals, its genetic programming. I can understand why someone would choose otherwise but anyone who thinks it is "wrong" is fooling themselves.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

> How plants sense and react is still somewhat unknown. *They don't have nerve cells like humans*, but they do have a system for sending electrical signals and even produce neurotransmitters, like dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals the human brain uses to send signals.


From the 8th paragraph, all that talk in that study for nothing. So they basically just admitted plants were not sentient, and the non bold parts are all just going _"they have this and we don't know why they have them because they don't have nerve cells"_.



> "We don't know why they have them, whether this was just conserved through evolution or if it performs some sort of information processing function. We don't know. There's a lot we don't know,"


Yep.



Reaper said:


> Definition of Sentience:
> 
> Sentience is the ability to *feel*, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience).


No nerve cells. End.



Reaper said:


> There is a huge body of science that is dedicated to researching whether plants can perceive things around them. The thing is that humans don't know how they react to the environment around them does not mean that they don't.
> 
> The evidence for chemical release and ability to communicate with other insects during distress is an immediate reaction to an immediate event. The fact that a plant can release a chemical when it's being eaten is clear cut evidence of some sort of sensory perception .. even if it is down without a nervous system.
> 
> I don't see how you can simply discount that.


I don't see how you can simply discount that plants do not have a nervous system.



Reaper said:


> The problem I have with you and other vegetarians is the input of morality into the argument that somehow it's less moral to kill animals but not plants.


Yeah, because plants are not sentient and I cannot empathize with something living that does not have nerve cells that feels pain animals do when they get stabbed or shot.



Reaper said:


> I understand the hypocrisy of claiming a moral high ground when it comes to murder of other humans vs murder of other animals and plants, but the fact is that you can't use that argument to claim that you're more moral for killing plants which do perceive the world around them differently from animals.


Yes they perceive the world differently....without nerve cells...



Reaper said:


> I accept that I have drawn my lines and I can be considered a hypocrite because of that in your view. But can you deal with being called a hypocrite for finding your own justification - a justification that's dubious in terms of definition (i.e. Plant Sentience vs Animal Sentience) in order to justify your lifestyle?


Nerve. Cells.



Tater said:


> :HA
> 
> I'm sorry, Ghandi, but all that you just posted is pretty freakin' absurd.


Ok, and I would like to know why it's absurd because I don't like being ignorant and want to be knowledgeable. A gif of J.K Simmons won't really do much to make me realize how wrong I am now will it?



Reaper said:


> The law of nature clearly dictates Animals will eat other animals, its genetic programming. I can understand why someone would choose otherwise but anyone who thinks it is "wrong" is fooling themselves.


The law of nature also dictates that the strongest survive, modern science is becoming more and more a middle finger to nature. What you're posting is called the appeal to nature fallacy, all sorts of horrid things happen under the cold eyes of mother nature does that mean I will do them because they're natural? No.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Gandhi ... I expected your responses to have more meat (excuse the pun) than just "herp derp .. no nerve cells". 

It's clear that plants can "feel" without nerves and therefore that's not a valid argument in their case .. 

The requirement for sentience is to feel and perceive .. not to feel and perceive only through a nervous system. There are several ways in which plants have shown that they are indeed sentient enough to adapt to the environment .. otherwise they wouldn't be alive. They're alive and they adapt and it's actually quite irrelevant whether they have brains or nervous systems or not when considering that they exhibit their sentience in other ways. 

I can post paper after paper but I don't want to feel like I'm wasting my time in the end like I end up feeling with creationists ... 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33374/title/How-Plants-Feel/


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> Ok, and I would like to know why it's absurd because I don't like being ignorant and want to be knowledgeable. A gif of J.K Simmons won't really do much to make me realize how wrong I am now will it?


Nope. It will not. I wasn't meant to either. It was meant to show how I think your absurd ideas on this topic are hilarious. It accomplished that goal.

First, you say mankind is different because we are more intelligent than the rest of the sentient animals... then you equate us with those same sentient animals.



> I don't eat sentient beings, period. Animals are not my property, they are individuals.


So which is it? Are we different from the animals because we're smarter than them or are they our brethren who deserve rights as individuals the same as we do because they are sentient beings? Make up your mind! You can't have it both ways! :lmao

That was rhetorical. Don't bother answering.

I am an animal. I eat animals. I eat plants too. I eat life. My level of intelligence does not make me different from the other animals. We are all animals and we all eat life to live. That is my position on the topic and I don't particularly expect you to agree with me. I agree that the animals we feed on should not be abused and forced to live in inhumane conditions but that in no way means I think man should stop eating meat. Your whole empathy and compassion argument is, IMHO, retarded. My empathy and compassion ends at treating the animals right while they are alive. It ain't going to stop me from eating them.


----------



## autechrex (Dec 31, 2013)

i was interested in it for a bit but then i got back into weight lifting and stuff and then i just stopped caring about the ethical side of it like everyone else and dropped it. You're just not going to build a lean muscular body without animal products, I guess I'm shitty but that isn't worth giving up.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Reaper said:


> Gandhi ... *I expected your responses to have more meat* (excuse the pun) than just "herp derp .. no nerve cells".


_"Herp derp.. nerve cells not existing doesn't mean they don't feel, even though you feel with your nerve cells..."_



Reaper said:


> It's clear that plants can "feel" without nerves and therefore that's not a valid argument in their case ..


No. It's clear plants _react_ without nerves. They do not _"feel"_ because they don't have a nervous system, it's not rocket science Reaper.



Reaper said:


> The requirement for sentience is to feel and perceive .. not to feel and perceive only through a nervous system.


Yeah and living things feel, _because of a nervous system_.



Reaper said:


> There are several ways in which plants have shown that they are indeed sentient enough to adapt to the environment


Yeah...



Gandhi said:


> Plants do not have brains, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli but they don't choose what they do. They track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants. Like I said, plants are not sentient.


...not really.



Reaper said:


> They're alive


No one has denied this.



Reaper said:


> it's actually *quite irrelevant* whether they have brains or nervous systems or not


No, it's not because it defeats the purpose of feeling and not to mention the complexity the brain brings into a living thing on how it functions.



Reaper said:


> when considering that they exhibit their sentience in other ways.


Let's make up a new form of sentience why don't we? You don't need to feel to be sentient. By the way I am actually a dragon, but I am a dragon in my own way.



Reaper said:


> I can post paper after paper but I don't want to feel like I'm wasting my time in the end like I end up feeling with creationists ...


I'd say you're wasting your time already because of your inability to know what the purpose of the nervous system is. That, or you're wasting your time because you know what it's purpose is, don't care, and will still lie to yourself and tell yourself plants are sentient just so you can go grab some bacon and ignore your conscience.



Tater said:


> First, you say mankind is different because we are more intelligent than the rest of the sentient animals... then you equate us with those same sentient animals.


We are sentient animals yes; however through evolution humans compared to non humans have succeeded them all and risen above the stars when it comes to intellect & intelligence. 



Tater said:


> So which is it?


Animals are not on my level of intelligence & intellect, far inferior, and they are still sentient.



Tater said:


> are they our brethren who deserve rights as individuals the same as we do


They are not our brethren in humanity but we do share sentience. They are other nations and are living sentient beings, they are not your property and as much as you'd like to believe otherwise they are individuals each and every one of them. I'm not going to have them get human rights though, so don't even mention something like that because I've once had someone think I wanted animals to get rights to vote. lol.



Tater said:


> Make up your mind!


I did long before you posted on this thread.



Tater said:


> You can't have it both ways!














Tater said:


> That was rhetorical. Don't bother answering.


Nah, I'll answer just to show people you like strawman arguments.



Tater said:


> I am an animal. I eat animals. I eat plants too. I eat life.


lol



Tater said:


> My level of intelligence does not make me different from the other animals.














Tater said:


> We are all animals and we all eat life to live.


Why are you telling me something I already know?



Tater said:


> That is my position on the topic and I don't particularly expect you to agree with me.


I don't think you think this topic through much tbh.

I'm not trying to insult you or anything, I mean just a year ago I used to think vegans were crazies and I wasn't an idiot back then or anything I just didn't think the topic through much. Shit, there was a time where I was like an African American stereotype with my love for KFC; in fact if you could make apples taste like KFC chicken I would keep thanking you till I lost my voice.



Tater said:


> I agree that the animals we feed on should not be abused and forced to live in inhumane conditions


Well I'm glad you atleast have that mindset.



Tater said:


> but that in no way means I think man should stop eating meat.


I'm not going to force you to stop eating meat, but I will point out the immorality behind killing for plate pleasure when the topic comes up.



Tater said:


> Your whole empathy and compassion argument is, IMHO, retarded. My empathy and compassion ends at treating the animals right while they are alive. It ain't going to stop me from eating them.


Suppose humans did reach a point where all factory farms treated animals _"humanely"_ when killing them for food and even had them die peaceful deaths, just a quick painless poke behind the neck and BAM they're dead and ready to become a tasty chicken mcnugget. Keep imagining here, would you still be okay with this to humans? I mean, what if I'm having someone just enjoy their time with me then BAM BAM with just one painless poke behind the neck they're dead and it's time to have some human yummy yum yums. Notice how I stated _"have them enjoy their time with me"_ before I killed them? Because that's what you're arguing for with non humans, deception to kill a being that didn't know any better ignoring all empathy & compassion knowing that being does not want to die and not caring. It would be a different story if you're walking down the street and a cow just dies randomly and you decide to eat it, it's the killing and usage of animals as our property that I'm against.



autechrex said:


> i was interested in it for a bit but then i got back into weight lifting and stuff and then i just stopped caring about the ethical side of it like everyone else and dropped it. You're just not going to build a lean muscular body without animal products, I guess I'm shitty but that isn't worth giving up.


orly?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ghandi, how long did you work on that post? An hour? More?

I have respect for you as a generally rational thinker and poster. Most of the time, you have thoughtful, considerate things to say. Remember that I genuinely do respect you when I tell you that you are out of your fucking mind on this topic. 

If you don't want to eat meat, that's fine by me. It's your choice and I don't particularly care what your reasons are. I respect your right to make that choice. Just don't go acting like humans eating meat isn't anything but natural. As a human, I'm an omnivore. It is 100% natural that I eat both plants and animals.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Ghandi, how long did you work on that post? An hour? More?


Nah, left to go hang out with someone then came back.



Tater said:


> I have respect for you as a generally rational thinker and poster. Most of the time, you have thoughtful, considerate things to say. Remember that I genuinely do respect you when I tell you that you are out of your fucking mind on this topic.


So you don't have a rebuttal to any of my arguments. Ok.



Tater said:


> If you don't want to eat meat, that's fine by me. It's your choice and I don't particularly care what your reasons are. I respect your right to make that choice. Just don't go acting like humans eating meat isn't anything but natural. As a human, I'm an omnivore. It is 100% natural that I eat both plants and animals.


I never said eating meat wasn't natural, I said it was immoral. Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism, deception, all part of the natural world. I could go on and on and on. What you are posting is something people call the appeal to nature fallacy; all sorts of immoral things happen that are natural to human and even animal behavior in general, doesn't change that it's still immoral.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> So you don't have a rebuttal to any of my arguments. Ok.


It's not that I don't have a rebuttal... it's that I don't see the point in getting into a long, drawn out debate with you on a topic that you have such looney opinions on lol...



Gandhi said:


> I never said eating meat wasn't natural, I said it was immoral.


...because you say such stupid shit like this. You acknowledge that humans eating meat is natural then call it immoral. That's stupid on a level that I'm not willing to debate with. Sure, I'll sit here and crack jokes, even banter with you, but a detailed point by point debate on the whys and why nots? Nah, I'll pass.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> It's not that I don't have a rebuttal... it's that I don't see the point in getting into a long, drawn out debate with you on a topic that you have such looney opinions on lol...


You don't have a rebuttal, there's no need to be dishonest about it.

Looney opinions? I never knew having compassion, empathy & sympathy for the weak was looney. Ok. Keep calling my views towards treatment to non humans looney whilst being okay with deceiving innocent creatures into a false sense of security only to take away what it values most, life. Oh and, keep ignoring my points because it helps people see how you're ever so correct with your stance that eating meat isn't so immoral after all. Why did you ignore my questions? Because you have no rebuttals.



Tater said:


> ...because you say such stupid shit like this. You acknowledge that humans eating meat is natural then call it immoral. That's stupid on a level that I'm not willing to debate with. Sure, I'll sit here and crack jokes, even banter with you, but a detailed point by point debate on the whys and why nots? Nah, I'll pass.


Why did you ignore the rest of my posts? Natural ≠ Moral. Like I said, a lot of natural things in this world are immoral from murder to rape to theft. Crack all the jokes all you want, doesn't make you look any better considering you've been digging quite the hole for yourself on this thread. You cannot rebuttal anything I say, hence you ignore most of my points and just crack jokes. What's sad is that not only are you being dishonest to me, but to yourself.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Oh Ghandi... you think you're being clever? I'm not being goaded into a debate about whether or not water is wet. As much as you think water has the consistency of sand, it is pointless of me to explain to you how, in fact, water IS wet.

ositivity


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

_wet
wɛt/Submit
adjective
1.covered or saturated with water or another liquid._

It's not hard to prove to someone that water is wet. 

So, if it's that easy then it should be easy for you to give me rebuttals and not avoid my arguments. It should take you not 2 or 3 long posts, but one ridiculously short simple post. Like I said, you're being dishonest to both me & yourself.

What a stupid analogy and a piss poor attempt to hide that you cannot give any rebuttals. Sad.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> It should take you not 2 or 3 long posts, but one ridiculously short simple post.


Meat good. Vaginitis bad.






Any other questions?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

You still didn't give me any rebuttals to any of my arguments and like I said, you're just cracking jokes to hide that you don't have anything to defend your stance hence you're still making yourself look dreadful. Post by post, you just prove me right more and more. 

Weak.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ghandi, what do you fail to understand about I'm not having this debate with you? You're not getting a rebuttal because arguing the morality of eating animals is RETARDED. It'd be about as stupid as arguing with you about whether or not we breathe air to get oxygen because you said we breathe rubber. 

Your position that eating animals is immoral is too incredibly stupid to debate against.

It is, however, an excellent point for cracking jokes about. Cracking jokes on people who say incredibly stupid things... well, that, my friend, is good entertainment! (Y)


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

You were fine with debating before and was posting paragraphs normally; once you saw that I have arguments & points that made your statements all seem moot, you started chickening out by cracking jokes and pretending you didn't have to give rebuttals and that I was _"just being a looney"_ with my views. Address my arguments and make me look stupid, if you can't do that it's because you have no rebuttals. I, however, have been addressing all of your points and making them all look asinine.

Also why do you keep making such cringe worthy analogies? Do I have to remind you that it isn't hard for you to prove to me why we breathe air? Tell me, wasn't the water example enough? Do you not learn from your mistakes?

My position that eating animals is immoral is too stupid to debate against? Why? Are you actually just going to tell me _"because it just is"_? Because that would be absolutely pathetic, you sound no different than the creationists you mock all the time on threads.


----------



## Lil Mark (Jan 14, 2014)

The Human body needs the protein from meat. Vegan diets can lead to depression. Starving the body makes metabolism slow down. Meat is not the enemy.

From an ethical standpoint, animals eat animals. As long as someone is not overeating it's not immoral to eat an animal. I don't think people should be out hunting animals but freedom etc. So why cut all meat out of your diet? If someone who wants to lose weight goes on a vegan diet, I guarantee you that is not the right thing to do to your body. Proper diet and exercise. Active lifestyle choices. Veganism is not the answer.

I like all kinds of food. Steak, Salad, Mexican, Asian, seafood, PIZZA! No need to alienate meat in the equation. And don't forget the greatest meat of all... Chicken.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Lil Mark said:


> The Human body needs the protein from meat.


The human body needs protein, something a vegan diet provides without the god awful side effects meat foods bring. Are you seriously oblivious that vegetables, tofu, beans, or DAMN PEANUT BUTTER do not pack protein? You don't know what you're talking about.



Lil Mark said:


> Vegan diets can lead to depression.


lolwut, back that statement up, _now_.



Lil Mark said:


> Starving the body makes metabolism slow down.





















*James Wilks*, UFC fighter and vegan.










From the NHL, *George Laraque*, also a vegan.










*Rich Roll*, Ultra marathon star and yes, vegan.










Lookie here another vegan UFC fighter, *Mac Danzig*.

I could go on and on by the way.



Lil Mark said:


> From an ethical standpoint, animals eat animals.


Animals also rape animals, animals also savagely murder each other, I could go on and on.



Lil Mark said:


> it's not immoral to eat an animal.


How is it moral to kill a sentient being for no apparent reason other than you wanting to taste their flesh not caring about what the animal itself feels about you tearing it apart?



Lil Mark said:


> So why cut all meat out of your diet?


1. You don't need it
2. It is immoral



Lil Mark said:


> If someone who wants to lose weight goes on a vegan diet, I guarantee you that is not the right thing to do to your body. Proper diet and exercise.


Going vegan won't necessarily make you lose weight the way you think it should. I've never argued for that and I'm a vegan and I know other than my vegan diet, I still need to exercise properly.



Lil Mark said:


> Veganism is not the answer.


Sure it is.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> You were fine with debating before and was posting paragraphs normally; once you saw that I have arguments & points that made your statements all seem moot, you started chickening out by cracking jokes and pretending you didn't have to give rebuttals and that I was _"just being a looney"_ with my views. Address my arguments and make me look stupid, if you can't do that it's because you have no rebuttals. I, however, have been addressing all of your points and making them all look asinine.
> 
> Also why do you keep making such cringe worthy analogies? Do I have to remind you that it isn't hard for you to prove to me why we breathe air? Tell me, wasn't the water example enough? Do you not learn from your mistakes?
> 
> My position that eating animals is immoral is too stupid to debate against? Why? Are you actually just going to tell me _"because it just is"_? Because that would be absolutely pathetic, you sound no different than the creationists you mock all the time on threads.


:maury

Why would I debate you on such a stupid point when it's much more fun to get you all riled up about it?

You're making this way too easy on me.



> Also why do you keep making such cringe worthy analogies?


I'm trying to think of analogies that sound just as stupid as saying eating animals is immoral. Saying water isn't wet and proclaiming we breathe rubber instead of air... that's about the level of stupid that saying_ eating animals is immoral_ is. 

Here's one... our entire planet is really just a big fart bubble coming out of Gandalf's ass. No, that doesn't work either... because that is still smarter than saying that eating animals is immoral.

You following along now? Debating that the entire planet is just a big fart bubble coming out of Gandalf's ass is smarter than saying that eating animals is immoral.

Do you need more? Because I am enjoying the challenge of thinking up arguments that are even more stupid than saying that eating animals is immoral.

I'm all for treating Moo-moo the Cow and Chicky the Chicken right while they are alive. I'm all for killing them in the most humane way possible. I'm also going to enjoy the fuck out of chowing down on Moo-moo the Burger and Chicky the Nuggets.


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

No but I've thought about it. My problem isn't with eating meat so much as the horrific way the animals are treated in big factories so being a vegetarian wouldn't matter much compared to me being a vegan. And going without milk or eggs or anything made with them is too much time and effort right now. I think going without eating meat wouldn't be too difficult, especially with all the substitutes these days.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Why is discussing the ethics of meat consumption 'RETARDED'? I am confused.


----------



## wildpegasus (Feb 8, 2003)

I wanted to point out there that there is a humongous differences between GMOS and how a lot of our food have become the way they are. GMOS are poison and go against health in the worse ways possible.

That being said the less hybrid something is the better it is for you. The closer it is to how it is supposed to be generally the better it is for you. For ex, seeded grapes are better than seedless grapes. Same things with watermelons.

Humans are mainly frugivores. The body without any shadow of a doubt runs overall all factors considered runs best on fruit. Fruits, berries and melons are king.

Leafy greens are important but the body doesn't run as well on them like it does fruit

Nuts and seeds go along with the body well.

Meat is tough on the body

Herbs is tough to be brief on as I'm not sure on some things with them but there are some sweet herbs out there

Cow Milk and other milks as well/Dairy are VICIOUS on the body.

Human Milk is ESSESNTIAL for babies but after a certain while we lose the ability to drink milk. All milk from other animals are bad overall for the body baby, kid or adult. Each species milk is for their own species. Common sense.

Try to eat more raw and less cooked.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Why is discussing the ethics of meat consumption 'RETARDED'? I am confused.


Cheap attempt by Tater to hide that he can't really defend his stance or attack mine.



Tater said:


> :maury Why would I debate you on such a stupid point when it's much more fun to get you all riled up about it?


You stopped debating me because:

- All your arguments were rebutted by me
- You have no rebuttals for my arguments

In response, you're pretending to want to turn this into banter because you argue like a child when it comes to this topic and you want to hide that you cannot back up anything you say when it comes to attacking veganism, you can only crack up petty jokes to hide your inability to back up anything you say against veganism.

Also, I'm not even slightly irritated by your posts. Your posts are doing nothing but proving my points more and more. Like I said, you have been digging quite the hole for yourself. I am glad people can read this conversation, thanks for helping me promote veganism.

Keep posting gifs of people laughing Tater, you're not fooling anyone but fools. 



Tater said:


> You're making this way too easy on me.


So easy you're no different than the chicken you eat when it comes to addressing my arguments.



Tater said:


> I'm trying to think of analogies that sound just as stupid as saying eating animals is immoral. Saying water isn't wet and proclaiming we breathe rubber instead of air... that's about the level of stupid that saying eating animals is immoral is.
> 
> Here's one... our entire planet is really just a big fart bubble coming out of Gandalf's ass. No, that doesn't work either... because that is still smarter than saying that eating animals is immoral.
> 
> You following along now? Debating that the entire planet is just a big fart bubble coming out of Gandalf's ass is smarter than saying that eating animals is immoral.


If the idea of veganism is that ridiculous as the things you've stated, then it should be ridiculously easy for you to prove to me how it isn't immoral in seconds no differently than how you can prove to me water is wet in seconds. However instead of doing that, you have been derailing the the thread from my arguments to try and hide your inability to give a rebuttal to any of my arguments. Back up your statements, how hard can it be? In your case, _very_.



Tater said:


> Do you need more? Because I am enjoying the challenge of thinking up arguments that are even more stupid than saying that eating animals is immoral.


You're not enjoying any of this, lol.



Tater said:


> I'm all for treating Moo-moo the Cow and Chicky the Chicken right while they are alive. I'm all for killing them in the most humane way possible. I'm also going to enjoy the fuck out of chowing down on Moo-moo the Burger and Chicky the Nuggets.


Address my post below, quit being coward.



Gandhi said:


> Suppose humans did reach a point where all factory farms treated animals "humanely" when killing them for food and even had them die peaceful deaths, just a quick painless poke behind the neck and BAM they're dead and ready to become a tasty chicken mcnugget. Keep imagining here, would you still be okay with this to humans? I mean, what if I'm having someone just enjoy their time with me then BAM BAM with just one painless poke behind the neck they're dead and it's time to have some human yummy yum yums. Notice how I stated "have them enjoy their time with me" before I killed them? Because that's what you're arguing for with non humans, deception to kill a being that didn't know any better ignoring all empathy & compassion knowing that being does not want to die and not caring. It would be a different story if you're walking down the street and a cow just dies randomly and you decide to eat it, it's the killing and usage of animals as our property that I'm against.


Killing for the sake of plate pleasure and only plate pleasure, is not humane period.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga (Jun 12, 2006)

I've tried, but can't do it. Sorry. When they make a nice substitute for sesame chicken, I'll go vegetarian, though I eat salmon as well. I'm one step in that direction by having removed red meat from my diet, though.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

I make the conscious decision to eat meat because I like it. Could I survive on a vegan diet? Yes, by do I want to? No. That's the cool thing about being human, making choices. If you feel your are better off being vegan/vegetarian that's your prerogative. I don't care what anyone says about the immorality of killing animals for sustenance, I am going to eat meat, and guess what? No one can stop me. There isn't a video out there that is going to change my mind. I've actually thought about what cut I wanted to get after watching one. I've seen animals slaughtered and had meat right from it. If someone doesn't agree with me that's fine, more bacon for me.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> You're not enjoying any of this, lol.


Shit yeah I am... the Moo-moo the Burger and Chicky the Nuggets line was fucking GOLD!


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Not sure if this has been mentioned because I didn't read the whole thread, but are people aware that you can harvest food from a plant without killing it? Some of the posts I skimmed over didn't seem to realize this (or in skimming i missed it).

I still eat meat though. I might stop again in the future, but that's the future and only soothsayers know what happens in the future. Also time travelers as well. Maybe some gods? all of those aka wizards


----------



## nikola123 (Apr 1, 2012)

I could probably be vegetarian,most of the shit I eat is vegetables and pasta.
I dont rly want to tho


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Gandhi said:


> Also Tater, yeah I don't have problem with lions eating gazelles *because lions are stupid and you, a human, are not. Your intelligence is an advantage that makes you more aware of concepts like empathy & compassion and form concepts like morality in general.*


Giving Tater far too much credit here mate. I have yet to see him exhibit any signs of these attributes.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

If I was a cannibal, I wouldn't eat CP. His level of stupid goes all the way to the meat and bones. He actually makes Ghandi look like a genius in this thread.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Let's not bait and flame here please. This can be an interesting discussion in all seriousness.


----------



## Jordo (Mar 31, 2009)

Couldn't give up meat, love meat


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Shit yeah I am... the Moo-moo the Burger and Chicky the Nuggets line was fucking GOLD!


Since Tater refuses to address any of my arguments _because he cannot rebut any of them_, let me remind people who view this thread how my conversation with Tater went on about veganism with just a few points.

- I told Tater how humans being more intelligent & intellectual makes them more aware to concepts like empathy, sympathy, compassion and morality in general. However at the same time I told him how humans are, animals.

- Tater then decided to make a strawman argument, thinking I was telling him that we were both different from animals because of our intelligence and that at the same time they were no different than us. He cannot even comprehend that I am telling him that we are animals, but we're animals who are far superior to non humans when it comes to intellect & intelligence. Oh and, he used the nature appeal fallacy. 

- I explained and backed up why the killing of animals for plate pleasure, was not compassionate or moral whatsoever because it showed nothing but disregard and sheer disrespect for the life of a sentient being that wishes to live and avoid suffering. I also explained how the nature appeal fallacy was piss poor to use because in nature horrid things from cannibalism to rape and murder happen naturally yet we still view them as immoral. I then challenged him to give me a rebuttal to my arguments presented and explain to me why it wasn't immoral to kill animals for pleasure.

- Tater then decided to do nothing but post gifs of people laughing, and said he didn't have to give me a rebuttal because he didn't want to get into a long debate. He then proceeded by making god awful analogies stating that veganism was as asinine as thinking water isn't wet.

- I then told him explaining why water is wet takes mere seconds and isn't hard to do, if it's that easy to prove water is wet and Tater is using his analogy then surely it must be child's play to prove his point and give me rebuttals immediately.

- Tater continued to do nothing but try to crack up petty jokes, all to hide the fact that he cannot give a rebuttal to any of my arguments for veganism. Instead of making a fool out of me, Tater decided to chicken out.


----------



## Joshi Judas (Jul 12, 2013)

Cut out red meat so it's only chicken and sea food for now. Thinking of slowly turning into a vegetarian but probably can't become a vegan.


----------



## Leon Knuckles (Sep 2, 2013)

SORRY IM AN ANIMAL CANT DO IT.


----------



## Darkness is here (Mar 25, 2014)

Jordo said:


> Couldn't give up meat, love meat


Who doesn't love meat.
MEAT! MEAT! MEAT


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> Tater then decided to make a strawman argument, thinking I was telling him that we were both different from animals because of our intelligence and that at the same time they were no different than us.


Gonna hafta stop ya right there.

You do realize I was mocking you, yes?

There was no "strawman argument" or any argument of any kind. Your position of eating animals is immoral is too fucking stupid to argue with.

The real story here is you are just bound and fucking determined to argue with SOMEbody because you feel the need to justify why you are a vegan. I'm just the one in here fucking with you about it. A turd could come in the thread and plop down and you would argue with it too. I don't know why you feel such a strong need to justify your vaginitis, I mean veganism, but hey... whatever makes you feel better about yourself. I don't particularly give a shit one way or the other.

Let me ask you this... if you're a vegan and proud of it, why do you even fucking care what I think about it? I've been mocking you for pages now and yet here you are still with the serious replies. You might want to look in the mirror to figure out why this is such a big fucking problem for you.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)




----------



## nwoblack/white (Apr 14, 2006)

Gandhi said:


> Since Tater refuses to address any of my arguments _because he cannot rebut any of them_, let me remind people who view this thread how my conversation with Tater went on about veganism with just a few points.
> 
> - I told Tater how humans being more intelligent & intellectual makes them more aware to concepts like empathy, sympathy, compassion and morality in general. However at the same time I told him how humans are, animals.
> 
> ...


LMAO I don't know you or the other guy but this is just an internet forum. Gzzzz what a douche. 

Egypt=Weak btw


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

nWoblack/white said:


> LMAO I don't know you or the other guy but this is just an internet forum. Gzzzz what a douche.
> 
> Egypt=Weak btw


:Jordan

Awesome.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

The guy above Tater was warned. Next guy gets banned. 

In a vegetarian thread.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Veganism is serious bizness, yo.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

killing for anything except for food is pretty bad.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> You do realize I was mocking you, yes?


I realize you're failing miserably at doing so.



Tater said:


> There was no "strawman argument" or any argument of any kind.


_"Wikipedia says: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw-man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."_

That is exactly what happened between you and I when you said "I can't have it both ways". It's irrelevant whether it was a serious reply or not, I personally think it was and you just don't want to admit it.



Tater said:


> Your position of eating animals is immoral is too fucking stupid to argue with.


_"it's stupid because it's stupid"_

Great argument.



Tater said:


> The real story here is you are just bound and fucking determined to argue with SOMEbody because you feel the need to justify why you are a vegan.


You think I'm going to just sit here and watch people on this thread talk about a movement based on compassion & empathy as if it was looney? I could just read the asinine comments written by you, ignore them, and leave. I am not however, because I want you and everybody on this thread to learn. 



Tater said:


> I'm just the one in here fucking with you about it. A turd could come in the thread and plop down and you would argue with it too.


I'm already arguing with someone who argues like a child, you.



Tater said:


> I don't know why you feel such a strong need to justify your vaginitis, I mean veganism,


Why are you vilifying empathy & compassion as weak? Do you think it makes you look tough?



Tater said:


> Let me ask you this... if you're a vegan and proud of it, why do you even fucking care what I think about it?


Because you spread disinformation to people about veganism.



Tater said:


> I've been mocking you for pages now and yet here you are still with the serious replies.


I have factual arguments, you have petty jokes.



Tater said:


> You might want to look in the mirror to figure out why this is such a big fucking problem for you.


I actually like this thread a lot, I'm sure a lot have noticed. This thread is making people learn; I like that because I like helping people, that must be the vaginitis talking from me right?



nWoblack/white said:


> LMAO I don't know you or the other guy but this is just an internet forum. Gzzzz what a douche.
> 
> Egypt=Weak btw


Do you know what people do on internet forums? They discuss topics.

Also I don't understand how I'm being a douchebag. Explain.

Oh yeah and I'm not a patriot; all "_nations_" are nothing but geographical areas that belong to one nation, humanity. There is no us and them, Egyptians are your people and Americans are my people etc.



LUCK said:


> killing for anything except for food is pretty bad.


Mhm, and humans don't need meat to survive. Most people on the planet, eat meat for pleasure and nothing else. Nobody on here lives in poor village from the Savannah where plant foods are hard to come by and hunting is the only way to survive, neither do we live in the ice age anymore.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

that's true, but you also cant tell people what to eat in this day and age(with obvious exceptions). eating potato chips arent necessary, in any way, yet people love them and eat them. same goes for any junk food.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

LUCK said:


> that's true, but you also cant tell people what to eat in this day and age(with obvious exceptions). eating potato chips arent necessary, in any way, yet people love them and eat them. same goes for any junk food.


I'm not going to force anyone to become vegan. I will however, point out the immorality behind a non vegan stance with animals. The analogy of potato chips & meat isn't really good, as potato chips aren't made of sentient beings like meat is.


----------



## Rocky Mark (Mar 27, 2011)

Gandhi said:


> I'm not going to force anyone to become vegan. I will however, point out the immorality behind a non vegan stance with animals. The analogy of potato chips & meat isn't really good, as potato chips aren't made of sentient beings like meat is.


actually, it would be much less beneficial for animals if every human turned vegan than it is now, if our only food comes from plants then the share is less for the herbivores causing them to drop in numbers, in return less food for the predators as well, unless of course the lack of food drives them to human populated area in were they'll prey on humans, and in return humans would hunt them down leading to extinction of exotic animals like tigers and lions, who are already few in numbers

so it makes you more of a heartless bastard for not adding grilled chicken to your salad than I am


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Rocky Mark said:


> actually, it would be much less beneficial for animals if every human turned vegan than it is now, if our only food comes from plants then the share is less for the herbivores causing them to drop in numbers, in return less food for the predators as well, unless of course the lack of food drives them to human populated area in were they'll prey on humans, and in return humans would hunt them down leading to extinction of exotic animals like tigers and lions, who are already few in numbers
> 
> so it makes you more of a heartless bastard for not adding grilled chicken to your salad than I am


Humans waste a ridiculous amount of plant foods on _millions_ of animals they force breed, so they can kill, and feed to millions who simply want a tasty burger. Animal populations in the wild match their food sources, don't forget that.

You basically want animals like cows & pigs to keep getting used for meat, and for you to keep breeding millions of animals in factory farms to eventually just kill you must waste a ridiculous amount of plant foods. It is _you_ who is supporting wasting plant foods, burning down forests, all to make more factory farms to create more pointless suffering to innocent sentient beings for your pleasure.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Gandhi said:


> I'm not going to force anyone to become vegan. I will however, point out the immorality behind a non vegan stance with animals. The analogy of potato chips & meat isn't really good, as potato chips aren't made of sentient beings like meat is.


what's immoral to you isnt immoral to everyone. theyre animals and we're predators that enjoy their meat.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

LUCK said:


> what's immoral to you isnt immoral to everyone. theyre animals and we're predators that enjoy their meat.


_*moral*
ˈmɒr(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.

2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct._

Right behavior, principles, proper conduct. Now let's take a look at what the core of the vegan movement is all about.

_*empathy*
ˈɛmpəθi/Submit
noun
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another._

_*compassion*
kəmˈpaʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others._

Now tell me empathy & compassion are not moral, go on say it.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Ghandi. Your entire belief system is based around the idea that plants aren't sentient in the same way as animals are while ignoring scientific claims that they are likely sentient in a different way. 

Yeah, you can preach morality up until that point. But you need to vehemently believe that plant sentience is not possible at all and deny all bits and pieces of evidence that suggest to the contrary. 

This conversation cannot proceed any further as far as you and I are concerned because we are at a disagreement over what sentience means to us. I have no problems expanding the definition of sentience to what it could be while you don't want to redefine it. This is an impasse if there ever was one.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Reaper said:


> Ghandi. Your entire belief system is based around the idea that plants aren't sentient in the same way as animals are while ignoring scientific claims that they are likely sentient in a different way.


There is no such thing as _"sentient in a different way"_, you are changing the entire concept of the word sentient. You are either a sentient being or you are not. Plants do not have a nervous system, they do not feel pain. Stab a human and they'll cry in agony, stab an apple and it won't feel a thing; because you know, no nerve cells.

I'm glad you admitted that what you keep citing is "scientific" claims. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you what the word "claims" means.



Reaper said:


> Yeah, you can preach morality up until that point. But you need to vehemently believe that plant sentience is not possible at all and deny all bits and pieces of evidence that suggest to the contrary.


The fact that plants do not have nerve cells is more than enough evidence than plants are not sentient. It's that simple and you are just being dishonest to both me and yourself.



Reaper said:


> This conversation cannot proceed any further as far as you and I are concerned because we are at a disagreement over what sentience means to us.


_sentient
ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/Submit
adjective
able to perceive or feel things._

How can you feel things without nerve cells? You can't. Plants are not sentient, you can stop lying to yourself now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> There is no such thing as _"sentient in a different way"_, you are changing the entire concept of the word sentient. You are either a sentient being or you are not. Plants do not have a nervous system, they do not feel pain. Stab a human and they'll cry in agony, stab an apple and it won't feel a thing; because you know, no nerve cells.
> 
> I'm glad you admitted that what you keep citing is "scientific" claims. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you what the word "claims" means.
> 
> ...


This means you have not read a single link I shared with you because they all contain examples of how plants feel. 

They can sense touch, realize danger, call for help and communicate nutrients through a wide network of roots. 

The fact they can do all of the above are a sign of sentience and your stubbornness to accept that is ridiculous now. 

The only thing that's left is pain. And inflicting pain on creatures that are raised to be eaten like crops is something I can live with just as you can live with killing something I and a lot of other people consider sentient living beings.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Reaper said:


> I have no problems expanding the definition of sentience to what it could be while you don't want to redefine it. This is an impasse if there ever was one.


So you admit you want to change the dictionary meaning of the word itself so that it fits in with your arguments? lmfao.

Plants are not sentient. the meaning of the word states that they must feel; and because they cannot feel since they have no nerve cells, they are not sentient.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> So you admit you want to change the dictionary meaning of the word itself so that it fits in with your arguments? lmfao.
> 
> Plants are not sentient. the meaning of the word states that they must feel; and because they cannot feel since they have no nerve cells, they are not sentient.


You're like a broken record right now. They can feel. That's proven beyond all doubt and I've shared.

I didn't even change the dictionary definition actually. I showed you how they feel without nerve cells and you rejected it because you can't accept that you're wrong.

Sensing touch = ability to feel. Plants sense touch. Hence they feel. And they do it without nerve cells. Making your nerve cell argument completely irrelevant.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Nah... I can't think of one possible reason why I'd ever consider that.*


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Reaper said:


> This means you have not read a single link I shared with you because they all contain examples of how plants feel.


Negative, they contain examples of how plants _react_.



Reaper said:


> They can sense touch, realize danger, call for help and communicate nutrients through a wide network of roots.


Reaper...



Gandhi said:


> Plants do not have brains, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli but they don't choose what they do. They track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants. Like I said, plants are not sentient.


...do I have to keep repeating myself?



Reaper said:


> The fact they can do all of the above are a sign of sentience and your stubbornness to accept that is ridiculous now.


Where is this going...



Reaper said:


> The only thing that's left is pain.


...ahhh crap.

So I'm being ridiculously stubborn because I realize plants do not feel because they don't have a nervous system, and you're not stubborn at all despite ignoring the fact that because plants do not have nerve cells they literally cannot be considered sentient? They cannot feel pain, I will burn down a tree and it'll just stand there not feeling a thing. Seriously do you even know what the point of nerve cells are? This is getting embarrassing for you.



Reaper said:


> And inflicting pain on creatures that are raised to be eaten like crops is something I can live with just as you can live with killing something I and a lot of other people consider sentient living beings.


For the sake of argument, let's assume plants are _"sentient in their own way whilst not feeling pain"_.

You are still being immoral. Plants do not have nerve cells therefore will not feel pain; so you don't have to have compassion or empathy for something that does not feel pain, no differently than how you destroy some rocks. Animals however do feel pain; you are basically saying you don't care if you're causing pain, and you will use the _"you kill plants too"_ argument to vilify me even though I am still not inflicting pain whilst you are. Your argument is so bloody idiotic it defeats the purpose of what you're attacking in veganism. Vegans do not want to inflict pain on those who feel it when attacked, and if we assume plants are _"sentient in their own way whilst not feeling pain"_ I would still kill them because they have no nerve cells and won't feel pain.



Reaper said:


> You're like a broken record right now. They can feel. That's proven beyond all doubt and I've shared.


You didn't prove anything to me, I've always known plants react to their environment without feeling. This isn't news.



Reaper said:


> I didn't even change the dictionary definition actually. I showed you how they feel without nerve cells and you rejected it because you can't accept that you're wrong.


Nerve cells make you feel pain, plants don't have nerve cells hence don't feel pain.

You must really love those chicken wings if you're willing to be this dishonest.



Reaper said:


> Making your nerve cell argument completely irrelevant.


_Repear: I'm going to mock this one chick about how she was raped in the 2 months ago.
Gandhi: ...dude that's not cool.
Repear: Oh shut up, just the other day we were making fun of this other guy about how he got raped by an ginger hairy Welshmen.
Gandhi: He didn't get raped though, so he's not going to feel hurt by those comments.
Reaper: Shhhh, mocking a person about rape who wasn't raped and won't be hurt & feel the memories of trauma cause by rape as mocking a person about rape who was raped and will be hurt & feel the memories of trauma caused by rape!_

Yes that's what you sound like.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Hit-Girl said:


> *Nah... I can't think of one possible reason why I'd ever consider that.*


So you are saying you need some meat in your mouth on a regular basis?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ghandi thinks he's "winning". :haha


----------



## Oda Nobunaga (Jun 12, 2006)

McQueen said:


> So you are saying you need some meat in your mouth on a regular basis?


:flair

The hidden message was not lost on you.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

nerve cells dont make us feel pain. feeling pain is a defense mechanism(nociceptor) to alert you that your body is hurt and you need to protect it. this feeling of pain goes away when fight or flight kicks in because it's no longer important at that point, if it was nerve cells then our body simply couldnt ignore it.

the nociceptor are in nerve cells btw, but it is incorrect to say they're making us feel pain when it's a specific sensory neuron that does it.



Gandhi said:


> _*moral*
> ˈmɒr(ə)l/Submit
> adjective
> 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.
> ...


i dont have to show compassion or empathy to animals that are killed for food. im against killing animals if you arent going to eat the meat, but have no problem with killing for meat. 


are you mad that we kill trees for paper even though we're now capable of doing everything digitally? And plants are every bit alive as animals and serve a far greater purpose in life than animals do. :kobe8


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

I want to believe that the footage shown in Earthlings is just a small sample size, the worst possible footage they could find. I want to believe it's not all like this and that this old footage forced the FDA to get involved and improve animal treatment in slaughterhouses. 

I want to believe. Please tell me this isn't how it really is. I can't handle this movie and I'm only 20 minutes in.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Meat lovers - stay ignorant and happy. This movie is sickening.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

the way they treat those animals is indeed awful and i highly doubt anything has changed. get your meat local if you dont like it that way, it'll taste better too. :toomanykobes


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Ain't eatin no Ghetto meat son!


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

LUCK said:


> the way they treat those animals is indeed awful and i highly doubt anything has changed. get your meat local if you dont like it that way, it'll taste better too. :toomanykobes


Do you not give a fuck at all?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Ghandi thinks he's "winning". :haha


How am I losing in these arguments? Oh wait, you don't know how to rebut anything I say on this thread. 



Spoiler:  what a person thinks of Tater from my User CP















Keep posting gifs of laughter Tater, they're not helping you whatsoever.



LUCK said:


> nerve cells dont make us feel pain.


http://www.dnaindia.com/health/repo...ch-also-make-us-feel-pain-finds-study-1539014

Yes, they do.



LUCK said:


> i dont have to show compassion or empathy to animals that are killed for food.


They're not killed for food though, they're killed for pleasure.



LUCK said:


> are you mad that we kill trees for paper even though we're now capable of doing everything digitally?


No.



LUCK said:


> And plants are every bit alive as animals


When did I ever argue that plants were not alive? Plants are alive, but do not have brains or nerve cells.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

People are gonna eat meat no matter how the animals are treated. The treatment of the animals is terrible yes, but arguing over it is as senseless as CP anti Government rantings. Shit ain't gonna change.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

It's never senseless to speak out against evil.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> How am I losing in these arguments?


You can't "win" an argument against someone who is not having an argument with you.



Gandhi said:


> Oh wait, you don't know how to rebut anything I say on this thread.


For all your self perceived intelligence, you still fail to grasp the basic concept of _I'm not debating this with you_.



Gandhi said:


> Keep posting gifs of laughter Tater


Thanks! I will!

:LOL



Gandhi said:


> they're not helping you whatsoever.


Here you go failing to grasp basic concepts again. They're not meant to "help" me. I can't be trying to help myself in a debate that I'm not having. 

Really, you should be thanking me. I'm the one helping you. You've got a hair up your ass on this topic and you really REALLY want to argue with you someone ANYone about it, even if they aren't even arguing with you about it. I've provided you with like a whole day worth of posts for you to rail against. That smug feeling of satisfaction you got right now? That feeling of "I sure showed them!" ...? 

You're welcome.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

gandhi they're nociceptors, not the nerve cells themselves that make us feel pain. unless youre trying to tell me all those uni profs and biologists that made those textbooks, based on experiments, are wrong.


and lol @ the brain argument. tons of animals, actually the vast majority by a damn large percentage, dont have brains. is killing them fine? your arguments are flawed because youre not a bio expert.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

LUCK said:


> tons of animals, actually the vast majority by a damn large percentage, dont have brains.


Really? I thought only a few non-vertebrae species didn't have brains, but all others did.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

nonvertebrates make up most of the world. most have cephalization development, but they dont quite get the full brain that vertebrates do. unless im misremembering which is possible because i last learned this 3 years ago, although i do know it is nowhere near as complete as our brains and they lack the ability to feel pain among other sensory related things.


the word "brain" was probably a poor choice of words on my part, what i meant is they lack a lot of the cognitive and sensory neurons that vertebrates have and a lot cant feel pain whatsoever. gandhi is going on about how we sympathize with animals because they feel pain, yet lacks the same level of compassion for other animals that are killed routinely every day. humans fuck over a ridiculous number of animals, the ones we eat should be the last of our concerns. the ones whose habitats, reproduction cycles, etc that we ruin are a far bigger problem.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Don't care about animal brains. Meat tastes good. 










In all honesty though, we all like different things. I think the debate is pointless because no one is wrong. Each side is very adamant about their stance, and nothing will be gained. There's nothing wrong with a vegan lifestyle. There's nothing wrong with eating delicious BBQ ribs either.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> You can't "win" an argument against someone who is not having an argument with you.


Oh really?



Tater said:


> So, because I'm smarter than a lion, I'm not supposed to eat meat because I should have empathy and compassion for cows and chickens?
> 
> Look, if you want to have a problem with the meat industry because of how the animals are treated, that is something I can understand. I don't much like it either. It doesn't mean you shouldn't eat meat though.
> 
> I live in Hawai'i and go fishing. Those fish live wild and free in the ocean unharmed by evil man's meat processing plants. Should I have a problem eating the fish I caught wild and free just because it's meat?





Tater said:


> Nope. It will not. I wasn't meant to either. It was meant to show how I think your absurd ideas on this topic are hilarious. It accomplished that goal.
> 
> First, you say mankind is different because we are more intelligent than the rest of the sentient animals... then you equate us with those same sentient animals.
> 
> ...





Tater said:


> Ghandi, how long did you work on that post? An hour? More?
> 
> I have respect for you as a generally rational thinker and poster. Most of the time, you have thoughtful, considerate things to say. Remember that I genuinely do respect you when I tell you that you are out of your fucking mind on this topic.
> 
> If you don't want to eat meat, that's fine by me. It's your choice and I don't particularly care what your reasons are. I respect your right to make that choice. Just don't go acting like humans eating meat isn't anything but natural. As a human, I'm an omnivore. It is 100% natural that I eat both plants and animals.


You were arguing in previous pages; and suddenly stopped once I rebutted all of your arguments & gave you my own arguments that you still at this very moment cannot rebut you chickened out.



Tater said:


> For all your self perceived intelligence, you still fail to grasp the basic concept of I'm not debating this with you.


You're not debating this with me because you can't rebut anything I say.



Tater said:


> Here you go failing to grasp basic concepts again. They're not meant to "help" me. I can't be trying to help myself in a debate that I'm not having.


So because you couldn't rebut anything I said before, you gave up silently whilst lying to everyone on here that you could give a rebuttal but just won't. Weak.



Tater said:


> Really, you should be thanking me. I'm the one helping you. You've got a hair up your ass on this topic and you really REALLY want to argue with you someone ANYone about it, even if they aren't even arguing with you about it. I've provided you with like a whole day worth of posts for you to rail against. That smug feeling of satisfaction you got right now? That feeling of "I sure showed them!" ...?


I already did thank you.



Gandhi said:


> I am glad people can read this conversation, thanks for helping me promote veganism.


However I did not thank you because I'm this smug git you might want to think I am. I thanked you because this thread would make a lot of people consider veganism, without listening to the stupid stereotypes about vegans being skinny pussies that tough guy acts like you put up to try and justify their immorality.

I am not trying to make anyone here look stupid or make myself feel big, I fully understand how foreign the concept of veganism is to most people and not everybody will just admit to themselves how immoral a non vegan lifestyle is as quick as I did. Before I turned vegan, I was no different than most of the people on this thread.



LUCK said:


> gandhi they're nociceptors, not the nerve cells themselves that make us feel pain. unless youre trying to tell me all those uni profs and biologists that made those textbooks, based on experiments, are wrong.


"_A nociceptor is a receptor of a sensory neuron (nerve cell) that responds to potentially damaging stimuli by sending signals to the spinal cord and brain. This process, called nociception, usually causes the perception of pain."_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nociceptor

Oh and...

_"Pain signals travel from specialized sensors cells in the body, called nociceptors, through the sensory peripheral nervous system and to the brain."_

http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/do-plants-feel-pain/


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

you proved me right brah. :lmao


the nociceptor is what causes us to feel pain. not all animals have nociceptors in their nerve cells and not all react to the same things.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

LUCK said:


> the nociceptor is what causes us to feel pain. not all animals have nociceptors in their nerve cells.


Cows, pigs, chicken, most of the animals you eat all have nociceptors. 

You want me to start talking about humans eating jellyfish? Really?



SalisburySuperkick said:


> I think the debate is pointless because no one is wrong. Each side is very adamant about their stance, and nothing will be gained. There's nothing wrong with a vegan lifestyle. There's nothing wrong with eating delicious BBQ ribs either.


So they're both right?

Vegans think a non vegan lifestyle is immoral.
Non vegans think non vegan lifestyles are not immoral.

Both contradict each other, both can't be right.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> So they're both right?
> 
> Vegans think a non vegan lifestyle is immoral.
> Non vegans think non vegan lifestyles are not immoral.
> ...


I didn't say they're both right. I said they weren't wrong. The whole thing boils down to this: whatever you believe, don't be an asshole about it. We're all different.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> I didn't say they're both right. I said they weren't wrong.


not
nɒt/Submit
adverb
1.used with an auxiliary verb or ‘be’ to form the negative.
"he would not say"
"he has been warned not to touch"
2.used as a short substitute for a negative clause.

wrong
rɒŋ/Submit
adjective
1.
*not correct* or true; incorrect.

right
rʌɪt/Submit
adjective
1.
morally good, justified, or acceptable.
2.
true or *correct* as a fact.

You are saying they're both correct, you're saying they're both right.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> You are saying they're both correct, you're saying they're both right.


1.) Do not tell me what I am saying. You don't have that power.

2.) You can be not wrong and not right at the same time. Everything isn't black or white.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Did I mention yesterday was Day 1 of my vegetarian kick? Lets see how long I can last.

Wasn't even that hard. I feel better already.

Made a delicious stuffed green bell pepper lunch for two that cost me 9 dollars total and have been munching on pita chips, hummus and honey nut cheerios the rest of the day. Certainly not an ideal, well balanced meal plan today - but at least I didn't eat any dead animals.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Made a delicious stuffed green bell pepper lunch for two that cost me 9 dollars total and have been munching on pita chips, hummus and honey nut cheerios the rest of the day. Certainly not an ideal, well balanced meal plan today - but at least I didn't eat any dead animals.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> You're not debating this with me because you can't rebut anything I say.


Nah... I'm just smart enough to realize that it is completely pointless to argue with someone who has such a ridiculously stupid fucking opinion that eating meat is immoral. I started off by stating my opinions on the topic. When I realized just how *retarded *your stance on this topic was going to be, I chose not to get into a debate with you about it. Ever since that point, I've simply been mocking you. You think you're "winning" some kind of imaginary debate. You think I don't have any rebuttals to your "points". Dude, I stopped reading that garbage pages ago. At this point, I'm just egging you on.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

SalisburySuperkick said:


>












*GOD TIER CHEF*


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

^ That looks good, but my gif was about the odd assortment of food throughout the day you had. Also, I can't stand hummus.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> ^ That looks good, but my gif was about the odd assortment of food throughout the day you had. Also, I can't stand hummus.


Ya pretty weak but I only had time to cook 1 meal today.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> 2.) You can be not wrong and not right at the same time. Everything isn't black or white.


I think the word you're looking for is uncertainty, kind of like being an agnostic. You need to word yourself better.

However even if you are arguing uncertainty for both positions, how is the non vegan stance not immoral?


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Stuffed green peppers is soooooo good. Can't do the vegan life though. I love steak and other meat too much.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga (Jun 12, 2006)

If I ever found a recipe for sesame chicken flavored Tofu or Soy w/ a chicken-like texture that's NOT been treated with "enhanced" crap, I'd quit chicken. Salmon is another story. I like salmon for the health benefits. Those are the only two I really eat, though.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> Still better than you eating the flesh of an innocent sentient being that was pointlessly killed for selfish plate pleasure.
> 
> I think the word you're looking for is uncertainty, kind of like being an agnostic. You need to word yourself better.
> 
> However even if you are arguing uncertainty for both positions, how is the non vegan stance not immoral?












You're being a perfect example of my point though. You're acting all high and mighty.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

lol


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Headliner said:


> I'm selfish and lazy


Yep.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

This now reminds me of a religious debate now with how self-righteous one side is.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

hehe I can't really debate I had a hamburger like 25 hours ago. Can't call myself a vegetarian until I fully commit and get past the craving that I'm sure is coming. Although the thought of eating meat right now hurts my soul after watching that fucking documentary.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> hehe I can't really debate I had a hamburger like 25 hours ago. Can't call myself a vegetarian until I fully commit and get past the craving that I'm sure is coming. Although the thought of eating meat right now hurts my soul after watching that fucking documentary.


Which documentary? The slaughterhouse one and the chicken farm and stuff? Hanging chickens and all that? Terrible stuff. I watched one like that.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Earthlings

I wanna see Food Inc too. Although I can't imagine it being any more gruesome than Earthlings.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Nah... I'm just smart enough to realize that it is completely pointless to argue with someone who has such a ridiculously stupid fucking opinion that eating meat is immoral. I started off by stating my opinions on the topic. When I realized just how *retarded *your stance on this topic was going to be, I chose not to get into a debate with you about it. Ever since that point, I've simply been mocking you. You think you're "winning" some kind of imaginary debate. You think I don't have any rebuttals to your "points". Dude, I stopped reading that garbage pages ago. At this point, I'm just egging you on.


So my stance was retarded? How? Back that statement up. I mean it's as retarded as thinking water isn't wet right? Even worse in your own words? Well, should be ridiculously easy for you to show me how I'm wrong then. Instead of simply posting why I'm wrong in one simple post, you keep running off like a coward because the truth is you have no rebuttals and if you did you'd spit them out the same way you do when religious people on this forum make stupid religious claims.

You chose to stop arguing because you realize you don't know much when it comes to this topic, and because you love meat more than you care about facts & rationality you choose to go _"nanananana I can't hear you!"_. You're not mocking anybody here but yourself and I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I don't _"think"_ I'm winning, I know I am. Showing non vegans how non-veganism is immoral is like showing christians how the bible is sexist, it's ridiculously easy.

You got rebuttals? Then state them. You won't? Then don't call my statements retarded; because your claims aren't backed up by evidence whatsoever, making them meaningless.



SalisburySuperkick said:


> This now reminds me of a religious debate now with how self-righteous one side is.


Do you call people who speak against real racism/sexism as self righteous?



SalisburySuperkick said:


> Which documentary? The slaughterhouse one and the chicken farm and stuff? Hanging chickens and all that? Terrible stuff. I watched one like that.


The documentary _Earthlings_ isn't really just about slaughter houses, it's separated into 5 parts and only 1 of them is about the usage of animals as food. Documentary gets more into the philosophical ideas on the relationship between humans & non human animals too.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Yep.


Because I eat meat. Ok. Look at Marcus getting high and mighty.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

I like milk and cheese. Sorry Gandhi, no veganism for me. But I'll try to cut the animal flesh.



> Because I eat meat. Ok. Look at Marcus getting high and mighty.


:kobe3


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> Do you call people who speak against real racism/sexism as self righteous?
> 
> The documentary _Earthlings_ isn't really just about slaughter houses, it's separated into 5 parts and only 1 of them is about the usage of animals as food. Documentary gets more into the philosophical ideas on the relationship between humans & non human animals too.


No I don't. The difference is eating meat isn't morally wrong whereas racism and sexism are. But I know you're going to reply with something along the lines of "Eating meat is in fact morally wrong." I don't agree. So let's end this debate.

Pretty sure what I watched wasn't called Earthlings, though I don't remember the title. It was years ago.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> You're being a perfect example of my point though. You're acting all high and mighty.





Gandhi said:


> And no, I don't think non meat eaters are better people than any of you, I just think you're pretty ignorant when it comes to this subject.


Yep.



SalisburySuperkick said:


> No I don't. The difference is eating meat isn't morally wrong whereas racism and sexism are. But I know you're going to reply with something along the lines of "Eating meat is in fact morally wrong." I don't agree. So let's end this debate.


How is killing an innocent sentient animal that cannot defend itself against you for nothing but your plate pleasure not immoral? You don't need meat to survive no differently than how a gorilla doesn't need meat, yet humans eat meat because it tastes delicious _"and I know it does"_. I'm sure you would agree that when it comes to morality, empathy & compassion are both pretty important. Non vegan stance is neither empathetic nor compassionate to the suffering of animals, it disregards what animals think & feel completely.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> How is killing an innocent sentient animal that cannot defend itself against you for nothing but your plate pleasure not immoral? You don't need meat to survive no differently than how a gorilla doesn't need meat, yet humans eat meat because it tastes delicious _"and I know it does"_. I'm sure you would agree that when it comes to morality, empathy & compassion are both pretty important. Non vegan stance is neither empathetic nor compassionate to the suffering of animals.


Are we not an innocent sentient animal that cannot defend itself when a shark or bear eats us? 

I also eat broccoli because it's delicious.

You know, you disagreed with the fact that I called you high and mighty, but let's see here. According to you, because I eat meat, I am selfish, immoral, I lack empathy, compassion, and I don't care about the suffering of animals.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> So my stance was retarded?


Yep.



Gandhi said:


> How?


Because you said eating meat is immoral. It doesn't get any more retarded than that.



Gandhi said:


> Back that statement up.














Gandhi said:


> I mean it's as retarded as thinking water isn't wet right?


Now you're getting it!


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> Are we not an innocent sentient animal that cannot defend itself when a shark or bear eats us?
> 
> I also eat broccoli because it's delicious.


Yes you are an innocent sentient animal in those cases.

However the difference between you and a bear is that when it comes to intelligence & intellect you are ridiculously far superior to animals, hence why humans are more aware to concepts like empathy & compassion or morality in general. This is why non human animals are, as we say, more savage and immoral. In short; bears are stupid, you are not.

Also, bears literally need to eat you to survive. You don't need to kill a cow to survive, especially not in this day and age. You don't live in a poor village from a Savannah where plant foods are hard to find and hunting is the way to survive, and we no longer live in the ice age. Meat is only a necessity once plant foods are not available. Humans today eat meat for plate pleasure, that's it.



SalisburySuperkick said:


> You know, you disagreed with the fact that I called you high and mighty, but let's see here. According to you, because I eat meat, I am selfish, immoral, I lack empathy, compassion, and I don't care about the suffering of animals.


I don't necessarily think you as a whole are a selfish immoral person who lacks empathy & compassion. Lol, I find it hard to believe there is such a thing as human who lacks empathy & compassion to some degree. I think you are an ignorant person when it comes to this subject, who does not realize that their stance towards animals is immoral. There is no such thing as a person who is completely moral or immoral; there is such a thing as an immoral stance, which you take towards non human animals.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Because you said eating meat is immoral. It doesn't get any more retarded than that.


_"it's stupid because it's stupid"_ - Tater philosophy


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> _"it's stupid because it's stupid"_ - Tater philosophy


See, I knew you would finally start to understand once I had explained it to you enough times. Good job, Ghandi!

ositivity


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> In short; bears are stupid, you are not.
> 
> I think you are an ignorant person when it comes to this subject, who does not realize that their stance towards animals is immoral. There is no such thing as a person who is completely moral or immoral; there is such a thing as an immoral stance, which you take towards non human animals.


What if the bear is smarter than I am? :draper2

I disagree. I don't know what to tell you. I don't think it's immoral to eat meat. I'm totally fine with you disagreeing, but when you start to insult me for believing in something different than you do, that's when we got an issue.


----------



## StarzNBarz (Dec 22, 2010)

i could probably do it. i love rice enough that i can eat it every day.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> What if the bear is smarter than I am? :draper2
> 
> I disagree. I don't know what to tell you. I don't think it's immoral to eat meat. I'm totally fine with you disagreeing, but when you start to insult me for believing in something different than you do, that's when we got an issue.


What if CM Punk had a vagina? Bears are not smarter than you; and if one bear was it would probably reconsider tearing you apart to eat your flesh because it'd be pretty damn intelligent & intellectual if it were smarter than you so it'd be pretty aware of concepts like empathy & compassion at the same level humans are aware of it.

It's immoral to cause pain & suffering when there is no need to other than you favoring your own plate pleasure over the well being of innocent creatures that didn't really do anything to you, by killing animals you are causing pain & suffering to sentient beings who like you wanted to live long lives free of pain & suffering. Your mindset that animals can be used as property for us to freely kill as we please for food, disregards how those animals feel hence it's not compassionate or empathetic hence it's immoral. In fact there's a word used for people like you, speciesist.

I'm not trying to personally insult anyone on this thread, but I will call out people who state that non veganism isn't immoral because that's disinformation. I don't get why you don't just admit that it's immoral when deep down you know it is. People who steal most of the time know they're being immoral, did it ever occur to you that a lot of people who eat meat know they're being immoral and don't care?


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> It's immoral to cause pain & suffering when there is no need to other than you favoring your own plate pleasure over the well being of innocent creatures that didn't really do anything to you, by killing animals you are causing pain & suffering to sentient beings who like you wanted to live long lives free of pain & suffering. Your mindset that animals can be used as property for us to freely kill as we please for food, disregards how those animals feel hence it's not compassionate or empathetic hence it's immoral. In fact there's a word used for people like you, speciesist.
> 
> I'm not trying to personally insult anyone on this thread, but I will call out people who state that non veganism isn't immoral because that's disinformation. I don't get why you don't just admit that it's immoral when deep down you know it is. People who steal most of the time know they're being immoral, did it ever occur to you that a lot of people who eat meat know they're being immoral and don't care?


I don't cause pain and suffering. I don't kill animals. You should point the finger at hunters and slaughterhouse owners, not me.

You may not be trying, but you're doing it. I won't admit to that, because I don't think it's immoral at all.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

I was a vegetarian for a couple of years in my early teens. I don't completely remember why I started. I think I just got disgusted with a particular meal or something that someone said and I went off meat. Then a couple of years later someone offered me a hot dog and I ate it. Didn't really put much thought into either decision. I eat meat now, but I do feel conflicted about sometimes.



Gandhi said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> How is killing an innocent sentient animal that cannot defend itself against you for nothing but your plate pleasure not immoral? You don't need meat to survive no differently than how a gorilla doesn't need meat, yet humans eat meat because it tastes delicious _"and I know it does"_. I'm sure you would agree that when it comes to morality, empathy & compassion are both pretty important. Non vegan stance is neither empathetic nor compassionate to the suffering of animals, it disregards what animals think & feel completely.


The following isn't me stepping into the moral arguments of eating meat/animal by products and it's not meant as an attack on you Gandhi. It's just I've seen the gorilla thing mentioned before in other places and it's a little more complicated than most people think. Gorillas can digest cellulose, the main component of plant cell walls, and convert it into protein. Humans cannot. Humans lack the symbiotic bacteria in their gut that produces cellulases which helps to break down cellulose. Also, gorillas may not eat meat, but they do eat insects.

Now humans can get simple proteins from individual plants, but for complete proteins they have to eat certain combinations of foods to get them. For example nuts with beans. The amount of complete proteins made from this combination is not as much as the complete proteins in meat. Though the amount of complete protein has more to do with building muscle than survival. 

Really the comparison would probably be better with chimps since they are closer to humans than gorillas. I read once, and I can't remember where, that their diet in the wild is on average about 6% meat. I'm not sure if that included insects or not. Now that didn't mean that all chimps eat 6% meat. Some eat no meat. It was an aggregate of all chimps.

Of course even chimps are still just different enough from humans. Chimps and gorillas have a lower amount of myostatin than humnans. Myostatin is muscle growth inhibitor. That's part of the reason chimps and gorillas are so strong. They don't have the inhibiting protein that we do.

Also, throw in the theory that meat eating and the amino acids that came with lead it to higher human brain function. Also, may be why gorillas didn't develop it as much and why chimps developed more of it than gorillas, but less than humans.

But all of this is more about how we got to this point and less to do with how we survive now.


----------



## *Eternity* (Aug 11, 2010)

Tater said:


>













I hope this picture never gets into the hooves of a pig or a cow. The last thing we need is animals demanding for equal opportunity. :cena6


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> I don't cause pain and suffering. I don't kill animals. You should point the finger at hunters and slaughterhouse owners, not me.


You don't kill the animals, you fund the same people who do.



2 Ton 21 said:


> The following isn't me stepping into the moral arguments of eating meat/animal by products and it's not meant as an attack on you Gandhi. It's just I've seen the gorilla thing mentioned before in other places and it's a little more complicated than most people think. Gorillas can digest cellulose, the main component of plant cell walls, and convert it into protein. Humans cannot. Humans lack the symbiotic bacteria in their gut that produces cellulases which helps to break down cellulose. Also, gorillas may not eat meat, but they do eat insects.
> 
> Now humans can get simple proteins from individual plants, but for complete proteins they have to eat certain combinations of foods to get them. For example nuts with beans. The amount of complete proteins made from this combination is not as much as the complete proteins in meat. Though the amount of complete protein has more to do with building muscle than survival.
> 
> ...


It's cool man, I didn't need your first paragraph to know you're not trying to attack me you're just spreading information. 

Anyway I know gorillas are not vegan, I was mostly just speaking of them not needing meat like humans do. As for protein and muscle building in humans and veganism? Well...



















*James Wilks*, UFC fighter and vegan.










From the NHL, *George Laraque*, also a vegan.










*Rich Roll*, Ultra marathon star and yes, vegan.










UFC fighter, *Mac Danzig*, vegan.

I could go on and on by the way.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Gandhi said:


> You don't kill the animals, you fund the same people who do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough about the muscle growth thing. My reference about that came from some videos I watched by a vegan bodybuilder that gives advice on getting in shape. Guy is jacked. Anyway, he said that you can build muscle and be vegan, but that a meat eater with similar genetics will always be able to get bigger doing the same amount of work.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Fair enough about the muscle growth thing. My reference about that came from some videos I watched by a vegan bodybuilder that gives advice on getting in shape. Guy is jacked. Anyway, he said that you can build muscle and be vegan, but that a meat eater with similar genetics will always be able to get bigger doing the same amount of work.


Meat eater with similar genetics will always be able to get bigger doing the same amount of work? I kinda do think that sounds believable; but don't forget that the vegan body builder doesn't get the negative side effects meat consumption brings. I don't think I have to explain to you how meat isn't as healthy as people claim it is. Vegan body builders are without question, healthier.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

This thread reminds me of the song Disgustipated by Tool. I feel that it is very relevant to the discussion.






And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
*And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.*
And terror possesed me then.
And I begged,
*"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"*
And the angel said unto me,
*"These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."*
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
*"Hear me now, I have seen the light!
They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!*
Damn you!
Let the rabbits wear glasses!
Save our brothers!"
Can I get an amen?
Can I get a hallelujah?
Thank you Jesus.
*Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

This is necessary. *




Ghandi, I hope you remember this the next time you eat carrots. Their tortured screams will haunt your every bite.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater mode.

Tater's posts on religion remind me of the song _Our God is an Awesome God_. I feel that it is very relevant to the discussion when he starts to mock religion.






*Our God (our god) is an Awesome God
He Reigns (he reigns) from heaven above
With Wisdom (with wisdom) pow'r and love
Our God is an Awesome God*

Tater, I hope you remember this the next time you say the god of the bible doesn't exist or that he isn't loving. The god of the bible is watching, and is ashamed of and will haunt you till the day you die and go to hell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can post stupid songs as well, Tater, doesn't make them true.

Fact is, plants do not have nerve cells therefore do not feel pain hence are not sentient. Plants simply react to their environment without controlling their lives or feelings a thing. Like I said before, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli but they don't choose what they do or feel a thing. They track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants. A man your age Tater should know this.

Also since plants don't feel pain whilst animals do, the moral stance which should be empathetic & compassionate is to not inflict pain for selfish reasons. Plants don't feel pain, so it's justified to cut them to eat them since we are not inflicting suffering, but guess what? Animals do feel pain, so if you care about your moral standpoint you'd consider veganism. I should mention that plant foods themselves are a necessity to survival, whilst meat is not. You do not eat meat to survive, humans don't need meat to survive; you eat meat because of plate pleasure and nothing else. To argue that killing innocents for selfish reasons isn't immoral, is asinine.

So just like you will not be haunted by that stupid christian song, Tater, I will not be haunted by that stupid song of yours because facts & reason are more important than catchy lyrics. Aren't you the _"rational godless one"_? Guess not.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

The concept that it us immoral to kill animals for food is just an opinion. I haven't seen any "fact" to prove otherwise. Ok so it is immoral because I am intelligent and apathetic, But its ok for the lion cause he is a less intelligent creature? The gazelle is just as innocent as the cow, actually I would argue the gazelle is more innocent as it is actually fighting for survival, and the cow only exist for food. Dairy/domesticated cows don't exist in the wild, they are a product of selective breeding, no different than dogs, again which were bred to help humans hunt other animals.

I would also argue that modernized farming is a form of apathy humans have provided to nature. Instead of killing off wild animals with out thinking of the repercussion we have devised a way to protect the killing off a species by breeding our own for consumption.

Also, everything and I mean EVERYTHING you do impacts some animal's life. Even being a vegan, do you not think farmers who grow your precious vegetables are killing gophers, rabbits or wild hogs to protect their investment? Pesticides, even "organic" ones kill millions of innocent insects. The house/apartment is taking up the space that some other animal may have otherwise occupied, no different than an entire field of wheat was once a home to thousands of creatures like squirrels, birds, bugs and indigenous plants. Why no sympathy for these?

The argument that it is immoral to kill and innocent animal can only be made because of the situation you are in. We live pretty comfortably and therefore can survive on a diet of just vegetables. However should a catastrophe, such as a super volcano or meteor, where to hit plant life would have a hell of a time surviving. And humans are built to survive. If you and me are standing side by side in said apocalypse, that fat fucking rat you saw scurry in front of us would look mighty fucking tasty. But hey for you its immoral to kill that innocent animal, but for me it isn't and I will eat it happily.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Goddamn, Ghandi. You actually responded seriously to that? 

:nowords

It was a song about the "cries of the carrots". It compared harvesting carrots to the holocaust. One of the lines was "let the rabbits wear glasses". 

And you... in alllllllll your intelligence... thought it needed a serious response? I don't know if I should fpalm or :lmao

At no point did it ever cross your mind, maybe just maybe Tater is posting a song here just to fuck with me and he's not actually trying to say carrots have souls? Was there no point anywhere along the way that it occurred to you that responding to some song lyrics about the *cries of the carrots* with a bunch of technical bullshit about plants maybe wasn't the way to go here?

The cries of the carrots, Ghandi. *The. Cries. OF. The. Carrots.*

Your stance of eating meat is immoral has been pretty high on the retarded scale right from the start but you might have topped yourself by responding seriously to a song called Disgustipated.

Good god, man, get a sense of humor.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

HardKoR said:


> The concept that it us immoral to kill animals for food is just an opinion.


No, it isn't.



HardKoR said:


> I haven't seen any "fact" to prove otherwise.


Is that so?



Gandhi said:


> _*moral*
> ˈmɒr(ə)l/Submit
> adjective
> 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.
> ...


Go on HardKoR, tell me empathy & compassion are not moral. 

You know eating meat is immoral; I have the sneaking suspicion you just don't care and will lie to everyone saying it's not immoral so you don't get negative attention from the masses who for the most part care about morality so they don't feel you are a threat, I've seen people state they they know it's immoral and don't care but will not speak of the topic. I hope I'm wrong about you, though.



HardKoR said:


> But its ok for the lion cause he is a less intelligent creature? The gazelle is just as innocent as the cow, actually I would argue the gazelle is more innocent as it is actually fighting for survival, and the cow only exist for food.


The lion is less intelligent and less intellectual, hence it will not be aware of concepts like morality like humans are. Also, unlike humans, lions literally need to eat meat to survive because they have a nutritional requirement for meat whilst humans do not. I would even say predatory animals don't have a requirement for specifically the meat, but the nutrients found within the correct portions within the meat. Lions do not have an alternative for survival except for them to kill, most if everything they do is done out of instinct they barely control because of their intellectual/intelligent inferiority. You however do not need meat and have a lot of alternatives because of your intelligence & intellect. Also, not needing meat to survive or be healthy helps, a lot. If humans did need meat to survive, I would not be a vegan. However it just so happens, We. Don't. Need. Meat.



HardKoR said:


> I would also argue that modernized farming is a form of apathy humans have provided to nature. Instead of killing off wild animals with out thinking of the repercussion we have devise away from killing of species by breeding our own for consumption.


So instead of leaving all animals alone out of empathy & compassion, humans started force breeding farm animals so that those specific animals live a life where they literally just exist to be killed and probably go through a ridiculous amount of suffering all for our selfish pleasure? So your point is, humans left wild animals only to bully their own farm animals? Yeah, how _"moral"_ of you.



HardKoR said:


> Also, everything and I mean EVERYTHING you do impacts some animal's life. Even being a vegan, do you not think farmers who grow your precious vegetables are killing gophers, rabbits or wild hogs to protect their investment? Pesticides, even "organic" ones kill millions of innocent insects. The house/apartment is taking up the space that some other animal may have otherwise occupied, no different than an entire field of wheat was once a home to thousands of creatures like squirrels, birds, bugs and indigenous plants. Why no sympathy for these?


Most deforestations is directly connected with the raising of animals for food. Over 70% of soy crops end up as animal feed, large tracks of rain forests are also cleared for grazing lands. The increase in demand for animal products means more land needs to be cleared in order to plant crops that will mostly go on to feeding animals you force breed to kill & eat for plate pleasure. Over 56 billion land animals are killed each year for food, these animals need to be fed and hydrated. The amount of resources that go into raising these animals is ridiculous and unnecessary. 

As for your statement that animals do sometimes suffer in the transportation of vegan foods, I am aware of that, however how much care do you expect from farmers & transporters when they don't care about minimizing animal death? Being vegan is not about absolute purity, that is impossible, it is about _not directly_ supporting suffering to animals. Would you agree that since we hurt animals no matter what without meaning to, it's okay to directly hurt animals? Ok, I'm going to go to the cats in my street and kick them around for a good laugh to feed my sadistic nature, I mean so what if I do? I like to eat animals because they're tasty, and I like to go hunting to feel big about myself. We live in a world in which our very presence kills and disrupts other life; however there is a lot we can do to minimize the negative effects we cause on others, the first step is go vegan.



HardKoR said:


> The argument that it is immoral to kill and innocent animal can only be made because of the situation you are in.


The situation that _we_ are in, you do not live in a poor village in the middle of the jungle and we no longer live in the ice age. Meat is only a necessity during times of desperation, I'm fully aware of that. It's not different than humans resorting to cannibalism during times of desperation. Whilst it is not immoral to kill an animal to survive, it is immoral to kill an animal simply for plate pleasure despite you not needing it's flesh to survive. People in poor villages isolated from the modern world need help, they need the help from advanced nations so that they no longer need meat. I do not hold them accountable much as most of them literally need meat to survive, you however do not need meat to survive period. People in poor villages act out of desperation, you act out of immorality.



HardKoR said:


> We live pretty comfortably and therefore can survive on a diet of just vegetables.


So if you care about your moral standpoint...












HardKoR said:


> However should a catastrophe, such as a super volcano or meteor, where to hit plant life would have a hell of a time surviving. And humans are built to survive. If you and me are standing side by side in said apocalypse, that fat fucking rat you saw scurry in front of us would look mighty fucking tasty. But hey for you its immoral to kill that innocent animal, but for me it isn't and I will eat it happily.


If such a scenario would happen, I would gladly eat rats to survive because it wouldn't be immoral because I would be no different than a lion who needs to kill to live. You, now, do not kill to survive, you kill for plate pleasure and that is immoral. It's that simple.



Tater said:


> Goddamn, Ghandi. You actually responded seriously to that?
> 
> :nowords


Yes, I did.



Tater said:


> It was a song about the "cries of the carrots". It compared harvesting carrots to the holocaust. One of the lines was "let the rabbits wear glasses".
> 
> And you... in alllllllll your intelligence... thought it needed a serious response? I don't know if I should fpalm or :lmao
> 
> ...


Yes, I did post in a serious manner whilst being fully aware you're just posting more garbage to try and _"fuck with me"_. This thread isn't really just about you, if you've noticed I know others view this thread and I'd very much like it if they read my post so the _"plants are sentient"_ and _"killing for plate pleasure isn't immoral"_ mindsets are reconsidered.

I am fully aware that you do not have arguments, that you do not have rebuttals for my arguments, and that you don't know a damn thing about this topic and just post nothing but feces petty yawn worthy humor. Hell, you're not even annoying me, your posts on this thread are just boring and are for the most part just making me look better.



Tater said:


> Your stance of eating meat is immoral has been pretty high on the retarded scale right from the start


Prove it, or are you like the creationists you mock?



Tater said:


> Good god, man, get a sense of humor.


I know what you're posting is banter.

It's still not funny. 

And no, this has nothing to do with me just saying you're not funny for trying to annoy me.



SalisburySuperkick said:


>


Despite him just taking the piss against me, his post still made me laugh.

Your posts on this thread however, are boring.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> I am fully aware that you do not have arguments, that you do not have rebuttals for my arguments, and that you don't know a damn thing about this topic


I find it sad that you either have to lie to yourself about this point or you are too stupid to understand it.

I know this will be a struggle for you but try to follow along. I've already stated my opinions on the topic and I stand by them. There is absolutely nothing to debate about. Giving rebuttals and debating points on a topic so retarded as eating meat is immoral would be retarded in and of itself.

If I made any mistake it would be thinking you had calmed down enough to appreciate the humor in the idea that the carrots consider harvest day to be the holocaust. I find that hilarious. I do have a dark sense of humor though.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

I still don't see any "facts" just definitions


Gandhi said:


> _*moral*
> ˈmɒr(ə)l/Submit
> adjective
> 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.
> ...


Who and what constitutes the killing of animals as food as right or wrong behavior? Again it is just personal opinion if killing animals is a form of high principle or proper conduct.



Gandhi said:


> _*empathy*
> ˈɛmpəθi/Submit
> noun
> the ability to understand and share the feelings of another._


The feelings of "another" animal or human? 'cause if we are talking animals, we are talking about how they are not intelligent or as much as an intellectual as me so it sure as fuck can't understand me.



Gandhi said:


> _*compassion*
> kəmˈpaʃ(ə)n/Submit
> noun
> sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.[/COLOR]_
> ...


They are moral, especially when it comes to other humans. Don't group animals as humans, especially if you run on the platform that they are not the same intellectually as humans.


----------



## Babyadelic (Sep 2, 2014)

I tried for about a day, then I was like "Fuck this. I'm eating a hot dog!".


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

I remember a college friend who tried a vegetarian diet and couldn't stay on it. I came to visit and knowing how much of a good cook I was asked for the whole lot, I'm Hispanic so I made her favorite chicken and fideo from when were at university I grilled beef fajitas and pork carnitas, and grilled veggies, then jokingly asked if she would take any of the vegetarian dishes she had over what I made and laughed and said never again.

At this time I am currently on a low carb high protein diet. Over the past 9 months I have lost over 80 pounds and on tract to being back to my lowest weight.

Like I stated before we CAN survive on a vegan diet, but does not mean I have to. It is a choice, it's your choice do what you want.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga (Jun 12, 2006)

Damn, this thread is still going on? You guys should just agree to disagree because it's clear none of you are going to see eye to eye on this.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

HardKoR said:


> I still don't see any "facts" just definitions


Maybe you should try to understand those definitions, would save you from posting piss poor arguments against veganism.



HardKoR said:


> Who and what constitutes the killing of animals as food as right or wrong behavior? Again it is just personal opinion if killing animals is a form of high principle or proper conduct.


Any form of violence that causes suffering that is done for selfish pleasure rather than defending oneself is immoral, period.

malevolent
məˈlɛv(ə)l(ə)nt/Submit
adjective
having or showing a wish to do evil to others.

evil
ˈiːv(ə)l,-vɪl/Submit
adjective
1.
profoundly immoral and wicked.

You don't kill animals for food, you don't need meat to survive or be healthy. You kill animals for selfish plate pleasure.



HardKoR said:


> The feelings of "another" animal or human? 'cause if we are talking animals, we are talking about how they are not intelligent or as much as an intellectual as me so it sure as fuck can't understand me.


Humans are animals, only humans through evolution have succeeded non human animals when it comes to intelligence & intellect. What does animals not understanding you have to do with anything? What does them not being as intelligent as you have to do with anything? Are you ok with a bunch of advanced western nations going to poor uneducated isolated tribes in African jungles and killing them? I know even Africans in jungles are still far superior to animals intellectually, but my point is just because they're dumber than you doesn't mean you get to just abuse them for your own selfish pleasure.



HardKoR said:


> They are moral, especially when it comes to other humans. Don't group animals as humans, especially if you run on the platform that they are not the same intellectually as humans.


Humans are animals, we're just smarter. Also, are you that one guy who beats up puppies? Puppies are nothing but dumb non humans after all; so it's ok to abuse them and do things we would consider immoral to other humans, right? Yes, that's what you sound like.



Tater said:


> I find it sad that you either have to lie to yourself about this point or you are too stupid to understand it.


How am I lying to myself? I don't need to lie to myself, I have factual arguments whilst you have nothing.



Tater said:


> I know this will be a struggle for you but try to follow along. I've already *stated my opinions* on the topic and I stand by them.


Opinions don't matter, facts do.



Tater said:


> There is absolutely nothing to debate about.


Not surprising you'd say that because facts make your _"opinions"_ look like creationist garbage.



Tater said:


> Giving rebuttals and debating points on a topic so retarded


If everyone lived by that mindset, nobody would think or discuss anything. If everyone lived by that mindset, nobody would question religion or governments. I thought atheists were all about the _"question everything"_ mindset. I guess atheists such as yourself are just as close minded as some creationists. 



Tater said:


> If I made any mistake it would be thinking you had calmed down enough to appreciate the humor


I am calm, why wouldn't I be?

I'm not calm because I don't happen to have the same taste in humor as you? What kind of dogshit logic is this? Also; the reason you're trying to turn this thread into a pile of jokes is because like I said, you are trying to hide that you have no arguments or rebuttals to my arguments from people viewing this thread. Funny how you mock vegans with _"vaginitis"_.



HardKoR said:


> I remember a college friend who tried a vegetarian diet and couldn't stay on it. I came to visit and knowing how much of a good cook I was asked for the whole lot, I'm Hispanic so I made her favorite chicken and fideo from when were at university I grilled beef fajitas and pork carnitas, and grilled veggies, then jokingly asked if she would take any of the vegetarian dishes she had over what I made and laughed and said never again.
> 
> At this time I am currently on a low carb high protein diet. Over the past 9 months I have lost over 80 pounds and on tract to being back to my lowest weight.
> 
> Like I stated before we CAN survive on a vegan diet, but does not mean I have to. It is a choice, it's your choice do what you want.


Highly irrelevant post.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Okay, Ghandi, try to follow along here...



Gandhi said:


> I am fully aware that you do not have arguments, that you do not have rebuttals for my arguments, and that you don't know a damn thing about this topic





Tater said:


> I find it sad that you either have to lie to yourself about this point or you are too stupid to understand it.





Gandhi said:


> How am I lying to myself? I don't need to lie to myself, I have factual arguments whilst you have nothing.


I could make arguments against you.

I could provide rebuttals against your arguments.

I know all kinds of damned things on this topic.

You're lying to yourself by thinking I cannot. Since you like definitions so much, look up the difference between can not and will not. What you are failing to grasp is that your notion of eating meat being immoral is too fucking retarded to argue against. It would be entirely pointless. Just as it would be pointless to argue with you that water is wet.

You're also lying to yourself about this so called factual evidence. What you have are OPINIONS and no amount of definitions you post and re-post will change that. In your OPINION, it is immoral to eat animals. In my OPINION, it is not. It is also my OPINION that your OPINION is a retarded OPINION.

The episode of South Park I referenced is called Fun with Veal. The boys found out about how the baby cows were treated and stole the cows in protest. Stan was the one who took it too far and wanted to stop eating meat. The rest of them were just taking a stand on how the baby cows were treated, not against eating meat in general. The moral of the story is that the farm animals should be treated right while they are alive but if you stop eating meat altogether you get vaginitis and eventually turn into one big giant pussy.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Is vaginitis an actual medical condition?

Tater you're responding so much you might as well legit argue with Gandhi. Pointless arguments are what make internet forums. 

meat vs vegetables

Come on it's one of the great cosmic struggles.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Being from TEXAS home of TEXAS SIZED BBQ & Tony Romo.... We all know what side you are on MrMister.

You'll eat Meat until you choke in December is what i'm getting at.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

:lmao

rip me


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> I could make arguments against you.


Do it then, the fact that you aren't is cowardly.



Tater said:


> I could provide rebuttals against your arguments.


And yet you refuse to provide rebuttals, it's almost as if you have none.



Tater said:


> I know all kinds of damned things on this topic.


Is that why your arguments are easier to rebut than creationist arguments?



Tater said:


> You're lying to yourself by thinking I cannot.


No, I'm not.



Tater said:


> Since you like definitions so much, look up the difference between can not and will not. What you are failing to grasp is that your notion of eating meat being immoral is too fucking retarded to argue against. It would be entirely pointless. Just as it would be pointless to argue with you that water is wet.


Too fucking retarded to discuss? Pointless? Let's ignore your stupid water analogy for a moment, is it pointless to argue with a racist leader who discriminates against a certain race and thinks it's moral that racism lacks empathy & compassion to sentient beings? Certain things are worth arguing about, because certain things in life cause pain and suffering. You are causing pain and suffering, not in defense, but because of your selfishness, your immorality. What's disgusting is that you're desperately trying to justify your immorality, no different than how a racist would try to justify the way they discriminate against a certain race.

Hilarious how you're all up creationists on this forum when they say stupid shit with factual arguments against them, but once the topic of veganism comes up you chicken out and just go with this laughable _"it's stupid because it's stupid"_ mindset. Prove veganism is retarded, prove your stance is not immoral. Until you do, you're talking out of your ass.



Tater said:


> You're also lying to yourself about this so called factual evidence.


When did I lie? Quote me when I lied and explain how it's a lie, _now_.



Tater said:


> What you have are OPINIONS and no amount of definitions you post and re-post will change that.


Causing pain & suffering to an innocent sentient being that doesn't know any better being immoral _isn't just my opinion_. Meat not being a necessity to human survival or health _isn't just my opinion_. Plants not having nerve cells _isn't just my opinion_. 

Veganism isn't about opinions, the reason why I keep posting serious posts responding to you is because I have _factual arguments_ and know exactly what I'm saying. You seem not to have any counter arguments though, how sad.



Tater said:


> In your OPINION, it is immoral to eat animals. In my OPINION, it is not. It is also my OPINION that your OPINION is a retarded OPINION


It's like you're comparing this discussion to us differing on music taste, which is hilariously stupid. The reason why you want to make this seem like we just differ on _"opinions"_ is because you want to run off and not have to explain your immoral stance on non human animals. 

Weak.



Tater said:


> The episode of South Park I referenced is called Fun with Veal. The boys found out about how the baby cows were treated and stole the cows in protest. Stan was the one who took it too far and wanted to stop eating meat. The rest of them were just taking a stand on how the baby cows were treated, not against eating meat in general. The moral of the story is that the farm animals should be treated right while they are alive but if you stop eating meat altogether you get vaginitis and eventually turn into one big giant pussy.


So the episode basically is telling us that having a conscience turns you into a giant pussy, hilarious.



MrMister said:


> Tater you're responding so much you might as well legit argue with Gandhi. Pointless arguments are what make internet forums.


He actually was arguing with me against veganism before; he suddenly chickened out the second I rebutted all of his piss poor arguments, and refused to give any rebuttals to any of my arguments. Though yeah; he is still arguing with me, only now he's arguing about _"how he doesn't need to give rebuttals"_ and that _"veganism is stupid because it's stupid"_.


----------



## JSullivan (Aug 24, 2014)

I went through a phase when I was maybe 11-12ish where I didn't eat any meat for a good couple of months.

My parents sat me down and asked me how I felt about the idea of being vegetarian (they aren't), and that they'd support me if I didn't want to eat meat anymore. I asked if I was still allowed Pork Pies...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

MrMister said:


> Is vaginitis an actual medical condition?


Yes. When you stop eating meat, tiny vaginas start breaking out all over your body. 










If you continue not eating meat, that's when you turn into one great big giant pussy.








Gandhi said:


> Do it then, the fact that you aren't is cowardly.


We're going in circles here, buddy. The fact that I'm not is *smart*. If someone tells me fire is not hot, I don't need to go burn myself just to prove them wrong.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Nice going Tater, running away from most my statements & arguments, usual laughable cowardly garbage from you on this thread.

Nothing surprising from a person who tries to justify their immorality, absolute dishonesty.



Tater said:


> We're going in circles here, buddy. The fact that I'm not is *smart*. If someone tells me fire is not hot, I don't need to go burn myself just to prove them wrong.


You think it's "smart" because it hides your laughable inability to rebut my arguments or defend your garbage arguments.

Also, you don't need to burn yourself to prove to someone fire is hot. There is scientific evidence fire is hot, you know, factual arguments? God, your posts just keep getting dumber and dumber.



Tater said:


> Yes. When you stop eating meat, tiny vaginas start breaking out all over your body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This joke is only funny because it's ridiculously way off. I know it's just a joke, but it's still way off.






If our buddy Danzig here is a giant pussy, what does that make you Tater? 

Vegans are, whether you like this reality or not, healthier than you.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Tater come on man are you just going to troll Gandhi everyday in this thread or are you going to actually argue your side? This burial is getting kind of tedious, although it's pretty insightful.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> Nothing surprising from a person who tries to justify their immorality, absolute dishonesty.


I do not consider eating meat to be immoral, therefore I have nothing to justify. I enjoy every meaty bite with no shame whatsoever.










^^^Proof that heaven exists. :homer


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Tater come on man are you just going to troll Gandhi everyday in this thread or are you going to actually argue your side? This burial is getting kind of tedious, although it's pretty insightful.


Lol. 

He's not even trolling, if he is he's miserably failing. For the most part though he's trying to shrug off & hide how I rebutted all of his arguments & how he cannot attack my arguments. His way of doing this is turning this thread into a pile of jokes so people forget about the previous pages of me essentially just making him look really _really_ bad. He doesn't care about facts whatsoever, a lot can see this.

People from my User CP seem to be enjoying this burial though, vegans & non vegans alike.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Gandhi said:


> Cows, pigs, chicken, most of the animals you eat all have nociceptors.
> 
> You want me to start talking about humans eating jellyfish? Really?


im not talking about eating though, just senseless killing. do you kill insects, gandhi? that's just as immoral as killing any other pig, is it not?


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

I've searched high and low on the internet looking for arguments AGAINST Vegetarian/Veganism and haven't found a single convincing one. I don't think they exist.

I have gathered though through my research that people against said practices are: 1. Lazy. 2. Selfish. 3. Stupid/Ignorant.

And that's perfectly fine. People will act that way and eat what they want in spite of what they're told is immoral. That's completely fine. They can live their life the way they want to. It's not a problem that can be solved with a 1-man crusade on a wrestling forum.

I just know that if I do relapse and go back to my heavy meat eating ways that I can accept that what I'm doing is immoral and I'm selfish. 

I'll freely admit that.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Oh look, Tater's avoiding all of my points/arguments _yet again_ because they make him look bad. Poor guy. 



Tater said:


> I do not consider eating meat to be immoral, therefore I have nothing to justify. I enjoy every meaty bite with no shame whatsoever.


Ted Bundy: I do not consider killing innocents to be immoral, therefore I have nothing to justify. I enjoy every second of watching them die painfully with no shame whatsoever.



LUCK said:


> im not talking about eating though, just senseless killing. do you kill insects, gandhi? that's just as immoral as killing any other pig, is it not?


Let's just say I'm the kind of guy that doesn't swat flies, and instead tries to get them to leave; you'll probably make fun of me but I actually do sometimes spend like 20 minutes straight trying to get a fly to fuck off. I once got into an actual fight with a bunch of stupid kids when I was like 8 or something because they were pouring Pepsi in an ant hole. I'v been this way even before I turned vegan.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

fair enough, at least youre consistent.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Tater come on man are you just going to troll Gandhi everyday in this thread or are you going to actually argue your side?


What's there to argue? I am a human. Humans are omnivores. Omnivores eat both meat and vegetables. Therefore, I eat both meat and vegetables.

All these in-depth arguments and debates and rebuttals that Ghandi wants to have about sentience and pain receptors and nerve endings and plants don't feel pain or have sentience etc. mean exactly shit nothing to me.

I do not care that his *opinion* is eating meat is immoral. I do not care if anyone agrees with me that eating meat is not immoral.

My opinion is a very simply one that does not involve an in-depth debate on the topic. Try to follow along with me...


I am a human. 

Humans are omnivores. 

Omnivores eat both meat and vegetables. 

Therefore, I eat both meat and vegetables.

This is all very simple stuff. I can only explain it. I can't help you and Ghandi comprehend it.



Gandhi said:


> Ted Bundy: I do not consider killing innocents to be immoral, therefore I have nothing to justify. I enjoy every second of watching them die painfully with no shame whatsoever.


:HA

Really? That's where you wanna go with this? Cause I guess that makes you like Hitler because he was a vegetarian.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> I've searched high and low on the internet looking for arguments AGAINST Vegetarian/Veganism and haven't found a single convincing one. I don't think they exist.
> 
> I have gathered though through my research that people against said practices are: 1. Lazy. 2. Selfish. 3. Stupid/Ignorant.
> 
> ...


I've searched high and low on the internet for moral arguments against eating meat and haven't found a single convincing one. I don't think they exist.

I have gathered through my research that people against said practice are mostly 1. Narcissistic (this covers a _lot_ of ground). 2. Intolerant/Bigoted. 3. Stupid.

And that's perfectly fine. People will act that way and will always find ways to tell themselves they are superior morally and intellectually. That's completely fine. They can live their lives telling themselves how superior they are. It's not a problem that will ever be solved except maybe by the machine revolution.

I just know that if I ever give in to this slipshod and lazy Puritanical moral certainty I will have participated in making human society just a little bit worse. 

Billions upon billions of animals have lived that would never have existed if it were not for their being raised in monumental numbers for food. The fact that some large number of them lived painful, awful lives before being killed for food does not cancel out the ones that were treated well. The argument that humans can live healthily over the course of their entire lives on a vegan lifestyle is simply unsupported by science. No truly long-term studies have been done (30, 40 year studies encompassing a majority of a person's life). Human health and behavioral impacts on health are so complex that the value of such studies would necessarily be limited anyway. Until we can put nanomachines in our bodies that monitor every facet of a our biological health in realtime 24/7 such a level of understanding is probably not attainable anyway. 

It is massively presumptuous to say that people eat meat simply for pleasure and thus the act is a disgraceful indulgence in barbarous violence. 

Human beings evolved to eat meat, scientific knowledge and creation possibly being able to sustain a healthy human lifespan without consuming meat does not suddenly discount that. That is why the moral argument is required. 

Human beings murder billions of living organisms daily with their immune systems and medicines and disinfecting everything possible. Nobody but Buddhists seems to care much and even they aren't philosophically against the human immune system slaughtering foreign organisms that enter the body. If the argument is that killing or causing pain to animals in any way for food is wrong we cannot leave it at such a simplistic declaration. Most animals raised for food in the West live longer and better lives than they would have - if they would have been born at all - had they been living the red life of tooth and claw in the wild. Is it better that the animal never have lived at all if living means it will eventually be killed for sustenance? I don't think so.

Suffering and death is ensured by the existence of life, 10 million cows getting to live, being cared for and not being abused but being killed for food is more moral to me than 1 million cows living in the wild being killed by predators and diseases and the whim of pressures on their food supply. 

I also don't think that the ability to feel pain is such a clear-cut moral threshold. If you want to raise animals to the moral level of humanity, then demonstrate that animals possess moral qualities at the level human beings do. If you want to argue that non-existence is better than the life with its assurance of death, go ahead. It doesn't make sense, but go ahead. If you want to strut your angry superiority over the rest of mankind like you're still 15, go ahead. You won't get anywhere, but go ahead.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

^^^:draper2


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Clever, but I'm not strutting my superiority. You are free to do whatever you want. I'm literally 49 hours into a meatless-fast. The fuck do I know. I'm merely experimenting and possibly coming to the realization that I personally don't _need_ to eat animal suffering to get by. I'm enjoying it, I feel good physically and I feel great about myself.

Gandhi is more of an expert on this shit and I'm sure he has a TL;DR response to your post in the works. Should be an interesting read.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> I've searched high and low on the internet for moral arguments against eating meat and haven't found a single convincing one. I don't think they exist.
> 
> I have gathered through my research that people against said practice are mostly 1. Narcissistic (this covers a _lot_ of ground). 2. Intolerant/Bigoted. 3. Stupid.
> 
> ...


I may have to reconsider my stance on not debating against vegans because this was quite the entertaining read. :bow


----------



## TheJack (Mar 13, 2006)

Tater said:


> I do not consider eating meat to be immoral, therefore I have nothing to justify. I enjoy every meaty bite with no shame whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, pleeeeease, thats not real cheese, that bacon barely passes as meat and the great taste is something else. 
Post atleast a good steak with no artificial crap.

 jk


Also, this:


Spoiler: True heaven

















This thread didnt escalated as quickly as I thought it would. 

Im trying to go vegan purely for health reason. No moral ones. 
I got no beef with people who eat meat (pretty much 90% of my family), I would only recommend to eat organic and less meat/no meat for their own sake. 

Then again, I dont really need to recommend it. Theres no way we can keep our current consumption. Chinese people are eating more and more meat and voila, someday it will be demand > supply. People will be forced by nature (not enough soil) and the markets (higher prices) to eat less meat.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

I love this thread, it is my biggest contribution to WF if I ever did contribute anything "important" to begin with. 



Tater said:


> What's there to argue?


The topic of this thread and your position, genius.



Tater said:


> Humans are omnivores. Omnivores eat both meat and vegetables. Therefore, I eat both meat and vegetables.


Nope.






Pay attention to the video, because it'll explain why you have a beer belly Tater.

Meat is only a necessity to humans in times of desperation, no different than how even herbivore animals resort to eating meat or even cannibalism in times of desperation.



Tater said:


> All these in-depth arguments and debates and rebuttals that Ghandi wants to have about sentience and pain receptors and nerve endings and plants don't feel pain or have sentience etc. mean exactly shit nothing to me.


Facts don't mean shit to you; because when it comes to your stance with veganism you're stubborn, arrogant, selfish, and just plain immoral. Now I don't want to see you make fun of how immoral some religions are, because then you'd look like a hypocrite.






Our god...is an awesome god...he reigns...from heaven above....with wisdom power and love, our god is an awesome god. 

I like the song btw, genuinely like it, it's better than your stupid carrot song if you ask me.



Tater said:


> I do not care that his opinion is eating meat is immoral. I do not care if anyone agrees with me that eating meat is not immoral.


Sweetheart I don't care about opinions, arguments based on nothing but opinions are not worth listening to. I present nothing but facts to you; It is a _fact_ that empathy & compassion are moral, it is a _fact_ that you do not need meat to survive or be healthy, it is a _fact_ that plants do not have nerve cells hence do not feel pain.

Don't you like facts _Mr.Atheist_? I mean, you're an atheist because of facts right?



Tater said:


> My opinion is a very simply one that does not involve an in-depth debate on the topic.


Your opinion is based on you enjoying stuffing yourself with pork whilst sitting on your coach watching TV and getting fat and increasing your chances of getting a heart attack.



Tater said:


> [*]I am a human.
> 
> [*] Humans are omnivores.
> 
> ...


Almost all creatures are omnivores during times of desperation to their survival. Humans in advanced parts of the world are the only humans who resort to eating meat for nothing but plate pleasure rather than survival or health.

Have some respect for your age, Tater, you're embarrassing yourself.



Tater said:


> This is all very simple stuff. I can only explain it.


lol



Tater said:


> :HA
> 
> Really? That's where you wanna go with this? Cause I guess that makes you like Hitler because he was a vegetarian.


My point is that your idiotic _"I don't have to justify what I do"_ mindset can be used by many people who do immoral acts, from serial killers to rapists to dictators. It's a shame you don't catch on fast, would you still believe me if I told you I actually do believe you can consider veganism? Despite your hypocrisy in this thread, I know you still to an extent seek the truth.

As for that Hitler comment; first of all, I am a vegan and Hitler was a vegetarian. Secondly, so what if Hitler was a vegetarian? When it comes to the treatment of animals, Adolf fucking Hitler was a more honorable moral person than you are. Also, wasn't Joseph Stalin an atheist like you? You see how your posts just keep getting dumber and dumber? Christ.



deepelemblues said:


> I have gathered through my research that people against said practice are mostly 1. Narcissistic (this covers a lot of ground). 2. Intolerant/Bigoted. 3. Stupid.


A lot of non meat eaters are narcissistic about their choice not to eat meat, look up people who make themselves look like fucktards such as Onision on Youtube. Also why should I pretend to respect your immoral stance on the treatment of animals? Are you tolerant of stances like sexism or racism? I hope not. How am I bigoted? I don't speak in opinions, I've presented factual arguments time and time again in this thread. Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines is the best game ever created, that's an opinion; it is a _fact_ that empathy & compassion are moral, it is a _fact_ that you do not need meat to survive or be healthy, it is a _fact_ that plants do not have nerve cells hence do not feel pain. Also, what's stupid about wanting to be healthy & moral? Seems like the opposite of stupid if you ask me.



deepelemblues said:


> And that's perfectly fine. People will act that way and will always find ways to tell themselves they are superior morally and intellectually.





Gandhi said:


> And no, I don't think non meat eaters are better people than any of you, I just think you're pretty ignorant when it comes to this subject.


I am not morally or intellectually superior to you as a whole, I've stated this in the beginning of the thread. You are, however, extremely ignorant when it comes to the topic of veganism; and your ignorance causes you to live immorally and think you're not being immoral, no different than Hitler thinking him killing Jews was just hence moral because of his ignorance.

Keep trying to make people believe the vegan movement is based around self righteous assholes though, it isn't as effective as you think. Lies usually aren't. 



deepelemblues said:


> That's completely fine. They can live their lives telling themselves how superior they are.


I am not superior to you; I am better than you in some aspects and you are better than me in some aspects, that's how all humans are. Keep trying to push forward the stereotype though, it will only make us more passionate about defending the truth and the weak who cannot defend themselves.



deepelemblues said:


> I just know that if I ever give in to this slipshod and lazy Puritanical moral certainty I will have participated in making human society just a little bit worse.


So being a compassionate empathetic person will make human society worse? Great argument.



deepelemblues said:


> Billions upon billions of animals have lived that would never have existed if it were not for their being raised in monumental numbers for food. The fact that some large number of them lived painful, awful lives before being killed for food does not cancel out the ones that were treated well.


Billion upon billions of animals are force bred to a live a life of torment, fear, and eventually a painful death; all for your selfish plate pleasure. Would you rather live such a horrid life, or not live at all? Maybe you'd prefer living a miserable life, but many wouldn't. Take a look at the history of slavery from Africans, you'll notice how there was a high rate of death from disease and _suicide_. These once free men & women coming to terms with their future as property choose to end their lives because of the torment they went through. You also see it today, in a physicists assisted suicides when people want to end their lives and not suffer any longer. Do you know how much animals in slaughter houses suffer not just physically, but mentally? Of course you don't, because you don't seem to know a damn thing on what happens inside slaughter houses; that or you know and you don't really care which is even worse.

Also, you're talking about animals that were treated well before slaughter? Oh, Tater's piss poor argument again. Guess I'll just quote myself _again_ since I keep getting the same asinine arguments on this thread from different people who didn't read my previous posts on this thread and the second I rebut them they just lurk this thread or leave completely, maybe you'll actually try to address it and not chicken out like Tater did.



Gandhi said:


> Suppose humans did reach a point where all factory farms treated animals "humanely" when killing them for food and even had them die peaceful deaths, just a quick painless poke behind the neck and BAM they're dead and ready to become a tasty chicken mcnugget. Keep imagining here, would you still be okay with this to humans? I mean, what if I'm having someone just enjoy their time with me then BAM BAM with just one painless poke behind the neck they're dead and it's time to have some human yummy yum yums. Notice how I stated "have them enjoy their time with me" before I killed them? Because that's what you're arguing for with non humans, deception to kill a being that didn't know any better ignoring all empathy & compassion knowing that being does not want to die and not caring. It would be a different story if you're walking down the street and a cow just dies randomly and you decide to eat it, it's the killing and usage of animals as our property that I'm against.


It is not humane to kill for plate pleasure, period.



deepelemblues said:


> The argument that humans can live healthily over the course of their entire lives on a vegan lifestyle is simply unsupported by science. No truly long-term studies have been done (30, 40 year studies encompassing a majority of a person's life). Human health and behavioral impacts on health are so complex that the value of such studies would necessarily be limited anyway. Until we can put nanomachines in our bodies that monitor every facet of a our biological health in realtime 24/7 such a level of understanding is probably not attainable anyway.


Is that so?



Gandhi said:


> *James Wilks*, UFC fighter and vegan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And yes, I could go on all fucking day with names of superb vegan athletes.



















*Tony Gonzalez* from the NFL, vegan.










*Venus Williams*, American professional tennis player, vegan.










*Carl Lewis*, American former track and field star, vegan.










*Jim Morris*, body builder, vegan.

Hell...










....even *Mike* fucking *Tyson* is now a vegan and says not only was he living normally off his new diet, but it _helped_ him.

But let's forget for a moment about those athletes for now just to destroy your argument even more. 

Let us instead look at the latest statements from the scientific community that prove that veganism is the right choice; and that non vegan foods are not only useless to you, but are harmful to you.

I suggest you do a search of the following medical doctors and see how a balanced vegan diet does wonders to you, it is not only ok for survival, it is the _healthier_ option.

- Dr Micheal Greger
- Dr John Mcdougall
- Dr Neal Barnard
- Dr Caldwell Esselstyn
- Dr T Colin Campbell
- Dr Joel Fuhrman
- Dr Michael Klaper
- Dr Dean Ornish

I suggest you also do your own research as well and not just read from those doctors, to find out yourself.

Also let me remind you; I can live a healthy life with a vegan diet however you will struggle and may not even survive long if you base your diet exclusively on meat. Let that sink in. What does that tell you about your precious meat? Oh and, I'm sure you're aware that most of the leading causes of death in developed nations are because of consumption of animal products. Let's not forget that saturated fats found in animal products have been deemed unsafe and the suggestion of ALL leading health organizations & health professionals is to reduce or eliminate it from your diet. Medical, heart health, and government authorities such as the _World Health Organization_, _The American Dietetic Association_, _The Dietitians Of Canada_, _The British Dietetic Association_, _American Heart Association_, _British Heart Foundation_, _World Heart Federation_, _British National Health Service_, _The United States Food & Drug Administration_, _The European Food Safety Authority_, ALL advice that saturated fats from meat is a high risking factor for cardiovascular disease which is the LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH WORLDWIDE. Did you read that? Leading. Cause. Of. _Death_.

And just so you know I'm not bullshitting you about those health organizations & health professionals stating this, let me cite sources.

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Nutrition-A-Z/Fat.aspx

https://www.google.com.kw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bda.uk.com%2Ffoodfacts%2FFatFacts&ei=8tMGVIOlL4Wb1AWQmIDQDg&usg=AFQjCNFXEUbri64B49pciVrZjtWmk3RVCg

http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/prevention/healthy-eating/fats-explained.aspx

http://www.world-heart-federation.org/cardiovascular-health/cardiovascular-disease-risk-factors/diet/

http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm274590.htm




deepelemblues said:


> It is massively presumptuous to say that people eat meat simply for pleasure and thus the act is a disgraceful indulgence in barbarous violence.


Most people eat meat thinking it's a necessity to their diets, the truth is it isn't so in a sense they are only eating it for plate pleasure. Once you actually DO THE RESEARCH, you will see that humans, Do. Not. Need. Meat. People who are aware of meat being unhealthy, continue to eat meat simply because the taste of cooked flesh is delicious. Denying this is dishonest.



deepelemblues said:


> Human beings evolved to eat meat, scientific knowledge and creation possibly being able to sustain a healthy human lifespan without consuming meat does not suddenly discount that. That is why the moral argument is required.


Humans evolved to eat meat in times of desperation, it is a last resort. It is like having to eat fellow humans, you will only drive yourself to do it when there is literally nothing else you can eat it's that simple. You are not in times of desperation, and so there is no need for you and I to consume meat because it is immoral.

The moral argument exists because just like the health arguments for veganism, it is a strong solid one. Would you not agree that empathy & compassion are parts of morality? They are. Well guess what, the non vegan stance is not empathetic or compassionate. Non vegan stance is by no means moral, period.



deepelemblues said:


> Human beings murder billions of living organisms daily with their immune systems and medicines and disinfecting everything possible.


Bacteria are not sentient, lmfao. 

Holy crap the arguments from people on this thread are just embarrassingly funny.




deepelemblues said:


> Nobody but Buddhists seems to care much and even they aren't philosophically against the human immune system slaughtering foreign organisms that enter the body.


Mhm, mmkay. Are you a Buddhist? 

Well my friend, I'd like to show you a quote from the Buddha himself.

_“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”_ - *Buddha*

Bacteria. Are. Not. Sentient. They do not feel pain, it is completely justified to kill them to survive no different than it is justified to kill plants to survive. Life is not the issue when it comes to killing, it is _sentience_ that is the issue.



deepelemblues said:


> Most animals raised for food in the West live longer and better lives than they would have - if they would have been born at all - had they been living the red life of tooth and claw in the wild.


Go watch the documentary Earthlings, the full documentary is on Youtube; and tell me how much westerns have their animals live such _"comfortable lives"_ in their disgusting slaughter houses.

The best life possible for animals is where they are not human property. The animal's life, relationships, choice of home, freedom of movement all belong to the animal himself/herself. Many of the animals we have domesticated to eat were descended from animals who roamed vast tracks of land and choose who they interacted with, and who they mated with. No animal farming operation today can EVER fully recreate a truly free life for farmed animals and remain profitable.

And before you give me shit about _"free range"_ nonsense, realize it's all about marketing and not about animal welfare. The term _"free range"_ has no legal meaning and no government regulation. Terms like "free range" are more about making people feel better about consuming animal products hence increase sales & profits, and less about the actual concern for the animals themselves. And again, let me remind you that humans do not need animals to be healthy or even survive. The issue shouldn't be how we treat animals and should rather be focused on _why_ we use them at all. We have no nutritional requirements to eat meat, and can as you've seen be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet. If this is the case, what justification do we have for enslaving & killing even so called _"well treated"_ animals. If it's wrong to harm animals unnecessarily, this would mean it is wrong to harm animals for fun or pleasure. So why do you support the killing of innocent animals by the billions? It is for plate pleasure, you don't have to be dishonest about it. 



deepelemblues said:


> Is it better that the animal never have lived at all if living means it will eventually be killed for sustenance? I don't think so.


So you will die eventually like everyone else will, should I go on a killing spree for fun? I mean, they'll die eventually anyway right? That's how asinine your argument is.



deepelemblues said:


> Suffering and death is ensured by the existence of life, 10 million cows getting to live, being cared for and not being abused but being killed for food is more moral to me than 1 million cows living in the wild being killed by predators and diseases and the whim of pressures on their food supply.


Those cows are not being cared for, what is being cared for is your desire to taste a cow's flesh. I didn't know caring about someone meant you'd eventually kill them to satisfy yourself by using their corpses, infact now I put it that way it sounds pretty fucking disgusting.

And again, I've already addressed how animals want freedom, and for the most part don't give a shit about being around you.



deepelemblues said:


> I also don't think that the ability to feel pain is such a clear-cut moral threshold. If you want to raise animals to the moral level of humanity, then demonstrate that animals possess moral qualities at the level human beings do.


By that logic, I can go and kick cats in the street around and still be considered moral. I can go beat up puppies or do whatever the fuck I desire to do depending if my nature is sadistic and STILL be considered moral by your logic. Animals are too stupid compared to humans to be aware of concepts like morality. It could be argued that they have a primitive form of morality, not as advanced as ours, somewhat like human ancestors, perhaps far less but you get the point. As we become smarter & smarter, humans advance with their morality as well. This is why the majority _"or a lot"_ of people now are not sexist or racist as they were in ancient times. However for some bizarre reason a lot of people still think their speciesism is justified when in truth once you think about it rationally, it's not.



deepelemblues said:


> If you want to argue that non-existence is better than the life with its assurance of death, go ahead.


That is not what I'm arguing. Every living sentient being will whether it likes it or not, go through pain & suffering humans & animals alike. However, what I advocate for is for us NOT to cause direct suffering. Though I believe I've addressed this before, people attacking veganism on this thread keep making the same arguments, the same arguments get rebutted, and people who made those arguments either then just lurk this thread _"I've seen you, lol"_, leaving this thread completely, or post god awful desperate humor like Tater is doing.



Gandhi said:


> As for your statement that animals do sometimes suffer in the transportation of vegan foods, I am aware of that, however how much care do you expect from farmers & transporters when they don't care about minimizing animal death? Being vegan is not about absolute purity, that is impossible, it is about not directly supporting suffering to animals. Would you agree that since we hurt animals no matter what without meaning to, it's okay to directly hurt animals? Ok, I'm going to go to the cats in my street and kick them around for a good laugh to feed my sadistic nature, I mean so what if I do? I like to eat animals because they're tasty, and I like to go hunting to feel big about myself. We live in a world in which our very presence kills and disrupts other life; however there is a lot we can do to minimize the negative effects we cause on others, the first step is go vegan.


Moving on...



deepelemblues said:


> It doesn't make sense, but go ahead.


Yeah, I wasn't even arguing for that.

I'm not going to get into the discussion of how many well known respected philosophers disagree, but sure, this stance is one I am for the most part in a grey area in. I won't get into it though, let's just stick to the vegan discussion. Me stating what I said in this post is merely me just sharing, not really contributing to the actual argument of yours or mine.



deepelemblues said:


> If you want to strut your angry superiority over the rest of mankind like you're still 15, go ahead. You won't get anywhere, but go ahead.


Oh look, more accusations that I think I'm superior to you.

I don't think I'm superior to ANYONE. Not you, not people around me, not even fucking Adolf Hitler. All humans, and I mean ALL humans, cause evil out of nothing but sheer ignorance. And yes, I am talking about those who even think they know what they're doing, when in truth they do not.

Why is it that you think I'm trying to prove to you that I'm superior to you? I can empathize with ALL of the posts on this thread against my veganism, and I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to put myself as a higher being than you are. A year ago, I was no different than you in my views towards veganism and I STILL wasn't some scumbag. NOBODY is a scumbag, and nobody is fully pure. We all either just let ourselves sink into oceans of evil, or we keep swimming with all of our might. You, Tater, everybody here mocking me for my vegan stand point? I'm sorry you feel this way, and I will never call you fully horrible human beings because I understand how foreign the concept of veganism is to most people because it's how I saw it for most of my life as well. Just like muslims, christians, or anybody of a faith that is at it's core immoral do not deep down really mean to be immoral. Ignorance is what makes people stone innocents to death, ignorance is what caused the crusades, ignorance is what caused slavery, ignorance is what causes sexist behavior, ignorance is what causes hatred, ignorance is evil. This is why as humans, we must never stop educating others because the truest form of good is knowledge. From knowledge comes intelligence & intellect, from intelligence & intellect comes logic & reason, from logic & reason comes morality, from morality comes empathy & compassion.

Don't sink, you will not achieve the inner peace all humans crave. All humans, and I mean ALL humans, have potential to be empathetic compassionate beings. Everybody is simply like a door, which needs it's special key. Find your key.



Tater said:


> ^^^:draper2


Tater joining the bandwagon.



Tater said:


> I may have to reconsider my stance on not debating against vegans because this was quite the entertaining read. :bow


Lol. 

So basically, Tater didn't have any arguments before and once he couldn't find any arguments against me because I rebutted all of his arguments, he stopped arguing saying there's no point in arguing, then made idiotic statements such as _"it's stupid because it's stupid"_ and _"I don't need to give you rebuttals"_. However once he saw how deepelemblues has arguments he deems are good against veganism, he reconsidered arguing against vegans.

Do people here need more evidence that Tater for the most part of this thread, does not care about facts or morality but only his ego? I sincerely hope you actually think through what you're saying Tater, I really do; because your posts on this thread are ridiculously embarrassing and I don't want you to be this way forever. You might think I'm joking, but I don't want ANYONE to be this way.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

*I have been a Vegetarian for the past 10/11 years, never looked back. 

I would love to cut out milk and cheese but I don't have the will power too and Vegan cheese and milk are ratchet. *


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Coach. said:


> *I have been a Vegetarian for the past 10/11 years, never looked back.
> 
> I would love to cut out milk and cheese but I don't have the will power too and Vegan cheese and milk are ratchet. *


That's awesome! I've only been a vegan for almost a year now, and I'm very happy with myself and feel great. It's not that hard, and trust me I love normal ice cream and normal pizza. 

I'd like to remind you why veganism exists. In order for dairy cows to produce milk, they must be made pregnant. This results in a baby calf, some of these calves are raised to be future dairy cows while many others end up as veal. When the dairy cow's milk supply begins to come out less, she is sent to be killed to be made to burgers or pet food. Dairy cows live longer more miserable lives with infected udders, have their young ones taken away from them and then slaughtered all the same.

If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons, then you must understand that there is just as much suffering in a glass of milk as there is in a piece of meat.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> That's awesome! I've only been a vegan for almost a year now, and I'm very happy with myself and feel great. It's not that hard, and trust me I love normal ice cream and normal pizza.
> 
> I'd like to remind you why veganism exists. In order for dairy cows to produce milk, they must be made pregnant. This results in a baby calf, some of these calves are raised to be future dairy cows while many others end up as veal. When the dairy cow's milk supply begins to come out less, she is sent to be killed to be made to burgers or pet food. Dairy cows live longer more miserable lives with infected udders, have their young ones taken away from them and then slaughtered all the same.
> 
> If you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons, then you must understand that there is just as much suffering in a glass of milk as there is in a piece of meat.


*Never looked at it that way, and I should have. I'll reconsider giving soya milk a go but what will I do without chilli holloumi *


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Holy shit! Dude, you really are crazy if you think we're all going to read that wall of text.

I'll give you this, Ghandi, you have taken TL;DR to a whole new level. That alone deserves a round of applause. :clap


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Coach. said:


> *Never looked at it that way, and I should have. I'll reconsider giving soya milk a go but what will I do without chilli holloumi *


It's hard the first few weeks, maybe the first 2 months as well; but I assure you'll get used to it like I have. Your conscience will triumph over your natural instinct, don't worry.  



Tater said:


> Holy shit! Dude, you really are crazy if you think we're all going to read that wall of text.
> 
> I'll give you this, Ghandi, you have taken TL;DR to a whole new level. That alone deserves a round of applause. :clap


"_True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it_" - *Karl Popper*

You're sad.


----------



## Karma101 (Sep 7, 2012)

No I've never really seen a reason to. Meat is too fucking nice and cheese is almost as good.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> It's hard the first few weeks, maybe the first 2 months as well; but I assure you'll get used to it like I have. Your conscience will triumph over your natural instinct, don't worry.


*<3 I doubt it will be harder than it was to give up Pepsi, rough days!*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Coach. said:


> *<3 I doubt it will be harder than it was to give up Pepsi, rough days!*


I think we can all agree that giving up soda is good for one's health.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> I think we can all agree that giving up soda is good for one's health.


Giving up the foods that highly risk cardiovascular disease _*which is the leading cause of death worldwide*_ is good for one's health too.


----------



## PraXitude (Feb 27, 2014)

A natural diet is a balanced diet... meat, veggies, and everything in between. I am sick of militant vegans. They are so friggin annoying and they are nothing but attention whores.

Stop with the humane vs inhumane bs. It's one thing if you are torturing animals before killing and throwing away the meat. That represents .000001% of the population. For everyone else, they need the nutrition. Go and tell a starving African that their desire to eat meat is immoral. Meat is delicious, and so are vegetables.

God gave us canine-like teeth for a reason. We are omnivores. 

Want to be healthy? Just stop the processed foods and quit the freaking soda (both diet and regular)!

Want to know the diet that helped me lose a lot of weight?

Breakfast: Oatmeal/granola
Lunch: Salad (chicken, lentils, various veggies, and a tiny bit of dressing)
Dinner: Random meat + random veggies + random carbs
Snacks: a few almonds here and there

Fats are good for you (just avoid trans fats). Use olive oil or coconut oil for your sautés.


----------



## Kiz (Dec 2, 2006)

i make any animal tap out before i eat it.

lel at all the crying about what people eat too. good lord.


----------



## PraXitude (Feb 27, 2014)

Kiz said:


> i make any animal tap out before i eat it.
> 
> lel at all the crying about what people eat too. good lord.


As much as it annoys me, I think it's an important reflection on our society. We have it really good in America where we can complain that there is too much (bad) food. :dance

I think about how my parents and grandparents grew up in a communist shitpile where they had little to no choice for their meals, and I compare it to today.


----------



## TomTom94 (Oct 18, 2013)

Just saw that Earthlings documentary. Made me want to buy a BBQ steak sandwich.:russo


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

This thread has inspired me to research the topic a little more in depth.


*Top 5 Reasons Why Vegan Diets Are a Terrible Idea*

There is no one right way to eat for everyone.

We are all different and what works for one person may not work for the next.

I personally advocate consumption of *both* animals and plants and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is a reasonable way to eat.

However, I often get comments from vegans who think that people should eliminate* all* animal foods.

They frequently say that I’m giving out dangerous advice, that I must be corrupt and sponsored by the meat and dairy industry, or that I’m simply misinformed and need to read The China Study.

Really… I have *nothing* against vegans or vegetarians.

If you want to eat in this way for whatever reason and you are feeling good and improving your health, then great! Keep on doing what you’re doing.

But I do have a *serious* problem when proponents of this diet are using lies and fear mongering to try and convince everyone else to eat in the same way.

I’m tired of having to constantly defend my position regarding animal foods, so I decided to summarize what I think are the key problems with vegan diets.

Here are 5 reasons why I think vegan (as in no animal foods *at all*) diets are a bad idea…

*1. Vegans Are Deficient in Many Important Nutrients*

Humans are omnivores. We function best eating *both* animals and plants.

There are some nutrients that can only be gotten from plants (like Vitamin C) and others that can only be gotten from animals.

Vitamin B12 is a water soluble vitamin that is involved in the function of every cell in the body.

It is particularly important in the formation of blood and the function of the brain.

Because B12 is critical for life and isn’t found in any amount in plants (except some types of algae), it is *by far* the most important nutrient that vegans must be concerned with.

In fact, B12 deficiency is very common in vegans, one study showing that a *whopping 92%* of vegans are deficient in this critical nutrient (1).

But B12 is just the tip of the iceberg… there are other lesser known nutrients that are only found in animal foods and are critical for optimal function of the body.

Here are a few examples:


Animal protein contains all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. It is important for muscle mass and bone health, to name a few. Vegans don’t get any animal protein, which can have negative effects on body composition (2, 3, 4, 5).

 Creatine helps form an energy reservoir in cells. Studies show that vegetarians are deficient in creatine, which has harmful effects on muscle and brain function (6, 7, 8).

 Carnosine is protective against various degenerative processes in the body and may protect against aging. It is found only in animal foods (9, 10, 11).

 Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) is the most active form of Omega-3 fatty acids in the body and primarily found in animal foods. The plant form of Omega-3s, ALA, is inefficiently converted to DHA in the body (12, 13, 14).

Two other nutrients that have been demonized by vegan proponents are saturated fat and cholesterol.

Cholesterol is a crucial molecule in the body and is part of every cell membrane. It is also used to make steroid hormones like testosterone. Studies show that saturated fat intake correlates with increased testosterone levels (15).

Not surprisingly, vegans and vegetarians have much lower testosterone levels than meat eaters (16, 17, 18, 19).

*Bottom Line:* Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine. Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts.

*2. There Are No Studies Showing That They’re Better Than Other Diets*

Despite what vegan proponents often claim, there are *no controlled trials* showing that these diets are any better than other diets.

They often claim that low-carb, high-fat diets (the opposite of vegan diets) are dangerous and that the evidence clearly shows vegan diets to be superior.

I disagree.

This has actually been studied in a high quality randomized controlled trial (the gold standard of science).

The A to Z study compared the Atkins (low-carb, high-fat) diet to the Ornish (low-fat, near-vegan) diet (20).

This study clearly shows that the Atkins diet causes greater improvements in pretty much all health markers, although not all of them were statistically significant:



The Atkins group lost more weight, 10.4 lbs, while the Ornish group lost only 5.6 lbs.

 The Atkins group had greater decreases in blood pressure.

 The Atkins group had greater increases in HDL (the “good”) cholesterol.

 The Atkins group had greater decreases in Triglycerides. They went down by 29.3 mg/dL on Atkins, only 14.9 mg/dL on Ornish.

 Then the Atkins dieters were about *twice as likely* to make it to the end of the study, indicating that the Atkins diet was easier to follow.

Put simply, the Atkins diet had several important advantages while the Ornish diet performed poorly for all health markers measured.

Now, there are *some* studies showing health benefits and lower mortality in vegetarians and vegans, such as the Seventh-Day Adventist Studies (21, 22).

The problem with these studies is that they are so-called observational studies. These types of studies can only demonstrate correlation, *not causation*.

The vegetarians are probably healthier because they are more health conscious overall, eat more vegetables, are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, etc. It has nothing to do with avoiding animal foods.

In another study of 10,000 individuals, where both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians were health conscious, there was *no difference* in mortality between groups (23).

One controlled trial showed that a vegan diet was more effective against diabetes than the official diet recommended by the American Diabetes Association (24).

However, a low-carb diet has also been studied for this purpose and led to much more powerful beneficial effects (25).

A vegan diet may be better than the typical low-fat diet recommended by the mainstream nutrition organizations, but pretty much *any diet* fits that description.

*Bottom Line:* Despite all the propaganda, there isn’t any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature.

*3. Proponents of Vegan Diets Use Lies and Fear Mongering to Promote Their Cause*

Some vegan proponents aren’t very honest when they try to convince others of the virtues of the vegan diet.

They actively use lies and fear mongering to scare people away from fat and animal foods.

Despite all the propaganda, there really isn’t any evidence that meat, eggs, or animal-derived nutrients like saturated fat and cholesterol cause harm.

People who promote vegan diets should be more honest and not use scare tactics and lies to make people feel guilty about eating animal foods, which are perfectly healthy (if unprocessed and naturally fed).

I’d also like to briefly mention The China Study… which is the holy bible of veganism and apparently “proves” that vegan diets are the way to go.

This was an observational study performed by a scientist who was madly in love with his theories. He cherry picked the data from the study to support his conclusions and ignored the data that didn’t fit.

The main findings of the China study have been *thoroughly debunked*.

I recommend you look at these two critiques:


Denise Minger: The China Study – Fact or Fallacy
 Chris Masterjohn: What Dr. Campbell Won’t Tell You About The China Study

Also… a new study from China came out very recently, directly contradicting the findings of the China study.

According to this study, men eating red meat had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and women eating red meat had a lower risk of cancer (26).

*Bottom Line:* Vegan proponents often use fear mongering and scare tactics in order to convince people not to eat animal foods. They frequently cite The China Study as evidence, which has been thoroughly debunked.

*4. Vegan Diets May Work in The Short Term, For Other Reasons*

If you look at vegan message boards, you will quickly find stories of people who have seen *amazing* health benefits on a vegan diet.

I’ve got no reason to believe that these people are lying.

But it’s important to keep in mind that this is anecdotal evidence, which isn’t science.

You will find the same kinds of success stories for pretty much any diet.

Then you’ll also find tons of people saying they got *terrible results* on a vegan diet.

Personally, I think that vegan diets *can* have health benefits for a lot of people… at least in the short term, before the nutrient deficiencies kick in (which can be partly circumvented by supplementation).

However, I don’t think this has *anything *to do with avoiding animal foods!

Vegan diets don’t just recommend that people avoid animal foods. They also recommend that people avoid added sugars, refined carbohydrates, processed vegetable oils and trans fats.

Then they suggest that people stop smoking and start exercising. There are so many confounders here that can easily explain all the beneficial effects.

These are extremely unhealthy foods, that’s something the vegans and I agree on. I personally think that avoiding *these foods* is what is causing the apparent benefits.

I am 100% certain that a plant-based diet that includes at least a little bit of animals (the occasional whole egg or fatty fish, for example) will be* much healthier* in the long-term than a diet that eliminates animal foods completely.

*Bottom Line:* Vegan diets also recommend that people shun added sugar, refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and trans fats. This is probably the reason for any health benefits, not the removal of unprocessed animal foods.

*5. There is NO Health Reason to Completely Avoid Animal Foods*

Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years.

We evolved this way.

Our bodies are perfectly capable of digesting, absorbing and making full use of the many beneficial nutrients found in animal foods.

It is true that *processed* meat causes harm and that it’s disgusting the way “conventionally raised” animals are treated these days.

However, animals that are fed natural diets (like grass-fed cows) and given access to the outdoors are completely different.

Even though processed meat causes harm, which is supported by many studies, the same does NOT apply to natural, unprocessed meat.

Unprocessed red meat, which has been demonized in the past, really doesn’t have any association with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or the risk of death (27, 28).

It has only a very weak link with an increased risk of cancer and this is probably caused by excessive cooking, not the meat itself (29, 30, 31).

Saturated fat has also never been proven to lead to heart disease. A study of almost 350 thousand individuals found literally* no association* between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular disease (32, 33, 34).

Studies on eggs show no effect either. Multiple long-term studies have been conducted on egg consumption, which are very rich in cholesterol, and found no negative effects (35, 36).

The thing is that animal foods… meat, fish, eggs and dairy products for those who can tolerate them, are *extremely nutritious*.

They are loaded with high quality protein, healthy fats, vitamins, minerals and various lesser known nutrients that have important effects on health.

There may be ethical or religious reasons not to eat animals… I get it. But there is *no scientifically valid health reason* to completely eliminate animal foods.

*Take Home Message*

At the end of the day, the optimal diet for any one person depends on a lot of things.

This includes age, gender, activity levels, current metabolic health, food culture and personal preference.

Vegan diets may be appropriate for some people, *not others*. Different strokes for different folks.

If you want to eat a vegan diet, then make sure to be prudent about your diet. Take the necessary supplements and read some of the books by the vegan docs, I’m sure they at least know how to safely apply a vegan diet.

If you’re getting results, feeling good and are managing to stick to your healthy lifestyle, then that’s great. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.

But don’t use fear mongering and scare tactics to persuade people to join your cause and scare them away from perfectly healthy animal foods. That ain’t cool.

SOURCE



This is an extremely well researched article with a ton of facts to back up it's claims. I learned quite a lot from it.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

I gotta fucking say, WOW. I man I still fail to see a fact on morality of killing animals for food. So its evil? Again, my rebuttal is, Who the fuck said so? Just because you interpret a definition to prove your agenda doesn't make it fact. That's like saying all people who listen to Justin Bieber are evil. I think its an immoral act to subject any animal to such musical trash. Of course this is bullshit and just merely an opinion.

Back on the whole morality thing. According to christianity, it is immoral to not believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God your savior. However I am agnostic and believe it is all hogwash. Me worrying about what a vegan claims as immoral is like me worry about going to hell. The fact is I don't worry about hell and I don't worry about the morality of eating meat. Who is gonna judge me because I eat hot wings? Is there some big vegetable in the sky that will condemn me for eating beef taquitos? No!
Believe what your believe and I'll believe what I believe. If meat will be the death of me, so what? It was a delicious life filled with steak, burgers, tacos, sausages, and fried chicken.

Now back to "if you can, doesn't mean I have to." If you can live without meat, you can also live with out the internet. You could live with out fancy clothes or smart phones, but you do anyway. Guess what these all are? SELFISH PLEASURES! These so called selfish pleasures are what make life worth living. All these things have an impact on nature, whether it be cutting trees to make room for fiber lines, using coal power in china to make my cellphone to pesticides used on cotton fields to make my converse sneakers.

Why don't you date an ugly chick? You don't need to have an attractive spouse to procreate, but we can agree it makes it a little better if they are. For me , meat makes MY life a little more tolerable, as being a vegan makes YOUR life better for what ever reasons you have. All your points mean nothing to me as they have no affect on whether I eat meat or not. I mean if I don't adopt you self righteous belief about the morality of killing meat for food, what the hell is gonna happen?

Btw, my friend's vegetarian story was not a rebuttal to any of your points, just adding to the conversation of someone who had tried being a vegetarian. And my weight loss story was my own point on how eating meat is helping me get into shape.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Have not, and don't think I will (although I'll happily switch to artificial meat). In the argument of morality, it is PLAINLY OBVIOUS that vegetarians/vegans have a higher ground than non-vegetarians when it comes to said topic. It's funny to see such a strong point argued against with relatively nothing (jokes and insults).

Re- me, I don't need to be/feel moral to be happy. I got used to the amount of suffering in the world a long time ago.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

HardKoR said:


> That's like saying all people who listen to Justin Bieber are evil.


TBF, all people who listen to Justin Bieber *ARE* evil.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Tater said:


> TBF, all people who listen to Justin Bieber *ARE* evil.


Its funny 'cause I can probably get more people to agree that listening to Justin Bieber is more immoral than eating meat.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

*Imagine if all the food wasted on mass breeding and slaughtered animals actually went to countries who need food rather than overpopulating animals?
JS*


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

HardKoR said:


> I gotta fucking say, WOW. I man I still fail to see a fact on morality of killing animals for food. So its evil? Again, my rebuttal is, Who the fuck said so? Just because you interpret a definition to prove your agenda doesn't make it fact. That's like saying all people who listen to Justin Bieber are evil. I think its an immoral act to subject any animal to such musical trash. Of course this is bullshit and just merely an opinion.


Now this is a more interesting argument, the subjectivity of all morality. It's convenience (be it necessity or pleasure) I give weight to.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Coach. said:


> *Imagine if all the food wasted on mass breeding and slaughtered animals actually went to countries who need food rather than overpopulating animals?
> JS*


Most of it would still be consumed here as there would no longer be any meat, and what would get shipped to those countries would have to get passed militants or governments who would seize it for themselves.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

HardKoR said:


> Most of it would still be consumed here as there would no longer be any meat, and what would get shipped to those countries would have to get passed militants or governments who would seize it for themselves.


*Of course there would be meat, meat is mass produced and so much gets wasted, look at the effect it has on the earth




A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.

Click to expand...

 http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6188.cfm (Article originally from New Scientist) 

Sure that would happen but the logic behind what I said rings true. *


----------



## Klee (Oct 28, 2011)

Oh my god, what is this thread. 

Humans are herbivores. We are not carnivores.

Examples....


Spoiler: interesting facts



Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)



The phrase "you are what you eat" is quite the literal statement. When animals are killed or slaughtered (fucking slaughtered, yeah sounds bad to me too) they release negative emotions and these manifest in enzimes that are present in the flesh. Which are then consumed. Meat eaters report more case of food poisoning than vegetarians etc.

As humans, we don't need to eat meat and would be healthier without it. This is fact.

We don't eat meat like normal carnivores, bloody and raw, we have to cook our meat and season it to fuck or eat it with a sauce to hide the taste. I read that a deer that is burnt in a forest fire would not be eaten by other carnivores in the area. 

Humans are conditioned to believe that raw meat is disgusting and we in turn continue to cook meat the way we do. 

This is briliant..."Have you ever seen what happens to a piece of meat that stays in the sun for three days? Meat can stay in the warmth of the intestine for at least four to five days until it is digested. It does nothing but wait for passage. Often, it usually stays there for much longer. Medical doctors have found traces of undigested meat remaining in the colon for up to several months. Colonic therapists always see meat passing through people who have been vegetarians for several years, thus indicating that meat remains undigested there for a long time. Occasionally this has been documented in twenty-year vegetarians!"

The way we as a species consume meat is fucking gross. 

I am a hypocrite as I will likely cook a steak for my tea in the next few days. God I wish I could become a Vegetarian, I guess I'm addicted to meat. :draper2


----------



## Klee (Oct 28, 2011)

P.s for ghandi 

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

I thought you meant instead of raising meat, it was replaced with produce that would otherwise be fed to the animals.

Environmental issues is another can of worms, there is a lot me we could all do besides worrying about cow farts, that could and would have better impact on the environment.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Other animals can't harness fire though. If they could, they'd grill their kills too.


I have an excuse to never mow my lawn again now too. Thanks thread.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Klee said:


> We don't eat meat like normal carnivores, bloody and raw, we have to cook our meat and season it to fuck or eat it with a sauce to hide the taste.


Well, I DO eat a lot of raw fish. Fresh poke is absolutely delicious even without any seasoning added to it. Raw ahi is also an extremely healthy and nutritious food.










My favorite kind is the ahi limu which is basically just the cut ahi with onions, limu (a kind of seaweed) and sesame seeds.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

KLEE said:


> Colonic therapists


dream job


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

from klee's post i learned that sharks have claws and you can generalize a ridiculous amount of species into 2 groups...oh wait, no you cant. :ti


klee do you think if we never found a way to cook meat our bodies wouldnt have adapted to find a way to eat raw meat?

not saying we're carnivores, as that's ridiculous, but i hate that people act like we werent meant to eat meat. we have found other means to get by without eating meat, but that doesnt mean we're not supposed to eat it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Yeah but do sharks have brains?

Holy shit when did we get TWEET tags?!

What's a DM tag do?

We need tags for vines and giffy's or whatever they're called.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Sharks do have claws they just happen to be in their mouths.:side:

@UDFK: Cooking probably contributed to our intelligence. There are studies and theories about this. It makes sense I reckon.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

PraXitude said:


> A natural diet is a balanced diet


Yes, ..... a balanced *vegan* diet.



PraXitude said:


> A natural diet is a balanced diet... meat,


Nope.



PraXitude said:


> A natural diet is a balanced diet... veggies,


Yep.



Gandhi said:


> *James Wilks*, UFC fighter and vegan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Gandhi said:


> And yes, I could go on all fucking day with names of superb vegan athletes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Veganism is healthy, non veganism isn't. It's that simple.

Moving on...



PraXitude said:


> I am sick of militant vegans. They are so friggin annoying and they are nothing but attention whores.


If you're talking about vegans who are violent about their beliefs, I agree.
If you're talking about vegans who simply point out the flaws of a non vegan lifestyle, I disagree.



PraXitude said:


> Stop with the humane vs inhumane bs.


No.



PraXitude said:


> It's one thing if you are torturing animals before killing and throwing away the meat. That represents .000001% of the population.


I don't know where you got that percentage from, but whatever. Let's instead address the animals tortured in slaughter houses for food, or do those not matter?



PraXitude said:


> For everyone else, they need the nutrition.


Mhm, you have no nutritional requirement from meat. Not only do you not have a requirement, meat is unhealthy and I believe I've showed you why in my quotes above.



PraXitude said:


> Go and tell a starving African that their desire to eat meat is immoral.


I won't, because a starving African in a poor village in some Savannah literally needs to eat meat to survive because they don't have alternatives like you do. When someone kills meat for survival, it is not immoral and is understandable; and meat is only needed for survival when plant foods are not available enough. You however live in an advanced part of the world where you have a lot of alternatives. You are not to be compared with a starving African child who has no alternatives.

I've already addressed this before in this thread, several times.



Gandhi said:


> The situation that we are in, you do not live in a poor village in the middle of the jungle and we no longer live in the ice age. Meat is only a necessity during times of desperation, I'm fully aware of that. It's not different than humans resorting to cannibalism during times of desperation. Whilst it is not immoral to kill an animal to survive, it is immoral to kill an animal simply for plate pleasure despite you not needing it's flesh to survive. People in poor villages isolated from the modern world need help, they need the help from advanced nations so that they no longer need meat. I do not hold them accountable much as most of them literally need meat to survive, you however do not need meat to survive period. People in poor villages act out of desperation, you act out of immorality.


Let's move on...



PraXitude said:


> Meat is delicious


A lot of people are addicted to cocaine.



PraXitude said:


> God gave us canine-like teeth for a reason. We are omnivores.


You just had to bring up religion right? Fuck's sake...

Anyway...










Hippos are not omnivores, period.

Want more? 










The only non vegan foods gorillas eat are termites & ants, mhm, god sure gave them those canine teeth to eat ants & termites eh right? Absolute intelligent design right there mate! I bet the Disney version of the movie Tarzan, they skipped the part where Tarzan & the gorillas ate that pussy Sabor.










Say hello to The Saber-Toothed Deer, yeah that's right you know what you read. Guess what? They were herbivorous as well.










The ONLY primates who primarily eat grass, and on rare occasion do eat insects. This is gorillas all over again.










Who would have thought even the ships of the desert had such teeth? I'm sure you see camels attack other animals for their flesh to feed on right?










Please don't eat me piggie!



PraXitude said:


> Want to be healthy?














PraXitude said:


> Just stop the processed foods and quit the freaking soda


So you want people to go eat stuff that's less shit? That's not very nice of you.



PraXitude said:


> Want to know the diet that helped me lose a lot of weight?


Anorexics lose weight too, they're still not healthy. 



PraXitude said:


> Fats are good for you


Not fats from your precious meat, sources have been cited above.



PraXitude said:


> As much as it annoys me, I think it's an important reflection on our society. We have it really good in America where we can complain that there is too much (bad) food :dance


I'm from Africa.



PraXitude said:


> I think about how my parents and grandparents grew up in a communist shitpile where they had little to no choice for their meals, and I compare it to today.


Your parents didn't have alternatives like you do today, you have no excuses.



Tater said:


> This thread has inspired me to research the topic a little more in depth.


Glad you're admitting you didn't know what you were talking about before and had to research.



Tater said:


> There is no one right way to eat for everyone.


That's absolute nonsense because organic foods are healthy for _everyone_.

For example you cannot argue that anybody can be allergic to organic foods.

Source:

http://www.mnn.com/health/allergies/photos/10-common-allergy-myths/you-cant-be-allergic-to-organic-food



Tater said:


> I personally advocate consumption of *both* animals and plants and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is a reasonable way to eat.


You advocated for the consumption of both animals & plants because you love the taste of flesh & don't think it's immoral to kill innocent sentient beings, only recently did you do research to try and argue back with arguments you deem factual that weren't hilariously stupid like your precious ones on this thread.

Quit being dishonest.



Tater said:


> However, I often get comments from vegans who think that people should eliminate *all* animal foods.


Yes vegans would suggest that to you, that's why they're called vegans.



Tater said:


> But I do have a *serious* problem when proponents of this diet are using lies and fear mongering to try and convince everyone else to eat in the same way.


Yeah, let's see what you have to say...



Tater said:


> 1. Vegans Are Deficient in Many Important Nutrients


If a vegan goes by a balanced vegan diet that doesn't consist of them being a dumbass who just eats chips, yes they will struggle. Other than that, the vegan diet can provide everything you need. I suggest you read the two quotes I have made for PraXitude, you know, the ones you ignored from the other thread.



Tater said:


> Humans are omnivores. We function best eating both animals and plants.


Read my quotes above, see what happens when you ignore data? I keep repeating myself.



Tater said:


> Vitamin B12 is a water soluble vitamin that is involved in the function of every cell in the body.


Bollocks, this myth has been debunked so many times it's not even used anymore by non vegan forums because they know they'll get buttfucked. 






The B12 deficiency myth used against vegans since veganism started gaining more supporters, easy to rebuttal. You should subscribe to Freelee btw, she knows what she's talking about and is quite the health machine.

If you're too lazy to watch the video, ok, read this instead.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029531_vitamin_B12_vegan.html#

Debunking the B12 deficiency myth again, and there's sources in that article to prove their points as well.

I have to admit, when I first became a vegan I was given the B12 deficiency argument and did have doubts about veganism. However, it all turns out it was all dogshit. Who would have thought eh? Don't be fooled, research is _always_ important.



Tater said:


> Animal protein contains all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. It is important for muscle mass and bone health, to name a few. Vegans don’t get any animal protein, which can have negative effects on body composition (2, 3, 4, 5).


The latest article you have is from fucking 2009 whilst I have sources that are RECENT scientific discoveries. No, let's address how you have articles from 2004 & fucking 1999.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584048

This article doesn't explain why women like *Venus Williams* who are *vegan* can become an American professional tennis player who was a former_ World No. 1_ and is _ranked World No. 20 in singles_ as of August 11, 2014. But! But! She's vegan! Yes, what's your point? 

I suggest you read my two quotes you ignored, the ones where I cite the recent studies & doctors from the scientific community that not only prove veganism is healthy, but that your precious non vegan life style is harmful to you.



Tater said:


> Creatine helps form an energy reservoir in cells. Studies show that vegetarians are deficient in creatine, which has harmful effects on muscle and brain function (6, 7, 8).


Lmfao, more myths.

http://shreddedempire.com/creatine-101-breaking-down-the-myths-of-this-widely-known-supplement/

Oh and, two of those articles are from 2003 whilst all of the data I provide is recent scientific studies. 



Tater said:


> Carnosine is protective against various degenerative processes in the body and may protect against aging. It is found only in animal foods (9, 10, 11).


Yeah, not an issue for me as you might think it is.

http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/carnosine

More crap from the year 2000, yeah, now go look up at the recent scientific studies I cited.



Tater said:


> Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) is the most active form of Omega-3 fatty acids in the body and primarily found in animal foods. The plant form of Omega-3s, ALA, is inefficiently converted to DHA in the body (12, 13, 14).


I've already proven to you that this kind of crap from animals is _harmful_ to you thanks to studies from ALL the leading health organizations & health professionals, now again, go read the quotes you ignored and quit giving me shit from 1998.



Tater said:


> Cholesterol is a crucial molecule in the body and is part of every cell membrane. It is also used to make steroid hormones like testosterone. Studies show that saturated fat intake correlates with increased testosterone levels (15).







BOOM.



Tater said:


> Not surprisingly, vegans and vegetarians have much lower testosterone levels than meat eaters (16, 17, 18, 19).


Oh my fucking god, these articles keep getting older and older. 1992? Lmfao. Get a load of scientific advancement and new studies % discoveries buddy; science is on my side, not yours.

Also, more evidence that this is dogshit...












Tater said:


> 2. There Are No Studies Showing That They’re Better Than Other Diets


Lol, is that why ALL leading health organizations & health professionals disagree with this statement as I've shown in the quotes you ignored?



Tater said:


> This has actually been studied in a high quality randomized controlled trial (the gold standard of science).


Other than all of those studies being old or older than dirt itself, all are moot because of new scientific studies that debunk all of this nonsense. New scientific studies from _"you guessed it"_ ALL leading health organizations & health professionals that I linked in my quotes. I'm hoping by the time you're reading this, you'd had already read them because I'm getting bored of saying the same thing over and over again.



Tater said:


> Some vegan proponents aren’t very honest when they try to convince others of the virtues of the vegan diet.
> 
> They actively use lies and fear mongering to scare people away from fat and animal foods.
> 
> ...


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

All of that quote, guess what buddy...


























































You get the point, all leading health organizations & health professionals of recent scientific studies & research disagree. 



Tater said:


> Then you’ll also find tons of people saying they got terrible results on a vegan diet.


Mhm, mmkay, seen a shitload of people not be able to have balanced vegan diets. The reason for this is mostly because of non vegans, making sure the vegan diet is ignored and vilified by not making vegans know how to get what they can get from a vegan diet. The vegan diet can literally get you anything you want according to the latest scientific studies as I've shown, and as for your precious non vegan diet, can't say it's doing so well according to the professionals who are a lot of the time NOT vegan yet still advice you to fuck off non vegan foods for the most part.



Tater said:


> Personally, I think that vegan diets can have health benefits for a lot of people… at least in the short term, before the nutrient deficiencies kick in (which can be partly circumvented by supplementation).


Goodie, more of this crap that's been debunked a million times. Joy.



Tater said:


> However, I don’t think this has anything to do with avoiding animal foods!
> 
> Vegan diets don’t just recommend that people avoid animal foods. They also recommend that people avoid added sugars, refined carbohydrates, processed vegetable oils and trans fats.
> 
> ...


_*insert post of me repeating myself yet again about the newest scientific studies from leading health organizations & health professionals*_

This is getting boring.



Tater said:


> 5. There is NO Health Reason to Completely Avoid Animal Foods


_*insert post of me repeating myself yet again about the newest scientific studies from leading health organizations & health professionals*_





Tater said:


> Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years.


They have also been smoking for thousands of years.

Also Tater I highly doubt you watched the video in your link or read any of the shit in your links which is probably why you're hilariously oblivious to posting out dated horseshit from 19-90-fucking-2 that's already been debunked by the leading health organizations & health professionals. 

In fact, since you just stated that you only recently _"researched this"_ I'd say you just used google and typed _"this is that, this is that"_, which is why you probably found such out dated garbage that's been debunked already by recent discoveries.



Tater said:


> 5. There is NO Health Reason to Completely Avoid Animal Foods


Yes, there is, I've shown you why you should avoid them. 



Tater said:


> http://authoritynutrition.com/top-5-reasons-why-vegan-diets-are-a-terrible-idea/


Omfg, this entire time I've been replying to stupid fucking article that has even STUPIDER fucking out dated sources and you used it as your research?

I'm sorry, do you know how much I'm laughing? No, I'm not going to post gifs laughing, but holy fucking shit you just made me debunk the entire fucking article when I thought I was debunking YOU.

Lmfao.



Tater said:


> This is an extremely well researched article with a ton of facts to back up it's claims. I learned quite a lot from it.


Me too, non vegans listen to out dated dogshit that's been debunked by new scientific studies & discoveries. :



HardKoR said:


> I gotta fucking say, WOW. I man I still fail to see a fact on morality of killing animals for food. So its evil? Again, my rebuttal is, Who the fuck said so? Just because you interpret a definition to prove your agenda doesn't make it fact. That's like saying all people who listen to Justin Bieber are evil. I think its an immoral act to subject any animal to such musical trash. Of course this is bullshit and just merely an opinion.


Yes it's evil.

So your rebuttal is who the fuck said so? The damn dictionary. I don't interpret a definition to just prove my _"agenda"_ that is what the fucking meanings of those words are if you read them and examine them and see I'm not talking out of my ass. 

It's not like saying all people who listen to Justin Beiber are evil, my fucking god why even make such a RIDICULOUSLY stupid comment? If the animal is hurt by the music of Justin Beiber, then yes, it is immoral. If the animal does not give a fuck, it's not immoral. Why do I even have to explain this to you? Fucking hell.



HardKoR said:


> Back on the whole morality thing. According to christianity, it is immoral to not believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God your savior. However I am agnostic and believe it is all hogwash. Me worrying about what a vegan claims as immoral is like me worry about going to hell. The fact is I don't worry about hell and I don't worry about the morality of eating meat. Who is gonna judge me because I eat hot wings? Is there some big vegetable in the sky that will condemn me for eating beef taquitos? No!


What a garbage analogy.

Veganism is not a religion, it's not even a belief system based on faith like Christianity is. Also, I too am an agnostic. Anyway vegans yell the moral argument because of the fact that dictionary terms support their argument, you are NOT being empathetic or compassionate to sentient beings hence you are NOT being moral. Also you keep forgetting that A LOT of non vegans realize non veganism isn't immoral, but still eat meat because of them admitting they're lazy.

I also love how you didn't really adress the arguments I had before for you in my other comment for you. No rebuttals, just a stupid Justin Beiber & Christianity analogy.



HardKoR said:


> Believe what your believe and I'll believe what I believe. If meat will be the death of me, so what? It was a delicious life filled with steak, burgers, tacos, sausages, and fried chicken.


What I believe is supported by evidence, what you believe isn't. 

I also love how you're completely fine with non veganism being unhealthy, atleast you're honest about that.



HardKoR said:


> Now back to "if you can, doesn't mean I have to." If you can live without meat, you can also live with out the internet. You could live with out fancy clothes or smart phones, but you do anyway. Guess what these all are? SELFISH PLEASURES!


They're not selfish pleasures that are caused by killing people or doing anything immoral, do I really have to point that out?



HardKoR said:


> These so called selfish pleasures are what make life worth living.


Go rape someone then.



HardKoR said:


> Why don't you date an ugly chick? You don't need to have an attractive spouse to procreate


Bollocks.

The standards of _"attractive"_ are mostly based on evolutionary psychology that makes humans select better mates for them to reproduce with, how the fuck do you not know this? Why do you think women for the most part like strong men? Or how men like women with big breasts? 

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



HardKoR said:


> I mean if I don't adopt you self righteous belief about the morality of killing meat for food, *what the hell is gonna happen*?


I'm going to live a more moral life when it comes to my stances towards animals and be healthier, whilst you will be less moral towards animals and will be less healthy.

Simple.



Klee said:


> P.s for ghandi
> 
> http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants





> How plants sense and react is still somewhat unknown. *They don't have nerve cells like humans*, but they do have a system for sending electrical signals and even produce neurotransmitters, like dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals the human brain uses to send signals.





Gandhi said:


> From the 8th paragraph, all that talk in that study for nothing. So they basically just admitted plants were not sentient, and the non bold parts are all just going _"they have this and we don't know why they have them because they don't have nerve cells"_.


Shame you missed the party dude, lol.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

It's so boring to read this guy post pictures over and over again of rich people who pay trainers and cooks and buy loads of expensive vitamins and supplements and extremely expensive vegan food and can afford to physically train the majority of their waking hours if that's what they want to do - as if that shows that the majority of people could afford that lifestyle. Whoop dee shit, how about some pictures of people making $25,000 a year, working a 40 hour week, eating a vegan diet who look like that. 

What a sad little fanatic. He can't even make an argument without misrepresenting what people say and repeatedly insulting them. How persuasive. Now come, there haven't been enough insults about plate pleasure and narcissistic declarations of empathy and pointless dredging up of rich people who can afford to be healthy and vegan and not responding to the arguments people actually make in this thread, Gandhi. Please non-respond with more pictures to the simple fact that there have been no decades-long scientific studies covering the majority of a person's lifespan into the vegan diet. Please refuse to acknowledge the animals who have lived well being raised for food because they are inconvenient to your moral crusade. Anyone with half a brain can see through the shoddy nature of your "arguments" which are actually propaganda and not arguments. Propaganda doesn't need to concern itself with complexities or inconvenient facts. No one gives a shit that you simply respond to everything anyone says with an unsupported assertion that they're wrong and then return to rote. Your posts in this thread are a textbook example of how not to argue. Do you even read your links? Like this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584048

Nowhere in that link is there any support for the extravagant assertions you are making, either connected to that link or in general. Nowhere. 

READ YOUR FUCKING LINKS PLEASE:



> CONCLUSION:
> Consumption of a meat-containing diet contributed to greater gains in fat-free mass and skeletal muscle mass with RT in older men than did an LOV diet.


http://www.naturalnews.com/029531_vi...12_vegan.html#

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Also at anti-science propaganda site Natural News:

http://www.naturalnews.com/046720_thimerosal_autism_CDC_whistleblower.html

Congratulations, you're talking shit on people and your support for this is ridiculously moronic conspiracy websites. Natural News is as reliable as Alex Jones. 

And look at all those pretty pictures of health organization logos! Not a single one says that veganism is more healthy than eating meat or that eating meat is necessarily unhealthy. Show me a statement from any one of those saying that. Not a single one of them castigates eating meat the way you do. They don't support your positions. 

Your "arguments" are a mix of unsupported assertions, appeals to authority that don't even support the assertions, and endless declarations of the moral inferiority of others. Total. Shit.


----------



## PraXitude (Feb 27, 2014)

I dunno... I think he's just an epic troll. I give him a 10/10 for the dedication.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> It's so boring to read this guy post pictures over and over again of rich people


I'm not rich and I can afford to be vegan.



deepelemblues said:


> extremely expensive vegan food


Mmmmm, nope.



deepelemblues said:


> as if that shows that the majority of people could afford that lifestyle.


Where are you from? A hut in some African village?



deepelemblues said:


> Whoop dee shit, how about some pictures of people making $25,000 a year


I don't make that kind of money.



deepelemblues said:


> What a sad little fanatic.


Why didn't you try to rebut my posts that destroyed your long ass post before? Let us remind everyone because people sometimes get lazy to go to precious pages, and hey, maybe you'll find it in your heart to show me how I am wrong. 



Gandhi said:


> deepelemblues said:
> 
> 
> > I have gathered through my research that people against said practice are mostly 1. Narcissistic (this covers a lot of ground). 2. Intolerant/Bigoted. 3. Stupid.
> ...


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584048
> 
> Nowhere in that link is there any support for the extravagant assertions you are making, either connected to that link or in general. Nowhere.
> 
> READ YOUR FUCKING LINKS PLEASE:


Dude that's not my link that's Tater's out-dated link I posted on my own quote. :lel


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Just stating that something is evil does not constitute it as evil. My analogy of Christianity is to not relate veganism to a religion, but that just because one group claims a higher moral ground than you doesn't mean they are right.



> I'm going to live a more moral life when it comes to my stances towards animals and be healthier, whilst you will be less moral towards animals and will be less healthy.
> 
> Simple.


I love this answer. Again me living a less moral life is just an opinion in your eyes, just as you are living a less moral life in the eyes of a Christian.



> Bollocks.
> 
> The standards of "attractive" are mostly based on evolutionary psychology that makes humans select better mates for them to reproduce with, how the fuck do you not know this? Why do you think women for the most part like strong men? Or how men like women with big breasts?
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about


I like how now you get to decide which evolutionary traits we can pick and choose to justify our lifestyle. I mean you have evolved to differentiate the killing of animals is now immoral, but why aren't you nor sympathetic to ugly women with small breasts and flat asses? I mean you should be intelligent enough to know she needs love and procreation as any other woman.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> Please non-respond with more pictures to the simple fact that there have been no decades-long scientific studies covering the majority of a person's lifespan into the vegan diet. Please refuse to acknowledge the animals who have lived well being raised for food because they are inconvenient to your moral crusade.


Nah, pictures are sometimes used as evidence. Nothing wrong with that, they've proven a point to many people reading.

Also veganism is a pretty new recent movement, and already it's showing promise with new scientific studies.

Moral crusade? Explain how your stance is moral, though I have the sneaking suspicion you don't really care about what's moral, making the vegan moral argument with you pointless. It is ridiculously obvious veganism IS the moral stance towards non humans, and I've proven that time and time again whilst you haven't proven a damn thing. Rebut my arguments, do it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> holy fucking shit you just made me debunk the entire fucking article when I thought I was debunking YOU.


:LOL

This made my day. I keep telling you and telling you that I am not going to argue, debate, give rebuttals, etc. with you on this topic but you don't listen. You are so desperate for someone to argue with over this that you take every single post in here, respond to it seriously with a giant post of your own, whether it's a serious response or not. It's like I've been saying all along, you just want someone/ANYone to argue with on this topic so you can feel high and mighty about yourself. Even if I did go through the painstaking effort of proving you wrong about any of this, you wouldn't listen anyways. Your mind is made up on this topic and no amount of facts or evidence to the contrary will ever convince you otherwise. That's why it is pointless to debate this with you.

Hell, all I did was do a quick search and posted the first article I came across. You got so fucking excited because you thought I was finally debating you that you tore into it and didn't even realize until the end that you were arguing with some random article I came across.

That, sir, is goddamned hilarious.



deepelemblues said:


> It's so boring to read this guy post pictures over and over again


Seriously... how many times has he posted those same pictures? 5-6 times now? :lol

You think he thinks if he just keeps posting the same shit over and over again that everyone is going to start buying into it?



deepelemblues said:


> of rich people who pay trainers and cooks and buy loads of expensive vitamins and supplements and extremely expensive vegan food and can afford to physically train the majority of their waking hours if that's what they want to do - as if that shows that the majority of people could afford that lifestyle. Whoop dee shit, how about some pictures of people making $25,000 a year, working a 40 hour week, eating a vegan diet who look like that.
> 
> What a sad little fanatic. He can't even make an argument without misrepresenting what people say and repeatedly insulting them. How persuasive. Now come, there haven't been enough insults about plate pleasure and narcissistic declarations of empathy and pointless dredging up of rich people who can afford to be healthy and vegan and not responding to the arguments people actually make in this thread, Gandhi. Please non-respond with more pictures to the simple fact that there have been no decades-long scientific studies covering the majority of a person's lifespan into the vegan diet. Please refuse to acknowledge the animals who have lived well being raised for food because they are inconvenient to your *moral crusade*. Anyone with half a brain can see through the shoddy nature of your "arguments" which are actually propaganda and not arguments. Propaganda doesn't need to concern itself with complexities or inconvenient facts.


Moral crusade. Yep, that about sums it up. It's never wise to debate someone on a moral crusade.


----------



## PraXitude (Feb 27, 2014)

Daniel Bryan was a vegan, but then he manned up.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

PraXitude said:


> Daniel Bryan was a vegan, but then he manned up.




















..........................................................................

Hey HardKoR, nice going still ignoring most of my arguments & points. Don't worry I'll post them again so you and everybody sees.



HardKoR said:


> Just stating that something is evil does not constitute it as evil. My analogy of Christianity is to not relate veganism to a religion, but that just because one group claims a higher moral ground than you doesn't mean they are right.


Just stating that something is evil without explaining why is asinine. I, however, did not just state non veganism was immoral just because it was. Non veganism empathetic & compassionate, hence moral, your stance isn't hence isn't immoral. Unless you think empathy & compassion aren't really a part of morality? Well do you? Go on, answer me.

Also...



HardKoR said:


> These so called selfish pleasures are what make life worth living.





Gandhi said:


> Go rape someone then.


I find it amusing how you don't respond to a lot of my arguments.

Just more evidence that you either don't know what the fuck morality is, or just don't give a shit.



Tater said:


> This made my day. I keep telling you and telling you that I am not going to argue, debate, give rebuttals, etc. with you on this topic but you don't listen.


Didn't you PM me telling me you'd give me a _"legitimate response"_ as if the first few posts on this thread from you to me with long ass paragraphs weren't you trying to do so with your piss poor arguments.

You're not a very honest person, Tater. You even claimed I was insulting you where in NO post did I flat out insult you personally, NO POST. To you, a post making you look bad is an insult. How sad.



Tater said:


> You are so desperate for someone to argue with over this that you take every single post in here, respond to it seriously with a giant post of your own


Yeah because I have factual arguments, you do not.



Tater said:


> whether it's a serious response or not.


You are the only person who has more than once posted petty garbage humor to me thinking I'll join in your piss poor banter.



Tater said:


> It's like I've been saying all along, you just want someone/ANYone to argue with on this topic so you can feel high and mighty about yourself.


I don't think I'm better than anybody on here, but I am not ignorant of the topic of veganism like you and a lot of the people on this thread are. 

This desperate attempt to try and make people believe I think I'm better than them, is sad. Oh yeah, you didn't read my post to that blue guy on page 21, infact you don't bother reading jackshit because you know facts aren't on your side. 



Tater said:


> Even if I did go through the painstaking effort of proving you wrong about any of this, you wouldn't listen anyways.


Well, like, I'm sorry but you failed at proving anything? Sheesh.



Tater said:


> Your mind is made up on this topic and no amount of facts or evidence to the contrary will ever convince you otherwise.


Not really, I have been begging you for factual arguments this entire thread and you literally kept telling me you didn't have to give rebuttals to my arguments, you then even gave me this _"it's stupid because it's stupid"_ statement. You don't know what the fuck you're arguing about, that's why you only _"recently researched"_.



Tater said:


> That's why it is pointless to debate this with you.


Because I give you arguments, you have no rebuttals, I rebut all your arguments, and you do not defend yourself. 

Cute.



Tater said:


> Seriously... how many times has he posted those same pictures? 5-6 times now?


Amazing how I've posted them several times, and you still either don't understand why I posted them or just don't care about the facts. Sad.



Tater said:


> You think he thinks if he just keeps posting the same shit over and over again that everyone is going to start buying into it?


That's not really it, you see you keep avoiding my arguments like a coward, so I keep posting them again in hopes of you addressing them. It seems that I expect too much of you.



Tater said:


> Moral crusade. Yep, that about sums it up. It's never wise to debate someone on a moral crusade.


Moral crusade? Dude, how is anything I'm saying about the vegan moral argument incorrect? You cannot refute ANYTHING I say when it comes to the moral argument, you just keep running off.

This is ridiculously sad.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Spoiler:  what a meat eater thinks of Tater















Enjoy.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life (Jul 31, 2013)

Morals are an invention of the human mind and change overtime with each society. It's stupid to argue morals and what is right or good/evil. 

Just to stick to the health reasons of why vegan is better.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

CenaBoy4Life said:


> Morals are an invention of the human mind and change overtime with each society. It's stupid to argue morals and what is right or good/evil.
> 
> Just to stick to the health reasons of why vegan is better.


I actually think the health reasons are a little more important, just a little, but the moral reasons are a nice touch that shouldn't be ignored; honestly both arguments are both very strong & important. If only 1 of them was factual, I would have my doubts on veganism & probably not even be vegan, if both of them weren't factual I won't be a vegan without question. In a sense, both arguments complete each other. Why ignore the moral argument? Morality keeps societies stable.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

I didn't respond to that rape comment because it was a stupid fucking comment. I do believe it is immoral and therefore wouldn't rape someone. Meat eating and rape aren't even on the same fucking plate.

You are arguing this point like somehow I will rot in some kind of hell for eating meat. Empathy and compassion part of morality? Sure it is, but what defines empathy and compassion?

em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thē\ 

: the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings

com·pas·sion noun \kəm-ˈpa-shən\ 

: a feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc.

In both these definitions it is referring to humans, with which I have tons of empathy and compassion for. Does that mean I think animals should should be mistreated for no reason? Absolutely not. I am not gonna kick a dog for shits and giggles, but I will kill a chicken for sustenance.

Check out that compassion definition. Your cellphone and internet connection is a selfish pleasure because you could cancel both subscriptions and use that money to help the sick, hungry and troubled in another country.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life (Jul 31, 2013)

Because wanting a good society is just another human desire. It has nothing to do with nature and animals killing each other for food.

If humans are apart of nature as mammals then eating animals is okay.

But what your saying is humans are separate from nature and have been given superior intelligence and should know what the universe deems wrong/right immortal/moral, good/evil and should strive for a star trek utopia. But I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Deck The Halls With Funes Mori (May 13, 2012)

I've thought of trying it out a couple of times.

If nothing else, just go one month a year without eating meat. 

I admire those who live a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle for whatever reason, it can't be easy to live that style when those around you are devouring gigantic, tasty, juicy burgers in front of you.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

We've about reached self-caricature stage with this ad populum bullshit. Hey guys I got some green reps for my opinion (and I have in this thread) that must mean something! Probably that the guy I'm disagreeing with is a loser and should feel bad about himself.



> Nah, pictures are sometimes used as evidence. Nothing wrong with that, they've proven a point to many people reading.
> 
> Also veganism is a pretty new recent movement, and already it's showing promise with new scientific studies.
> 
> Moral crusade? Explain how your stance is moral, though I have the sneaking suspicion you don't really care about what's moral, making the vegan moral argument with you pointless. It is ridiculously obvious veganism IS the moral stance towards non humans, and I've proven that time and time again whilst you haven't proven a damn thing. Rebut my arguments, do it.


* didn't address my points as to the people being pictured and why they might not be good examples in an argument advocating universal veganism
* dodged the issue of scientific studies not showing that veganism is clearly superior to eating meat
* faux-cute remarks about someone not caring about what is moral is implying they are sociopathic and that is juvenile garbage
* I made an argument as to why I believe veganism might not be the most moral or only moral stance towards animals
* I have shown how one of your sources is garbage and you have not provided evidence of health organizations you mention actually supporting your absolutist position
* I don't have to prove that humans evolved to eat meat, it's self-evident. That's about the only factual claim I've made. 
* There's more but I'm tired of this because it's really really stupid

You are the worst kind of arguer. All you do is repeatedly assert things and make accusations towards people. You are the basest kind of demagogue. Saying over and over "I have proved my argument" "You have not proved yours", making repeated challenges to others to "rebut my argument," making repeated accusations of a lack of character on the part of dissenters, are all hallmarks of someone who cannot argue on evidence and reason and prefers to play at the shallow end of the pool, where chest-bumping takes prominence. That's all you've done this thread. Bragged and talked shit. You haven't proven anything. You keep talking about what you've proven. What have you proven? One of your own links said the meat-eating diet in the study provided a slight advantage. How does that fit in with your argument? What have you proven when you make the dumbshit mistake of posting "proof" that doesn't prove your radical position? How does the meat-containing diet proving slightly superior fit in with your 'meat eating is inferior and immoral' stance? How? Prove that, jerk.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

HardKoR said:


> I didn't respond to that rape comment because it was a stupid fucking comment. I do believe it is immoral and therefore wouldn't rape someone. Meat eating and rape aren't even on the same fucking plate.


Do you take pride in your dishonesty?

Rape is selfish pleasure that is immoral, and causes the suffering of an innocent sentient being.
Meat eating is the selfish pleasure that is immoral, and cause suffering of an innocent sentient being.

They are not different, whatsoever. Both are immoral and that isn't my _"opinion"_.



HardKoR said:


> You are arguing this point like somehow I will rot in some kind of hell for eating meat.


I'm as godless as they come, yeah, nice try.



HardKoR said:


> You are arguing this point like somehow I will rot in some kind of hell for eating meat. Empathy and compassion part of morality? Sure it is, but what defines empathy and compassion?
> 
> em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thē\
> 
> ...


First of all you ignored the definitions I posted, and posted your own that you think sound any different to only make them apply to _"humans"_.



Gandhi said:


> _*moral*
> ˈmɒr(ə)l/Submit
> adjective
> 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.
> ...


But alright, let's take a look at your definitions which are literally no different.

someone
ˈsʌmwʌn/Submit
pronoun
1.
an unknown or unspecified person; some person.

Is your dog not an individual? Or is he just a tool not different than a fork? They are sentient beings, _just like you_. Also you not wanting to kick a dog for shits & giggles makes absolutely no sense since you shouldn't give a rat's ass since you don't think empathy & compassion apply to non humans.

And again, you don't kill animals for food. You kill them for plate pleasure. Do you know why I make this statement? Because you do not have a nutritional need for meat and meat is even harmful to your health, and you do not have a survival desperation need for them because you don't live in the god damn jungle or the ice age. You have no reason to eat their flesh other than plate pleasure, meaning you inflict pain on an innocent sentient being for your own shits and giggles in the form of _"plate pleasure"_.

I don't even know why you're trying to argue non veganism isn't a moral stance, a lot of non vegans on this thread have stated veganism is the moral stance. Why can't you be as honest as them? Their honesty is admirable.



HardKoR said:


> Check out that compassion definition. Your cellphone and internet connection is a selfish pleasure because you could cancel both subscriptions and use that money to help the sick, hungry and troubled in another country.


I am not directly causing people to be sick, hungry or trouble in another country. You however are directly causing pain & suffering to innocent sentient beings because of your selfish plate pleasure.



CenaBoy4Life said:


> If humans are apart of nature as mammals then eating animals is okay.


Why do people on this thread keep using the appeal to nature fallacy, please, PLEASE read the previous pages of the thread. Ugh, I doubt anybody will bother.

The appeal to nature fallacy is a dogshit argument meat eaters use that _"since humans are a part of nature as mammals then eating animals is okay"_. You know what else happens in nature? Rape, cannibalism, lawlessness, and almost everything you can think of in the stereotypical cruel jungle. This is why we need morality; so people don't go around raping each other, killing each other, and just flat out destroying themselves. Morality isn't just there to make people feel inner peace, it literally does help for the survival of a stable human society.



CenaBoy4Life said:


> But what your saying is humans are separate from nature and have been given superior intelligence and should know what the universe deems wrong/right immortal/moral, good/evil and should strive for a star trek utopia. But I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.


Star Trek Utopia? I never even implied this to be a possibility, I did however state that we should atleast _"try"_ to keep society as moral as possible. Immorality will always exist, sure, but just because it always will that doesn't mean we should just go _"fuck it, let's just have everyone rape each other"_. This is insanity and you know it.


----------



## Darkness is here (Mar 25, 2014)

If non-veg eaters kill animals and birds.....then vegan also do the same thing to plants.

Btw I kill both


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> Rape is selfish pleasure that is immoral, and causes the suffering of an innocent sentient being.
> Meat eating is the selfish pleasure that is immoral, and cause suffering of an innocent sentient being.
> 
> They are not different, whatsoever.


Tell me you did not just say that. :booka


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> We've about reached self-caricature stage with this ad populum bullshit. Hey guys I got some green reps for my opinion (and I have in this thread) that must mean something! Probably that the guy I'm disagreeing with is a loser and should feel bad about himself.


The reps are mostly just posted to take the piss honestly, the fact that even meat eaters think posts from you & Tater are ridiculously asinine is just a bonus. And I don't think anybody on here is a loser, I don't know anybody here personally and I have nothing against any of you. I'm sure you'd like to believe that I think I'm better than all of you though, because you seem to have a hard on for that idea because it's your last resort when you can't attack my arguments or defend your arguments; so instead you vilify me as a self righteous git. Cheap weak attempt.

However it's amusing how you and a lot of people here who start piss poor arguments run off when I rebut your arguments, give no response whatsoever to my rebuttals let alone my starting arguments.

Your moral arguments against veganism suck.
Your health arguments against veganism suck.

Absolute hilarity from this thread from people who are no different than people who try to justify racism & sexism or smoking & snorting cocaine.



SalisburySuperkick said:


> Tell me you did not just say that. :booka


I did say that.

The rapist wants to satisfy their disgusting perverted urges by hurting a sentient being, the person being raped.
The meat eater wants to satisfy their disgusting addiction for plate pleasure by hurting a sentient being, the person being killed for food.

What's so hard to comprehend? 



Darkness is here said:


> If non-veg eaters kill animals and birds.....then vegan also do the same thing to plants.
> 
> Btw I kill both



Plants are not sentient.

........................

I hope people here notice the theme in this thread, the same arguments from new people who don't know any better.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

I had a nice, respectful and reasonable post typed out for you, Ghandi.

Then I saw you say that rape is the same thing as eating meat.

I just... can't.

:nowords


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Klee said:


> Oh my god, what is this thread.
> 
> Humans are herbivores. We are not carnivores.


Omnivores tho.

Also it's kind of hard to do the whole "we don't have x physical property therefore we can't be" thing because the whole brain thing humans have going on means we're kind of a different story.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

Gandhi said:


> Rape is selfish pleasure that is immoral, and causes the suffering of an innocent sentient being.
> Meat eating is the selfish pleasure that is immoral, and cause suffering of an innocent sentient being.
> 
> They are not different, whatsoever. Both are immoral and that isn't my _"opinion"_.





SalisburySuperkick said:


> Tell me you did not just say that. :booka


Can't wait to rape a nice ribeye steak tonight at dinner. :moyes1


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> I had a nice, respectful and reasonable post typed out for you, Ghandi.
> 
> Then I saw you say that rape is the same thing as eating meat.
> 
> ...


You're missing the point. 

I'm not saying they're both _literally_ the same, I'm saying they're both immoral in similar aspects.

Keep posting your stupid reaction gifs to hide your inability to comprehend anything or argue for anything on this thread.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ;39209625 said:


> Can't wait to rape a nice ribeye steak tonight at dinner. :moyes1


you know that dead slab of meat has feelings and is going to be so psychologically scarred getting cut and chewed up and shit out later

i hope we're all proud of ourselves raping things that can't feel 

you know someone killed that meat so we could rape it

bestial necrophile rapist murderer employers is what we are. just sickening.

and you know what's the worst

the absolute worst

we reintroduce species like the wolf, bring them back out of danger from extinction, so they can go run around and kill _even more animals!_

the fuck.


----------



## Darkness is here (Mar 25, 2014)

@ gandhi



> Plants are not sentient.


suppose I give you anesthetic......then you won't mind if I kill you afterward :draper2 

btw Plants can still hear you when you eat them and who knows we may come to know in the future that plants do actually fell pain.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> I'm not saying they're both _literally_ the same, I'm saying they're both immoral in similar aspects.
> 
> Keep posting your stupid reaction gifs to hide your inability to comprehend anything or argue for anything on this thread.


You said, "They are not different, whatsoever." Maybe you should word yourself better. That's what you told me. :shrug

And we're posting gifs because you fucking said rape and eating meat are the same thing. There is no argument to be had.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ;39209625 said:


> Can't wait to rape a nice ribeye steak tonight at dinner. :moyes1





















ositivity



You guys see now why I have refrained from getting into a point by point debate with him? He just equated eating meat with rape. There is no possible good that can come from arguing with someone who has such insane ideas on the topic.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

I'd have a love affair with that steak. :moyes1


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

I guess I do have compassion and empathy for a dog, but depends on the situation. At this point in time he would make a fine companion, but he would be a useful tool for finding food or if worst came to worst food itself in a post apocalyptic world. I can have compassion and empathy for animals. I think pigs can be pretty damn charming and cute, but I have no problem using them as food. If I didn't live in a tiny ass apartment I'm might even have me a pet potbellied pig. When he died I might even bury him, I could as well eat him, but I would probably choose not to. And I guess you could call that hypocritical but I'm good, at least I would feel good, and no one can take that away from me.

Surviving as a vegan... Well it is possible but it wouldn't make me feel good. I want to give myself, me, a comfortable and happy life, and meat contributes. Make all the absurd correlations between me eating meat and other immoralities. No sweat off my back, those are my opinions. Do I infringe on your rights as a human being by eating meat? If you say I infringe on the animal's rights, then let them stand up and defend them. Absurd comment I know, but tough shit.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Gandhi makes one slip up in wording and now the trolls have the ammunition they need to cast off all of his arguments because "LOLRAEP=/=EATINGMEAT".

This was going so well too.


----------



## Darkness is here (Mar 25, 2014)

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ;39209625 said:


> Can't wait to rape a nice ribeye steak tonight at dinner. :moyes1


:lmao :lmao :lmao

I belive rapists should be stoned to death......and iam also guilty of that ........since I raped a fish 3 times in 12 hours :lol.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

fpalm




Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Gandhi makes one slip up in wording and now the trolls have the ammunition they need to cast off all of his arguments because "LOLRAEP=/=EATINGMEAT".
> 
> This was going so well too.


We're the trolls, but yet he's allowed to insult us ceaselessly because we eat meat? A bit unfair, don't you think?


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

I suppose. I don't really see him insulting anyone though. Maybe I'm overlooking that.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> We're the trolls, but yet he's allowed to insult us ceaselessly because we eat meat? A bit unfair, don't you think?


Where is he insulting you ceaselessly?


Agreed with GA. The rape comparison is unfortunate.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

Saying people are deliberately indulging in violent murder just for personal pleasure is insulting them. 
Saying people don't care about what is right and wrong is insulting them.

Gandhi has done both (mostly the first) dozens of times in this thread. And those are just the two most frequent insults.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> we reintroduce species like the wolf, bring them back out of danger from extinction, so they can go run around and kill _even more animals!_


Dude, I LOVE watching the nature specials with wolves or big cats or some other predator chasing down prey. I am *always* rooting for the predator in those situations. Did the wolves manage to separate a baby buffalo from the herd? Fuck yeah! DINNER! :mark:


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

tater should be warned for his garbage posting itt tbh.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

MrMister said:


> Where is he insulting you ceaselessly?
> 
> 
> Agreed with GA. The rape comparison is unfortunate.





deepelemblues said:


> Saying people are deliberately indulging in violent murder for personal pleasure is insulting them.
> Saying people don't care about what is right and wrong is insulting them.
> 
> Gandhi has done both (mostly the first) dozens of times in this thread. And those are just the two most frequent insults.


:draper2


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

deepelemblues said:


> Saying people are deliberately indulging in violent murder for personal pleasure is insulting them.
> Saying people don't care about what is right and wrong is insulting them.
> 
> Gandhi has done both (mostly the first) dozens of times in this thread. And those are just the two most frequent insults.


Any other actual insults?

meat eaters shouldn't be the crybabies here IMO


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

deepelemblues said:


> Saying people are deliberately indulging in violent murder just for personal pleasure is insulting them.
> Saying people don't care about what is right and wrong is insulting them.
> 
> Gandhi has done both (mostly the first) dozens of times in this thread. And those are just the two most frequent insults.


Hmmm maybe I'm just an odd case, but I would freely admit to both of those as I chowed down a cheeseburger. Because in doing so _I am_ indulging in violent murder, and I don't care what is right or wrong. 

I mean I try not to think about it that way... because it would ruin my cheeseburger.

But I'm big enough to admit it.


----------



## Figure4Leglock (Aug 18, 2010)

i made a deal with critters years ago, i don`t eat their vegs, they don`t drink my booze.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

MrMister said:


> Any other actual insults?


I dunno, after reading "plate pleasure" for the eighth time (somewhere around there) I stopped reading 90% of his posts. But since you put me on the spot there's several references of his to definitions of words, as if people are illiterate dumbfucks, which is pretty insulting. 

Apropos of nothing I don't think he's done anything actually wrong but he's been insulting most of the thread.



> Hmmm maybe I'm just an odd case, but I would freely admit to both of those as I chowed down a cheeseburger. Because in doing so I am indulging in violent murder, and I don't care what is right or wrong.
> 
> I mean I try not to think about it that way... because it would ruin my cheeseburger.
> 
> But I'm big enough to admit it.


The difference is you say you don't care what is right or wrong... But saying you think it isn't wrong is not saying that you don't care what is right or wrong. It's the opposite. Twisting that around into proof of not caring isn't right.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

Meat eaters being the whiny ones

Ghandi using logic 

Tater shitposting

:duck


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> * didn't address my points as to the people being pictured and why they might not be good examples in an argument advocating universal veganism


So when people tell me vegansism isn't healthy for atheletes, and I show them atheletes who are vegan that is not a good argument?

When someone tells me humans have canines because they're omnivores and I show them images of animals who have canines that aren't necessarily omnivores let alone meat eaters that is not a good argument?

Are you purposefully trying to look like you can't understand a thing on this thread?



deepelemblues said:


> * dodged the issue of scientific studies not showing that veganism is clearly superior to eating meat


Actually I didn't, most of what I did was show how meat itself was not healthy, hence since it isn't healthy veganism is clearly the healthier diet since vegan foods are whether you like to admit it or not healthy. So saturated fats from meat are a high risking factor to giving you the leading cause of death worldwide? Oh yeah, vegan diet isn't superior _"at all"_.

Fuck your posts are asinine.



deepelemblues said:


> * faux-cute remarks about someone not caring about what is moral is implying they are sociopathic and that is juvenile garbage


Defend the moral argument for non veganism, why don't you do it? When you tried to, you were destroyed because your arguments are rubbish. I'm not necessarily saying people here are sociopaths tbh, mostly just ignorant like I'm stated several times.



deepelemblues said:


> * I made an argument as to why I believe veganism might not be the most moral or only moral stance towards animals


Yes and it's absolute garbage that I rebutted, easily. So instead of having animals roam free, let's have them live lives of fear & suffering controlled and have their actions forever controlled in slaughter houses until they painfully get killed? What is this garbage?



deepelemblues said:


> * I have shown how one of your sources is garbage and you have not provided evidence of health organizations you mention actually supporting your absolutist position


You actually thought one of Tater's crappy sources were mine, you're clueless.

Also...

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Gettin...10_Article.jsp

http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health...n-A-Z/Fat.aspx

https://www.google.com.kw/url?sa=t&r...iVrZjtWmk3RVCg

http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/p...explained.aspx

http://www.world-heart-federation.or...-factors/diet/

http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientsp.../ucm274590.htm

You're not a very honest person, are you?



deepelemblues said:


> * I don't have to prove that humans evolved to eat meat, it's self-evident. That's about the only factual claim I've made.


....you don't have to prove that humans evolved to eat meat? All your posts are feces with you not backing up a damn thing you're saying.



deepelemblues said:


> * There's more but I'm tired of this because it's really really stupid


Yes your posts are indeed stupid.



deepelemblues said:


> You are the worst kind of arguer.


Irony.



deepelemblues said:


> All you do is repeatedly assert things and make accusations towards people.


More irony, oh my oh my.



deepelemblues said:


> You are the basest kind of demagogue.


So I'm the immoral one? How the hell am I the immoral one? Because I'm arguing for compassion & empathy and a healthy life style? Do you even know what the fuck morality is? Or is it just whatever gets your cock hard?



deepelemblues said:


> Saying over and over "I have proved my argument" "You have not proved yours", making repeated challenges to others to "rebut my argument," making repeated accusations of a lack of character on the part of dissenters, are all hallmarks of someone who cannot argue on evidence and reason and prefers to play at the shallow end of the pool, where chest-bumping takes prominence.


Maybe I do state that I proved my arguments, and that I did rebut your argument, because wait for it.....I did? You're talking about me not arguing with evidence & reason? All I've been doing is citing sources, posting images to prove my point, and actually trying to reason. You on the other hand spew dribble and once you get called out for it, you pretend nothing happened and then get pissy about it.



deepelemblues said:


> You haven't proven anything.


Sheer dishonesty and you know it. If you honestly believe that, you're not very bright.



deepelemblues said:


> You keep talking about what you've proven. What have you proven? One of your own links said the meat-eating diet in the study provided a slight advantage.


It. Wasn't. My. Link.



Gandhi said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584048
> 
> This article doesn't explain why women like Venus Williams who are vegan can become an American professional tennis player who was a former World No. 1 and is ranked World No. 20 in singles as of August 11, 2014. But! But! She's vegan! Yes, what's your point?


When I said _"this article"_ I was talking about the link above my paragraph. Even so it WASN'T a source of mine, it was me replying to one of Tater's piss poor links. However, granted I did post the wrong link, but it was because I mixed up the links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19678968

That is why I mentioned Venus Williams because the link I just posted above which is Tater's stupid link talks about women, granted I did post the wrong link but it's only because of how annoying it is to manage such a long looooong message and I get mixed up sometimes, shit I've sometimes found myself with replies that were meant to other people sent to other people. Oh dear I hear you already "surely he's lying!" Mmmm, yeah, no.



Gandhi said:


> McQueen said:
> 
> 
> > The law of nature clearly dictates Animals will eat other animals, its genetic programming. I can understand why someone would choose otherwise but anyone who thinks it is "wrong" is fooling themselves.
> ...


If you look back at my reply, you'll notice it says _"Repear"_ in what was actually McQueen's post. These posts are fucking long, and it's tiresome to try and edit them all properly quickly to reply to a shitload of people spewing garbage left and right.

So yes when I said _"this article"_ I was talking about the link above my paragraph.



deepelemblues said:


> What have you proven when you make the dumbshit mistake of posting "proof" that doesn't prove your radical position?


Nothing dumber than thinking when I am replying to Tater's link, I am citing one of _"my own links"_.

Hilarious how you say I have a radical position though.



deepelemblues said:


> How does the meat-containing diet proving slightly superior fit in with your 'meat eating is inferior and immoral' stance? How? Prove that, jerk.


Strawman arguments, poor guy.



deepelemblues said:


> you know that dead slab of meat has feelings and is going to be so psychologically scarred getting cut and chewed up and shit out later


You fund the people who commit the killings, don't play dumb.



deepelemblues said:


> bestial necrophile rapist murderer employers is what we are. just sickening.


Yeah keep trying to convince yourself I'm trying to picture you all as wretched scumbag when I'm not.



SalisburySuperkick said:


> You said, "They are not different, whatsoever." Maybe you should word yourself better. That's what you told me. :shrug
> 
> And we're posting gifs because you fucking said rape and eating meat are the same thing. There is no argument to be had.


Yeah I guess I should have worded myself better, by whatsoever I'm just saying they're both immoral. Is all.



SalisburySuperkick said:


> We're the trolls, but yet he's allowed to insult us ceaselessly because we eat meat? A bit unfair, don't you think?


When did I insult any of you personally? I said you are ignorant in this subject and have an immoral stance when it comes to animals.

Quit trying to victimize yourself, you're starting to sound like tumblr feminists.



deepelemblues said:


> Saying people are deliberately indulging in violent murder just for personal pleasure is insulting them.


If that insults you then honestly, I'm not going to apologize, because that's LITERALLY what you're doing when you fund slaughter houses. You are funding slaughter houses that kill innocent sentient beings, out of apathy because of your lust for the taste of flesh.



deepelemblues said:


> Saying people don't care about what is right and wrong is insulting them.


I said you don't care about morality when it comes to the topic of veganism and that in the topic of veganism, you were ignorant hence immoral. I've even stated that I would never call you as a whole horrible human beings and that I even EMPATHIZE with your disapproval because I know veganism is a foreign concept to you that you're so hostile against because of your ignorance.

Jesus Christ, the dishonesty in this thread.



deepelemblues said:


> Gandhi has done both (mostly the first) dozens of times in this thread. And those are just the two most frequent insults.


I didn't insult anyone, you however called me a jerk which literally is an insult.



deepelemblues said:


> jerk.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

neither of you know shit about biology or evolution. plz stahp.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

LUCK said:


> neither of you know shit about biology or evolution. plz stahp.


Bro, we came from Great Apes. We are descendants of the Saiyan race. That's why our hair sticks up in the morning after we wake up.

I just realized this could be taken as anti-evolution. It was just a silly joke because you brought up the subject. I believe in it. Widely accepted theory.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

LUCK said:


> neither of you know shit about biology or evolution. plz stahp.


Ok then, help.


----------



## Dr. Rhett Henley (Mar 25, 2014)

Coach. said:


> Meat eaters being the whiny ones


nonsense, meat eaters are always a happy bunch.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

deepelemblues said:


> But since you put me on the spot there's several references of his to definitions of words, as if people are illiterate dumbfucks, which is pretty insulting.


Oh please...when people tell me _"durrr who decides what is morality, you?"_ I have to remind what the fuck morality means dictionary wise so they don't think I'm talking out of my ass. It isn't my fault some people on this thread think it's perfectly fine to cause senseless pain and suffering, then call bullshit when I tell them its immoral when clearly it IS immoral.



deepelemblues said:


> The difference is you say you don't care what is right or wrong... But saying you think it isn't wrong is not saying that you don't care what is right or wrong. It's the opposite. Twisting that around into proof of not caring isn't right.


A lot of people on here stated they don't think it's wrong, and to argue that not everybody who is immoral of their actions tries to hide their immorality what it is, immorality, is silly. Plenty of people who KNOW they're immoral hide this from people to gain acceptance and social power, if you're not like that I apologize but what you are supporting "slaughter houses" is immoral.

You really need to think this through instead of making assumptions that I think you're the reincarnation of Albert Fish.



HardKoR said:


> I guess I do have compassion and empathy for a dog, but depends on the situation. At this point in time he would make a fine companion, but he would be a useful tool for finding food or if worst came to worst food itself in a post apocalyptic world.


The same can be somewhat argued for a human companion. Not saying in the finding food part; but the companion part whom you use in a sense, as a tool for either emotional bonding or a feeling of safety. I've never known a person with a dog that didn't consider their dog their damn friend, or hell, family.



HardKoR said:


> I can have compassion and empathy for animals.


Good.



HardKoR said:


> I think pigs can be pretty damn charming and cute


Highly irrelevant, but whatever.



HardKoR said:


> but I have no problem using them as food.


Then you have no compassion or empathy for pigs, it's that simple.

It's a _"if I want to eat you, I will, but until then I'm not going to bother with you"_ stance.

Still shows no compassion or empathy, hence immoral.



HardKoR said:


> If I didn't live in a tiny ass apartment I'm might even have me a pet potbellied pig.


Uhm, ok?



HardKoR said:


> When he died I might even bury him, I could as well eat him, but I would probably choose not to.


I'm reading this hoping that's all I keep reading from you.



HardKoR said:


> And I guess you could call that hypocritical but I'm good, at least I would feel good, and no one can take that away from me.


There are men who would never rape women they knew personally, but would rape stranger women. Feeling good about doing something that causes the suffering of an innocent is immoral, I mean liking it isn't the worst part; the worst part is actually proceeding on doing it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for you.

And yeah, I'm glad you atleast admit you're being hypocritical.



HardKoR said:


> Surviving as a vegan... Well it is possible but it wouldn't make me feel good.


Stealing makes you rich and money makes you feel good, doesn't mean it's justified.



HardKoR said:


> I want to give myself, me, a comfortable and happy life, and meat contributes.


So you're basically admitting you only care about yourself? Ok.



HardKoR said:


> Make all the absurd correlations between me eating meat and other immoralities.


They're as absurd as 2 + 2 being 4. Living in denial isn't healthy, just saying.



HardKoR said:


> No sweat off my back, those are my opinions.


Neither your or my opinions matter, facts however do.



HardKoR said:


> Do I infringe on your rights as a human being by eating meat?


I don't just think for myself, mate.



HardKoR said:


> If you say I infringe on the animal's rights, then let them stand up and defend them. Absurd comment I know, but tough shit.


lol

Do people here honestly need more evidence that morality is not the priority of people like HardKoR when it comes to non humans?


----------



## Aizen (Sep 19, 2013)

I have 11 years of being vegan, it has been one of the best decision I've taken in my life so far. Yes is hard in the beginning and at least in my case it was in the first week then it became more easy. And lol to some of the "arguments" people have brought to this thread, 11 years of being vegan and I'm not dying in fact I have a better health than in the past.

@Gandhi huge props to you man, for your decision of being vegan/vegetarian and for puttting in evidence some people here. Also an advice, don't waste more your time with here man, I've have done more with helping/rescuing animals from different places rather than wasting my time with people that can't even argue against true facts.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*Just The Facts*

1: PETA wants everyone to be a vegan.
2: In nature, vegans are called "Herbivores". They are also known as "prey".
3: Vegans are a paradox; most try desprerately to convince themselves that tofu and tempe are as good as meat, while attempting to mimic meat at every turn.
*
Types of Vegans*

*Religious Vegans*

Some religions espouse veganism as a core principle; Some types of Buddhism and Hinduism are a couple of examples. We will leave them alone, because they are long held beliefs, thousands of years old and probably are on to something since both religions are popular in countries with billion+ populations. (Although perhaps cannibalism isn't such a bad idea for them.)


















Most others, however, are Christian splinter groups and cults like the Seventh Day Adventists, who we will call a bunch of twisted quasi-hippy weirdos.










*Ethical Vegans*

This is the other major group of vegans, the on that encompasses PETA and, well PETA. We're pretty sure that if you are white and a vegan, you are automatically in PETA anyway, so why not lump them together? This kind of vegan is typically a self-righteous angry hippy type that wears sandals and has a bumper sticker that says "Enlighten up" while ironically lacking any ability to laugh at anything ever.

Vegans can be recognized by their piercing, birdlike cries of "Meat is murder!", sometimes while waving around sign made of dead tree nailed to more dead tree. Vegans are immune to irony.










While loud and shrill, most vegans are brittle and weak, lacking many of the essential vitamins in their diet like deliciousness and protein. Oddly enough, most vegans do not consider bugs worthy of their protection, citing that they don't believe they feel pain. This absolves them of feeling like hypocritical assholes when they swat flies or kill spiders for being inconvenient.









_Eating Vegans isn't cannibalism since Vegans are fruit._

It is important to realize that this type of vegan exists because they feel bad about hurting animals; implying that if you could prove to them that you killed a cow without it suffering in the slightest (like say, you threw lightning at it), they would gladly hunker down for a big bloody steak. This is actually bullshit and they mostly just like to feel superior, although a good many are over-sentimental crybabies.

Further showing their immunity to irony is the existance of vegan meat products (more below). This shows that while they believe meat is murder, they also agree that it is tasty.










*Ass-Kicking Vegans*

This is an ultra-rare type of vegan; the kind that not only isn't a smelly suck-bag but actually manages to be awesome AND a vegan. There are several examples in the animal kingdom (Bulls, elephants) but in the realm of humankind, all we have found are Shaolin Monks and Christian Bale. We're pretty sure an army of Kung-Fu monks lead by Batman could easily defeat any other army in the world, so we humbly bow our heads to them. (Then watch them kick-ass from the sidelines while eating a burger)









_We can rest easy knowing our Big-Macs are safe thanks to Batman and his Shaolin-Batmonks._

*Fake Meat*

Fake meat is important to consider; while it proves vegans are immune to irony, it also proves that God is not.

*Facon:*

Fake bacon... Strips of dried out tofu-like shit flavored with smoke. They forgot bacon tastes like smoked pig, not just hickory flavored cigarettes.










*Fake Sausage:*

If your first reaction at seeing this is "Jesus, that looks like shit", you are right, it does. It took some fact checking, but sure enough, that is vegan sausage, not a close-up of a turd.









*
Fake Chicken (Nuggets):*

Try getting kids to eat something that tastes like bland chicken broth and is grey...










*Tofu-Dogs:*

They look like hot dogs, but they taste like paste and have the texture of warm play-doh.










*Tofurkey:*

All we can say is... What the fuck? If you serve this at Thanksgiving, your family is allowed to kill and eat you.










SOURCE


Batman and the Batmonks! :mark:

"It took some fact checking, but sure enough, that is vegan sausage, not a close-up of a turd."

:bryanlol


----------



## Aloverssoulz (Jun 28, 2011)

Vegan since '07!


----------



## Japanese Puroresu (Jan 12, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> Well, I am a vegan. First few months as a vegan were kind of hard; but I kept reminding myself why I turned vegan, and I care more about my conscience more than I desire a tasty chicken wing. It's not so bad tbh, I mean I'm not kidding when I tell you I got used to it and it's quite easy getting the food I want. Also on the plus side, I'm way healthier now than I ever was in my entire life.


What the fuck why do you feel guilty for eating a chicken? Eating meat has been a standard of human living since the dawn of man. Why would you feel guilty?

Edit: I've read your responses on how you feel bad about eating a caged animal. That's not your fault. You not eating meat isn't changing anything.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


>


Water is an element and it carries minerals, minerals are nutrients which help regulate many body functions, and act in nerve responses. Water is also a fluid and a carrier of oxygen which our bodies need. The human body is composed of anywhere from 55% to 78% and sometimes more of water depending on the size of the individual. Water is composed of many molecules attracted to one another. Water has 2 hydrogen molecules to every oxygen molecule, which is why it is called H2O. 

Also food is an ambiguous term, it's a shame you're not bright enough to realize that.

Uhm, vegetables are ridiculously important and are not just there to _"decorate"_ food. I eat them all day and it makes me feel extremely healthy. Maybe if you actually considered thinking about the health benefits of lots of veggies in your life, you wouldn't be the unhealthy somewhat chubby man with a beer belly you are today. Yeah, I've seen plenty of images of you Tater.

As for the fruits, same as the veggies.

Smugness? & Self Righteousness? Alright that's it; I'm sick of your shit, just sheer dishonesty.



Gandhi said:


> And no, I don't think non meat eaters are better people than any of you, I just think you're pretty ignorant when it comes to this subject.





Gandhi said:


> Oh look, more accusations that I think I'm superior to you.
> 
> I don't think I'm superior to ANYONE. Not you, not people around me, not even fucking Adolf Hitler. All humans, and I mean ALL humans, cause evil out of nothing but sheer ignorance. And yes, I am talking about those who even think they know what they're doing, when in truth they do not.
> 
> ...





Gandhi said:


> I don't think I'm better than anybody on here, but I am not ignorant of the topic of veganism like you and a lot of the people on this thread are.
> 
> This desperate attempt to try and make people believe I think I'm better than them, is sad. Oh yeah, you didn't read my post to that blue guy on page 21, infact you don't bother reading jackshit because you know facts aren't on your side.





Gandhi said:


> Yeah keep trying to convince yourself I'm trying to picture you all as wretched scumbag when I'm not.





Gandhi said:


> When did I insult any of you personally? I said you are ignorant in this subject and have an immoral stance when it comes to animals.





Gandhi said:


> I said you don't care about morality when it comes to the topic of veganism and that in the topic of veganism, you were ignorant hence immoral. I've even stated that I would never call you as a whole horrible human beings and that I even EMPATHIZE with your disapproval because I know veganism is a foreign concept to you that you're so hostile against because of your ignorance.
> 
> Jesus Christ, the dishonesty in this thread.





Gandhi said:


> A lot of people on here stated they don't think it's wrong, and to argue that not everybody who is immoral of their actions tries to hide their immorality what it is, immorality, is silly. Plenty of people who KNOW they're immoral hide this from people to gain acceptance and social power, if you're not like that I apologize but what you are supporting "slaughter houses" is immoral.
> 
> You really need to think this through instead of making assumptions that I think you're the reincarnation of Albert Fish.


And here's from the reply I sent to your PM to me...



Gandhi said:


> Agree to disagree? If you can't back up your arguments, I'm going to call you out on your immoral stance in that thread whether you like it or not. I don't have a problem with you to begin with, even with your asinine posts on that thread. Whether or not you can actually prove I am wrong or not, I don't have a problem with anybody on this forum. Not HEELKris, not people who are racist against me on this forum, not anybody. My entire family too think I'm a lunatic because of my vegan lifestyle, of course they don't bother listening to me and even those who do refuse to rebut any of my arguments, but I have no bitter feelings for any of them whatsoever so don't worry.


How the fuck are ANY of these posts smug or self righteous? Do you know what the FUCK smug means? Do you have ANY respect for your age? You're 30 fucking something, like holy fucking shit...

I've stated before in this thread I KNOW SMUG non meat eaters exist like Youtubers like Onision, AND I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY ARE. But nooooooo, you just have to DESPERATELY try and vilify me as this horrible person who has a superiority complex even though I don't think I'm better than ADOLF FUCKING HITLER because I realize ALL HUMANS HAVE POTENTIAL TO BE GOOD and that EVERYTHING BAD HUMANS DO TO EACH OTHER IS BECAUSE IS MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF THOUGHT. But nope, Gandhi's a wretched piece of shit who should fuck off right? This is fucking sad.



Tater said:


> 1: PETA wants everyone to be a vegan.


I wish everyone was a vegan too, know why?










Also fuck PETA, they're hypocrites and I didn't support them before & after I turned vegan.



Tater said:


> 2: In nature, vegans are called "Herbivores". They are also known as "prey".


Seriously?












Tater said:


> 3: Vegans are a paradox; most try desprerately to convince themselves that tofu and tempe are as good as meat, while attempting to mimic meat at every turn.


Tofu tastes like shit, a lot of healthy foods I eat taste like shit.

But you know what? If I was told I'd either have to eat tofu or delicious chicken wings my entire life, I'd choose tofu without question. I care about my health, I care about the well being of an innocent creature that wasn't trying to harm me, I care about my conscience. But that obviously makes me a piece of shit too right?



Tater said:


> Religious Vegans
> 
> Some religions espouse veganism as a core principle; Some types of Buddhism and Hinduism are a couple of examples. We will leave them alone, because they are long held beliefs, thousands of years old and probably are on to something since both religions are popular in countries with billion+ populations. (Although perhaps cannibalism isn't such a bad idea for them.)


I am not religious whatsoever.

Also saying vegans should all kill each other?!



Tater said:


> Most others, however, are Christian splinter groups and cults like the Seventh Day Adventists, who we will call a bunch of twisted quasi-hippy weirdos.


I don't care, I'm not christian.



Tater said:


> Ethical Vegans
> 
> This is the other major group of vegans, the on that encompasses PETA and, well PETA. We're pretty sure that if you are white and a vegan, you are automatically in PETA anyway, so why not lump them together? This kind of vegan is typically a self-righteous angry hippy type that wears sandals and has a bumper sticker that says "Enlighten up" while ironically lacking any ability to laugh at anything ever.


Already stated I hated PETA.

I'm not white, and I try not to be self-righteous as much as possible because it's immoral, and lol what's wrong with sandals? Bumper sticker? Yay for stereotypes.

I make jokes on rape, 9/11, my own race, fucking everything. My ex would call me a sand n-word all the time and I laughed. Just because some vegans are ******* from tumblr who desperately try and victimize themselves doesn't mean we all are, I'm not anybody's victim or bitch.



Tater said:


> Vegans can be recognized by their piercing, birdlike cries of "Meat is murder!", sometimes while waving around sign made of dead tree nailed to more dead tree. Vegans are immune to irony.


Vegans realize trees are not sentient, whilst you happen to not give a shit about facts the second they conflict with your selfish desires.



Tater said:


>


What.



Tater said:


> While loud and shrill, most vegans are brittle and weak, lacking many of the essential vitamins in their diet like deliciousness and protein. Oddly enough, most vegans do not consider bugs worthy of their protection, citing that they don't believe they feel pain. This absolves them of feeling like hypocritical assholes when they swat flies or kill spiders for being inconvenient.












Also...



Gandhi said:


> Let's just say I'm the kind of guy that doesn't swat flies, and instead tries to get them to leave; you'll probably make fun of me but I actually do sometimes spend like 20 minutes straight trying to get a fly to fuck off. I once got into an actual fight with a bunch of stupid kids when I was like 8 or something because they were pouring Pepsi in an ant hole. I'v been this way even before I turned vegan.


Nice try. (sarcasm)



Tater said:


> Eating Vegans isn't cannibalism since Vegans are fruit.


Yeah ok now I know you're back to trying to troll. 

That's what you resort to EVERYTIME I prove my arguments against you, you try and ignore them, maybe vilify me, then post garbage _"banter"_.



Tater said:


> It is important to realize that this type of vegan exists because they feel bad about hurting animals; implying that if you could prove to them that you killed a cow without it suffering in the slightest (like say, you threw lightning at it), they would gladly hunker down for a big bloody steak. This is actually bullshit and they mostly just like to feel superior, although a good many are over-sentimental crybabies.


Oh this again...



Gandhi said:


> Suppose humans did reach a point where all factory farms treated animals "humanely" when killing them for food and even had them die peaceful deaths, just a quick painless poke behind the neck and BAM they're dead and ready to become a tasty chicken mcnugget. Keep imagining here, would you still be okay with this to humans? I mean, what if I'm having someone just enjoy their time with me then BAM BAM with just one painless poke behind the neck they're dead and it's time to have some human yummy yum yums. Notice how I stated "have them enjoy their time with me" before I killed them? Because that's what you're arguing for with non humans, deception to kill a being that didn't know any better ignoring all empathy & compassion knowing that being does not want to die and not caring. It would be a different story if you're walking down the street and a cow just dies randomly and you decide to eat it, it's the killing and usage of animals as our property that I'm against.


Why did you not address this?



Tater said:


> Further showing their immunity to irony is the existance of vegan meat products (more below). This shows that while they believe meat is murder, they also agree that it is tasty.


Yes I am a vegan who before turning vegan enjoyed the taste of flesh, if you force me to eat a chicken wing now I would still think it's delicious. What's your point?



Tater said:


> Ass-Kicking Vegans
> 
> This is an ultra-rare type of vegan; the kind that not only isn't a smelly suck-bag but actually manages to be awesome AND a vegan. There are several examples in the animal kingdom (Bulls, elephants) but in the realm of humankind, all we have found are Shaolin Monks and Christian Bale. We're pretty sure an army of Kung-Fu monks lead by Batman could easily defeat any other army in the world, so we humbly bow our heads to them. (Then watch them kick-ass from the sidelines while eating a burger)


I find it bizarre how you think you're funny.



Tater said:


> Fake Meat
> 
> Fake meat is important to consider; while it proves vegans are immune to irony, it also proves that God is not.












Oh and Tater...



Spoiler:  another non vegan


----------



## Firallon (Feb 25, 2012)

I'm a vegetarian myself, planning to shift towards veganism in the future. I don't think it's right to breed and subsequently slaughter millions of animals for the sole purpose of eating them when there's plenty of other choices.

"It's natural" is simply a terrible argument. Look up "appeal to nature fallacy".


----------



## Japanese Puroresu (Jan 12, 2013)

Firallon said:


> I'm a vegetarian myself, planning to shift towards veganism in the future. I don't think it's right to breed and subsequently slaughter millions of animals for the sole purpose of eating them when there's plenty of other choices.
> 
> "It's natural" is simply a terrible argument. Look up "appeal to nature fallacy".


Then explain to me why we have teeth for tearing? Biology says eat meat.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Japanese Puroresu said:


> Then explain to me why we have teeth for tearing? Biology says eat meat.


Oh, this shit again...



PraXitude said:


> God gave us canine-like teeth for a reason. We are omnivores.





Gandhi said:


> You just had to bring up religion right? Fuck's sake...
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

I've had like 3 people today tell me to buy 'Free-Range' chicken if I feel so bad about eating chicken.

lol


----------



## Rick Sanchez (Dec 30, 2012)

Hell no. I love meat and I refuse to do go more than a day without it. 

And animals only exist for killing and eating, otherwise God wouldn't have made them taste so good.


----------



## D3athstr0ke (Feb 14, 2014)

No, I am a man.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Element Zero said:


> No, I am a man.

























Yeah as silly as some Disney movies were, they still had some education in them; that's why they're children's movies, to make sure kids don't grow up horribly. Fuck I'm glad I'm a 90s kid, fucking love everything about Tarzan.

I don't know if you were being with that moronic _"I'm a man"_ post, but I responded anyway.

And let me remind the men who think they're so macho what the truth about strength is. Only a person who is at a state of weakness will forever hide in a hard shell and try to make others think they're nothing but a hard shell, whilst only a person who is at a state of strength will admit they too can become weak, by weak of course I am talking about being emotional which is linked to your conscience which for some bizarre reason men think is a taboo. Men not being allowed to express their emotions from most situations in society is why most people think men are emotionless assholes. I'm not saying men should become cry baby bitches, but you're still human.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ghandi, that's twice now that you've went to great lengths to debunk me when I was simply posting an article. That's just too goddamned funny.

BTW, Batman and the Batmonks?










Fucking. Awesome. :mark:


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Ghandi, that's twice now that you've went to great lengths to debunk me when I was simply posting an article. That's just too goddamned funny.
> 
> BTW, Batman and the Batmonks?
> 
> ...


Why are you posting such stupid articles then?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

SalisburySuperkick said:


> Bro, we came from Great Apes. We are descendants of the Saiyan race. That's why our hair sticks up in the morning after we wake up.


ufukinwotm8?

ITT: about four or five people whose posts I can read without wanting to tear my eyes out (ty magic, mister, ga etc.)

Seriously, if you're content eating meat (I am), then give it a rest with the argument. Someone calls you evil for it? Why do you give a shit? (fwiw I'd say you're less moral than someone who doesn't eat meat, with regards to that topic).

Also, the overreaction to the rape/eating meat comparison is hilarious. As if your horror over it diminishes the point being made.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Goku said:


> Seriously, if you're content eating meat (I am), then give it a rest with the argument. Someone calls you evil for it? Why do you give a shit? (fwiw I'd say you're less moral than someone who doesn't eat meat, with regards to that topic).


Edit: BULLY: drunken nonsense

:side:

Edit: Fuck it, I won't hide that I thought Goku was saying people who say meat eaters are evil are less moral than they think they are because I was reading too fast. I then replied saying I'm literally the only one on this thread really defending veganism, and I don't think meat eaters are evil; infact, I don't believe humans can be "purely evil" to begin with. All of my family eat meat, and I love them to death and think they're wonderful people and would never even think they're mostly immoral because they're not.

Also mentioned saying I thought Goku was aware of this, but was mostly speaking of gits like Onision from Youtube, that argument actually stands because vegans who do go with an arrogant smug stance when talking about veganism forget one simple truth: arrogance & smugness lead to ignorance which lead to immorality. Then I said how I was just replying to Goku to make sure people see this post because a lot of people are lazy and don't read previous pages, so they post atrocious arguments against me.

Then I re-read his post, and went, fook. :I


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Gandhi said:


> Water is an element and it carries minerals, minerals are nutrients which help regulate many body functions, and act in nerve responses. Water is also a fluid and a carrier of oxygen which our bodies need. The human body is composed of anywhere from 55% to 78% and sometimes more of water depending on the size of the individual. Water is composed of many molecules attracted to one another. Water has 2 hydrogen molecules to every oxygen molecule, which is why it is called H2O.


I don't want to get into the whole vegan/vegetarian and meat debate thats going on in here. As far as i'm concerned as long as you're not out trying to convert people to a particular mindset, or shoving your opinion down people's throats then eat what you want. Within reason obviously, make sure you get all your nutrients and whatnot. What i will get involved in is the basic lack of understanding about human physiology, chemistry and science shit like this. So let me go through this;

Your body is not 78% water. Unless of course you're an infant (0-1 years old), and you won't get more depending on your size. Water content is pretty variable but on average its closer to the 60% mark, and those who are leaner have a higher % of water per mass than those who are obese. 

Water isn't comprised of many molecules attracted to each other. As you mentioned its 2 hydrogen atoms, 1 oxygen. Thats not that much. Compare it to the molecular structure of glucose which off the top of my head is something like C6H12O6. Anyway that 1 oxygen that is in water has fuck all to do with being a carrier of oxygen. The main oxygen carrying componant of your body is haemoglobin which is found in red blood cells. Your body doesn't oxygenate off the water that is in your body. You breathe in, blood is pumped via capillaries to your alevoli (perfusion), which in a basic sense will dump off the CO2 that is a natural byproduct of aerobic glycolysis, bring in the O2 from the air you breathed into your lungs and head via your pulmonary vein to your left atrium to your left ventricle, out into your body. The role water plays in that is merely keeping your blood volume up so you have pressure in your system to pump the blood around. It doesn't get broken down into 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen for you to oxygenate yourself. You get oxygen from ventilating, and you get the majority of minerals (calcium, sodium, potassium to mention a few important ones) from your diet.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Rush said:


> I don't want to get into the whole vegan/vegetarian and meat debate thats going on in here. As far as i'm concerned as long as you're not out trying to convert people to a particular mindset, or shoving your opinion down people's throats then eat what you want.


I don't want to force anyone though, seriously I don't.



Gandhi said:


> Before I say anything about veganism, Repear, let me say I am against forcing anyone become vegan. I do not agree with parents forcing their children to be vegan, forcing someone to be a vegan is as horrid as forcing someone to be a muslim/atheist or whatever.


Forcing anyone to do anything isn't going to make them learn and is in a way immoral in most people because of instead of trying to reason with non vegans, you take away a non vegan's free will which would make me a hypocrite.

A vegan calling non meat eaters pieces of shit, or that they deserve to die, or any of the radical vegan radicals who bomb zoos killing humans to free animals are like a pacifist who bombs people for being violent; it's that asinine.



Rush said:


> Your body is not 78% water. Unless of course you're an infant (0-1 years old), and you won't get more depending on your size. Water content is pretty variable but on average its closer to the 60% mark, and those who are leaner have a higher % of water per mass than those who are obese.
> 
> Water isn't comprised of many molecules attracted to each other. As you mentioned its 2 hydrogen atoms, 1 oxygen. Thats not that much. Compare it to the molecular structure of glucose which off the top of my head is something like C6H12O6. Anyway that 1 oxygen that is in water has fuck all to do with being a carrier of oxygen. The main oxygen carrying componant of your body is haemoglobin which is found in red blood cells. Your body doesn't oxygenate off the water that is in your body. You breathe in, blood is pumped via capillaries to your alevoli (perfusion), which in a basic sense will dump off the CO2 that is a natural byproduct of aerobic glycolysis, bring in the O2 from the air you breathed into your lungs and head via your pulmonary vein to your left atrium to your left ventricle, out into your body. The role water plays in that is merely keeping your blood volume up so you have pressure in your system to pump the blood around. It doesn't get broken down into 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen for you to oxygenate yourself. You get oxygen from ventilating, and you get the majority of minerals (calcium, sodium, potassium to mention a few important ones) from your diet.


Well, thanks for sharing your knowledge with me I guess. 

However my point still stands that food is an ambiguous term, so ah well.


----------



## Japanese Puroresu (Jan 12, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> Oh, this shit again...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hippos eat zebras and meat, boars eat their young just like pigs, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfBC73-Xwg

Monkey's occasionally eat meat. So what's your point now?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Okay, Ghandi, I am going to try my absolute best here to give you a respectful response as to why I have taken the position I have in this thread. I am not trolling you. I am not fucking with you, *at all*. I am simply sharing some honest opinions about the topic at hand.

The reason why I refuse to debate any of your points with you is because of your stance on morality when it comes to eating meat. You think you have the right to tell other people they are being immoral because they eat meat. In MY opinion, that is entirely up to the person eating the meat. You do not have the right to tell anyone but yourself that eating meat is immoral.

The idea that eating meat is immoral is a belief system. You have known me long enough to know how I feel about belief systems. I'll be the first person standing beside you if someone tries to repress your beliefs. I'll also be the first person in line to tell you to fuck off if you try to push your beliefs on me. I genuinely don't think you realize it but that is how you are coming across; like you're trying to push your beliefs on other people. When they disagree with you, you talk down to them. It's not name calling but it is insulting nonetheless. I don't think you are maliciously doing it but in your self-righteousness of being vegan, that's how you're coming across, whether you mean to or not.

As for my part, I was mocking your beliefs about eating meat being immoral. I should not have done that and I apologize. It is absolutely your right to believe eating meat is immoral. It is also my right to not believe that. I can be respectful of your beliefs. Can you be respectful of mine?

When you repped me, you suggested that I watch the documentary called Earthlings and you said it changed your life. I admittedly have not watched it nor do I intend to but I have seen enough footage over the years to know that big time meat processing slaughterhouses are an abomination to mankind. We agree 100% on that point. Unlike you, that does not make me want to stop eating meat. What it does is make me pissed off at the humans who treat the animals that way. It makes me not want to eat the meat that comes from those kinds of processing plants. I already try my best to buy both my meat and produce locally. One, for the local economy. Two, because I know this stuff came from small, local Hawai'ian farms where the animals are treated better. The produce is more organic too, which I consider a bonus. 

I would have liked to had a reasonable discussion with you about eating which veggies to be more healthy. I've been trying to improve my diet by eating more healthily. Had you not been so sanctimonious about the whole topic, I think I could have learned some valuable information from you. You've clearly researched the veggie topics more than I have.

Even if I would have agreed with you on most of what you have been saying about eating more healthy and not buying meat that comes from the big slaughterhouses, it still all would have come back to the morality thing. Ever since I moved to Hawai'i, fish, especially raw fish, has become a good part of my diet. Eating fish is a lot more healthy for you than many of the meat products that are out there. When I get the fish from the local markets, I know these fish were caught by the local fisherman and brought directly to the market. They did not live caged, unpleasant lives. They were not tortured by humans in slaughterhouses. Everything about catching and eating fish is 100% natural. Had I told you that I went to a pure vegan diet with the exception of eating fish, you still would have called me an immoral murderer because of your feelings on the morality of eating meat.

THAT's why I was not willing to get into a point by point debate with you on any of this stuff. Even if I would have put hours and days of effort into the research and proved you wrong on every single point you have made, in the end, you would have played the morality trump card and still proclaimed yourself right because you believe eating meat is immoral.

That's where we have to agree to disagree. The morality of eating meat is a belief system. Facts have nothing to do with it. I believe one thing. You believe another. If you can show a little respect for other people's beliefs on the topic, instead of comparing them to murderers and rapists, then we might actually get some good discussion going in here. If you want to take this post and break it down into 30 quotes and continue talking down to me because I do not share your beliefs, then...

:draper2

This is my olive branch. What you do with it is up to you.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Japanese Puroresu said:


> Hippos eat zebras and meat, boars eat their young just like pigs, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfBC73-Xwg
> 
> Monkey's occasionally eat meat. So what's your point now?


Hippos are herbivores, give any herbivore enough desperation and they will eat anything. Oh, I'd like to remind you that Hippos live in parts of Africa where droughts happen and desperation might happen? Notice how I say might? Because this is considered bizarre, because hippos don't normally just go out hunting zebras and arguing otherwise is bloody idiotic.

As for the boars, that's not just another boar I posted. Perhaps I should have worded myself better. 










This is the Javelina. It's a furry cousin of the pig, primarily herbivorous.

Also again, I should have worded myself better.










This here is the Gelada Baboon which eats grass & insects, not just another _"monkey"_.

Also why did you ignore the fact that camels have such teeth? What about the deer I posted? What about my point about gorillas having teeth you thought were for tearing flesh and eating it? Did it ever occur to you that a lot of these animals have such teeth for self defense?

That's my fucking point now.


----------



## maggots2323 (Aug 29, 2014)

Gandhi pretty much nailed it :clap


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Tater said:


> If you can show a little respect for other people's beliefs on the topic, instead of comparing them to murderers and rapists


This is based on you thinking murder and rape is immoral, ja? Like it's your opinion, ja?

like...


----------



## PraXitude (Feb 27, 2014)

Tater said:


> *Just The Facts*
> 
> 1: PETA wants everyone to be a vegan.
> 2: In nature, vegans are called "Herbivores". They are also known as "prey".
> ...


GOAT post on the subject. :mark: :yum:


----------



## Impolite (Jun 29, 2014)

Part of the fun of being a meat eater is knowing that what your eating was once alive. Every time I sit down for a meal I get a smug sense of self satisfaction that I am a part of a species that dominates the planet so much, that I can eat have nearly any other animal on this earth killed cooked and put on a plate for me to eat provided I have the money for it. It's a brilliant feeling that I recommend to all vegans.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

> *Wolf down
> Wolf down
> T-bone steak
> Wolf down
> ...



*Morrissey*


----------



## Impolite (Jun 29, 2014)

I drink coffee to reduce my chances of prostate cancer, so Morrissey can go fuck himself.

Okay, I actually drink coffee because it makes me feel great, but the prostate cancer bit is a nice bonus if it means I never have to pay a doctor to stick his finger up my ass.


----------



## AWESOM-O (Jun 18, 2005)

All vegetarians are cunts, especially those that do it for religious reasons.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Rush said:


> I don't want to get into the whole vegan/vegetarian and meat debate thats going on in here. As far as i'm concerned as long as you're not out trying to convert people to a particular mindset, or shoving your opinion down people's throats then eat what you want. Within reason obviously, make sure you get all your nutrients and whatnot. What i will get involved in is the basic lack of understanding about human physiology, chemistry and science shit like this. So let me go through this;
> 
> Your body is not 78% water. Unless of course you're an infant (0-1 years old), and you won't get more depending on your size. Water content is pretty variable but on average its closer to the 60% mark, and those who are leaner have a higher % of water per mass than those who are obese.
> 
> Water isn't comprised of many molecules attracted to each other. As you mentioned its 2 hydrogen atoms, 1 oxygen. Thats not that much. Compare it to the molecular structure of glucose which off the top of my head is something like C6H12O6. Anyway that 1 oxygen that is in water has fuck all to do with being a carrier of oxygen. The main oxygen carrying componant of your body is haemoglobin which is found in red blood cells. Your body doesn't oxygenate off the water that is in your body. You breathe in, blood is pumped via capillaries to your alevoli (perfusion), which in a basic sense will dump off the CO2 that is a natural byproduct of aerobic glycolysis, bring in the O2 from the air you breathed into your lungs and head via your pulmonary vein to your left atrium to your left ventricle, out into your body. The role water plays in that is merely keeping your blood volume up so you have pressure in your system to pump the blood around. It doesn't get broken down into 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen for you to oxygenate yourself. You get oxygen from ventilating, and you get the majority of minerals (calcium, sodium, potassium to mention a few important ones) from your diet.


^difference between KNOWING YOUR SHIT and googling stuff and thinking that means you know your shit. learn the difference folks.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Okay, Ghandi, I am going to try my absolute best here to give you a respectful response as to why I have taken the position I have in this thread. I am not trolling you. I am not fucking with you, at all. I am simply sharing some honest opinions about the topic at hand.


You first attempts to try and argue against me failed miserably so you started trying to _"cool things down"_ thinking by posting stupid unfunny posts you will make me join in on your banter. When I sit here and watch people "_you included_" circle jerk about calling me a self righteous ****** for advocating for a movement based on empathy & compassion and spreading disinformation, I'm not going to fucking join in your stupid banter which wasn't even remotely funny.

And for the love of every god & goddess, I don't give a shit about your opinion.



Tater said:


> The reason why I refuse to debate any of your points with you is because of your stance on morality when it comes to eating meat. You think you have the right to tell other people they are being immoral because they eat meat. In MY opinion, that is entirely up to the person eating the meat. You do not have the right to tell anyone but yourself that eating meat is immoral.


Mhm, right; since I've got your attention now because you have nowhere to hide because almost everyone who has seen our lovely conversations now can see how throughout this entire thread your posts were nothing but lies, cowardice & stupidity; address the following posts of mine and tell me how non veganism is a moral stance.



Gandhi said:


> _*moral*
> ˈmɒr(ə)l/Submit
> adjective
> 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.
> ...





Gandhi said:


> Any form of violence that causes suffering that is done for selfish pleasure rather than defending oneself is immoral, period.
> 
> malevolent
> məˈlɛv(ə)l(ə)nt/Submit
> ...


Now after reading these actual dictionary definitions so you don't bullshit me about what morality, empathy, compassion, malevolence, and evil are; explain to me how you can sum up all of those definitions and make it seem like your stance is the moral one. Pretend this is like maths. Sum them all up, and justify your stance as a moral one. You can't, it's like trying to make 2 + 2 equal anything that isn't 4. Yes, it's that absurd. 

It is up to the damn dictionary meaning to determine what is moral and what isn't just like it's the damn dictionary that tells you the meaning of the word vegan means a person who does not consume animal products, it isn't your bloody opinion which for the millionth time DOES NOT MATTER IN THIS CONVERSATION that determines anything. Nobody's opinion matters with serious discussions like these, only facts matter. Why can't you comprehend that?



Tater said:


> The idea that eating meat is immoral is a belief system.


Yes, the belief in literal dictionary meanings.



Tater said:


> You have known me long enough to know how I feel about belief systems.


I'm quite aware how you sometimes act like the generic atheist who hates all religions.



Tater said:


> I'll be the first person standing beside you if someone tries to repress your beliefs.


That sounds nice and all, but this has nothing to do with me.



Tater said:


> I'll also be the first person in line to tell you to fuck off if you try to push your beliefs on me.


Suppose someone believes water isn't wet, will you be pushing your beliefs by simply telling them their belief is fucking retarded and by then backing up your statements? Will you become a douchebag then like "_I am being_"? Non vegan stance is not moral, period. Quit bullshitting yourself saying it is. It's embarrassing how A LOT of non vegans who came on this thread also agree with me, whilst you are still in denial all to enjoy some flesh. Sounds ridiculously desperate to me.



Tater said:


> I genuinely don't think you realize it but that is how you are coming across; like you're trying to push your beliefs on other people.


No, I'm not. You're just sensitive about your beliefs being criticized. Ironic how you dish out so much shit against theists but can't handle the heat yourself.

I've stated before on this thread I am AGAINST forcing anyone following my lifestyle; however I will point out the immorality of your lifestyle and I don't care how you feel about it because when I say your lifestyle is immoral I'm not stating my opinion I'm stating a fact and as you've seen I can back it up. 



Tater said:


> When they disagree with you, you talk down to them.





Gandhi said:


> I don't think I'm better than anybody on here, but I am not ignorant of the topic of veganism like you and a lot of the people on this thread are.


You can't tell the difference between someone pointing out your faults, and someone talking down on you. And you know what? From a moral stance towards animals I hold the moral position, not you.



Tater said:


> It's not name calling but it is insulting nonetheless.


You're like a thief who feels insulted when someone says them stealing is immoral. And for fuck's sake I'm not trying to personally insult you, because the analogy is fucking accurate.

You causing the senseless suffering of innocent sentient beings and promoting the idea that animals can be enslaved by humankind all for your plate pleasure, is immoral, end of story.

Here I'll make you feel better; in my younger years I used to steal skittles from stores sometimes and when I'd do so I knew I was being immoral, I didn't bullshit myself and convince myself what I was doing was fine because of _"my opinion"_.



Tater said:


> I don't think you are maliciously doing it


Ironic how you speak of malicious actions yet you support the enslavement of sentient beings & slaughter of them all for you selfish pleasure. What was that post of yours saying? Vegans don't know what irony is? Mhm, sure we don't.

Also self righteous? Did you read ANY of my posts to your stupid accusation of me being self righteous in my last long reply to you? You don't know what the fuck self righteousness is. 



Tater said:


> that's how you're coming across


It's not my fault your deduction skills seem to have failed you once you started responding to me on this thread.



Tater said:


> As for my part, I was mocking your beliefs about eating meat being immoral. I should not have done that and I apologize.


Do you even know why you're apologizing? Or are you just apologizing just so I could soften up to you and not call you out on your bullshit? Because that's not going to happen.



Tater said:


> It is absolutely your right to believe eating meat is immoral.


Eating meat itself isn't immoral; it is supporting the usage of any individual being used as property and killing said individual for selfish reasons rather than self defense disregarding that this individual is a sentient creature that doesn't want to suffer and feels almost every emotion you feel from sorrow to happiness.



Tater said:


> It is also my right to not believe that.


Yes it is, and it is my right to call you out on your bullshit when the topic arises.



Tater said:


> I can be respectful of your beliefs. Can you be respectful of mine?


No.

This is the same answer I give to a racist stance, sexist stance, or any stance that is immoral.



Tater said:


> When you repped me, you suggested that I watch the documentary called Earthlings and you said it changed your life. I admittedly have not watched it nor do I intend to but I have seen enough footage over the years to know that big time meat processing slaughterhouses are an abomination to mankind. We agree 100% on that point.


Earthlings is made up of 5 sections, only 1 section of the documentary is about the consumption of animals for food. The documentary not only just talks about the usage of animals, but speaks of the relationship between humans & non humans and in a sense focuses on a philosophical stance towards the relationship.

Watch the documentary. 



Tater said:


> Unlike you, that does not make me want to stop eating meat. What it does is make me pissed off at the humans who treat the animals that way. It makes me not want to eat the meat that comes from those kinds of processing plants. I already try my best to buy both my meat and produce locally. One, for the local economy. Two, because I know this stuff came from small, local Hawai'ian farms where the animals are treated better. The produce is more organic too, which I consider a bonus.


Oh, this piss poor argument again.



Gandhi said:


> Suppose humans did reach a point where all factory farms treated animals "humanely" when killing them for food and even had them die peaceful deaths, just a quick painless poke behind the neck and BAM they're dead and ready to become a tasty chicken mcnugget. Keep imagining here, would you still be okay with this to humans? I mean, what if I'm having someone just enjoy their time with me then BAM BAM with just one painless poke behind the neck they're dead and it's time to have some human yummy yum yums. Notice how I stated "have them enjoy their time with me" before I killed them? Because that's what you're arguing for with non humans, deception to kill a being that didn't know any better ignoring all empathy & compassion knowing that being does not want to die and not caring. It would be a different story if you're walking down the street and a cow just dies randomly and you decide to eat it, it's the killing and usage of animals as our property that I'm against.


Tater, you have ignored this post of mine several times; for once, stop being a coward and address it.



Tater said:


> I would have liked to had a reasonable discussion with you about eating which veggies to be more healthy. I've been trying to improve my diet by eating more healthily. Had you not been so sanctimonious about the whole topic, I think I could have learned some valuable information from you. You've clearly researched the veggie topics more than I have.


Jogging rocks.

And I'm sorry if you feel "offended", but when it comes to our stances with non humans I am more moral and I'm not going to sugar coat it just because you feel offended. I simply don't care, because I am attacking your immoral stance. I'm not even outright insulting you personally, yet you're so sensitive about everything it's ridiculous. 

Tell me, Tater; when you & Reaper or others here start talking shit about veganism or say vegans are all self righteous attention whoring idiotic pricks, when you post images of pieces of corpses of individuals who were murdered with a smug look on your face with that _"yeah fuck you feeling sorry for them you ******"_ notion, do you not think I'd be offended? Well guess what, despite all that garbage you posted I was not offended slightly. Other than not giving a fuck what people online for the most part think, other than realizing you do not know how ignorant you are, instead of getting upset like a child I just provided factual arguments to make you learn so you don't make such stupid comments ever again.



Tater said:


> Even if I would have agreed with you on most of what you have been saying about eating more healthy and not buying meat that comes from the big slaughterhouses, it still all would have come back to the morality thing.


It baffles me how your main issue is the moral argument, like holy fuck the moral argument for veganism is ALL UP IN YOUR FACE on how it's a strong one. In the past, it was the HEALTH vegan argument that was questionable, and it is what held back a lot of people from turning to veganism. Science however has shown that veganism is, the right choice health wise. When I first argued against vegans, when I first became a vegan, all I'd mostly think about was the health argument because it's the health argument that's not as obvious as the moral one. The health argument requires that you'd do well enough research, maybe some of it is obvious but research is still needed. However the moral argument is just, RIDICULOUSLY accurate just by fucking common sense. People have always known the moral argument was factual, from philosophers like Arthur Schopenhaur & Abu Al Maari to scientists like Nikola Tesla & Albert Einstein.



Tater said:


> Ever since I moved to Hawai'i, fish, especially raw fish, has become a good part of my diet. Eating fish is a lot more healthy for you than many of the meat products that are out there. When I get the fish from the local markets, I know these fish were caught by the local fisherman and brought directly to the market. They did not live caged, unpleasant lives. They were not tortured by humans in slaughterhouses. Everything about catching and eating fish is 100% natural. Had I told you that I went to a pure vegan diet with the exception of eating fish, you still would have called me an immoral murderer because of your feelings on the morality of eating meat.


I've lived in Kuwait, with my home right next to the sea, would eat fish a lot and enjoy it. Yes I know fish is a far less shittier option than meat, it doesn't change that fishing is immoral. Fish are sentient beings, so the argument with sentience is still there with them. Secondly; yeah those fish weren't caged _"no shit?"_, but that doesn't change that it is immoral to go fishing. They weren't caged or tortured by humans and had pleasant lives? _"pleasant lives part is debatable but whatever"_, yeah those fish had it pretty good UNTIL YOU FUCKED IT UP FOR THEM. "I'm Nemo! Yay look at me! Oh wait, what's this? Food just waiting for me? I guess I'll go-OH GOD IT'S A TRAP OH MY FUCKING GOD THE BLOOD OH FUCKING FUCK FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK". How compassionate of fishermen, right?



Tater said:


> THAT's why I was not willing to get into a point by point debate with you on any of this stuff. Even if I would have put hours and days of effort into the research and proved you wrong on every single point you have made, in the end, you would have played the morality trump card and still proclaimed yourself right because you believe eating meat is immoral.


So you were lying when you said you wouldn't address my arguments because the topic was too retarded? So all this crap from you was because you care about OPINIONS more than facts? My god...



Tater said:


> That's where we have to agree to disagree.





Gandhi said:


> and I'm sorry if you don't like it but I'm not going to just go "well I agree to disagree". People mostly say that when they differ in opinions, I don't speak in opinions when I speak of my vegan stance. If you think I do, go ahead and prove I do on that thread. I'm looking forward to it.





Tater said:


> The morality of eating meat is a belief system.


So you also tell yourself that the morality of raping someone is a belief system based on faith or some shit? Fuck.



Tater said:


> Facts have nothing to do with it.


Yes they do.



Tater said:


> I believe one thing. You believe another.


We're not in that cesspool people call the WWE Section.



Tater said:


> If you can show a little respect for other people's beliefs on the topic, instead of comparing them to murderers and rapists, then we might actually get some good discussion going in here.


Non veganism is like being ok with rape.
Non veganism is like being ok with murder.
Non veganism is like being ok with theft.
Non veganism is like being ok with racism.
Non veganism is like being ok with sexism.

Instead of asking _"why would you say such things?"_ and even prove me wrong on why my analogies are rubbish, you just dismiss them because of your outrage.

When I was a kid and a muslim, when I first saw people online talk shit against islam I was outraged. However unlike you, I tried to prove to them that they misunderstood islam and instead of just dismissing them because of my outrage, I took their arguments into account and tried to prove them wrong. Why aren't you doing this? Show some backbone.

"_It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it_" - *Aristotle*



Tater said:


> If you want to take this post and break it down into 30 quotes and continue talking down to me because I do not share your beliefs, then...


I have a strong feeling you won't read any of this. That, or you'll read it and cower then just pretend you never read it. I am very certain you won't bother addressing any of my statements, because from this thread you've shown nothing but cowardice from facts that go against your own feelings and mostly selfishness.



Tater said:


> What you do with it is up to you.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Welp, I tried. There is no reasonable conversation to be had if that's how he wants to be about it.


----------



## AWESOM-O (Jun 18, 2005)

Get a life, Gandhi.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

Tater said:


> Welp, I tried. There is no reasonable conversation to be had if that's how he wants to be about it.



You didn't try. Tail between your legs as you back away in defeat. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

AWESOM-O said:


> Get a life that is similar to mine and act like me, Gandhi.


No.


----------



## AWESOM-O (Jun 18, 2005)

Come to the light, we have ribs.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)




----------



## AWESOM-O (Jun 18, 2005)




----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Very original.


----------



## AWESOM-O (Jun 18, 2005)

Awesome right?

A pic from a few days ago at my fave restaurant..


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

*Amazing logic being used to debate now <3*


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Coach. said:


> *Amazing logic being used to debate now <3*


He's told me to go commit suicide before, you shouldn't expect much from him because of the state he is in now.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

AWESOM-O said:


>


Quoted for AWESOME-O-ness.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Welp, I tried. There is no reasonable conversation to be had if that's how he wants to be about it.





Coach. said:


> You didn't try. Tail between your legs as you back away in defeat.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Tater said:


> I can be respectful of your beliefs. Can you be respectful of mine?





Gandhi said:


> No.





Gandhi said:


> I don't give a shit about your opinion.





Gandhi said:


> Non veganism is like being ok with rape.
> Non veganism is like being ok with murder.
> Non veganism is like being ok with theft.
> Non veganism is like being ok with racism.
> Non veganism is like being ok with sexism.


This basically tells you all you need to know about Ghandi.

He cannot be respectful of any belief but his own. 

He does not give a shit about anyone else's opinions but his own (unless, of course, they agree with him). 

And, apparently, since 90+% of the population on this planet is not vegan, he thinks the vast majority of humans are the equivalent of rapists, murderers, thieves, racists and sexists.

I rest my case.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

OK so I've discovered where this all stems from. Sentiocentricism, yes a real word. Essentially are all animals sentient?

sen·tient
adjective \ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt, ˈsen-tē-ənt\

: able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste

by this definition yes. But does being sentient remove an animal from being a humans source of food? This is where I believe it is subjective.

I am going to use actual logic here. Starting with the statement "Humans are sentient" a true statement by all accounts. The next statement is "Humans are animals" again, something we can all agree on. The next statement "Animals are sentient" if we agree on the definition posted above, then yes also a true statement. Now from the information about we can now add one more statement "Animals are human" this is a false statement as we all know. Now what differentiates humans from other animals? Intelligence for one, and I would subjectively add being "self aware"

You could argue that a cow is aware of his own existence, and hell, I would even agree. Now does the cow aware of why he exists? No. This is where I believe animals and humans differ. You could argue that we actually don't know why we exist and it puts us on the same level as the cow. However this in of itself is what makes us different. We can contemplate our existence and even make up reasons, whether it be religious or something as simple as trying to be the best person you can be before you die. A cow can not contemplate this. All it knows is, when it's hungry it should eat, if something seems dangerous it should run, if my udders hurt the farmer/machine will make it feel better. It has no idea that it has "rights." It's a dumb animal.

Now me saying it's a dumb animal can be taking against me and label me a speciest. Specifically saying that because I am smarter than they are I give myself domain over them. Essentially putting me on the same level as racists and sexists. The difference between specieism, racism, and sexism, is asserting domain over another human in racism and sexism. In those cases the slave and the woman can stand up for themselves and are aware of their rights and are capable as any other human being. Using the excuse of rape as a guilty pleasure is asinine because it is sexist, placing domain over another human being. Specieism is a bullshit term to try to make someone feel bad about what they do by comparing it to race and gender.

Now I am full aware that what I've stated still will not absolve me of my meat eating sins in your eyes. I have all along in my arguments believed that it is all opinion. Even me deciding that eating meat is ok is my opinion. People will agree that I am right and people are going to agree I am wrong, and I will leave it at that.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

That was well stated, HardKor.



HardKoR said:


> I have all along in my arguments believed that it is all opinion. Even me deciding that eating meat is ok is my opinion. People will agree that I am right and people are going to agree I am wrong, and I will leave it at that.


This seems to be a major point of contention in this thread; what is fact and what is opinion. Even if I were to disagree with your opinion, I would still believe you have the right to your own opinion on the topic.

I think we all could benefit from being a little bit more open-minded towards other people's opinions.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I really want some ribs right now.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

MrMister said:


> I really want some ribs right now.


Ask and ye shall receive.


----------



## Japanese Puroresu (Jan 12, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> Hippos are herbivores, give any herbivore enough desperation and they will eat anything. Oh, I'd like to remind you that Hippos live in parts of Africa where droughts happen and desperation might happen? Notice how I say might? Because this is considered bizarre, because hippos don't normally just go out hunting zebras and arguing otherwise is bloody idiotic.
> 
> As for the boars, that's not just another boar I posted. Perhaps I should have worded myself better.
> 
> ...


You're just refusing to acknowledge that these animals eat meat, so you're just telling me NO NO NO YOURE WRONG when you don't have a real rebuttal. Also if these animals eat bug, aren't bugs meat-like? Living creature that eats and breathes.

Edit: You're also very angry about the subject so I suggest that this problem has way more to do with you than me.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> This basically tells you all you need to know about Ghandi.
> 
> He cannot be respectful of any belief but his own.
> 
> ...


What exactly is your point? 

I've stated before that in discussions like these neither my opinion nor yours matters. Facts however, do. If your opinion is that the moon doesn't exist, yeah well, your opinion is nothing but baby dribble. Maybe you should stop acting like a child, and actually bother thinking of factual arguments than just think of your opinions based on your bias.

Also I'd argue that you're being _very_ disrespectful with your dishonesty and the way you ignore all of my arguments. You've lied and avoided my arguments on this thread several times, it's just sad to watch knowing you're like 30 years old.

I do not think non vegans are the same as rapists or murders, lying again Tater? I said your stance, is as immoral as the stances of a rapist or a racist etc. I would argue that people who do the actual murders of these animals though, are in a sense similar to rapists & murders. Yeah you'll probably cry _"that's so insulting!"_, well, it isn't my fault it's an accurate analogy that's true. Prove me otherwise and I'll take it back immediately.

Also there used to be a time where the majority of people in in nations agreed with slavery to build their empires, there used to be a time where the majority of people believed homosexuals must be killed, I could go on and on. Hell, right now the majority of people believe in Christianity; you know, that religion you despise ever so much. Your _"majority rules"_ example is garbage, and can be used against you by a Christian going _"well the majority of the world are Christian, that must mean we're right whilst you're wrong"_.

My god, it's like you haven't learned a god damn thing from this thread. George Carlin would be ashamed of you mate.



HardKoR said:


> OK so I've discovered where this all stems from. Sentiocentricism, yes a real word. Essentially are all animals sentient?


Mhm.



HardKoR said:


> by this definition yes. But does being sentient remove an animal from being a humans source of food? This is where I believe it is subjective.


Hmmm?



HardKoR said:


> I am going to use actual logic here. Starting with the statement "Humans are sentient" a true statement by all accounts. The next statement is "Humans are animals" again, something we can all agree on. The next statement "Animals are sentient" if we agree on the definition posted above, then yes also a true statement.


Lovely.



HardKoR said:


> Now from the information about we can now add one more statement "Animals are human" this is a false statement as we all know. Now what differentiates humans from other animals? Intelligence for one, and I would subjectively add being "self aware"


No shit animals are not human? God this is stupid. 

Animals are not self aware? They're not as intelligent as you and I are; but that statement of yours is doubtful and even if it's true, it's irrelevant.



HardKoR said:


> You could argue that a cow is aware of his own existence


Cows are female.



HardKoR said:


> You could argue that a cow is aware of his own existence, and hell, I would even agree.


Where is this going?



HardKoR said:


> Now does the cow aware of why he exists? No.


Why do you exist? What is the point of this never ending cycle we call life? What the fuck do you know? Do you know everything? You don't. Life is just as a mystery to humans as it is to a dog in the street.



HardKoR said:


> This is where I believe animals and humans differ.


They differ in a lot of things, and it doesn't matter because they're both sentient.



HardKoR said:


> You could argue that we actually don't know why we exist and it puts us on the same level as the cow.


Yes, I can.



HardKoR said:


> However this in of itself is what makes us different.


Do you speak monkey? What have the monkeys told you? I thought they weren't allowed to speak to humans. Please teach me monkey.



HardKoR said:


> We can contemplate our existence and even make up reasons


First part of that sentence is of intelligence from humans, second part is of ignorance from humans.



HardKoR said:


> whether it be religious or something as simple as trying to be the best person you can be before you die.


Ok.



HardKoR said:


> A cow can not contemplate this. All it knows is, when it's hungry it should eat, if something seems dangerous it should run, if my udders hurt the farmer/machine will make it feel better. It has no idea that it has "rights.


You don't really know that for sure "I'd argue that you're hilariously wrong even"[/I], and if by some wild chance you're right it still doesn't matter because you're not giving that sentient being who feels, moral treatment.



HardKoR said:


> It's a dumb animal.


So are we, only we're just far less dumb.



HardKoR said:


> Now me saying it's a dumb animal can be taking against me and label me a speciest.


Nope, it is a dumb animal. Dumber than both of us, that is fact and I'm not going to argue against it.



HardKoR said:


> Specifically saying that because I am smarter than they are I give myself domain over them. Essentially putting me on the same level as racists and sexists. The difference between specieism, racism, and sexism, is asserting domain over another human in racism and sexism. In those cases the slave and the woman can stand up for themselves and are aware of their rights and are capable as any other human being.


Let us assume you are right for a moment for the sake of argument...

_"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"_ - *Johann Wolfgang von Goethe*

This was not a statement made specifically for non humans, what does that tell you?

What of the brainwashed? What of the ones with mental cripples? What of people run by governments or rulers who have caused them live & die in a false sense of fairness that might have been pressured by things like fear? I could go on and on. 

Now, just to prove to you know that animals do in fact know when they're being fucked over...






I believe I don't have to tell you of the disgusting treatment humans give to animals in circuses which they call _"discipline"_, as if the animals choose to live life as your clowns and act in such an unnatural way. Hell forget the animals wanting to act natural part, I could show you many ways animals fight back because they know they're being treated horribly, plenty of animals get caged and fed yet STILL want to run off to freedom.






The dog sure doesn't know it's being treated horribly now does it? Yeah, it isn't telling that guy to fuck off by any means right? I've seen shit like this many times, not online but right in front of me. Animals don't want anybody fucking them over; because you know, they're sentient?



HardKoR said:


> Using the excuse of rape as a guilty pleasure is asinine because it is sexist, placing domain over another human being. Specieism is a bullshit term to try to make someone feel bad about what they do by comparing it to race and gender.


So what have we learned today?

- Mistreatment of fellow sentient beings, whether or not they know they're being mistreated, is still immoral.
- Sentient beings for the most part know when they're being mistreated, you don't have to be a genius to know when someone slapping you around for no good reason isn't fair

Specieism is as bullshit as sexism & racism are. Both the disapproval of sexism & racism are disapprovals based on a human being feeling empathy & compassion to people being immorally treated. This, can apply to animals easily. Hell, let's think of a woman who is in an abusive relationship and does not realize she has the short end of the stick. Yes you could argue that you could make her realize she's being unfairly treated; but the same can be argued for animals by showing animals the goodies of freedom or if they do wish to stay with you, empathy & compassion. Animals are dumb but they are not as dumb as most people think they are.



HardKoR said:


> Now I am full aware that what I've stated still will not absolve me of my meat eating sins in your eyes.


You are being immoral, and most if not all of your posts regarding this thread just oozz of desperation to try and make yourself ignore your conscience so you could enjoy that burger with the false illusion that you have a clear conscience.

It is not just me of who thinks you are being immoral; it is everyone who agrees with morality in a way, you as well.



HardKoR said:


> I have all along in my arguments believed that it is all opinion. Even me deciding that eating meat is ok is my opinion.


Our opinions don't matter when facts are present.



HardKoR said:


> People will agree that I am right and people are going to agree I am wrong, and I will leave it at that.


These posts of yours are ridiculously easy to rebut tbh, like I'm not trying to call you stupid _"I'm sure when it comes to other topics that aren't veganism, you're alright"_ but seriously your arguments on this thread are just amazingly dumb.



Tater said:


> That was well stated, HardKor.


I lol'd, like shit man are you going to join anybody's bandwagon once they write a few paragraphs against me? This is pathetic.



Tater said:


> This seems to be a major point of contention in this thread; what is fact and what is opinion. Even if I were to disagree with your opinion, I would still believe you have the right to your own opinion on the topic.
> 
> I think we all could benefit from being a little bit more open-minded towards other people's opinions.


Mate don't talk about open mindedness when you lie on this thread countless times and avoid arguments left & right because you don't want to address any of them because of your blatant ignorance.

Now, I believe 2 + 2 = 6. Be open minded enough of my statement or else you're a horrible person who is self righteous. 



Japanese Puroresu said:


> You're just refusing to acknowledge that these animals eat meat, so you're just telling me NO NO NO YOURE WRONG when you don't have a real rebuttal. Also if these animals eat bug, aren't bugs meat-like? Living creature that eats and breathes.
> 
> Edit: You're also very angry about the subject so I suggest that this problem has way more to do with you than me.


lol



Gandhi said:


> The only non vegan foods gorillas eat are termites & ants,





Gandhi said:


> The ONLY primates who primarily eat grass, and on rare occasion do eat insects. This is gorillas all over again.





Gandhi said:


> Hippos are herbivores, give any herbivore enough desperation and they will eat anything.


So tell me friend, where am I refusing to acknowledge that these animals eat meat?

Also, why are you ignoring the camel example? Perhaps it's because you know your argument is bullshit and you're just going to pretend I never showed what camels chew with.



Japanese Puroresu said:


> when you don't have a real rebuttal.














Japanese Puroresu said:


> Edit: You're also very angry about the subject so I suggest that this problem has way more to do with you than me.


I wouldn't say I'm angry, but I am passionate about speaking against injustice. Same way I am passionate about speaking against racism or sexism or anything immoral. I'd say I sense that you're the one quite irritated that I'm calling you out on your bullshit.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ghandi, I really do hope you come to your senses one of these days and realize just how sanctimonious you have acted towards anyone in this thread who dares disagree with you. You're giving all the good vegans a bad name.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

tater you acted like an idiot all thread. you do realize that, right?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Maybe. But I do have one thing in common with Ghandi. We are both smart enough to be insulting as all fuck without breaking the forum rules and resorting to name calling. You, however...



Here's a little advice for you, Luck. There is an old forum saying that goes, "attack the post, not the poster". You can call someone's opinion retarded all day long but you cross the line of breaking forum rules the moment you call them a retard. Or, for an example, an idiot.


----------



## Lethal Evans (Dec 18, 2013)

Have I ever tried been an indy, hipster loser defying mother nature and the circle of life?

No. I eat meat.




(totes banterin', you're free to eat what you want but if some people give me shit because I eat meat and they don't, then I'll rip into their diet choices for being so bitchy.)


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Tater said:


> Maybe. But I do have one thing in common with Ghandi. We are both smart enough to be insulting as all fuck without breaking the forum rules and resorting to name calling. You, however...


you broke the rules with all your spam posting and trolling and baiting in this thread that wasnt needed whatsoever. nice try though.

i also never called you an idiot, i said you acted like one. 


gandhi needs to just stop at this point as the argument has gone for too long and it's just at mindless bickering at this point.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

LUCK said:


> gandhi needs to just stop at this point


I'd actually like to test the theory that Ghandi will *never* stop and this thread will go on forever as long as people keep giving him posts to respond to. I came to the conclusion long ago that he HAS to have the last word in this thread. He responds to posts that aren't even directed at him. There is no possible way he lets this thread die until he beats everyone into submission that has an opposing opinion.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

4 days meat free. Longest ive probably ever went. Its funny cause I dont crave it at all and could totally adapt to this long term if I wanted.

I have admittedly been a bit groggy these past few days. But I think my body is just confused as fuck. Lets see if I can make it a full week without animal flesh.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

have you substituted it in any way? if not :lmao @ you, ga.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Have i done wut?


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Ive been eating cheerios, protein powder and fruit


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

*Ghandi: I keep chickens (four of them) in my garden they have a large enclosure and were rescued from a battery farm. They are loved and cared for, would a vegan deem it wrong to eat their eggs? *


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


> I'd actually like to test the theory that Ghandi will *never* stop and this thread will go on forever as long as people keep giving him posts to respond to. I came to the conclusion long ago that he HAS to have the last word in this thread. He responds to posts that aren't even directed at him. There is no possible way he lets this thread die until he beats everyone into submission that has an opposing opinion.


He hasn't beaten me into submission. I walked out of this thread because he and I disagree on definitions of sentience, whether or not sentience is a valid reason for not killing animals in the first place and also whether killing sentient animals for food is immoral or not (I think it isn't immoral). And of course in order to justify his plant eating he needs to refuse to acknowledge that plant sentience is reality which he keeps doing. I think plants are sentient based on my understanding of sentience, he thinks they are not for reasons he made clear based on his understanding of sentience. Hard to see common ground here. 

His entire argument is based on forcing people to accept all of his subjective definitions while rejecting their own - and in my case that isn't happening. Too subjective to form any sort of agreement. There's also no middle ground when there's disagreement at the core. 

Hence no point in dragging this any farther.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Agreed with Magic, Gandhi should stop. Tater and the others who are persisting with the argument for meat eating being MORAL (as or more than vegetarianism/veganism) have been made to look utterly foolish. Nobody's being swayed because nobody wants to listen to how they _might be_ wrong.



Tater said:


> Maybe. But I do have one thing in common with Ghandi. We are both smart enough to be insulting as all fuck without breaking the forum rules and resorting to name calling. You, however...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a little advice for you, Luck. There is an old forum saying that goes, "attack the post, not the poster". You can call someone's opinion retarded all day long but you cross the line of breaking forum rules the moment you call them a retard. Or, for an example, an idiot.


:lmao, what even is this


----------



## LateTrain27 (Jul 23, 2013)

Nah, I love Fried Chicken, Steak and Hamburgers too much to even consider going vegetarian or vegan.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Gandhi said:


> Secondly; yeah those fish weren't caged _"no shit?"_, but that doesn't change that it is immoral to go fishing.


How exactly do you figure that its immoral to go fishing?



> Non veganism is like being ok with rape.
> Non veganism is like being ok with murder.
> Non veganism is like being ok with theft.
> Non veganism is like being ok with racism.
> Non veganism is like being ok with sexism.


Fairly amused at this line of thought. Aside from the fact that the definition for rape is regarding sexual intercourse, if you take the base analogy that its using force to impose your will on another then its still bullshit unless you think war, bullying, fighting etc is analogous to rape as well. Rape is rape, don't equate it to the killing of animals as there is no comparison to be made. 

Again if you go strictly by the definition then murder only applies to a human. Unlawful killing is a human construct. Animals everywhere kill to get food, to survive. Their body has one objective, keep on working. If you feel that due to our greater intelligence that we should be removed from the survival of the fittest, cycle of life rules that govern the animal kingdom then you must accept that murder can only be between one human and another. 

Again i'll keep going back to the definition of each thing. Theft is "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". You're not taking any property away from an animal when you kill it. Its life it not a property. 

You can't have racism across different organisms. Racism is predjudice based on race (obviously). I get the base analogy is regarding the feelings of superiority. However if we go back up to the point about murder, and survival of the fittest. By removing humans from that base animal instinct/law of nature due to their advanced intelligence then you're acknowledging that humans are superior hence that particular vegan way of thinking is very predjudiced. See how easy it is to flip this stuff around? 

Sexism, see above paragraph except substitute predjudice based on race to predjudice based on gender. 



LUCK said:


> ^difference between KNOWING YOUR SHIT and googling stuff and thinking that means you know your shit. learn the difference folks.


:brie


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Goku said:


> Agreed with Magic, Gandhi should stop. Tater and the others who are persisting with the argument for meat eating being MORAL (as or more than vegetarianism/veganism) have been made to look utterly foolish. Nobody's being swayed because nobody wants to listen to how they _might be_ wrong.


Thats because the argument for morality shouldn't be based on meat/no meat but rather on how the animal was caught/killed. Keeping slaughterhouses, batteries of chickens, animals locked up in cages etc is pretty immoral. Going out and killing your own animals to cook and eat. Pretty moral.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Rush said:


> Thats because the argument for morality shouldn't be based on meat/no meat but rather on how the animal was caught/killed. Keeping slaughterhouses, batteries of chickens, animals locked up in cages etc is pretty immoral. Going out and killing your own animals to cook and eat. Pretty moral.


I don't see slaughterhouses as immoral. I don't see eating meat that was purely bred to be eaten as immoral. Right now I can't think of a single situation where eating something else can be considered moral or immoral at all and haven't been sufficiently convinced otherwise.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Rush said:


> Thats because the argument for morality shouldn't be based on meat/no meat but rather on how the animal was caught/killed. Keeping slaughterhouses, batteries of chickens, animals locked up in cages etc is pretty immoral. Going out and killing your own animals to cook and eat. Pretty moral.


I agree with you, m8 (maybe only partly, due to my hesitation to label things as moral/immoral). I guess it's the whole breeding animals for eating bit of the food chain that sets things apart. It's not natural at all (in what normally qualifies as natural; all products of human construct can be argued as natural) so that isn't justifiable based on the animals eat other animals logic.

Although, killing for food altogether can in purer terms be argued as immoral too. Our assertions (on perhaps non-scientific matters such as morality) comes from a presumption of knowing and thinking our knowing accounts for something. Nothing wrong with having strong convictions, but resultant deeds/words from those convictions may wound/annoy.


----------



## AWESOM-O (Jun 18, 2005)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Ive been eating cheerios, protein powder and fruit


Sounds awful, i'd rather live in Syria than put up with that.

Go and have a hotdog, it will make you a much happier person.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Ghandi, I really do hope you come to your senses one of these days and realize just how sanctimonious you have acted towards anyone in this thread who dares disagree with you. You're giving all the good vegans a bad name.


> Gandhi says he's not better than anyone, is not morally superior overall to anyone but is in this one stance
> Gandhi is still sanctimonious

lol

Good vegans to you are only vegans for health reasons, bad vegans to you are the ones who call you out on your immorality when the topic of veganism arises. Don't sugar coat it.



MrEvans said:


> defying mother nature and the circle of life?


You are defying nature by still consuming meat in a time where you do not need meat for health or survival. This is why meat is unhealthy; this is why meat foods_"especially red meat"_ in general are very risky to eat because they can cause cardiovascular disease which is the leading cause of death worldwide, just a coincidence that the majority of people worldwide eat meat I suppose correct? Oh and, obesity isn't a nice touch.

Let's not forget about the deforestation done to get more plant foods to feed billions of animals who only have one job, get killed for consumption. Waste plant foods on billions on animals, kill them, waste more plant foods, rinse & repeat. Oh and let's not forget about the billions of fish taken from oceans, let's not forget how humanity doing this is negatively affecting our oceans hence the entire god damn planet. When the planet is ruined, human lives will be ruined. 

It can be argued that nature is telling you to fuck off.



LUCK said:


> gandhi needs to just stop at this point as the argument has gone for too long and it's just at mindless bickering at this point.


I think my problem is that I expect too much of people who are blatantly ignorant in this thread, I mean shit...



Tater said:


> I'd actually like to test the theory that Ghandi will never stop and this thread will go on forever as long as people keep giving him posts to respond to. I came to the conclusion long ago that he HAS to have the last word in this thread. He responds to posts that aren't even directed at him. There is no possible way he lets this thread die until he beats everyone into submission that has an opposing opinion.


Thread wouldn't be this long if you weren't so stubborn & dishonest. I don't give a rat's ass about the last word.

Why wouldn't I respond to posts that aren't directed at me? I'm attacking posts, not posters. This isn't "_about me_", it never was. This is about me defending the vegan stance stance, and attacking the non vegan one so people like you don't spread disinformation like you always do on threads on this site about veganism.

Also, I'm just going to show people more evidence here Tater loves being a hypocrite on this thread.



Tater said:


> Here's a little advice for you, Luck. There is an old forum saying that goes, "attack the post, not the poster".


That's funny, if you seem to know this then why are you oblivious to why I post my posts to people? How "_consistent_" of you in thought and you're on the same bloody thread.



Reaper said:


> His entire argument is based on forcing people to accept all of his subjective definitions while rejecting their own - and in my case that isn't happening. Too subjective to form any sort of agreement. There's also no middle ground when there's disagreement at the core.


Not my fault the dictionary doesn't seem to come hand in hand with what you call sentient or moral. I know a lot of people on this thread like this idea that _"morality is heavily subjective"_ but that's not exactly it. Morality doesn't necessarily _"change"_, people just realize certain things were not moral to begin with. You see racism & sexism are not moral today, and they WEREN'T moral in the past either. People in the past were mostly racist and thought their racist stance was moral, when in fact it was not. Two things that are essential with morality are empathy & compassion, that of which racism doesn't have.






And before you tell me this has nothing to do with what I'm saying...






Dawkins one of the many scientists who says there is no good reason not to give up meat other than sheer laziness & ignorance.






I'm sure you know Sam Harris, shame the guy couldn't keep up with a balanced vegan diet (unfortunately tried vegetarianism which is flawed) and got lazy. Though atleast he doesn't bullshit himself on the ethical stance towards eating meat.

The more ignorant people are, the more they aren't aware of how morality works. This is why animals _"who are dumber than humans obviously"_ seem more savage, because they have primitive forms of their own _"morality"_. Intelligence & intellect bring logic & reason, logic & reason bring morality, morality brings empathy & compassion.

Also I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, I'm just pointing out the flaws to your argument. Whether or not you admit how you're not in the right here, whilst it is unfortunate you are being stubborn about this topic it's not my place to make you do anything. However I will point out how what you state, is disinformation. What you do with your life after I point out how flawed your arguments are, is completely up to you.



Ghetto Anthony said:


> Have i done wut?


A person can eat nothing but homemade french fries and be a vegan. Do you really think this person will be healthy for the most part? No. Let that sink in.

Get a balanced vegan diet, get all of the nutrient requirements you need from vegan sources of all kinds. It will take time to get used to it, I never said veganism was easy at first. This is probably the biggest reason why I understand people being lazy about it, it's somewhat hard at first for some people depending on their knowledge on how they can use the vegan diet.

For a simple start of help...

http://www.youtube.com/user/Freelea 

It isn't much, but her channel did help me greatly. Though I highly suggest you don't just seek information for a healthy balanced vegan diet just from Freelee. Also yeah, Freelee's sometimes an attention whore in her videos about her body but hey whaddya gonna do when you got a smoking body like that? 

But seriously, get as much don't just get information from her. In fact I'd suggest getting advice from people who are even more professional in the subject than Freelee is.



Coach. said:


> *Ghandi: I keep chickens (four of them) in my garden they have a large enclosure and were rescued from a battery farm. They are loved and cared for, would a vegan deem it wrong to eat their eggs? *







I don't think I need to explain anything, I'm sure you get what I'm trying to tell you.



Goku said:


> Agreed with Magic, Gandhi should stop. Tater and the others who are persisting with the argument for meat eating being MORAL (as or more than vegetarianism/veganism) have been made to look utterly foolish. *Nobody's being swayed because nobody wants to listen to how they might be wrong.*


So they're close minded? Yeah I figured that out like 20 pages ago, although even that can crumble. Perhaps not from me on this thread, maybe when they're sitting alone and just randomly think about it. I mean when I first left islam despite being VERY religious; I didn't leave after arguing with someone about it, I left after I just thought about it alone. I can't make them do anything, whatever happens depends on if they are willing to _think_ & take action.

"_It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it_" - *Aristotle*

Why don't people understand this?



Rush said:


> How exactly do you figure that its immoral to go fishing?


Fishing isn't compassionate or empathetic towards the fish themselves. If aliens were to enjoy our flesh, it still wouldn't be moral for them to just hunt us down for a tasty human burger.



Rush said:


> Fairly amused at this line of thought. Aside from the fact that the definition for rape is regarding sexual intercourse, if you take the base analogy that its using force to impose your will on another then its still bullshit unless you think war, bullying, fighting etc is analogous to rape as well. Rape is rape, don't equate it to the killing of animals as there is no comparison to be made.


I'm not saying they're literally the same, obviously they aren't. I'm saying they're both immoral, and both cause senseless suffering because of the lack of empathy & compassion a person has whilst doing those things. Bullying is immoral, fighting anybody in cases where you're not fighting for self defense is immoral, it's that simple. So yes, there is a comparison to be made.



Rush said:


> Again if you go strictly by the definition then murder only applies to a human. Unlawful killing is a human construct. Animals everywhere kill to get food, to survive. Their body has one objective, keep on working. If you feel that due to our greater intelligence that we should be removed from the survival of the fittest, cycle of life rules that govern the animal kingdom then you must accept that murder can only be between one human and another.


Granted the original definition of murder only applies to humans. However there is something I don't understand; why are the words slaughter, kill, butcher, and exterminate ALL literal synonyms to the word murder dictionary wise? Perhaps it's because they're similar? Only that murder is only in a legal sense mostly only applied to the killing of humans? I digress, as even if the word murder only applies to humans it's irrelevant.

I don't feel that we should be removed from the survival of the fittest competition, survival of the fittest doesn't mean we have to lose our morality ESPECIALLY when people like you and I don't really need meat to survive. Also, quit with the appeal to nature fallacy bullshit. Just because something happens in nature doesn't mean it's moral or justified, it just means it's natural. Rape & cannibalism and all sorts of immoral behavior goes in the _"animal kingdom"_. Your intelligence & intellect, bring in logic & reason which bring morality, which finally bring in empathy & compassion. Like I've said several times; this isn't just some hippie mumbo jumbo, if we want to survive more we must create a safe community. A safe community must be stable, it must forever try to be moral. Suppose I dropped my wallet and didn't notice, and somebody gave it to me the second I dropped it. Do you really think I wouldn't feel safer about the community I live in? This is why we need empathy & compassion which clearly are moral.



Rush said:


> Again i'll keep going back to the definition of each thing. Theft is "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". You're not taking any property away from an animal when you kill it. Its life it not a property.


That's fine, because even if you do it doesn't matter. Strawman arguments aren't usually effective. 

Killing animals is not literally like theft, I never said that. However they're both still immoral. When you steal something from someone, you are not being empathetic or compassionate to them. You are causing them suffering by taking something they value, and when you kill an animal you are not being empathetic or compassionate to the animal. The animal, does not want to die and values it's life. I would argue that killing a lion that is about to attack you is completely justified because you are acting in self defense for survival, however killing an animal that is just minding it's own business is not in self defense hence is by no means empathetic or compassionate hence it isn't moral. 



Rush said:


> You can't have racism across different organisms. Racism is predjudice based on race (obviously). I get the base analogy is regarding the feelings of superiority. However if we go back up to the point about murder, and survival of the fittest. By removing humans from that base animal instinct/law of nature due to their advanced intelligence then you're acknowledging that humans are superior hence that particular vegan way of thinking is very predjudiced. See how easy it is to flip this stuff around?


I can't have racism across different organisms? Well, no shit? I think you know where I'm going with this. Appeal to nature fallacy isn't something you should rely on, you can survive with empathy & compassion (infact it's in a sense essential for human communities). Also, you didn't flip anything around. I've never denied that humans are more intellectual/intelligent, more reasonable/logical, more empathetic/compassionate, just more moral in general. We are superior, but that does not mean we get to abuse our strength against the weak & ignorant. Let me ask you this, do you believe humans who are weaker or less intelligent than you don't deserve empathy & compassion? Is you being stronger & more intelligent suggest that it's moral for you to deliberately cause suffering to them for your pleasure and your pleasure alone? No. It's not moral, period.

As for sexism, yeah well, read the above paragraphs.



Rush said:


> Thats because the argument for morality shouldn't be based on meat/no meat but rather on how the animal was caught/killed. Keeping slaughterhouses, batteries of chickens, animals locked up in cages etc is pretty immoral. Going out and killing your own animals to cook and eat. Pretty moral.


This argument again, already made to look irrelevant.



Gandhi said:


> Suppose humans did reach a point where all factory farms treated animals "humanely" when killing them for food and even had them die peaceful deaths, just a quick painless poke behind the neck and BAM they're dead and ready to become a tasty chicken mcnugget. Keep imagining here, would you still be okay with this to humans? I mean, what if I'm having someone just enjoy their time with me then BAM BAM with just one painless poke behind the neck they're dead and it's time to have some human yummy yum yums. Notice how I stated "have them enjoy their time with me" before I killed them? Because that's what you're arguing for with non humans, deception to kill a being that didn't know any better ignoring all empathy & compassion knowing that being does not want to die and not caring. It would be a different story if you're walking down the street and a cow just dies randomly and you decide to eat it, it's the killing and usage of animals as our property that I'm against.


The usage of animals for selfish pleasure is not moral, period.



Reaper said:


> I don't see slaughterhouses as immoral. I don't see eating meat that was purely bred to be eaten as immoral. Right now I can't think of a single situation where eating something else can be considered moral or immoral at all and haven't been sufficiently convinced otherwise.












So if I bred humans to be purely made for a bunch of people who love human meat, it's justified to keep killing them in human slaughter houses? Hell forget this, a human who comes from a slave family, and this family only breeds to make more children to grow up as slaves. Is slavery then moral? Hell let's make this even worse. What if in certain places girls were only bred to be raped by everyone for the taking, is people raping them justified? You see how horrible that argument is?



Goku said:


> (maybe only partly, *due to my hesitation to label things as moral/immoral*).


Omfg, THIS THIS THIS. Please let that sentence sink in everyone, PLEASE.

What is moral, should be DISCUSSED and DISCUSSED with REASON and REASON and as much as possible LOGIC and LOGIC. It's not a petty topic when it concerns morality. This is why when a religious person tells me _"it's moral because gaaaaaaaawwwduuhh"_ I just cringe. You can't just label things as moral or immoral with the _"it's moral because it's moral"_ stance, you have to immensely _think_ about it even if you don't like a certain reality. Before I turned vegan, believe me, I was struggling like a motherfucker for MONTHS about the vegan stance.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

Ghandi, There is no rooster to fertilise the eggs and you can't leave them in their hutch. Plus that video is at night time, they are also shining the torch in the chickens face I would expect it to be defensive.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

I aint no vegan


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Coach. said:


> Ghandi, There is no rooster to fertilise the eggs and you can't leave them in their hutch. Plus that video is at night time, they are also shining the torch in the chickens face I would expect it to be defensive.


If that's the case with no rooster, honestly, I don't know. I'll think about it though.

However the video shouldn't be dismissed, since mothers for the most part are VERY defensive of their children both in the wild and in human society. Do not fuck with mother bear's cubs, you know how it goes.

I've also read somewhere that eggs aren't really that good for you; but I'm not sure about that considering I don't remember when I read that and need to look further into it. Mostly, I'm against the usage of animals in general. Although I don't know if I should call your stance on your eggs immoral, I really don't know what to make of it.

Interesting question take on things though.


----------



## Coach (May 5, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> If that's the case with no rooster, honestly, I don't know. I'll think about it though.
> 
> However the video shouldn't be dismissed, since mothers for the most part are VERY defensive of their children both in the wild and in human society. Do not fuck with mother bear's cubs, you know how it goes.
> 
> ...


*Our chickens have never minded us taking the eggs, or shown any distress when going back to where they lay and realising they are not there. If we left them they would rot or the other chickens would peck them. 

Since it's not an animal or a product of violence it should be deemed ok? *


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Coach. said:


> *Our chickens have never minded us taking the eggs, or shown any distress when going back to where they lay and realising they are not there. If we left them they would rot or the other chickens would peck them.
> 
> Since it's not an animal or a product of violence it should be deemed ok? *


I'm thinking yes it's ok, but a little voice from my head is yelling no. Honestly, I'm in a grey area here; this is a pretty interesting case. It's not like you're exploiting them since they don't give a fuck as you say, and it's not like you're making sure this becomes a businesses. Idk, I'd avoid it personally solely because of the uncertainty I have for this scenario for now. Until further research was done from both a scientific stance & moral stance, great thing to bring up though, like seriously.

Also, the health argument still stands and should be taken into account. I'm not going to ignore it if it's there, but I am unsure as of now.

This is mostly like the finding a dead cow in the middle of the street, and eating it. I mean you didn't kill it so I wouldn't really give a fuck if you ate it if you found it dead (although that doesn't be very healthy and I think it's disgusting), but it's the high demand from humans from animal products that mostly causes shit to go down with animals. You see what I mean here?


----------



## Menacing Nemesis (Apr 22, 2008)

The reason I'm not a vegan is because for one it won't really make a difference in how animals raised for meat are treated. They're still gonna be kept in cages and killed in brutal ways and me not eating meat won't change that. It might make me feel better since I'm not personally part of the "animal killing machine" but it won't stop it from happening.

Anyway eating meat is just the circle of life taking place. Not sure how you can put a moral stance on that.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Menacing Nemesis said:


> *The reason I'm not a vegan is because for one it won't really make a difference in how animals raised for meat are treated.* They're still gonna be kept in cages and killed in brutal ways and me not eating meat won't change that. It might make me feel better since I'm not personally part of the "animal killing machine" but it won't stop it from happening.


Oh?

First of all let's assume going vegan won't change anything, so what? If the entire world is mostly okay with slavery with humans, would you be okay with slavery and say being against it is useless because things will never change? Let's say you can't stop people being raped worldwide (you can't, rape will always exist) does that mean you get to abandon your morality and go rape someone? No. Morality plays a big part, a _very_ big part.

I would also like to add that having the majority of the world turn to a vegan diet now WILL NOT happen overnight, in fact it sounds impossible and I face the reality that it will never happen in my life. However that still doesn't matter. Veganism will only become _"the norm"_ after a very long drawn transition of maybe even hundreds of years. The biggest reason why veganism isn't the norm is because of ignorance of the topic of veganism from most people that leads to a ridiculous demand for animal products, this results in slaughter houses & fishermen getting their money and giving people what they want. If vegans kept educating people of veganism and made people become vegan (like I have been educated and eventually turned vegan) things will change it just won't happen overnight; as the percentage of vegans goes up and the percentage of non vegans goes down, the supply will match the demand. Cooperations don't care what they sell as long as it's profitable & legal. If a company can make more money selling cucumbers than selling animal parts, it will change itself so that it remains a profitable business. New jobs would be available to people who were formerly working in slaughter houses etc; as the availability of vegan food increases the already cost of vegan foods would continue to decrease, making it even MORE affordable to everyone. All the money you spend on health care could be saved and used elsewhere because of the vegan diet being healthy, saving more money for everybody resulting in a better quality of life. Not to mention the planet won't face the absolute fucking disaster of animal agriculture that is ruining the planet. If you care about future generations of humans, you will consider veganism.

Also if you don't think the majority of humankind turning vegan is believable, do you doubt that there was a time in history where people went _"ahhh screw it, slavery will never end"_? There was a time where slavery was the norm of humanity, this is a fact. People who fought slavery (white people who weren't slaves included) when it was a norm, were sacrificing themselves and didn't care much about social acceptance rather they cared about _*justice*_. You might not see the vegan utopia today (which wouldn't even be a utopia, just a less shit version of the world we live in today), but I'm willing to sacrifice myself for the future of tomorrow. I would rather not enjoy the deliciousness of chicken & fish because I prefer the idea of becoming a part of history, part of the people who sacrificed their desires because of their passion for what was just.



Menacing Nemesis said:


> Anyway eating meat is just the circle of life taking place. Not sure how you can put a moral stance on that.


We are a part of the circle of life, however unlike lions we do not need to eat meat. It could be argued that yes we are omnivores however that argument is moot because our omnivorous behavior is only required during times of desperation. Also before you give me this _"but if lions do it why can't we do it?"_ nonsense, remember that the appeal to nature fallacy is dogshit. You will find all sorts of horrid things in nature, doesn't mean they're moral. Morally, you have no excuse not to go vegan other than sheer laziness & selfishness. This isn't an insult against you, this is just reality.


----------



## *Eternity* (Aug 11, 2010)

Nope. Going vegan never interested me, since I love to eat meat. And I wish a bitch would tell me to stop eating meat, because it goes against THEIR moral policy. How about you stay in your lane and I stay in mine and all will be fine and dandy.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Gandhi said:


> Fishing isn't compassionate or empathetic towards the fish themselves. If aliens were to enjoy our flesh, it still wouldn't be moral for them to just hunt us down for a tasty human burger.
> 
> I'm not saying they're literally the same, obviously they aren't. I'm saying they're both immoral, and both cause senseless suffering because of the lack of empathy & compassion a person has whilst doing those things. Bullying is immoral, fighting anybody in cases where you're not fighting for self defense is immoral, it's that simple. So yes, there is a comparison to be made.
> 
> ...


Compassion and empathy isn't exactly what morality is about though. Morality is a code governing right and wrong in human behaviour. Is it wrong to go out, hunt animals to feed oneself? Not in my opinion. Compassion is feeling sympathy for the suffering of others and empathy is the ability to identify with the feelings of another. You can be empathetic and compassionate to an animals plight and still be morally justified in eating its meat.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ghandi, answer me this... let's say for the sake of argument that the entire human population on the planet suddenly decided to be vegan... do you think it is realistically possible that availability of vegan friendly foods could be provided for the 7+ billion people that populate the planet?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Rush said:


> Compassion and empathy isn't exactly what morality is about though. Morality is a code governing right and wrong in human behaviour. Is it wrong to go out, hunt animals to feed oneself? Not in my opinion. Compassion is feeling sympathy for the suffering of others and empathy is the ability to identify with the feelings of another. You can be empathetic and compassionate to an animals plight and still be morally justified in eating its meat.


Arguing with Rush is like arguing with i$e but with fewer insults.

Edit: Watching earthlings atm.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Rush said:


> Compassion and empathy isn't exactly what morality is about though. Morality is a code governing right and wrong in human behaviour. Is it wrong to go out, hunt animals to feed oneself? Not in my opinion. Compassion is feeling sympathy for the suffering of others and empathy is the ability to identify with the feelings of another. You can be empathetic and compassionate to an animals plight and still be morally justified in eating its meat.


Compassion and empathy isn't exactly what morality is about? Right and wrong in human behavior? How is compassion & empathy NOT right human behavior? How are human behaviors that make humans feel safer and more at peace with one another instead of going through chaos NOT right human behavior? Like holy shit, do you know how perplexed I am from your post? Look I don't think you're a horrible person for not being vegan, and no one has the right to force you to live a vegan lifestyle. However to ignore that empathy & compassion are VERY essential to concepts like morality? This is just bizarre, in a VERY disturbing/depressing way. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something from your statement about empathy & compassion(I hope I am).

Also hunting animals to feed yourself FOR SURVIVAL? Excusable. Hunting animals when you DON'T NEED TO? Not compassionate or empathetic, hence not moral. And it just so happens, most people don't need to hunt animals or kill them to begin with to survive because we don't live in the ice age or some poor village in the middle of the jungle. _There is nothing compassionate or empathetic about killing an animal for nothing but plate pleasure, period._ You are not being compassionate to that animal's suffering, you are not being empathetic to the fact that like you that animal does not want to die. If hunting isn't for survival, it isn't moral, period.



Tater said:


> Ghandi, answer me this... let's say for the sake of argument that the entire human population on the planet suddenly decided to be vegan... do you think it is realistically possible that availability of vegan friendly foods could be provided for the 7+ billion people that populate the planet?


A ridiculous amount of natural resources are wasted on BILLIONS of animals that are FORCE BRED to feed 7+BILLION people. What do you think would happen if we stopped wasting so much natural resources on animals? The usage of animals as food is actually making things WORSE for your statement of vegan friendly foods that are WASTED on a fucking cow to get fat, breed, and kill so they can make a burger so that same stupid process happens AGAIN and AGAIN. So yeah, if everyone on the planet went vegan we'd be better off at feeding everyone.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> A ridiculous amount of natural resources are wasted on BILLIONS of animals that are FORCE BRED to feed 7+BILLION people. What do you think would happen if we stopped wasting so much natural resources on animals? The usage of animals as food is actually making things WORSE for your statement of vegan friendly foods that are WASTED on a fucking cow to get fat, breed, and kill so they can make a burger so that same stupid process happens AGAIN and AGAIN. So yeah, if everyone on the planet went vegan we'd be better off at feeding everyone.


I didn't mean that as a food amount vs. population number. It's easy to say that first world countries could make the switch. I'm trying to ask about different societies globally; societies that are much less than first world, who do not have the technology and available food sources to switch to an all vegan diet. People like Australian Aboriginals or Inuits jungle pygmy tribes or people who live on small islands without enough farming space, for example, who literally could not produce enough vegan friendly foods to feed their population. What about those people?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> I didn't mean that as a food amount vs. population number. It's easy to say that first world countries could make the switch. I'm trying to ask about different societies globally; societies that are much less than first world, who do not have the technology and available food sources to switch to an all vegan diet. People like Australian Aboriginals or Inuits jungle pygmy tribes or people who live on small islands without enough farming space, for example, who literally could not produce enough vegan friendly foods to feed their population. What about those people?


Mhm, don't you live in the 1st world? Why are you asking this? Though alright, I'm humor your question because I've already addressed arguments similar to it.



Gandhi said:


> The situation that we are in, you do not live in a poor village in the middle of the jungle and we no longer live in the ice age. Meat is only a necessity during times of desperation, I'm fully aware of that. It's not different than humans resorting to cannibalism during times of desperation. Whilst it is not immoral to kill an animal to survive, it is immoral to kill an animal simply for plate pleasure despite you not needing it's flesh to survive. People in poor villages isolated from the modern world need help, they need the help from advanced nations so that they no longer need meat. I do not hold them accountable much as most of them literally need meat to survive, you however do not need meat to survive period. People in poor villages act out of desperation, you act out of immorality.


So tell me Tater, do you want these people you speak of to forever never be as advanced as 1st world nations? 

Also the entire world will NEVER suddenly all just turn vegan, why the FUCK would people who aren't advanced and need meat to survive because they're so poor suddenly turn vegan? That's suicide, seriously this is a stupid scenario that would never happen. 

Going vegan however for you and people in the 1st world, is far from suicide. And again, you live in the 1st world so _what's your excuse_? You don't have any good excuses. The ONLY reason you still eat meat is because you enjoy the taste, which isn't a moral stance.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> Mhm, don't you live in the 1st world? Why are you asking this? Though alright, I'm humor your question because I've already addressed arguments similar to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you think you could possibly find it in you to have a civil conversation about this without going on the attack? I'm not talking about me, so don't make this about me. 

I'm trying to have a conversation about the logistics of the entire population changing to veganism and if that is a realistically possible scenario. It's obviously not possible for it to happen immediately but I don't think it is logistically possible in the long run either. There will always be people living on parts of the planet where switching to veganism is not an option.

There are other factors to consider besides just the morality of eating meat. Places like Greenland not only are dependent on fish for food, they are also heavily dependent on fishing for their economy. "The sparsely populated villages along the coast, with about 150 inhabitants in each village, are entirely dependent on marine resources of fishing and hunting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_industry_in_Greenland Those villagers would be completely fucked. They wouldn't be able to grow enough food for veganism and would have no money to have it imported either because they no longer would have any sustainable source of income. The first world switching to veganism would destroy their entire way of life.

What are those people supposed to do, just go find a new place to live?

It's not just Greenland either. That is just one example of many. 100s of millions of people on this planet would simply have no way to live if they had to stop fishing. First world countries might have the ability to switch to veganism but many places do not. And, those first world countries switching to veganism affects more than just their societies. The effects of that would be very far reaching and would create severe hardship for many people around the world.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Gandhi said:


> Compassion and empathy isn't exactly what morality is about? Right and wrong in human behavior? How is compassion & empathy NOT right human behavior? How are human behaviors that make humans feel safer and more at peace with one another instead of going through chaos NOT right human behavior? Like holy shit, do you know how perplexed I am from your post? Look I don't think you're a horrible person for not being vegan, and no one has the right to force you to live a vegan lifestyle. However to ignore that empathy & compassion are VERY essential to concepts like morality? This is just bizarre, in a VERY disturbing/depressing way. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something from your statement about empathy & compassion(I hope I am).


Not sure if you're being deliberately dense or what. Being moral =/= being empathetic & compassionate. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. If we take an extreme example, you have a young bloke who's on the street and he asks you to help him steal a loaf of bread to feed himself. Theft as you stated earlier is immoral. Now i would think that any normal person would feel sorry for someone in that situation and want to help (compassion) and know what its like to be hungry and wanting food (empathy). Now say you choose to help that man steal a loaf of bread. You're not being moral, but you are being compassionate and empathetic. Say you don't want to help the guy steal a loaf of bread, you are morally right, and you might be empathetic but you're not necessarily being compassionate. I'm not saying that both compassion and empathy aren't linked to morality. I'm saying that the definition of what is moral isn't necessarily governed by compassion and empathy. 



> Also hunting animals to feed yourself FOR SURVIVAL? Excusable. Hunting animals when you DON'T NEED TO? Not compassionate or empathetic, hence not moral. And it just so happens, most people don't need to hunt animals or kill them to begin with to survive because we don't live in the ice age or some poor village in the middle of the jungle. _There is nothing compassionate or empathetic about killing an animal for nothing but plate pleasure, period._ You are not being compassionate to that animal's suffering, you are not being empathetic to the fact that like you that animal does not want to die. If hunting isn't for survival, it isn't moral, period.


You just said before that fishing was immoral. Some communities are reliant on fishing to survive. Their climate isn't sustainable for growing crops and whatnot. That they survive via that fishing, and under your rules that makes fishing moral in that situaion. This brings it back to what i said earlier which you dismissed as being irrelevant, 



> Thats because the argument for morality shouldn't be based on meat/no meat but rather on how the animal was caught/killed. Keeping slaughterhouses, batteries of chickens, animals locked up in cages etc is pretty immoral. Going out and killing your own animals to cook and eat. Pretty moral.


^^^

I'm not saying that the system in place now is particularly moral. I'm not going to argue that keeping animals under lock and key, feeding them up just to provide food for people is moral because i don't think it is. What i'm saying is that blanket statements like 'meat is murder' and 'eating meat is immoral' are naive, and show a lack of understanding to how some people live their lives.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> Do you think you could possibly find it in you to have a civil conversation about this without going on the attack? I'm not talking about me, so don't make this about me.
> 
> I'm trying to have a conversation about the logistics of the entire population changing to veganism and if that is a realistically possible scenario. It's obviously not possible for it to happen immediately but I don't think it is logistically possible in the long run either. There will always be people living on parts of the planet where switching to veganism is not an option.
> 
> ...


I'm not insulting you, I don't see how this isn't a civil conversation. You seem to think anybody who makes your arguments look bad or how they make you yourself look bad is a person who is trying to insult you. You make an argument with flaws, I'll point them out. I'm going to make this about you (not entirely) because you make it seem like because some people can't survive without meat; you, a person who can survive without meat, is morally justified to support killing animals when this is THEIR CASE and NOT YOURS. So answer me (if you ever get unbanned, idk) What's YOUR excuse for eating meat?

Also it is possible for the people of Greenland to farm.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326
http://modernfarmer.com/2013/10/arctic-farming/

Greenhouses make a big difference.

People in Greenland do have a somewhat hard situation I will admit though, but there are ways to make them give up the way they relay on meat it's not unlikely they can't get help let alone impossible. Other nations, like I said, can help them. Also, other nations helping them wouldn't just be an act of altruism as fishing most of the time destroys ocean life. Ocean life is essential to the planet, if it dies the planet dies. People in Greenland may not have much of a choice, but we can give it to them so that not only they benefit from it but the entire world.



Rush said:


> Not sure if you're being deliberately dense or what. Being moral =/= being empathetic & compassionate. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. If we take an extreme example, you have a young bloke who's on the street and he asks you to help him steal a loaf of bread to feed himself. Theft as you stated earlier is immoral. Now i would think that any normal person would feel sorry for someone in that situation and want to help (compassion) and know what its like to be hungry and wanting food (empathy). Now say you choose to help that man steal a loaf of bread. You're not being moral, but you are being compassionate and empathetic. Say you don't want to help the guy steal a loaf of bread, you are morally right, and you might be empathetic but you're not necessarily being compassionate. I'm not saying that both compassion and empathy aren't linked to morality. I'm saying that the definition of what is moral isn't necessarily governed by compassion and empathy.


Actually in the case of the young boy who wants to steal food to survive; helping him would be argued to be in a sense excusable the same way people who need meat to survive are excusable because he literally might die from starvation. I'd personally just buy him bread myself, also helping the boy would be you ignoring being empathetic & compassionate to the man selling the bread. It's not that simple, you are in a sense being moral for ignoring the boy's wishes because theft consists of you taking something someone else values and they wouldn't like it _"suffer"_ if they lost what they valued which in this case is the bread they're selling to make a living. I don't have to steal for the boy, but I could be empathetic & compassionate to his desires in other ways. What's empathetic & compassionate is for me to stop the boy from stealing, and instead try to help him so that he doesn't need to steal. That's what's empathetic & compassionate, that is what's moral for both parties.



Rush said:


> You just said before that fishing was immoral. Some communities are reliant on fishing to survive. Their climate isn't sustainable for growing crops and whatnot. That they survive via that fishing, and under your rules that makes fishing moral in that situaion. This brings it back to what i said earlier which you dismissed as being irrelevant


I already was aware some communities heavily relay on fishing to survive, and I don't understand why you didn't think I'd tell you they're excusable as well no different than people in poor village in the jungle isolated from the world. Both these communities can be helped, though.



Rush said:


> I'm not saying that the system in place now is particularly moral. I'm not going to argue that keeping animals under lock and key, feeding them up just to provide food for people is moral because i don't think it is. What i'm saying is that blanket statements like 'meat is murder' and 'eating meat is immoral' are naive, and show a lack of understanding to how some people live their lives.


Throughout this entire thread I have been saying that there are certain cases where eating meat is excusable if survival is needed, it is excusable because of nations not being advanced enough or well enough gets them to have to resort to desperation feeding tactics which consist of them killing animals to survive. 

The case of killing animals for food being immoral or moral all heavily depends on location & how much you can survive without meat; and for the most part, people on this thread live in pretty nice areas where they can go on a vegan diet. People in some jungle have their excuses, you don't. I'm not going to call you immoral as a whole for ignoring the vegan lifestyle (I don't think anybody is bad tbh, good people just do bad things), but I will say your stance towards animals for a person living in a pretty well off country like Australia is immoral.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Two weeks vegetarian completed. It has been a good run, but I think I'm returning to my meat eating ways starting tomorrow. 

Likely only chicken breast (I'll never enjoy pig again) in order to reach my protein macros. I'm not going to enjoy it, and I'm going to feel bad, but it's just simply the easiest way to hit my daily protein goals.

Obviously can't claim vegetarian anymore which is a bummer, but at least I know now that if I wanted to cut meat permanently, I could do it.


----------



## Walls (Apr 14, 2004)

I've never tried it because I'm not an asshole.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Yes you are.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Unless, of course, someone has an idea how I can hit 200g protein daily without meat and a strict two scoops of whey a day (48g) budget.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Walls said:


> I've never tried it because I'm not an asshole.


explain what being an asshole has to do with being vegetarian/vegan.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

I can understand (actually I can't) people who do that for health reason, I don't know maybe they have God awful types of metabolysm and they're forced to eat like a rabbit because of that. But bringing in morals :maury "WE'RE 7 BILLIONZ DUDEZ, SHOULDN'T BE BREEDING COWZ". Yeah by that reason I shouldn't drive a car because I'm polluting the shit out this planet and I couldn't buy a leather bag/belt/pair of shoes/whatever the fuck because an animal was killed in the process. As someone said before me, this is not morals, it's wanna-be hipster bigotry.

I've eaten hares, wild rabbits, foxes, wild boars, roe deers, fallow deers, pheasants and any kind of wild bird, and bears. Yeah, I've eaten goulash done with bear meat. And I would like to point out that all of these animals were captured after being shot down.

Why the last sentence? Just to piss bigots off lel











Walls said:


> I've never tried it because I'm not an asshole.


That kinda sums it up


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Unless, of course, someone has an idea how I can hit 200g protein daily without meat and a strict two scoops of whey a day (48g) budget.


I think it's almost impossibile, unless you eat gigantic amounts of seitan + legumes + cheese. Can you eat eggs?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Lol, new people who come to this thread keep posting the same ridiculous non vegan arguments that have been made to look wrong throughout this thread, mostly because they don't bother reading previous pages. Like holy shit, even now I'm repeating myself.



Walls said:


> I've never tried it because I'm not an asshole.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Leaves Islam
Joins veganism

:maury


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)




----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

trolls gonna troll



> Yeah by that reason I shouldn't drive a car because I'm polluting the shit out this planet and I couldn't buy a leather bag/belt/pair of shoes/whatever the fuck because an animal was killed in the process. As someone said before me, this is not morals, it's wanna-be hipster bigotry.


I understand you're basically here to wind people up (especially over things they feel are important), but you're starting to sound like dualshock.

Otherwise, how is condoning and desiring animals be hurt (or the environment be damaged) not a moral position?


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Goku said:


> trolls gonna troll
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Morals is an empty and overused word. Mainly because as Nietzsche used to say, the spectrum of it is so wide that you're gonna end up be forced to pass off any idiocy as a moral position.

Keep the word "morals" for serious things. For serious I refer to stuff that is universally considered as wrong, like homicide, torture and anything which is enclosed in constitutions or human rights conventions. The rest it's just plain bigotry. A quarter of the world population is muslim, and according to Islam, sex outside marriage is a crime and calls for physical punishment if not death. This is an example of morals, actually a very good example as technically it should be considered by almost 2 billion of individuals so there is a very large sample to back this "moral position" up. Guess what, it's still fucking stupid. As it's stupid pretending you care about that deer who was shot down while during your day you probably use an unmeasurable amount of things that were created with animal parts. 

Sugar? They use animal bones to bleach it.
Almost any detergent and softener? Animal fat used to jelly it.
Cosmetic products, shampoo conditioners ecc? Not even worth mentioning the load of animal stuff they use.
Plastic bag? Animal fat.
Condoms? Still fat, they were once made with lambs' gut.
Toothpaste? Animal bones to bleach them.
Sport equipment? Pffft.
Vaccine? Almost any of them use eggs for the incubation of the virus.


So yeah you can't eat sweets, you can't wash yourself, you can't wash your clothes, you can't bring stuff around, you can't fuck, you can't brush your teeth, you can't play sports and ultimately, you have to die.

Life of a vegan? More like the like of a hypocrite, as bloody vegans rant about morals and use all of those things. Lelbigots.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> *Morals is an empty and overused word.* Mainly because as Nietzsche used to say, the spectrum of it is so wide that you're gonna end up be forced to pass off any idiocy as a moral position.


Conceded.



> Keep the word "morals" for serious things. For serious I refer to stuff that is universally considered as wrong, like homicide, torture and anything which is enclosed in constitutions or human rights conventions.


If you identify your entire code of morality based on what is legal, then I don't agree that you can (or should) call it morality at all. However, it is very utilitarian if you're opting to remain separate from the intricacies of what is legal and what isn't (or what should or shouldn't be). Basically, it is a second choice principle, I would say. Nothing wrong with that.



> The rest it's just plain bigotry. A quarter of the world population is muslim, and according to Islam, sex outside marriage is a crime and calls for physical punishment if not death. This is an example of morals, actually a very good example as technically it should be considered by almost 2 billion of individuals so there is a very large sample to back this "moral position" up. Guess what, it's still fucking stupid.


~Bigotry is an empty and overused word. The spectrum of it is so vast that you might be inclined to pass off any valid stance as bigotry~

I think all petitions to morality should be argued on the basis of their own premises and not on how alike or distinctive they are from precedent (at least, initially).



> As it's stupid pretending you care about that deer who was shot down while during your day you probably use an unmeasurable amount of things that were created with animal parts.


Morality, I would argue, is better instituted on a sliding scale. Is a person moral or amoral based on their collective convictions? Is it so simple? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that one person (or position) is more or less moral than another? And so, yes, a person can feel bad over one aspect of animal harm and not another and be morally justified in doing so.

Would a person killing 500 people be morally worse than one killing 5? You could argue that the act itself is what is immoral and say no, they are equally wrong. But I would say that the taking of 500 lives is a worse act than taking 5, as I would sooner justify a vigilante killing criminals over a random guy killing young children.



> Sugar? They use animal bones to bleach it.
> Almost any detergent and softener? Animal fat used to jelly it.
> Cosmetic products, shampoo conditioners ecc? Not even worth mentioning the load of animal stuff they use.
> Plastic bag? Animal fat.
> ...


There are other methods of making sugar. Charred coal need not necessarily be obtained from cow bones. Liquid sugar can be filtered using ion separation etc.

There are notable exceptions to most others as well, but again, I don't accept that it's so black and white. If you can take such a strong position of moral conviction and not have doubts, that's okay. If you don't give a toss about morality altogether and just do whatever is most convenient at the time, that is okay too. But are the people yet to arrive at a clear distinction between right and wrong (or people who never may) morally unjustified in their doubts?



> Life of a vegan? More like the like of a hypocrite, as bloody vegans rant about morals and use all of those things. Lelbigots.


In this thread alone, it has been non-vegetarians coming in and attacking vegetarians/vegans for their supposed morality, which nobody has even asserted. Your presumed state of defence is not necessary.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Goku said:


> If you identify your entire code of morality based on what is legal, then I don't agree that you can (or should) call it morality at all. However, it is very utilitarian if you're opting to remain separate from the intricacies of what is legal and what isn't (or what should or shouldn't be). Basically, it is a second choice principle, I would say. Nothing wrong with that.


Not at all. Freedom of tought is not even a law principle in some countries. Heck, maybe torture is legal in some countries I don't know. You're considering it part of the legal system just because you live in Europe. Yet, denying freedom of tought or right to fair trial would be and is fucking stupid. We're gone through centuries of philosopical and political debate to achieve rights that are so blatantly necessary it's not a matter of law anymore. Anyone who denies civil liberties is a fucking mong.




Goku said:


> Morality, I would argue, is better instituted on a sliding scale. Is a person moral or amoral based on their collective convictions? Is it so simple? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that one person (or position) is more or less moral than another? And so, yes, a person can feel bad over one aspect of animal harm and not another and be morally justified in doing so.


Doesn't change the fact that you're still an hypocrite. If you're muslim and you eat only halal but drink beer, you're not more, less or partially moral. You're just something who partially abide by your supposed moral code according to your convenience.



Goku said:


> Would a person killing 500 people be morally worse than one killing 5?


Fuck yes, son.



Goku said:


> You could argue that the act itself is what is immoral and say no, they are equally wrong.


Yeah, if you're fucked in the head.



Goku said:


> But I would say that the taking of 500 lives is a worse act than taking 5, as I would sooner justify a vigilante killing criminals over a random guy killing young children.


It's not just you, anyone with a brain would say that.



Goku said:


> There are other methods of making sugar. Charred coal need not necessarily be obtained from cow bones. Liquid sugar can be filtered using ion separation etc.
> 
> There are notable exceptions to most others as well,


Yeah, I have no doubt Ghandi's gonna have no problems finding vegan sugar or vegan soap or vegan nazis in motherfucking Cairo.



Goku said:


> but again, I don't accept that it's so black and white. If you can take such a strong position of moral conviction and not have doubts, that's okay. If you don't give a toss about morality altogether and just do whatever is most convenient at the time, that is okay too. But are the people yet to arrive at a clear distinction between right and wrong (or people who never may) morally unjustified in their doubts?


It's definitely not black and white, but my point still stands: you (generally speaking) stand against animals killing, cruelty etc but apart from not eating their meat you still use products that come through death and suffering for animals on a daily basis (unless you live like a caveman). You're just partially moral, and that makes you a hypocrite. You follow veganism just on the dietary side just because it's the easy job, you avoid the types of food you have on your list and you feel gratified. Too bad you exploit animal cruelty in 1000o039i394303ji3 other ways and you purposedly don't do nothing about, because deep down inside you know that life would be almost impossible.



Goku said:


> In this thread alone, it has been non-vegetarians coming in and attacking vegetarians/vegans for their supposed morality, which nobody has even asserted. Your presumed state of defence is not necessary.


Tbh I've seen people saying slaughterhouses are immoral. Do these people know the shampoo they've used to wash their hair last night is made from fat gathered from cows/horses being ripped apart in slaugherhouses? Yeah, they have the blood of these animals on their hands and through their hair.

Lelhypocrites.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Λ Dandy Λ;39595602 said:


> Not at all.


Then, I misunderstood.



> Doesn't change the fact that you're still an hypocrite. If you're muslim and you eat only halal but drink beer, you're not more, less or partially moral. You're just something who partially abide by your supposed moral code according to your convenience.


But that is based upon the premise of you knowing he has a set of beliefs he _needs_ to adhere to as a Muslim because it is literally written in a book. Most other moral codes are developed as abstract in people's own minds.

Based on your acceptance of 500 to 5 killings argument, I would presume to juxtapose the same values on animals (say pigs for example) and continue as if it were worse to kill 500 pigs over 5 pigs. I realize societal value on animal life is all but non-existent save as for property, but the argument still holds water.

So, in saying meat eating contributes to animal slaughter, eating fewer non-vegetarian meals would directly attribute to fewer slaughters (even though in the overall game, nothing might have changed at all). And cutting out animals altogether may be seen to attribute (in moral terms) to even fewer slaughters.

That doesn't make someone a hypocrite then simply because they choose to do slightly less harm (as opposed to what you would categorize as 'no harm at all')



> Yeah, I have no doubt Ghandi's gonna have no problems finding vegan sugar or vegan soap or vegan nazis in motherfucking Cairo.


Different proposition. Convenience does factor in to a certain extent. Say someone stops eating chicken because there is a chicken farm in the near proximity (unlikely, but say) and he's seen the cruelty chickens are exposed to. He would not necessarily be a hypocrite if he continued to eat other meats because he hasn't had the exposure to them same as he had for the chickens.



> It's definitely not black and white, but my point still stands: you (generally speaking) stand against animals killing, cruelty etc but apart from not eating their meat you still use products that come through death and suffering for animals on a daily basis (unless you live like a caveman). You're just partially moral, and that makes you a hypocrite. You follow veganism just on the dietary side just because it's the easy job, you avoid the types of food you have on your list and you feel gratified. Too bad you exploit animal cruelty in 1000o039i394303ji3 other ways and you purposedly don't do nothing about, because deep down inside you know that life would be almost impossible.


Let's draw a parallel with someone on a cutting diet with one cheat day/meal on his schedule. Does it make that person a hypocrite b/c he's cheating when he's supposed to be cutting?

A partial morality in general terms is better than none at all (I'm not one to talk, but still). I would, of course, have a problem if they treated their partial morality as absolute but I haven't seen much of that in this thread (from vegetarians/vegans).



> Tbh I've seen people saying slaughterhouses are immoral. Do these people know the shampoo they've used to wash their hair last night is made from fat gathered from cows/horses being ripped apart in slaugherhouses? Yeah, they have the blood of these animals on their hands and through their hair.


If someone actively tries to find an alternative to all this and fails and is reduced to using whatever is available, is he still a hypocrite? B/c he can't help it (unless as you stated, he lives like a caveman).

This is primarily the reason why I prefer the sliding scale. It is impossible to nullify let alone assess the damage a specific deed may cause (what would vegans feed their cats/dogs etc.)


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Goku said:


> But that is based upon the premise of you knowing he has a set of beliefs he _needs_ to adhere to as a Muslim because it is literally written in a book. Most other moral codes are developed as abstract in people's own minds.
> 
> Based on your acceptance of 500 to 5 killings argument, I would presume to juxtapose the same values on animals (say pigs for example) and continue as if it were worse to kill 500 pigs over 5 pigs. I realize societal value on animal life is all but non-existent save as for property, but the argument still holds water.
> 
> So, in saying meat eating contributes to animal slaughter, eating fewer non-vegetarian meals would directly attribute to fewer slaughters (even though in the overall game, nothing might have changed at all). And cutting out animals altogether may be seen to attribute (in moral terms) to even fewer slaughters.


All this does nothing but reinforce my argument on hypocrisy. If veganism is a moral code developed in vegans' minds, it means they're purposely creating loopholes to make it bearable. That's hypocrisy. In Islam, at least you can't create your own moral code to suit your needs: you have to follow the Quaran and the principles of a certain school which is universally recognized. You can be 100% coherent.

A vegan, as seen in the dictionaries, is someone who does not eat any animal food and doesn't use animal products. If he doesn't follow that, he's either not a vegan or an hypocrite. Simple as that.



Goku said:


> Different proposition. Convenience does factor in to a certain extent. Say someone stops eating chicken because there is a chicken farm in the near proximity (unlikely, but say) and he's seen the cruelty chickens are exposed to. He would not necessarily be a hypocrite if he continued to eat other meats because he hasn't had the exposure to them same as he had for the chickens.


The example doesn't have correlation because we're talking about people who say that slaughterhouses or animal testing is plain wrong in general.



Goku said:


> Let's draw a parallel with someone on a cutting diet with one cheat day/meal on his schedule. Does it make that person a hypocrite b/c he's cheating when he's supposed to be cutting?


Wtf? Doing a diet it's not something that concern morality. We're talking about stuff which is labeled as "right" or "wrong".



Goku said:


> A partial morality in general terms is better than none at all (I'm not one to talk, but still). I would, of course, have a problem if they treated their partial morality as absolute but I haven't seen much of that in this thread (from vegetarians/vegans).


Absolutely, you would be less of an hypocrite if you're partially moral on the issue. But still an hypocrite, as you rant about animals being killed in farms and then use products obtained from that.



Goku said:


> If someone actively tries to find an alternative to all this and fails and is reduced to using whatever is available, is he still a hypocrite? B/c he can't help it (unless as you stated, he lives like a caveman).


In an abstract world where that is possibile, no you would be coherent with your values. Too bad we live in reality, where is basically impossible to avoid 100% animal products, actually is technically impossible: anyone, sooner or later in his life, will have to be vaccinated or be treated with medicines: all of that is done thanks to animal testing and it contains substances acquired from animals 90% of the times. 



Goku said:


> This is primarily the reason why I prefer the sliding scale. It is impossible to nullify let alone assess the damage a specific deed may cause (what would vegans feed their cats/dogs etc.)


I've said above that there is a scale of morality. A vegan not eating animal products is less vegan than a vegan not eating animal and no wearing wool, and a muslim not drinking beer is less muslim than a muslim not drinking beer and not eating pork.

Yet it doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrite.

"ZOMG KILLING ANIMALS IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES IS A CRIME! I'M NOT TOUCHING STUFF COMING FROM THERE!!"
>uses medicine created thanks to multiple painful experiments on animals, uses shampoos, toothpaste, detergent etc etc

Yeah I'm sure all the vegans use vegan fabric detergent and are immune to disease :Jordan


----------



## Spirit Soul (Sep 5, 2011)

I had a little phase in high school where I felt bad about eating mass amounts of animals and tried it for a good 4 months or so. Broke out of it, what can I say, meat is fucking delicious.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Dandy, you're basically arguing that all morality is hypocritical b/c it is self-made.

And I don't know why you think I'm a vegan. I've eaten lion meat, m8.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Goku said:


> Dandy, you're basically arguing that all morality is hypocritical b/c it is self-made.
> 
> And I don't know why you think I'm a vegan. I've eaten lion meat, m8.


It's hypocritical just when find loopholes for it, like "I'm a vegan, I hate animal cruelty and for that I won't eat animal meat but not for the rest of the stuff is too damn complicated".

I don't respect straight edge people, but at least I can agree they can be coherent with themselves. Just avoid drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and you're done. It's technically possible. With veganism, this is not the case. That's why I tend to like vegetarians more, they're usually more honest.

And I know you're not a vegan, that "you" was general. Dem sausages at the Oktoberfest m8.


----------



## Iriquiz (Jul 16, 2013)

Yep tried being completely vegan did so for around 3 weeks ate tofu, lentils, chickpea's, lettuce, tomato, onions, garlic, pepper's,lemon, nuts, carrots, coconut and rice. 
Gave me the shits so I stopped.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Morals is an empty and overused word. Mainly because as Nietzsche used to say, the spectrum of it is so wide that you're gonna end up be forced to pass off any idiocy as a moral position.


I'm glad you mentioned Nietzsche, guess who was Nietzsche's mentor in philosophy and by his own words his biggest influence?

Arthur Schopenhauer.










_“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”_ - *Arthur Schopenhauer*

_“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”_ - *Arthur Schopenhauer*

_“Compassion is the basis of all morality.”_ - *Arthur Schopenhauer*

Perhaps you need to see what Nietzsche himself thought of the way humans treat animals...

_“If animals do us harm, we strive to annihilate them in every possible way. The means are often cruel enough, even without our really intending them to be so — it is the cruelty of thoughtlessness.”_ - *Friedrich Nietzsche*

_“The animal has its rights like man, so let it run about freely; and you, my dear fellow man, are still this animal, in spite of all!”_ - *Friedrich Nietzsche*



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Keep the word "morals" for serious things.


I am.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> For serious I refer to stuff that is universally considered as wrong


Lack of empathy & compassion for the innocent and defenseless is universally immoral; it's just that most people seem to ignore this reality when it comes to animals because to many people an animal is a _"thing"_ not a someone. Ironic, considering humans too are animals literally.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> like homicide, torture and anything which is enclosed in constitutions or human rights conventions.


Cool, I'm going to go _*torture*_ some rabbits for _*fun*_. They're not human and cannot have _"human rights"_ since they're literally not human, so it's ok.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> A quarter of the world population is muslim, and according to Islam, sex outside marriage is a crime and calls for physical punishment if not death. This is an example of morals, actually a very good example as technically it should be considered by almost 2 billion of individuals so there is a very large sample to back this "moral position" up. Guess what, it's still fucking stupid.


There is nothing empathetic or compassionate about killing someone just because they had harmless sexual intercourse with someone they might have even had an intimate relationship with. The muslim religion is immoral, I shouldn't have to tell you this.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> As it's stupid pretending you care about that deer who was shot down while during your day you probably use an unmeasurable amount of things that were created with animal parts.


There is nothing stupid about being compassionate to a defenseless innocent creature that's suffering, period.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Sugar? They use animal bones to bleach it.


Raw balanced vegan diet baby; and not all sugar is made from animal bones, though I do avoid refined sugar. Also here in Egypt we like sugar cane which is 100% vegan and very sweet, we even make so called _"honey"_ from it and it's amazing. Plenty of healthy sweet vegan foods. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Almost any detergent and softener? Animal fat used to jelly it.


Keyword is _"almost"_ here. Vegan detergents & softeners exist, people just don't bother with them mostly because most people are not vegan hence will not care and since most people are not vegan the vegan uses of these things are produced less or are not advertised . If the majority of people go vegan and demand more for vegan products more vegan products will become popular, more they will appear, and more will become cheaper because they'll be no different than the shit people eat at fast food restaurants; that's just how co operations work. They want money from large demand and don't care what they sell so long as it's legal.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Cosmetic products, shampoo conditioners ecc? Not even worth mentioning the load of animal stuff they use.


Mhm, a lot of that stuff is horrible for you though yes a lot of it is good as well.

Guess what though? I'm one of those guys who takes care of his long hair, and I use...










Vegan. Look it up, it's good for your hair and will make you think one of your parents was an Asian/Indian with long naturally good hair.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Plastic bag? Animal fat.


Canvas bags. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Condoms? Still fat, they were once made with lambs' gut.


Good thing I've never had to use condoms before when getting down with the women I've dealt with, this isn't even a vegan thing I've always just generally preferred foreplay over fucking.

Also...

http://www.glydeamerica.com/

Condoms ain't for me, but hey, you can still get vegan condoms. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Toothpaste? Animal bones to bleach them.


All toothpaste? Nope.










Look it up. 

Lol, there's like a shitload of vegan products to a lot of the things you state.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Sport equipment? Pffft.


Microfiber balls.

Vegan alternatives exist with almost everything a lot of people deem useful and like I said are not produced enough because MOST humans WORLDWIDE don't take the suffering of animals as seriously as they think they do hence the demand for vegan products are less & less because unfortunately vegans/vegetarians (especially vegans) are a minority.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Vaccine? Almost any of them use eggs for the incubation of the virus.


Finally an interesting argument I've not heard in a LONG time.

Other than some of vaccinations having a lot of horrid side effects, I will not argue that there is use to them. However it is VERY debatable in this day and age if they're 100% safe or needed at all.

http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/the-healthiest-children-in-the-future-will-be-unvaccinated-by-dave-mihalovic-naturopathic-doctor/#.VBdp3XKSy7U 

http://vactruth.com/2014/02/26/unvaccinated-children-healthier/

Many already state that vaccinations aren't ever so _"useful"_ to a person, and are also harmful. I don't know about downright bad, but I've always known they've had their side effects.











I will say this though, I am still in a grey area when it comes to the topic of vaccinations despite always knowing all of the shit vaccines had I used to take them normally. I've only been a vegan for like, a year, and I haven't really been struck with anything so I didn't have to take anything and don't know the experience of not taking vaccines when I do get really sick. I got a cold the other day, didn't take anything, still got better. Hell forget me, ever since I turned vegan I've spoken to vegans who claim they've never taken vaccines but are ok, though I am quite dubious of them or atleast their memories. I won't flat out say vaccines are to be avoided, or that they're a must use either mostly because I'm sure there are people who know FAR MORE than I do when it comes to this topic.

However let's just point out how even still, assuming vaccines are in no way dangerous and must be taken; are you actually comparing eating meat with eggs? At best your argument suits for a vegetarian lifestyle, not a meat eater's one; and believe me buddy, I'm fine with going vegetarian if there's all the evidence I need to know that it's moral hence smart. Oh and, eggs are not necessarily sentient. The biggest reason why vegans avoid eggs in general is because of the use of animals for selfish gain rather than survival in factory farms that put chicken in harsh conditions then later use them as meat, as is the story with other meat or leather. 

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/1390938-anyone-else-ever-tried-being-vegan-vegetarian-37.html

Look at my conversation with Coach. Comparing slaughtering a sentient being to taking a damn non sentient frigging egg from chickens who don't care? What? Are you going to compare sperm banks to eating meat as well? Jeez...



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> So yeah you can't eat sweets, you can't wash yourself, you can't wash your clothes, you can't bring stuff around, you can't fuck, you can't brush your teeth, you can't play sports and ultimately, you have to die.


Fuck sweets. 
I can wash my cloths and myself in a vegan friendly way.
I can't move either without sometimes accidentally stepping on a bug, OMGZ NOBODY WALK!!!11!
Nah, you can fuck whilst being vegan. lel.
You can brush your teeth in a vegan friendly way as well. 
Pretty sure being vegan still allows you to play sports.
We all die son, especially people who get heart attacks from eating certain foods. 




Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Life of a vegan? More like the like of a hypocrite, as bloody vegans rant about morals and use all of those things. Lelbigots.


Those damn _bloody vegans_, curse them and how they try their best to try and be empathetic & compassionate.

Also I don't think I'm superior to anybody, did it ever occur to you that people are all different and have their pros & cons? You're better at this, I'm better at this, goes on forever. I don't think you're stupid, a flat out douchebag, or whatever. I do however just think on this topic, you're ignorant. Of course some non vegans will keep shouting that all vegans think vegans are the master race and that vegans are trying to create a new Nazi regime right? That we're all lunatics from PETA that want to bomb all who kill our godly masters the non humans eh? SIEG HEIL and all ammirite? Durka durka elephant gods vegan jihad!



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> >uses medicine created thanks to multiple painful experiments on animals, uses shampoos, toothpaste, detergent etc etc


A lot of the science we have discovered came from the forced suffering of innocent humans, Nazi Germany comes to mind; was it morally justified for the Germans to do these experiments on these humans? No.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> I don't respect straight edge people


what



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> With veganism, this is not the case.


Lol but uhm, it is?



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> That's why I tend to like vegetarians more, they're usually more honest.


Vegetarians have more choices and would be backed up by society more because of vegetarians being closer to meat eaters in the products they get who are the majority, vegans would not. Being vegan is obviously harder ESPECIALLY depending on your location. Do I really have to point this out for you?



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> And I know you're not a vegan, that "you" was general. Dem sausages at the Oktoberfest m8.


Funny you talk about how being a vegan can _"kill you"_ when you eat red meat, you know, the #1 offender of heart attacks which is the #1 cause of death worldwide.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Yeah, I have no doubt Ghandi's gonna have no problems finding vegan sugar or vegan soap or vegan nazis in motherfucking Cairo.


Damn right nyugga. Motherfucking Cairo represent. Also Nazis lacked empathy & compassion for the people they deemed inferior, animals are intellectually far inferior to me as a human and I have empathy & compassion for them. I'd like to also mention that I have no idea why so many people on this site keeps posting my username with an h, lol.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> It's definitely not black and white, but my point still stands: you (generally speaking) stand against animals killing, cruelty etc but apart from not eating their meat you still use products that come through death and suffering for animals on a daily basis (unless you live like a caveman). You're just partially moral, and that makes you a hypocrite. You follow veganism just on the dietary side just because it's the easy job, you avoid the types of food you have on your list and you feel gratified. Too bad you exploit animal cruelty in 1000o039i394303ji3 other ways and you purposedly don't do nothing about, because deep down inside you know that life would be almost impossible.


Lolno; the second I realize something isn't vegan, is 100% useless/harmful, is immoral, I avoid it like the plague. You could not believe how odd I look when I go shopping or the questions I ask, or the amount of crap I've abandoned that isn't just what I eat.



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Tbh I've seen people saying slaughterhouses are immoral. Do these people know the shampoo they've used to wash their hair last night is made from fat gathered from cows/horses being ripped apart in slaugherhouses?


They probably know that not all shampoo is created by animals, genius. Also, what if a vegan/vegetarian does use the shampoos you speak of? What if they literally have no other alternatives? Do you really expect me to hold them accountable much? Do you expect me to tell some starving child in a poor African village that his father hunting is immoral even though he literally HAS NO other alternatives to survive? What if he hunts yet feels bad of the sight of seeing that animal suffer? Are you going to say he shouldn't be alteast empathetic & compassionate to the animal? Or would you mock him for wishing there was another way he'd survive?



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> Wtf? Doing a diet it's not something that concern morality. We're talking about stuff which is labeled as "right" or "wrong".


Immorality is wrong.












Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> But still an hypocrite


a hypocrite*



Λ Dandy Λ;39594178 said:


> as you rant about animals being killed in farms and then use products obtained from that.


He can avoid animal products as much as possible; and EVEN STILL if he uses animal products he knows what is done to these animals is unfortunate and lacks empathy & compassion and is for the most part done out of desperation for survival therefore is justified, not solely for pleasure but for damn survival no different than a poor person in Africa who hunts. The fact that a shitload of non vegans/vegetarians on this very same thread admitted how the non veggie lifestyle is an immoral stance, says a lot. I can steal money all I want for survival, I'd still know what I was doing was no different than what Goku is doing.



Goku said:


> I've eaten lion meat, m8.


....what's it taste like? :lenny2


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

It was a bit tough and chewy, though it may have been overcooked idk. Wouldn't really go out of my way to try it again.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

LOL ok, I've stopped reading at the vaccine part. Yeah right, another of those ignorants with fin-foil hats who thinks vaccine are created by corporation to enslave us and are engineered to cause autism and such.

Evidence to back-up those arguments: academic papers, opinion of respected professors and doctors? No, c0n$pir4cy!!!111 videos with dramatic music on youtube and vactruth.com :HA

Gotta love how you ignored all the rest of the medicine argument by the way. Forget the eggs, what about paracetamol, serums, antibiotics? All this crap is created thanks to intensive animal testing which put animals like mouses, rabbits, monkeys etc under extreme physical and mental stress. Actually that's worse for animal than being killed in a slaugherhouse. So what, next time you contract a flu or any other viruses you're gonna let you die?

I bet on that. Lelhypocrite


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

*mice


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Λ Dandy Λ;39646945 said:


> LOL ok, I've stopped reading at the vaccine part. Yeah right, another of those ignorants with fin-foil hats who thinks vaccine are created by corporation to enslave us and are engineered to cause autism and such.


Do you know what grey area means? Though yeah, I'm pretty aware vaccines whilst they do good do have side effects. To deny that they do have side effects is just dishonest, and to deny that vaccines were sometimes mostly horrible because of failed experiments is even more dishonest.



Λ Dandy Λ;39646945 said:


> Evidence to back-up those arguments: academic papers, opinion of respected professors and doctors?


Oh you're talking about academic papers, professors & doctors? I can too.



Gandhi said:


> I suggest you do a search of the following medical doctors and see how a balanced vegan diet does wonders to you, it is not only ok for survival, it is the _healthier_ option.
> 
> - Dr Micheal Greger
> - Dr John Mcdougall
> ...


So let's see here, when you point out vaccines I tell you I'm in a grey area because I care about my health and know survival is important but you seem to ignore the science showing how meat isn't safe and is actually REALLY bad for you? So since you for the most part just like myself hold great respect for the scientific community, maybe you should reconsider eating your precious sausages.



Λ Dandy Λ;39646945 said:


> No, c0n$pir4cy!!!111 videos with dramatic music on youtube and vactruth.com


Dramatic music is cheesy, but hey, why not address what he says in the video? Also governments worldwide are mostly corrupt and do in fact to an extent try to control their people and it isn't always for benevolent causes, you should know that best since you're American. Also why did you ignore the other link with the Naturopathic doctor who specializes in vaccine research? Hell, why even ignore the vactruth link? It's so stupid right? Address it, _"it's stupid because it's stupid"_ is not a good argument. I also like how you ignored the video with the Indian looking dude, just focused on the cheesy music eh? I'm hoping you were actually listening to what the guy was saying, other than just listening to the music. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39646945 said:


> Gotta love how you ignored all the rest of the medicine argument by the way.


I didn't ignore anything, I replied to literally all of your arguments you stated. You mentioned eggs, and only eggs. I'm glad you continued though, because I can now show how your arguments are moot even more.

Also the only person who ignored several arguments here, is _you_. Same shit on this thread, people post dumb non veggie arguments that get made to look like trash and they keep ignoring the those arguments and keep making new ones after new ones after new ones and all suffer the same fate because of how you don't know much of veganism/vegetarianism.



Λ Dandy Λ;39646945 said:


> Forget the eggs, what about paracetamol, serums, antibiotics? All this crap is created thanks to intensive animal testing which put animals like mouses, rabbits, monkeys etc under extreme physical and mental stress. Actually that's worse for animal than being killed in a slaugherhouse. So what, next time you contract a flu or any other viruses you're gonna let you die?


Lol die? Really?

Paracetamol.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/young-people-overdosing-on-paracetamol-thinking-it-must-be-safe-perth-conference-told/story-fnhocxo3-1227059322297?nk=71a5e004753433b871217f2e4b268ceb

Like I said, side effects aren't a myth. I don't even know why I have to point this out for you.

Oh, most serum or antibiotics thanks to animal testing? Tell me Dandy, why didn't you address this?



Gandhi said:


> A lot of the science we have discovered came from the forced suffering of innocent humans, Nazi Germany comes to mind; was it morally justified for the Germans to do these experiments on these humans? No.


The issue of animal testing, or testing anyway is a VERY sensitive issue and you talk about it like it's so petty. Tests on animals cause experimental fuck ups. Experimenting on animals will tell you what happens mostly ON ANIMALS, animals react differently to human beings obviously and because of this EVERYTHING done on animals must be tried _again_ on humans just so people can say it's _"safe"_ and even then the results are shaky as you've seen. I'm sure you don't know how the process of this crap works. I'd also like to add that any disease deliberately provoked is unlike any disease that appears naturally.

However let's forget all what I just said, just to destroy your arguments even more. It's not just rabbits and mice and monkeys that are used with experiments, it's cats & dogs as well. I don't know about you sir, but before I turned vegan I raised cats and they grew with me as family and many of my family members have dogs. So tell me, you're even okay with the usage of animals that are literally suitable to be companions to you to go through that much suffering just so you can try more fucked up experiments that not only are ridiculously cruel but are dangerous to human health as well? Honestly, this isn't just about animals we befriend but animals in general because no sentient being that has never harmed us on purpose deserves this kind of treatment.

So, you're willing to go with this _"better you than me"_ mindset for animal testing that EVEN STILL isn't as good for you as you think? Are you saying this fuckery is not cruel against non human animals because they're dumber & defenseless? So, why not get dumb & defenseless humans as well? BUT THEY'RE HUUUUUMAAAAANNNNSSSS! Yes, yes they are and I would not want ANYONE to go through this kind of sadistic shit. So why is it okay with non human animals? Shit, with humans you can even get volunteers who are paid handsomely (poor folk if you ask me) but with animals it's impossible because animals don't know what the fuck you're doing to them. Hell, a lot of animals are even fooled into a false sense of security and even bond with their owners only to be sadistically used and have to as you said go through immense suffering. This isn't moral, but oh wait I forgot how didn't address my comments on morality in my post to you or most of my posts for that matter.

And Dandy my friend, antibiotics are useless against viruses. I assumed you'd know that.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> Do you know what grey area means?


Yeah, incompetence and ignorance. Those are the only possible reasons behind questioning vaccines effectiveness.




Gandhi said:


> Oh you're talking about academic papers, professors & doctors? I can too.


Don't try to misdirect things, you bloody ignorant lol. The academic thing was referred to the vaccine arguments. But yeah, keep it up with the youtube videos :HA






Gandhi said:


> Dramatic music is cheesy, but hey, why not address what he says in the video? *Also governments worldwide are mostly corrupt and do in fact to an extent try to control their people and it isn't always for benevolent causes, you should know that best since you're American.* Also why did you ignore the other link with the Naturopathic doctor who specializes in vaccine research? Hell, why even ignore the vactruth link? It's so stupid right? Address it, _"it's stupid because it's stupid"_ is not a good argument. I also like how you ignored the video with the Indian looking dude, just focused on the cheesy music eh? I'm hoping you were actually listening to what the guy was saying, other than just listening to the music.


:maury

Sweet jesus, tin-foil hat at its best. Maybe I ignore that stuff because it's blatantly one-sided, ignorant, and has no credibility whatsoever? I've asked for credibile references: university papers, known academic research, opinions of recognized people. What you post instead, is:

1) A 106 views video of a vegan ranting about vaccine, with no background and knowledge on the matter whatsoever

2) A video from the Health Ranger. Hold on, let's see who this guy is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturalNews



> *NaturalNews (formerly Newstarget) is a website operated by Mike Adams. It is dedicated to alternative medicine and various conspiracy theories,[2] such as "chemtrails",[3] the alleged dangers of fluoride in drinking water,[4] (as well as those of monosodium glutamate[5] and aspartame) and alleged health problems caused by "toxic" ingredients in vaccines,[6] including the now-discredited link to autism.[7]
> *
> *Founder[edit]
> Michael Allen "Mike" Adams (born 1967 in Lawrence, Kansas),[10] the self-described "Health Ranger", is the founder and owner of NaturalNews. According to his own website his interest in alternative nutrition was sparked by developing type II diabetes at the age of 30 and "completely curing" himself using natural remedies.[9] He is a raw foods enthusiast and holistic nutritionist. He claims to eat no processed foods, dairy, sugar, meat from mammals or food products containing additives such as MSG.[9]
> ...


:maury AIDS denialist :maury conspiracy theorist :maury chemtrails :maury another mong who thinks 9/11 was done by the Mossad or some crap like that :maury

But I guess this a wikipedia conspiracy. But don't worry, I get you: being you an ignorant, you can't use nothing better than this freaks to support your argument.

"Destroying your arguments" :HA God forbid, I knew education was bad in third world countries but not up to this level.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/reasons-to-have-your-child-vaccinated.aspx Here you go. UK National Health Service against the almighty VACTRUTH.COM and THE HEALTHRANGER. Fuck, I'm not going to stand a chance against those.






Gandhi said:


> Lol die? Really?
> 
> Paracetamol.
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/young-people-overdosing-on-paracetamol-thinking-it-must-be-safe-perth-conference-told/story-fnhocxo3-1227059322297?nk=71a5e004753433b871217f2e4b268ceb
> ...


Who cares about side effects, paracetamol cures flu. So you never had any flu and never used paracetamol, and you're not going to do that in the future :maury yeah sure.



Gandhi said:


> The issue of animal testing, or testing anyway is a VERY sensitive issue and you talk about it like it's so petty. Tests on animals cause experimental fuck ups. Experimenting on animals will tell you what happens mostly ON ANIMALS, animals react differently to human beings obviously and because of this EVERYTHING done on animals must be tried _again_ on humans just so people can say it's _"safe"_ and even then the results are shaky as you've seen. I'm sure you don't know how the process of this crap works. I'd also like to add that any disease deliberately provoked is unlike any disease that appears naturally.
> 
> However let's forget all what I just said, just to destroy your arguments even more. It's not just rabbits and mice and monkeys that are used with experiments, it's cats & dogs as well. I don't know about you sir, but before I turned vegan I raised cats and they grew with me as family and many of my family members have dogs. So tell me, you're even okay with the usage of animals that are literally suitable to be companions to you to go through that much suffering just so you can try more fucked up experiments that not only are ridiculously cruel but are dangerous to human health as well? Honestly, this isn't just about animals we befriend but animals in general because no sentient being that has never harmed us on purpose deserves this kind of treatment.
> 
> So, you're willing to go with this _"better you than me"_ mindset for animal testing that EVEN STILL isn't as good for you as you think? Are you saying this fuckery is not cruel against non human animals because they're dumber & defenseless? So, why not get dumb & defenseless humans as well? BUT THEY'RE HUUUUUMAAAAANNNNSSSS! Yes, yes they are and I would not want ANYONE to go through this kind of sadistic shit. So why is it okay with non human animals? Shit, with humans you can even get volunteers who are paid handsomely (poor folk if you ask me) but with animals it's impossible because animals don't know what the fuck you're doing to them. Hell, a lot of animals are even fooled into a false sense of security and even bond with their owners only to be sadistically used and have to as you said go through immense suffering. This isn't moral, but oh wait I forgot how didn't address my comments on morality in my post to you or most of my posts for that matter.


What the fuck has all this crap to do with my point :maury I was saying you're still an hypocrite because you have to use medicines, TESTED ON ANIMALS, in order to survive. That's the undeniable truth. You either prove me you don't use medicine because Allah granted you immunity or you stick up with being a liar and a hypocrite. I couldn't care less about all this pseudo-philosophical mental-jerking about animal being hurt you've launched yourself into. Who gives a shit about your cats, I hope they were eaten by some South Koreans, just tell me if you use medicines or not.

Oh and for all I care, if finding a cure for a disease required pulling testicles from dogs with bare hands while they still alive I'd go to the doctor and say "DO IT *******". My life is more important than any animal. I have a friend with a rare genetic disease that can live a perfectly normal life thanks to animal testing, thousands of monkeys are physically stressed to death every year to find improvement for the treatment she's currently under. Guess what? Who gives a shit about the monkeys, this stuff is saving human lives.


----------



## Bucky Barnes (Apr 23, 2014)

To answer the OP, yes I have tried it. I have been a vegetarian for over a year.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Hold on hold on, I've missed this as I thought it was an article on side effects, but this deserves a post on its own

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...059322297?nk=71a5e004753433b871217f2e4b268ceb

WHAT THE FUCK :maury this is not even a side effect, it's called OVERDOSING. EVERYONE on this planet knows that high quantities of paracetamol are damaging to your liver. You can actually DIE if you eat 20-25 grams of that, it's written on the fucking box. That's why you should stick with 1g per day.

And this should be an evidence of medicine being bad? Stupid people overdosing a medicine doing the opposite of what's written on the instructions? :maury

I can't even call this ignorance anymore, this is just plain stupidity. And I'm kinda gratified this is not a matter of opinions, but any reasonable poster on here can see how dumb you look with these vaccine conspiracy theories and article that should prove that paracetamol is bad because stupid people overdose it.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> Yeah, incompetence and ignorance. Those are the only possible reasons behind questioning vaccines effectiveness.


Well duh, I did say I'm not an expert when it comes to vaccines.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> Don't try to misdirect things, you bloody ignorant lol.


I'm a bloody laugh out loud? 



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> The academic thing was referred to the vaccine arguments.


I know.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> But yeah, keep it up with the youtube videos


Sure I will, are you one of those who thinks all youtube videos are lies? Like, literally all of them?



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> Sweet jesus, tin-foil hat at its best. Maybe I ignore that stuff because it's blatantly one-sided, ignorant, and has no credibility whatsoever?


lol, yeah the American government _"never"_ does anything that's questionable and it's leaders are always looking out for everyone. I can't tell if you're ridiculously patriotic/nationalistic or just really ignorant of your government, most likely the latter.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> I've asked for credibile references: university papers, known academic research, opinions of recognized people. What you post instead, is:


Yeah and I posted the leading health organizations & health professionals of the world. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> 1) A 106 views video of a vegan ranting about vaccine, with no background and knowledge on the matter whatsoever


Why do views matter? No background and knowledge whatsoever? Ok, TEACH ME THEN. Shouldn't be hard right? Come on, everything in that video show me how it's absolute feces 100%. Go on do it.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> 2) A video from the Health Ranger. Hold on, let's see who this guy is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturalNews







Yeah, Israeli & the US governments are ever so innocent eh? lmfao.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> But I guess this a wikipedia conspiracy. But don't worry, I get you: being you an ignorant, you can't use nothing better than this freaks to support your argument.


I don't just need him, I also used an example with a Naturopathic doctor who specializes in vaccine research. Oh jee, I wonder why you ignored that. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> God forbid, I knew education was bad in third world countries but not up to this level.


It's fine mate, and I know plural for mouse and that it's _"a hypocrite"_ not _"an hypocrite"_ unlike some people. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccina...accinated.aspx Here you go. UK National Health Service against the almighty VACTRUTH.COM and THE HEALTHRANGER. Fuck, I'm not going to stand a chance against those.


What's your point? I said I was in a grey area for a reason and I already stated I know vaccines do some good which is why I said I wouldn't tell people to avoid them, it's the fact that they have god awful side effects too that put me in a grey area and the fact that experiments aren't as "safe" as you claim which is why I wouldn't recommend them 100% either.

You speak of people being one sided? Cute.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> Who cares about side effects


People who don't want to die or poison their body?



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> So you never had any flu


What a stupid comment.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> What the fuck has all this crap to do with my point


The posts you ignored about morality, genius.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> I was saying you're still an hypocrite because you have to use medicines, TESTED ON ANIMALS, in order to survive.


You realize people didn't always take this stuff and still survived, right? And I haven't been sick enough to take anything in like, forever. Though yes, if I do I might consider it because of survival. My stance towards animals isn't about killing myself, it's about trying as much as possible to stop the most suffering to innocents. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> That's the undeniable truth.


Yeah a lot of humans didn't take what you're talking about in the past (even still today) and survived to their 60s buddy.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> You either prove me you don't use medicine because Allah granted you immunity or you stick up with being a liar and a hypocrite.


Oh, an Allah joke. Original.

When did I lie? Show me now when I lied about anything. I can show you right now how you're being a hypocrite though, however I don't need to type that you are repeatedly to show you. I just do show you that you are in my posts.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> I couldn't care less about all this pseudo-philosophical mental-jerking about animal being hurt you've launched yourself into.


Then why did you quote Nietzsche? Pseudo-philosophical? Adorable, I assume you have some arguments to back up that piss poor statement? Ahhh who am I kidding.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> Who gives a shit about your cats


Obviously myself, my family, friends, and people who care about all sentient life especially sentient creatures who are good companions to us.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> I hope they were eaten by some South Koreans














Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> just tell me if you use medicines or not.


Well obviously I used to since I wasn't always vegan, but ever since I turned vegan I haven't taken anything. It isn't even because of veganism, it's just that I didn't get sick or atleast get anything serious and for the most part feel great.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> Oh and for all I care, if finding a cure for a disease required pulling testicles from dogs with bare hands while they still alive I'd go to the doctor and say "DO IT *******".


You're such a big boy.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> My life is more important than any animal.


You call all vegans self righteous and you show clear signs of smugness & selfishness. Sad.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> I have a friend with a rare genetic disease that can live a perfectly normal life thanks to animal testing


And I know people who LITERALLY cannot take vaccines.

It is unfortunate about your friend, but like I've stated SEVERAL times on this thread if someone literally CANNOT SURVIVE without animal products I will not hold them accountable no differently than a child starving a poor village in some crappy part of Africa. Though both that child and your friend, if given the chance could have alternatives. The child in Africa needs his village to advance, as for your friend the alternative isn't clear yet but it's no secret the stuff he takes isn't ever so _"safe"_.



Λ Dandy Λ;39659913 said:


> thousands of monkeys are physically stressed to death every year to find improvement for the treatment she's currently under. Guess what? Who gives a shit about the monkeys, this stuff is saving human lives.


Lol you're pretending nobody gives a shit about the monkeys then?

I'm sorry about your friend and really do wish she had better alternatives that didn't include her having to resort to use stuff made through immoral experiments that aren't even that safe for humans. However despite all of this, this still doesn't make animal testing ever so fine and dandy. Didn't you read my post? THEY TEST ON HUMANS AS WELL BECAUSE THEY MUST, and you know, HUMANS ARE PAID TO DO IT. Non human animals, ARE NOT. A lot of tests you do on animals? YOU HAVE TO DO ON HUMANS AS WELL so either way humans WILL RISK THEMSELVES. This isn't an argument if testing should be done on humans are not, it's that not only do you support testing on animals but on humans as well and both parties get screwed if experiments go bad only the difference is humans know exactly what they signed up for in those suspicious papers promising lots of money whilst non human animals do not. Now address the Nazi Germany experiments, now.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Λ Dandy Λ;39660185 said:


> Hold on hold on, I've missed this as I thought it was an article on side effects, but this deserves a post on its own
> 
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...059322297?nk=71a5e004753433b871217f2e4b268ceb
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK :maury this is not even a side effect, it's called OVERDOSING. EVERYONE on this planet knows that high quantities of paracetamol are damaging to your liver. You can actually DIE if you eat 20-25 grams of that, it's written on the fucking box. That's why you should stick with 1g per day.


Do you know what the fuck the word side effect means?

_*side effect*
noun
a secondary, typically undesirable effect of a drug or medical treatment._

Like holy shit...



Λ Dandy Λ;39660185 said:


> And this should be an evidence of medicine being bad? Stupid people overdosing a medicine doing the opposite of what's written on the instructions? :maury


It's evidence that it's not as safe as you claim it is, how can you not comprehend that?



Λ Dandy Λ;39660185 said:


> I can't even call this ignorance anymore, this is just plain stupidity. And I'm kinda gratified this is not a matter of opinions, but any reasonable poster on here can see how dumb you look with these vaccine conspiracy theories and article that should prove that paracetamol is bad because stupid people overdose it.


When did I say that paracetamol is flat out bad though? Did I not say that I know vaccines still do good? Did I not say that they do good BUT have side effects? Do you ignore ALL of my posts?

Conspiracy theories? So vaccines are 100% safe and experiments never are screwed up? ....lolwut

Also I'd say that thinking antibiotics have a damn thing to do stopping viruses is sheer stupidity, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Alex (Feb 27, 2010)

I went vegetarian for a week, it was the longest week of my life.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

unch


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> Sure I will, are you one of those who thinks all youtube videos are lies? Like, literally all of them?


No, but they have to be credible. Healthranger and a vegan youtuber to support your argument speaks for itself.



Gandhi said:


> lol, yeah the American government _"never"_ does anything that's questionable and it's leaders are always looking out for everyone. I can't tell if you're ridiculously patriotic/nationalistic or just really ignorant of your government, most likely the latter.





Gandhi said:


> Why do views matter? No background and knowledge whatsoever? Ok, TEACH ME THEN. Shouldn't be hard right? Come on, everything in that video show me how it's absolute feces 100%. Go on do it.


Teach what? If you think I'm your special aid teacher you got it wrong. And you don't need to do extensive research, just speak with anynone who got a degree in medicine or read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

All the references redirect to governments or academic website. So yeah, have fun.





Gandhi said:


> I don't just need him, I also used an example with a Naturopathic doctor who specializes in vaccine research. Oh jee, I wonder why you ignored that.


:maury

That Dave Mihalovic guy is a bloke who hasn't given any proof of his degree and he's definitely not a someone who specialize in vaccine research, has there are no PhD publications by him around on the argument. He's someone specialized in vaccine research as much as I'm specialized in literature just for looking the title of a Bulgakov book on Google.

He's a naturopathic doctor, not a doctor. If you don't know what naturopathy is, look it up on Google and have a good laugh.



Gandhi said:


> What's your point? I said I was in a grey area for a reason and I already stated I know vaccines do some good which is why I said I wouldn't tell people to avoid them, it's the fact that they have god awful side effects too that put me in a grey area and the fact that experiments aren't as "safe" as you claim which is why I wouldn't recommend them 100% either.


Stop covering your ignorance with the gray area argument. Vaccine side effects are mild and disappear in 2-3 days. Severe side effects are extremely rare (well, like any other medicine)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm 

Government website. Again, no fucking chance against the vegan youtuber with a tin-foil hat or the naturopathic bloke who doesn't even have a degree.



Gandhi said:


> Well obviously I used to since I wasn't always vegan, but ever since I turned vegan I haven't taken anything. It isn't even because of veganism, it's just that I didn't get sick or atleast get anything serious and for the most part feel great.



:maury yeah you're not gonna take even an aspirin for the rest of your life :maury



Gandhi said:


> It is unfortunate about your friend, but like I've stated SEVERAL times on this thread if someone literally CANNOT SURVIVE without animal products I will not hold them accountable no differently than a child starving a poor village in some crappy part of Africa. Though both that child and your friend, if given the chance could have alternatives. The child in Africa needs his village to advance, as for your friend the alternative isn't clear yet but it's no secret the stuff he takes isn't ever so _"safe"_.


ALTERNAWHAT? :maury :HA :haha

It's a GENETIC disease. What would the alternative be, choking to her death? :maury




Gandhi said:


> Now address the Nazi Germany experiments, now.


Lel why should I? Nazi esperiments on prisoners brought no tangible results in modern medicine. Even if they did, I wouldn't have any problem using a medication created thanks to those studies. I've got no morals on the argument.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> Do you know what the fuck the word side effect means?
> 
> _*side effect*
> noun
> ...


You don't know the difference between side effects and overdosing. If for any reason you manage to ingest 500 grams of iron through your food in a day and die of intoxication, it's not a side effect of iron. It's overdosing. You actually need iron in your diet to avoid dietary deficiency.

A side effect is a secondary effect of something when taken in any dose, e.g. tiredness is a side effect of diazepam. Overdosing is when a certain active principle is ingested in such quantities that it's not sustainable for your body.

When used in the right amount, paracetamol has negligible side effects like tiredness or sore troath: but guess what, it prevents you from dying because of flu like in 1800. Paracetamol is only toxic if ingested in stupidly high quantites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_overdose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_effect

Learn the difference before looking like a mong again.

Oh and I've never said nothing against antibiotics, that was just you mixing two separate sentences in a desperate attempt to regain some ground. Lel


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> No, but they have to be credible. Healthranger and a vegan youtuber to support your argument speaks for itself.


- Guy who says 9/11 was an inside job? Instantly nothing they say is credible
- Argument from a vegan? Instantly nothing they say is credible

:lmao



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> Teach what? If you think I'm your special aid teacher you got it wrong.


It's more of a "prove him wrong" kind of statement.



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> And you don't need to do extensive research


Yes, you do.



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> just speak with anynone who got a degree in medicine or read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine


Majority of my aunts/uncles are doctors, I have cousins that have a degree in medicine and always have taught me that despite doing good vaccines have side effects nonetheless and that not everybody can take them.

Also not consuming garbage like meat would make you healthier, which would give you a stronger immune system.

_"Vaccination given during childhood are generally safe."_

So even the Wikipedia article says that it's not completely safe, just like I'm saying. lol.



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> :maury
> 
> That Dave Mihalovic guy is a bloke who hasn't given any proof of his degree and he's definitely not a someone who specialize in vaccine research, has there are no PhD publications by him around on the argument. He's someone specialized in vaccine research as much as I'm specialized in literature just for looking the title of a Bulgakov book on Google.





Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> He's a naturopathic doctor, not a doctor. If you don't know what naturopathy is, look it up on Google and have a good laugh.


I know what a naturopathic doctor is lad.

_*doctor*
ˈdɒktə/Submit
noun
1.
a person who is qualified to treat people who are ill._

I wouldn't have a good laugh if a doctor suggested I go have soup or eat less meat right? Are they not treating me by giving me soup or telling me what I need for my diet to have a healthy nutritional lifestyle so that I don't lack protein etc? 

Jesus Christ, do you not know THAT many simple meanings?



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> Stop covering your ignorance with the gray area argument.


Lol, I literally said there are people who are FAR MORE knowledgeable in this BECAUSE compared to them I am ignorant of the subject. When did I hide any of this?



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> Severe side effects are extremely rare (*well, like any other medicine*)









Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> Government website. Again, no fucking chance against the vegan youtuber with a tin-foil hat or the naturopathic bloke who doesn't even have a degree.


Claiming everybody who says something you think sounds outrageous without actually addressing their arguments and debunking them, isn't all that great when trying to set beliefs. By that logic a muslim will say atheists are nothing but conspiracy mongs when they talk about how much of a pedophile Mo'man was.



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> yeah you're not gonna take even an aspirin for the rest of your life


Grey area.

http://draxe.com/an-aspirin-a-day-causes-more-harm-than-good/

Side effects despite doing good, just like I've said.

Also, there are many people who are told to literally never take aspirin because it's deemed unsafe to them. You realize that right? And no, it's not just children.



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> It's a GENETIC disease. What would the alternative be, choking to her death?


A genetic disease that like all genetic diseases, has alternatives means of treatment that as of now neither of us are really sure about as did many scientists with other problems which they found several solutions to. This isn't rocket science.



Λ Dandy Λ;39663633 said:


> Lel why should I? Nazi esperiments on prisoners brought no tangible results in modern medicine. Even if they did, I wouldn't have any problem using a medication created thanks to those studies. I've got no morals on the argument.


What happened in Nazi Germany has already happened, you can't change the past but you can change the present for a different future. Also it isn't just the Nazis that did horrid experiments on humans by force throughout history I'm sure you know that. The reason I brought it up isn't because I'd tell you it's immoral to use the science gained from those experiments; rather it is to question whether or not DURING it's present occurrence if it was moral or not. You seem to like avoiding addressing this for some reason.

Also, why are you ignoring that YOU support tests on humans that are risky to their health & lives? Do you not realize that these experiments done on animals MUST be done on humans as well and that the reason these said humans are paid handsomely and given these experiments is because the experiment might just all become a disaster to them because of the fact that all animals including humans are different and react differently? Do you not fucking comprehend that? Shit, the discussion that what these experiments produce for humans isn't completely safe yet nonetheless serve us in a sense is a no brainer. However you seem to be ignoring the moral argument behind not only testing on animals, but on humans. The entire system of testing on animals, then going on humans, isn't as _"dandy"_ as you think it is.

Now address the moral argument, quit being a coward.



Λ Dandy Λ;39664025 said:


> You don't know the difference between side effects and overdosing. If for any reason you manage to ingest 500 grams of iron through your food in a day and die of intoxication, it's not a side effect of iron. It's overdosing. You actually need iron in your diet to avoid dietary deficiency.


Actually I do know the difference because beans which contain iron are not drugs, like, literally.



Λ Dandy Λ;39664025 said:


> When used in the right amount, paracetamol *has negligible side effects* like tiredness or sore troath: but guess what, it prevents you from dying because of flu like in 1800. Paracetamol is only toxic if ingested in stupidly high quantites.


So at first you say I don't know what side effect means, then you literally admit there are side effects. lel.



Λ Dandy Λ;39664025 said:


> Paracetamol is only toxic if ingested in stupidly high quantites.


Many cannot even take antibiotics, like, they literally can't. Pretty sure even just a little quantities of paracetamol would fuck them over.



Λ Dandy Λ;39664025 said:


> Learn the difference before looking like a mong again.


Oh the irony.



Λ Dandy Λ;39664025 said:


> Oh and I've never said nothing against antibiotics, that was just you mixing two separate sentences in a desperate attempt to regain some ground.


I don't need to resort to desperate attempts with you, believe me.



Λ Dandy Λ;39646945 said:


> Forget the eggs, what about paracetamol, serums, antibiotics? All this crap is created thanks to intensive animal testing which put animals like mouses, rabbits, monkeys etc under extreme physical and mental stress. Actually that's worse for animal than being killed in a slaugherhouse. So what, next time you contract a flu or any other viruses you're gonna let you die?


You spoke of eggs, then proceeded by talking about antibiotics and how their creation is thanks to experiments done on animals then in the same paragraph had a sentence that had nothing to do with most of the paragraph. It isn't my fault you word yourself like a mong and sometimes post English so cringe worthy you sound like a stereotypical Indian living in some poor village.


----------



## Λ Dandy Λ (Apr 1, 2014)

Gandhi said:


> A genetic disease that like all genetic diseases, has alternatives means of treatment that as of now neither of us are really sure about as did many scientists with other problems which they found several solutions to. This isn't rocket science.


Retfl no. She has a rare immunodeficiency which couldn't be cured before the early 90s, and a solution was found just through intensive animal testing. Unless Allah Snackhbar shows up and gives her a magic serum, I'm afraid there are no alternative solutions. As there's no other alternative solution to any other medicine in commerce, bar herbalism and homeotherapy. Good luck fighting cancer or AIDS with plants, lel.

I'm done by the way. No real need to continue after "25 mgs of paracetamol are bad hence medicines are bad", "dude look at these videos from the AIDS denyalist" and "vaccine c0n$piracy!!111".

Enjoy your salad


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> Retfl no. She has a rare immunodeficiency which couldn't be cured before the early 90s, and a solution was found just through intensive animal testing.


Animal testing which includes humans. I sincerely wish the best for your friend concerning her condition, but this doesn't change that she relies on humans being harmed so that she can live another day. Let that sink in, it could be argued that humans who are willing 100% to go through those experiments isn't exactly immoral, but it's a no brainier that non human animals that go through those experiments were deceived to a false sense of security and are then tortured. Nothing about that is empathetic or compassionate, nothing about this is moral.



Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> Unless Allah Snackhbar doesn't show up and gives her a magic serum I'm afraid there are no alternative solutions.


As of right now, perhaps the only solutions to most people is the testing of sentient beings _"humans included"_ to be harmed for your friend to stay safe. I wish we knew more to help both your friend and the humans/animals tested on to make sure nobody suffers.



Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> bar herbalism and homeotherapy. Good luck fighting cancer or AIDS with plants, lel.












Hurrah for herbalism. 



Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> I'm done by the way.


You were done pages ago sweetheart.



Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> No real need to continue after "25 mgs of paracetamol are bad hence medicines are bad"


I said medicines have side effects, hence are not completely safe. I've stated a shitload of times that it has it's pros & cons, you seem to enjoy making shit up about my statements though. How dishonest.



Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> "dude look at these videos from the AIDS denyalist"


_"dude I don't have to prove him wrong I'm just right because I'm right"_



Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> "vaccine c0n$piracy!!111"


It isn't a conspiracy when even you know that shit can be bad for you, lol.



Λ Dandy Λ;39669473 said:


> Enjoy your salad


But of course.

I love how you ran away from ALL of the moral arguments and most of my arguments in general. Cowardice isn't a virtue.








*>*


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

I am vegan, best decision I ever made. Also don't be brainwashed by the media and films and tv which depict the food as some disgusting, inedible substance. I could bake you some vegan deserts that would make your mouth water.


----------



## Oakue (Jul 16, 2012)

It's really difficult for me to do but not impossible. I cannot eat grains, soy, or any form of gluten because of an auto immune problem that prevents me from digesting it properly, but also worse than that can make me violently ill if eaten in large quantities. So, this does make it difficult, but as mentioned, not impossible.

One thing I am really interested in is a spiral slicer. I saw you can make noodles with things like squash or zucchini, etc. That would help greatly with some of the grain problem. Also, as long as you spice it well and add some taste, cauliflower rice isn't bad either.


----------



## Cell Waters (Jul 11, 2014)

It really sucks how inhumanely these animals are treated, and I feel so bad eating meat (when I think about it). I can't imagine the horror these animals must face. It's quite depressing actually. I wish they'd live great lives, and have an unsuspecting and easy end. Not the torture from birth till death. 

I feel so bad for all animals like this.

I know, I'm not doing enough. Maybe buying cage free eggs and meat of animals that were treated better?

On an unrelated note, I want a "pet pig", they're adorable. I hear they very intelligent too. No one else wants one tho (girlfriend, family, etc.) :lol


----------



## RuffRider456 (Feb 20, 2014)

I couldn't imagine ever giving up meat. We all know the animals being slaughtered are no where being treated with respect, but this is something that's been apart of life forever WE ARE MEAT EATERS, and I will never settle for being a vegan those burgers are trash.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> you make it seem like because some people can't survive without meat


This is true though. There are many humans living on this planet who literally could not create a sustainable vegan food supply to feed their people. Try going up to a group of Inuits and telling them to survive in the Arctic without hunting and fishing. See how that goes over.

Answer me this... if your problem with eating meat is based on sentience, animal cruelty, harm to the environment, etc., then what about oyster meat?

_It's OK for vegans to eat oysters.

Consider the Oyster

Why even strict vegans should feel comfortable eating oysters by the boatload.
By Christopher Cox

Oysters on ice. Are oysters vegan-friendly?

Last summer, I visited a friend in San Francisco whom I hadn't seen in a while. Normally in such cases, I must gently remind my host that I eat neither meat, nor dairy, nor eggs, but my friend beat me to it: "I recall that you are a vegan," he wrote, "though one that appreciates fine oysters." Finally, someone who understands me. The trip went off without a hitch—I tore into some fantastic Point Reyes bivalves to go with my green salad, and friendship and comity were reaffirmed.

Because I eat oysters, I shouldn't call myself a vegan. I'm not even a vegetarian. I am a pescetarian, or a flexitarian, or maybe there's an even more awkward word to describe my diet. At first I despaired over losing the vegan badge of honor—I do everything else vegans do—but I got over it. Oysters may be animals, but even the strictest ethicist should feel comfortable eating them by the boatload.

There are dozens of reasons to become a vegan, but just two should suffice: Raising animals for food 1) destroys the planet and 2) causes those animals to suffer. Factory farms are the worst offenders, but even the best-run animal operations can't get around the fact that livestock are the largest contributors to global warming worldwide and that the same amount of land used to feed one beef-eater can feed 15 to 20 vegans. Animals are terribly inefficient machines for turning plants into food, and an inefficiency of this scale is disastrous. The animal welfare argument is even simpler: While there are limitless ways in which humans are different from nonhuman animals, one thing we share with most is the ability to feel pain. Since I consider it unethical to cause you, dear reader, undue pain, there's no reason—other than simple preference for my own species—to have a separate standard for mammals, fish, and birds.

But what if we could find an animal that thrived in a factory-farm cage, one that subsisted on nutrients plucked from the air and that was insensate to the slaughterhouse blade? Even if that animal looked like a bunny rabbit crossed with a puppy, it would be A-OK to hack it into pieces for your dinner plate. Luckily for those of us who still haven't gotten over the death of Bambi's mother, the creature I'm thinking of is decidedly less cuddly. Biologically, oysters are not in the plant kingdom, but when it comes to ethical eating, they are almost indistinguishable from plants. Oyster farms account for 95 percent of all oyster consumption and have a minimal negative impact on their ecosystems; there are even nonprofit projects devoted to cultivating oysters as a way to improve water quality. Since so many oysters are farmed, there's little danger of overfishing. No forests are cleared for oysters, no fertilizer is needed, and no grain goes to waste to feed them—they have a diet of plankton, which is about as close to the bottom of the food chain as you can get. Oyster cultivation also avoids many of the negative side effects of plant agriculture: There are no bees needed to pollinate oysters, no pesticides required to kill off other insects, and for the most part, oyster farms operate without the collateral damage of accidentally killing other animals during harvesting. (Relatedly, although it's possible to collect wild oysters sustainably, the same cannot be said for other bivalves like clams and mussels. These are often dredged from the seabed, disrupting an entire ecosystem. For that reason, it's best to avoid them.) 

Moreover, since oysters don't have a central nervous system, they're unlikely to experience pain in a way resembling ours—unlike a pig or a herring or even a lobster. They can't move, so they don't respond to injury like those animals do, either. Even monkish ethicist Peter Singer sanctioned oyster eating in Animal Liberation —the best-argued case for a vegan diet I've read—before reversing his opinion for later editions of the book. To justify the flip-flop, he wrote that "one cannot with any confidence say that these creatures do feel pain, so one can equally have little confidence in saying that they do not feel pain." This is unconvincing: We also can't state with complete confidence that plants do, or do not, feel pain—yet so far Singer hasn't made a stand against alfalfa abuse.

The main argument of Animal Liberation is that discriminating against nonhuman animals is indefensible because it makes irrelevant category distinctions—pain cuts across species barriers. But to loop oysters into a dietary taboo simply because we've labeled them animals is to make just such a faulty distinction. Likewise, we shouldn't be eating more plants because they are in the plant kingdom; we should eat them because it's a sound way to feed ourselves without causing a lot of damage to the world. And oysters, as far as we can tell, belong with plants in almost every ethically relevant way. 

When I became a vegan, I didn't draw an X through everything marked "Animalia" on the tree of life. And when I pick out my dinner, I don't ask myself: What do I have to do to remain a vegan? I ask myself: What is the right choice in this situation? Eating ethically is not a purity pissing contest, and the more vegans or vegetarians pretend that it is, the more their diets start to resemble mere fashion—and thus risk being dismissed as such. Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." A foolish consistency: If you ....lve to give up foods that begin with the letter B, and if you stick to that for the rest of your life, you'll be mighty consistent. You'll even benefit the world by cutting out beef. But there's no good reason to avoid broccoli—unless, like George H.W. Bush, you don't like the taste. There is, on the other hand, great reason to be an inconsistent vegan and make an exception for oysters—for it is surely foolish to deprive yourself of an icy plate of white-shelled Watch Hills.

When I talked about this article with my editor at Slate, she said, "I won't lie—you'll be attacked viciously for being a vegan, and attacked equally viciously for not being a strict enough vegan." Maybe so, but if amid a sea of vitriol a meat-eater makes a great case that some other animal deserves to be treated as I've treated the oyster, or if a vegan comes forth with a good argument for why oysters should rightfully remain off our dinner plates, then I'll have to change my mind and my diet.

Peter Singer, for his part, showed some flexibility when I e-mailed him about this piece. "I've gone back and forth on this over the years," he said. "Perhaps there is a scintilla more doubt about whether oysters can feel pain than there is about plants, but I'd see it as extremely improbable. So while you could give them the benefit of the doubt, you could also say that unless some new evidence of a capacity for pain emerges, the doubt is so slight that there is no good reason for avoiding eating sustainably produced oysters." Here's to the vanquishing of hobgoblins—the first plate is on me._

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html



If eating oysters does not violate vegan ethics in any way, then what's the problem?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Interesting point Tater, glad you're posting better posts on this subject now.



Tater said:


> when it comes to ethical eating, they are almost indistinguishable from plants.


I'm quite pessimistic, but ok I'll see where this is going...



Tater said:


> Oyster farms account for 95 percent of all oyster consumption and have a minimal negative impact on their ecosystems


I'm not sure about that, but I'll take Christopher's word I guess.



Tater said:


> there's little danger of overfishing.


There is danger nonetheless, but sure I see where he's coming from.



Tater said:


> (Relatedly, although it's possible to collect wild oysters sustainably, the same cannot be said for other bivalves like clams and mussels. These are often dredged from the seabed, disrupting an entire ecosystem. For that reason, it's best to avoid them.)


Well, I'm glad he's trying to sound reasonable.



Tater said:


> Moreover, since oysters don't have a central nervous system, they're unlikely to experience pain in a way resembling ours


Unlikely? So there's the benefit of the doubt?



Tater said:


> "one cannot with any confidence say that these creatures do feel pain, so one can equally have little confidence in saying that they do not feel pain."


Uncertainty alone would have me avoid oysters, tbh.



Tater said:


> We also can't state with complete confidence that plants do, or do not, feel pain


Actually we can, comparing oysters with plants wholly isn't really a good idea.



Tater said:


> And oysters, as far as we can tell, belong with plants in almost every ethically relevant way.


Arguable, but he does try to sound reasonable with his argument and I very much do admire that.



Tater said:


> When I became a vegan, I didn't draw an X through everything marked "Animalia" on the tree of life. And when I pick out my dinner, I don't ask myself: What do I have to do to remain a vegan? I ask myself: What is the right choice in this situation?


Good.



Tater said:


> Eating ethically is not a purity pissing contest


I know.



Tater said:


> There is, on the other hand, great reason to be an inconsistent vegan and make an exception for oysters—for it is surely foolish to deprive yourself of an icy plate of white-shelled Watch Hills.


It isn't really foolish, I'd argue that it'd only be foolish if there was no room for uncertainty and it was a known fact oysters were not sentient. My avoidance is based on my uncertainty because of them being animals. I see where he's coming from though, I'm REALLY glad he's speaking of still considering the sentience issue.



Tater said:


> if a vegan comes forth with a good argument for why oysters should rightfully remain off our dinner plates, then I'll have to change my mind and my diet.


Honestly, all I want is further research on oysters. Of course if they do feel pain, the research should immediately stop but as of now we are not so sure about them. The research itself would be still usage of them, but I guess it would put an end to this issue. 

Off our dinner plates? I don't know about that, but personally I will avoid them.



Tater said:


> "I've gone back and forth on this over the years," he said. "Perhaps there is a scintilla more doubt about whether oysters can feel pain than there is about plants, but I'd see it as extremely improbable.


This here, is why I am uncertain and will avoid oysters.



Tater said:


> that there is no good reason for avoiding eating sustainably produced oysters.


Not really, uncertainty is enough reason for me to avoid oysters.

....................................................................................................

So Tater, are you considering your only meats being oysters? I actually think it's fine in a sense.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> So Tater, are you considering your only meats being oysters? I actually think it's fine in a sense.


lolNo. Of course not. But I do love oysters and the thought came to me recently to look into non-sentient meats. I'm happy to see you being a bit more open-minded on the topic.

So, you do agree that there is nothing wrong with the eating of oyster meat and other non-sentient meats IF they fit into your vegan guidelines?

Also, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on people such as the Inuits who could never produce enough vegan friendly foods to feed their populations. I'm not buying the whole "other countries could help them" point. It's 2014 and we can't even achieve world peace. If we can't do that, there's no way the world population would work together to switch everyone over to a vegan diet. I find the idea that countries that can produce vegan food would just start giving that food to countries who can't or spending the resources to help them build greenhouses and such to be ludicrous. The societies with economies heavily dependent on fishing would have nothing to trade in return if the first world countries stopped buying their fish and they certainly do not have enough resources to build these vegan farms on their own. How exactly do you propose all of this would work?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> lolNo. Of course not. But I do love oysters and the thought came to me recently to look into non-sentient meats.














Tater said:


> So, you do agree that there is nothing wrong with the eating of oyster meat and other non-sentient meats IF they fit into your vegan guidelines?


I've stated a shitload of times on this thread; life is not the issue, sentience is. As for oyster meat, I'd personally avoid it just because of the sheer uncertainty I have but I would understand why someone would think it's A OK to eat them. In other words, I might consider eating oysters if I know more about them to kill my uncertainty.



Tater said:


> Also, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on people such as the Inuits who could never produce enough vegan friendly foods to feed their populations.


People like the Inuits first of all need to get over their asinine traditions of hunting, I'm sure I don't have to tell you how tradition/culture means fuck all. I'm not going to respect someones tradition or culture if they consist of immorality. Hell, their way of life isn't even very smart to begin with neither for it's location or it's diet.

The Inuits can become vegan friendly if enough aid is given to them or they are given more alternatives.



Tater said:


> I'm not buying the whole "other countries could help them" point. It's 2014 and we can't even achieve world peace. If we can't do that, there's no way the world population would work together to switch everyone over to a vegan diet.


You realize there's less wars now and less murders around now, right? Your life, is much more safe than the life of someone who lived 100 years ago violence wise. This isn't my opinion.

Also what the fuck do you mean by world peace? World peace will NEVER happen, the world will forever be filled with humans who feed their sadistic selfish natures BUT that doesn't mean we can just accept it and not try to stop said humans. The world isn't perfect, nothing is. Achieving what is closest to literal world peace, isn't even easy but we still do it because it's what is just. The same applies to trying to help the world proceed with a vegan diet. 



Tater said:


> I find the idea that countries that can produce vegan food would just start giving that food to countries who can't or spending the resources to help them build greenhouses and such to be ludicrous.


Like I said, with countries that can produce plenty of vegan foods now not having to have to waste their foods on force bred animals A LOT of vegan resources would be available to not just give away but help other nations create greenhouses by. Also, I'd say that not trying to help places like Greenland have greenhouses is you not caring about the people there wanting their vegan products to be more available. It's not ludicrous mate, it's just not easy enough because of the asinine mindsets of people not giving a fuck about ethics or the planet. Cultures, close mindedness, and laziness are all holding us back.

If there is a will, there is a way.



Tater said:


> and they certainly do not have enough resources to build these vegan farms on their own.


Who said they had to do it on their own? We can help them, teach them, so they could eventually do it by themselves.



Tater said:


> How exactly do you propose all of this would work?


Hard work, dedication, sense of responsibility, etc.


----------



## Doc (Oct 4, 2010)

Have I ever considered not eating meat?

Nope, Doc's BBQ chicken pasta is the greatest pasta dish on the planet. Also, steak is my favourite meal ever. I did once have a vegetarian paella thing which tasted good, but didn't feel like I'd actually eaten anything afterwards (like McDonalds french fries).

I don't have an issue with vegans etc, but I do have a problem with those who say the only reason they don't eat meat is because they don't agree with killing animals for food. So I suppose killing plants is fine then?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> People like the Inuits first of all need to get over their asinine traditions of hunting, I'm sure I don't have to tell you how tradition/culture means fuck all. I'm not going to respect someones tradition or culture if they consist of immorality. Hell, their way of life isn't even very smart to begin with neither for it's location or it's diet.


They live in the Arctic. They have no choice but to hunt to live and survive. I don't consider survival to be asinine.

You haven't really thought this through as much as you think you have. The only asinine idea here is saying Inuits could successfully switch to veganism. It's not as simple as saying people should help them and teach them and give them the supplies they need to build greenhouses in the Arctic and grow veggies. Not all theories have practical applications.

Also, what gives you the right to condemn them for their choice in location to live? Most people born in that life do not have a choice in the matter.



Gandhi said:


> The Inuits can become vegan friendly if enough aid is given to them or they are given more alternatives.
> 
> Who said they had to do it on their own? We can help them, teach them, so they could eventually do it by themselves.
> 
> Hard work, dedication, sense of responsibility, etc.


You keep saying stuff like this but you cannot back it up with any practicality. You think the entire population should switch to veganism. Explain how you plan on making that happening. You've only used vague terms so far. "People should help people" is NOT a practical plan.

Your ideas of everyone helping everyone might sound nice in theory in your head but it is not a realistic possibility. Maybe you don't realize this but most people on the planet don't really give a shit about most everyone else on the planet. What is the population of vegans on the planet... 5%? 10%? The population of vegans who would actually be willing to help is too small to do any real good. The people who disagree with your ideas on morality far outweigh the ones who do. The fact is, the vast majority of people living on this planet do not agree with you on this.

Explain to me how not only are you going to *practically* change the population over to veganism but also how you are going to convince the 90%+ people on the planet who do not agree with that they are wrong and you are right.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Doc said:


> I do have a problem with those who say the only reason they don't eat meat is because they don't agree with killing animals for food. So I suppose killing plants is fine then?


Stop. You are going down an argument which you can NEVER win.

Come back when you've educated yourself on the subject rather than spouting out nonsense that has been soundly rebuked a number of times in this very thread.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> They live in the Arctic. They have no choice but to hunt to live and survive. I don't consider survival to be asinine.


They live in the Arctic? They could move. They don't want to move? Then they could get aid so that even the arctic is home to vegan foods. If they don't have alternatives in their location, they could either move and if they don't want to _(which is ok)_ WE can help them. So yes, it's asinine to ignore alternatives that are obviously superior.



Tater said:


> You haven't really thought this through as much as you think you have. The only asinine idea here is saying Inuits could successfully switch to veganism. It's not as simple as saying people should help them and teach them and give them the supplies they need to build greenhouses in the Arctic and grow veggies. Not all theories have practical applications.


Actually, I have; you however have not as continue to think their case is _impossible_ to help when it isn't. Greenland does have greenhouses, you're in denial if you think it's impossible for people up north to go vegan if given the chance. The question isn't _"if"_ we can help them but _"how hard"_ is it to help them and _"when"_ do we help them.



Tater said:


> Also, what gives you the right to condemn them for their choice in location to live? Most people born in that life do not have a choice in the matter.


I don't really care if they enjoy living in certain locations, if you like it then stay. However it is us who can help them, and we have a responsibility to help sentient beings both humans up north & animals up north not go through suffering in the hands of humans.



Tater said:


> You keep saying stuff like this but you cannot back it up with any practicality. You think the entire population should switch to veganism. Explain how you plan on making that happening. You've only used vague terms so far. "People should help people" is NOT a practical plan.


So let me get this straight, because I myself don't know an exact practical plan that means it's impossible? I don't know a practical plan for many wars as well, does that mean we should just let them rage on? Oh wait, there's no practical plan for rapes worldwide either to stop fully, guess we shouldn't still try to stop rape! Let's not think about anything at all, let's all just accept how shitty the world is and let suffering continue, now pass me that steak.



Tater said:


> Your ideas of everyone helping everyone might sound nice in theory in your head but it is not a realistic possibility. Maybe you don't realize this but most people on the planet don't really give a shit about most everyone else on the planet. What is the population of vegans on the planet... 5%? 10%? The population of vegans who would actually be willing to help is too small to do any real good. The people who disagree with your ideas on morality far outweigh the ones who do. The fact is, the vast majority of people living on this planet do not agree with you on this.


The vast majority of people on this planet are the same creationists you mock as stupid. There used to be a time when slavery was considered a norm by most people controlling empires, there used to be a time where racism was considered a norm in most nations, all of this has changed thanks to progression in knowledge.

It's not that the things I say are unrealistic, it's that *you don't give a shit about morality* and would prefer if what I say never happens because the thought of a world that's vegan disgusts you as you want people to forever live your immoral lifestyle with animals. There is absolutely _nothing_ moral with killing sentient beings for plate pleasure, arguing otherwise is highly ignorant or highly dishonest and with your case I'm sure it's the latter. Truth isn't a democracy, you yourself should know that very well.

Oh and Tater, I just remembered a question I asked you which you avoided...

*People in certain areas aren't vegan for survival, you however live in fancy Hawaii America and can live off a vegan diet. So what's your excuse? The food is just too tasty? Plate Pleasure? Same old shit.*



Tater said:


> Explain to me how not only are you going to practically change the population over to veganism












My god, this thread just LOVES to have people throw the same piss poor arguments against veganism which were ALREADY made to look moot in previous pages. I'm repeating myself saying this, and I'm even repeating myself SAYING THAT I'M SAYING THIS.



Gandhi said:


> Oh?
> 
> First of all let's assume going vegan won't change anything, so what? If the entire world is mostly okay with slavery with humans, would you be okay with slavery and say being against it is useless because things will never change? Let's say you can't stop people being raped worldwide (you can't, rape will always exist) does that mean you get to abandon your morality and go rape someone? No. Morality plays a big part, a _very_ big part.
> 
> ...


Read nyugga, and for fuck's sake DO NOT avoid my posts more.



Tater said:


> but also how you are going to convince the 90%+ people on the planet who do not agree with that they are wrong and you are right.


Education, the same thing that is killing the christian cult.


----------



## onlytoview (Jan 7, 2014)

Why can't this thread just die already.


----------



## Japanese Puroresu (Jan 12, 2013)

Goku said:


> Stop. You are going down an argument which you can NEVER win.
> 
> Come back when you've educated yourself on the subject rather than spouting out nonsense that has been soundly rebuked a number of times in this very thread.


Plants have feeling bro, it's science. Not to mention you're buying natural vegetation that could go towards feeling animals. You gotta balance it man.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Science says plants don't have nervous systems or brains.


----------



## Japanese Puroresu (Jan 12, 2013)

But they respond to stimuli which must mean they can respond to adverse effects right?

Nature is alive man, it's okay to know you're killing her no matter what. It's life. Without death, there is no life. Eating meat is okay.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Japanese Puroresu said:


> *Plants have feeling bro, it's science*. Not to mention you're buying natural vegetation that could go towards feeling animals. You gotta balance it man.


what



Japanese Puroresu said:


> Without death, there is no life.


you do realise you can harvest food from plants without killing it, right?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

> Oh and Tater, I just remembered a question I asked you which you avoided...


Ghandi, I've told you time and time again my stance on the topic. I do not agree with you that eating meat is immoral. No matter how badly you want it to be so, saying that eating meat is immoral is not a fact that you can proclaim. It your *opinion* and one I do not share. I've also told you time and time again that I am not going to debate the morality of eating meat with you. I am not talking about me and my beliefs, yet you seem to find it impossible to talk about any of this without going on the attack against me. The topic at hand has nothing to do with me. The topic at hand is how you plan on making all of this work, which you seem to have no answers for except for vague references of people helping people and "educating" them.



> They live in the Arctic? They could move.


Do you honestly think it is that simple? That entire populations could just up and move like that?

Millions upon millions of humans live on this planet in locations that are not exactly paradise. "They could move" is not really a viable option for most people.



> They don't want to move? Then they could get aid so that even the arctic is home to vegan foods.


Aid from who? Who are all these "we" and "us" people you keep talking about that are going to go to the Arctic and give them enough aid to build a vegan society?

That's what I am talking about with practicality. You have all these ideas in your head and no practical way to implement them.

So tell me, how are you planning on educating the masses? Veganism has been around for a long time and the whole "meat is murder" and calling meat eaters immoral plan has not changed the planet into vegans. You cannot argue the fact that most of the people living on this planet simply do not agree with you. It seems like to me that you and the rest of the vegans need a new plan of convincing people you are right and they are wrong because the current plan is not working. Do you have any other ideas on how to convince all those billions of people to agree with you?

You might think it possible that Inuits could switch to a vegan diet. Maybe it is. You're skipping a step though. You have to convince them first that veganism is the right way to go. Otherwise, they're never going to want to go through all the pain and effort in the first place of making the switch.

Answer these two main questions.

#1: How do you plan on convincing the 90%+ of the population that are not vegan that they should be?

#2: Once you've convinced them, how do you plan on practically implementing the change so the world can live on a vegan diet?

Give details. No more vague ideas. I want to hear your solid, laid out plans.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Japanese Puroresu said:


> But they respond to stimuli which must mean they can respond to adverse effects right?


I know they do, they still don't feel pain because they don't have a nervous system or a brain. 



Japanese Puroresu said:


> Nature is alive man, it's okay to know you're killing her no matter what. It's life. Without death, there is no life. Eating meat is okay.


Nature is alive? Well, like, no shit?

Without death there is no life? Ok bro, I'm going to kill my neighbors dog.



Tater said:


> Ghandi, I've told you time and time again my stance on the topic. I do not agree with you that eating meat is immoral. No matter how badly you want it to be so, saying that eating meat is immoral is not a fact that you can proclaim. It your opinion and one I do not share. I've also told you time and time again that I am not going to debate the morality of eating meat with you. I am not talking about me and my beliefs, yet you seem to find it impossible to talk about any of this without going on the attack against me. The topic at hand has nothing to do with me. The topic at hand is how you plan on making all of this work,


LOL.

Alright Tattie, since you choose to still be dishonest in this thread I'm going to expose your dogshit even more.

You DID argue with me on the morality of eating sentient beings, and all the garbage arguments you presented were destroyed with no mercy. Not only that, but with each rebuttal I posted you avoided addressing it like a coward then throughout the entire thread kept pretending those rebuttals didn't exist. Your moral arguments suck major ass, so since they do and you know it you are now choosing to go on about new arguments to try and shrug off how bad you were made to look with your previous garbage arguments on morality. 



Tater said:


> which you seem to have no answers for except for vague references of people helping people and "educating" them.


I don't run countries, or markets, and I'm not a politician. Let's assume I have no way of knowing if it would work though, why is it that your theory that they could never be aided is worth considering yet mine isn't? Yours isn't even based on facts, it's based on your selfishness and _"don't give a fuck about thinking"_ stance.

What I'm stating isn't really _"vague"_, you just don't want to think of how what I say would work out because you enjoy dishonesty when it fits your selfish pleasures of eating some cow.



Tater said:


> Do you honestly think it is that simple? That entire populations could just up and move like that?


No.



Tater said:


> Millions upon millions of humans live on this planet in locations that are not exactly paradise. "They could move" is not really a viable option for most people.


It's an option many consider, and go forth with. May I remind you of the many ex muslims who leave Saudi Arabia or religiously oppressive nations?



Tater said:


> Aid from who? Who are all these "we" and "us" people you keep talking about that are going to go to the Arctic and give them enough aid to build a vegan society?


People with enough vegan resources, money, and dedication.



Tater said:


> That's what I am talking about with practicality. You have all these ideas in your head and no practical way to implement them.


So you expect me to tell you which country, at which time, and ALL of the bloody details of how it would happen for something this big? Are you fucking kidding me? 



Tater said:


> So tell me, how are you planning on educating the masses? Veganism has been around for a long time and the whole "meat is murder" and calling meat eaters immoral plan has not changed the planet into vegans.


If you thought vegans are a minority now, boy, you should go back 100 years and see how being a vegan was like being a British Mormon. Vegans are rising in numbers because of the internet, new scientific discoveries, and how people can all share knowledge with each other much more easily than they did in the past. We are growing in numbers, just really slow as most movements start including secularism.



Tater said:


> You cannot argue the fact that most of the people living on this planet simply do not agree with you.


When the fuck did I argue otherwise?



Tater said:


> It seems like to me that you and the rest of the vegans need a new plan of convincing people you are right and they are wrong because the current plan is not working. Do you have any other ideas on how to convince all those billions of people to agree with you?


We're doing fine if societies have now started up making vegan restaurants & products, because you know, co operations know vegans are growing in numbers and there's money to be made. 



Tater said:


> You might think it possible that Inuits could switch to a vegan diet. Maybe it is.


Nah, I don't just think it's possible I know it is. Lol, _"maybe it is"_.



Tater said:


> You're skipping a step though. You have to convince them first that veganism is the right way to go.


I'm starting to think that you don't read 90% of my posts and just randomly pick a post of mine and reply, because you seem to think I'm not aware of needing to convince people why veganism is right.



Tater said:


> Otherwise, they're never going to want to go through all the pain and effort in the first place of making the switch.


It was a bitch for slave owners to let their slaves free too.



Tater said:


> #1: How do you plan on convincing the 90%+ of the population that are not vegan that they should be?


Education.



Tater said:


> #2: Once you've convinced them, how do you plan on practically implementing the change so the world can live on a vegan diet?


Once they're educated and know how it's the right thing to do, they will want aid and countries with people who are mostly already educated enough on veganism will help them with aid through vegan resources and money to help them make their own vegan products.



Tater said:


> Give details. No more vague ideas. I want to hear your solid, laid out plans.









Gandhi said:


> Oh?
> 
> First of all let's assume going vegan won't change anything, so what? If the entire world is mostly okay with slavery with humans, would you be okay with slavery and say being against it is useless because things will never change? Let's say you can't stop people being raped worldwide (you can't, rape will always exist) does that mean you get to abandon your morality and go rape someone? No. Morality plays a big part, a _very_ big part.
> 
> ...


Why did you not address this? Stop being a coward.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

I have not posted in this thread, but ffs no one is going to change their opinion on being vegan/vegetarian or not and certainly not by bitching at one another on a wrestling forum. It's sort of comparable to being prolife/prochoice or anti-capital punish/pro-capital punishment, other people can give you information on it but you need to personally take your stance and that will be your decision and stance in life, no matter how immoral or wrong others feel it is. 

It's rare as fuck for a vegan who is preaching to a non-vegan to convert them, it really is, and it's even more rare for a non-vegan to convince a vegan that non-veganism is fine. So why are ya'll still arguing? Has anyone even benefited over this or just using it as a soapbox to shit all over vegans/non-vegans? 

People like me perhaps wanted to share their experiences with the OP, but goddamn I can't even do that without getting screamed by one of ya'll. :kobe


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Bigg Hoss said:


> I have not posted in this thread, but ffs no one is going to change their opinion on being vegan/vegetarian or not and certainly not by bitching at one another on a wrestling forum. It's sort of comparable to being prolife/prochoice or anti-capital punish/pro-capital punishment, other people can give you information on it but you need to personally take your stance and that will be your decision and stance in life, no matter how immoral or wrong others feel it is.
> 
> It's rare as fuck for a vegan who is preaching to a non-vegan to convert them, it really is, and it's even more rare for a non-vegan to convince a vegan that non-veganism is fine. So why are ya'll still arguing? Has anyone even benefited over this or just using it as a soapbox to shit all over vegans/non-vegans?
> 
> People like me perhaps wanted to share their experiences with the OP, but goddamn I can't even do that without getting screamed by one of ya'll. :kobe


Opinions don't really matter, facts do.

Also if you read a lot of the posts on this thread, you'd see that plenty were convinced with the veggie lifestyle or atleast the veggie arguments. Hell a lot of my rep is mostly from this thread with non vegans agreeing with me and even considering veganism or vegetarianism. Disinformation always loses against truth and this thread is a good example of this reality.

So yeah, I don't know what you're talking about lass.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> Opinions don't really matter, facts do.
> 
> Also if you read a lot of the posts on this thread, you'd see that plenty were convinced with the veggie lifestyle or atleast the veggie arguments. Hell a lot of my rep is mostly from this thread with non vegans agreeing with me and even considering veganism or vegetarianism. Disinformation always loses against truth and this thread is a good example of this reality.
> 
> So yeah, I don't know what you're talking about lass.


No, I'm not going to, because any amount of information here is going to riddled with anger, arguments, and biases. I have and will continue to do my own research from factual and 100% verified sources and scientific journals and accounts and also take into consideration my own health issues, diseases, etc. when it comes to things like this. I'm not them and I do not give a damn how they think or feel with the information presented to them, that's on them and has nothing to do with me. 

I'm not getting into this with you because I was neither hostile nor threatening and I'm not taking a stance here, all I'm saying is that it's impossible for anyone to discuss anything in this thread because of how you and Tater are attacking one another and other posters. Hell, you just jumped on my ass right now.

I'm not posting past this point because seriously, I don't need to be mauled by the vegans/non-vegans on this forum just for pleading for a bit more civil conversation as opposed to "You are all shitty," "No, you are all shitty" back and forth.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Bigg Hoss said:


> No, I'm not going to, because any amount of information here is going to riddled with anger, arguments, and biases. I have and will continue to do my own research from factual and 100% verified sources and scientific journals and accounts and also take into consideration my own health issues, diseases, etc. when it comes to things like this. I'm not them and I do not give a damn how they think or feel with the information presented to them, that's on them.


Obviously you haven't read a lot of the posts on this thread.



Gandhi said:


> Let us instead look at the latest statements from the scientific community that prove that veganism is the right choice; and that non vegan foods are not only useless to you, but are harmful to you.
> 
> I suggest you do a search of the following medical doctors and see how a balanced vegan diet does wonders to you, it is not only ok for survival, it is the _healthier_ option.
> 
> ...


The leading health organizations & health professionals lass, science says eating meat is bad. 



Bigg Hoss said:


> I'm not getting into this with you because I was neither hostile nor threatening


Uhhh, I know you weren't being hostile.



Bigg Hoss said:


> all I'm saying is that it's impossible for anyone to discuss anything in this thread


44 pages and no discussion, damn.



Bigg Hoss said:


> because of how you and Tater are attacking one another and other posters.


I didn't flat out insult anyone, all I did was attack certain statements. 

You obviously didn't read most of this thread.



Bigg Hoss said:


> Hell, you just jumped on my ass right now.


....what



Bigg Hoss said:


> "You are all shitty," "No, you are all shitty"


When did I insult anyone personally? Show me.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Bigg Hoss said:


> I have not posted in this thread


Wish it had stayed that way.

also lol grammar.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

> #1: How do you plan on convincing the 90%+ of the population that are not vegan that they should be?





> Education.


This does not answer the question. How do you plan on educating them? Do you have any ideas on how to do that? Try thinking big picture. Converting people one at a time is not a very efficient plan. Have you ever considered how to change the mind of large populations at once? If you were a politician, what would be your ideas on how to do that? 

What do you do when people reject your ideas? I can guarantee you that lots and lots of people will reject your ideas. Millions of people might listen to your "education" and still not agree with you about the morality of eating meat. Then what do you do? What is your next step? Do you forget about them and move on to the next crowd? Do you build up enough vegan believers to go back and use force to make the non-believers to accept your ideas? What is your plan here?



> #2: Once you've convinced them, how do you plan on practically implementing the change so the world can live on a vegan diet?





> Once they're educated and know how it's the right thing to do, they will want aid and countries with people who are mostly already educated enough on veganism will help them with aid through vegan resources and money to help them make their own vegan products.


This is not a plan. "Everyone will help everyone else" is not an actual plan. That's more akin to wishful thinking. Come on, you can come up with something better than that.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

Gandhi said:


> Obviously you haven't read a lot of the posts on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I appreciate your attempts at civility and sources, I do.

I find it funny that your assumption is that I agree with how eat is consumed, or that I'm not supportive of a vegan diet, or anything along those lines. Never did I say any of that, you inferred that. 

There are extenuating factors like health, disease, environmental impact, social situations, economic standing, etc. none of which I have seen addressed and I do not intend to address because it is not my job, all I'm saying is that in discussions of science and health, debate and civil conversation instead of shutting out other interpretations of facts (facts can be interpreted, yes, which is why a thesis or theory can be disprove or improved upon) or insight. That goes to both vegans AND non-vegans alike that are guilty of this, and as much as I'd love discussion, to love to see more information shared, people are incapable of doing it in this thread without being rude, uncivil, or downright inappropriate at times.

And debates are never as of black or white as either side would like to see or else there wouldn't be a debate. There's always two sides to the coin, for example there are environmental impacts from cattle grazing for slaughter, but also impacts from quinoa production for vegan diets.

All I'm saying is that you can have 44 pages of any type of topic and still not have legitimate discussion if you're just negating everything one another says then is it really beneficial? Is there really any discussion or exchanging of ideas or not? 

I just felt like throwing my 2 cents in because I believe that conversations like these are important, in any medium, but they're often times handled poorly. I thank you for actually taking in consideration my words and being respectful. Carry on with ya'll debates.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

I think my favourite part about this thread is Tater constantly, purposely spelling Gandhi "Ghandi." 

Other than that, carry on.


----------



## Rex Rasslin (Jan 6, 2014)

Vegan is for pussies (see CM Punk).


----------



## OMGeno (Oct 7, 2013)

I've been a vegetarian since the age of 12, so 19 years. I don't try to force my views on anyone but one thing that bothers me is the hipster fucks who make sure they tell EVERYONE that they're a vegetarian or vegan and go on about why and then 3 months later they're eating a burger. They're one of the main reasons it's hard to take people seriously when they mention being a vegetarian/vegan.


----------



## Doc (Oct 4, 2010)

Goku said:


> Stop. You are going down an argument which you can NEVER win.
> 
> Come back when you've educated yourself on the subject rather than spouting out nonsense that has been soundly rebuked a number of times in this very thread.


Go on then oh wise one.

Tell me the difference between the 2 living things then?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> This does not answer the question.


Yes it does.

How do you get muslims in certain countries to stop having stupid islamic laws? Education.
How do you get more states in America to legalize gay marriage? Education.
How do you get more states in America to legalize weed? Education.
How do you get Europeans during the dark ages to become the secular nations? Education.

Want me to go on?



Tater said:


> How do you plan on educating them? Do you have any ideas on how to do that?


The internet's a good start, listening to health experts is a good start too, activism that doesn't involve violence or force is good to spread the message as well. There are so many ways to educate people worldwide, like holy shit why even ask this when it's blatantly obvious there is.



Tater said:


> Try thinking big picture.


Oh trust me I've been doing that for most of this thread.



Tater said:


> Converting people one at a time is not a very efficient plan.


Seems to have the vegan/vegetarian numbers rising and it's not forceful or violent, so it seems you're wrong buddy.



Tater said:


> Have you ever considered how to change the mind of large populations at once?


OH MY FUCKING GOD.



Gandhi said:


> Oh?
> 
> First of all let's assume going vegan won't change anything, so what? If the entire world is mostly okay with slavery with humans, would you be okay with slavery and say being against it is useless because things will never change? Let's say you can't stop people being raped worldwide (you can't, rape will always exist) does that mean you get to abandon your morality and go rape someone? No. Morality plays a big part, a _very_ big part.
> 
> ...


*READ.*



Tater said:


> What do you do when people reject your ideas?


What do you do when muslims in Saudi Arabia tell you they'll keep arresting and killing ex muslims? You destroy the Saudi culture from the inside out, through the internet to it's citizens spreading atheism, through years of converting several people one by one, years and years of turning the people against it's own stupid culture. Not only did this happen without the internet before in ancient times, but it has happened with many societies with the internet and this is the reason why vegans/vegetarians or atheists/agnostics are growing in numbers. The internet is where religion dies, and it's where the non veggie lifestyle dies.



Tater said:


> Millions of people might listen to your "education" and still not agree with you about the morality of eating meat.


Millions of people listened to people in ancient times speak against the immorality of slavery, and most people laughed at people who were anti-slavery and mocked them ridiculously.












Tater said:


> Do you build up enough vegan believers to go back and use force to make the non-believers to accept your ideas? What is your plan here?


I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, you however don't have a problem with forcing innocents to be slaughtered.



Tater said:


> This is not a plan.


Plan depends on the location, depends on the countries politics, depends on the time, depends on A LOT of things which need A LOT of discussion not to mention the things I said in my long post which you ignored.



Tater said:


> "Everyone will help everyone else" is not an actual plan.


So if someone goes _"let's teach middle easterns islam is bullshit"_ that doesn't sound like the beginning of a plan? I'm right here, and the middle east is day in and day out becoming less religious and more secular and an example here is Egypt. Minus the terrorists who NATO & the US funded to keep certain middle eastern countries in chaos.



Tater said:


> That's more akin to wishful thinking.


White people who were against slavery had wishful thinking too, only they knew their wishful thinking wasn't dogshit that was impossible.



Tater said:


> Come on, you can come up with something better than that.


Plenty of pages of me making your posts look like absolute garbage sweetheart. 



Bigg Hoss said:


> I find it funny that your assumption is that I agree with how eat is consumed, or that I'm not supportive of a vegan diet, or anything along those lines. Never did I say any of that, you inferred that.


Uhm, I didn't infer anything about you being against either side. Show me where I did.



Bigg Hoss said:


> There are extenuating factors like health, disease, environmental impact, social situations, economic standing, etc. none of which I have seen addressed


Yeah, because you didn't read most of the pages of this thread.



Bigg Hoss said:


> and I do not intend to address because it is not my job


It's not your job but it's always nice to call out people who spread disinformation, that's what I'm doing on this thread.



Bigg Hoss said:


> all I'm saying is that in discussions of science and health, debate and civil conversation instead of shutting out other interpretations of facts (facts can be interpreted, yes, which is why a thesis or theory can be disprove or improved upon) or insight.


There are no factual arguments against a lifestyle that doesn't want any innocent sentient being hurt, this thread has time and time again shown this. This thread, is a god damn gem and it will forever haunt people like Tater or non vegans/vegetarians who want people believing the veggie lifestyle is _"just a stupid hipster trend"_.



Bigg Hoss said:


> That goes to both vegans AND non-vegans alike that are guilty of this, and as much as I'd love discussion, to love to see more information shared, people are incapable of doing it in this thread without being rude, uncivil, or downright inappropriate at times.


How was I rude in this thread? Show me. I haven't insulted anyone or talked down to anyone, what would I gain from being an Onision clone? Nothing.



Bigg Hoss said:


> And debates are never as of black or white as either side would like to see or else there wouldn't be a debate. There's always two sides to the coin, for example there are environmental impacts from cattle grazing for slaughter, but also impacts from quinoa production for vegan diets.


Enviromental impacts from most if not all vegan products are minuscule compared to non vegan products, not only that but the vegan alternative is there so people find a way to survive without causing the suffering they do to innocent sentient beings. Human existence on earth alone, their cars, their parties, their everything causes environmental impact. Vegans are trying to cause the least suffering.



Bigg Hoss said:


> All I'm saying is that you can have 44 pages of any type of topic and still not have legitimate discussion if you're just negating everything one another says then is it really beneficial? Is there really any discussion or exchanging of ideas or not?


This thread supposedly has helped a lot of people, had people thank me in my messages & agree with me in my rep veggies & non veggies alike. You obviously haven't read this thread fully, come back when you have.



Doc said:


> Go on then oh wise one.
> 
> Tell me the difference between the 2 living things then?


Cows have brains & nervous systems, plants do not.



Campione said:


> Vegan is for pussies (see CM Punk).


----------



## Doc (Oct 4, 2010)

So, to be 'alive' you have to have a brain and a nervous system?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Doc said:


> So, to be 'alive' you have to have a brain and a nervous system?


When did I imply that? You asked the difference between two living things, not how they're not both living things. They're both living, only cows are sentient therefore feel pain whilst plants are not sentient hence don't feel pain. Simple.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Doc said:


> Go on then oh wise one.
> 
> Tell me the difference between the 2 living things then?


why didn't you just read the thread instead (like I pointed out you should)?



> It is very possible that plants have sensitivities that we do not yet understand. Because plants do not have nervous systems and cannot run away from predators, it has generally been assumed that they do not experience pain and suffering. Recent scientific evidence suggests that the life of plants is more complex than we once thought. However, we do know that birds, mammals and fish have well-developed nervous systems and pain receptors. Like us, they show pleasure and pain and they present comparable evidence of fear and well-being. Animals cry out in pain, they nurse wounded body parts, and they seek to avoid those who have hurt them in the past.
> 
> In order to live, one has to eat. However, when we eat animal products, we consume many more plants indirectly than if we ate those plants directly, because the animals we eat are fed huge quantities of grasses, grains, and seeds to be converted into meat, milk, and eggs. As a vegan (one who eats no animal products) you cause fewer beings to suffer and die for you.


from the 1st site I googled


----------



## Darth Sidious (Mar 29, 2013)

Christ, 45 pages of garbage.


----------



## Japanese Puroresu (Jan 12, 2013)

Campione said:


> Vegan is for pussies (see CM Punk).


That's why he quit veganism.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

> The internet is where religion dies, and it's where the non veggie lifestyle dies.


Your stance on veganism is a kind of religion because of how you preach the morality side of it. All you're doing is killing one religion and replacing it with another. You're equating vegans to atheists and I see it as the exact opposite. I'm an atheist and I'm not a vegan. Veganism is just another form of religion that is trying to push it's beliefs on me.

It's also kinda hard to take some of this stuff you say seriously because you insist on comparing eating meat to stuff like rape, murder and slavery. That's just insane. I'm trying to help you figure out a different approach because the one you are using now is not an effective one. You can't just go running around calling people murderers and rapists because they eat meat and expect them to listen to what you have to say. That's going to end up with a lot of people either pissed off at you or thinking you are a lunatic. No matter how right you may be or think you are, in general principle, people don't like to be browbeaten by people calling them cowards and liars. This is psychology 101.

What you need to be focusing on are the logical aspects of why veganism is a good thing, such as environmental impact and health reasons. Those are conversations I am willing to have. Believe it or not, but I do want to see mankind come up with better ways to take care of the planet and feed themselves more healthily. Maybe you should try to find a way to keep some of these morality points to yourself. Let morality be *your* reason for wanting change but don't use that as a tool to shame people into agreeing with you. It's entirely possible that you could win even me over to your side using logic but you are never ever going to do it by arguing morals.

Another thing you could do to help yourself out in this thread alone is to stop making these megaposts with 30 quotes breaking down every single sentence of a post and taking many of them out of context. You bitch about people not reading but it would help if you would post more like a normal person. If you take these paragraphs written here and break them down sentence by sentence, I'm going to continue not reading everything in your megaposts.



> How was I rude in this thread? Show me. I haven't insulted anyone or talked down to anyone


Of all the things that have gone on in this thread, the fact that you do not even realize how rude, insulting and condescending you have been just blows my mind.



> it seems you're wrong* buddy*.
> 
> OH MY FUCKING GOD.
> 
> ...


This is just from scrolling through the past few pages. Do you genuinely not realize that you sound rude, insulting and condescending when you talk to people that way? Even if you are right about veganism, talking down to people is not an effective way to get them to come around to your way of thinking. You seriously need to reconsider your approach to this topic.

When you say stuff like I'm a murderer and a rapist because I eat meat if I do not go along with your morals and your way of thinking, it's *exactly* like when religious people say I'm a sinner who will burn in hell if I do not go along with their morals and their way of thinking.

The. Exact. Same. Thing.



> Good thing I've never had to use condoms before when getting down with the women I've dealt with, this isn't even a vegan thing *I've always just generally preferred foreplay over fucking.*


Can't believe I missed this little gem. This says quite a lot.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

So Tater avoided my arguments for his _"we can't help them"_ crap that he knew were a whole pile of shit and now because I've made his argument look even more horrid he's gone back to the moral argument because of me pressuring him to stop running away from the moral argument he's been avoiding for most of this thread.

This is so fucking easy it's actually getting kind of hilariously boring if that makes any sense, lmfao.



Tater said:


> Your stance on veganism is a kind of religion because of how you preach the morality side of it.


Person 1: Your stance on rape is a kind of religion because of how you preach the morality side of it.
Person 2: ....no it isn't?
Person 1: Yes it is, now if you'll excuse me I saw some hot broad walking by



Tater said:


> All you're doing is killing one religion and replacing it with another.


_*religion*
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
- a particular system of faith and worship.
- a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion._

So tell me Tater, who do I worship? Who are my gods? Where have I resorted to using blind faith? 

Pursuit or interest followed with great devotion? Oh my god, so everybody is following their own religions as well! From morality _"which you claim to follow"_ to an interest in certain shows or music or whatever the fuck people really like! Everybody is a part of a religion!












Tater said:


> You're equating vegans to atheists and I see it as the exact opposite. I'm an atheist and I'm not a vegan.


You being an atheist who isn't vegan doesn't change how vegans are in a similar position to godless people who speak the truth and are mocked and ridiculed by an ignorant religious majority.



Tater said:


> Veganism is just another form of religion that is trying to push it's beliefs on me.


Push my beliefs on you? Oh cut the crap, I have stated time and time again on this thread I wouldn't force anyone to do anything but I would call you out on your bullshit if the topic came up hence the existence of this thread. Keep trying to lie about my intentions or veganism, it won't help you and will only make you look worse than you already do now.



Tater said:


> It's also kinda hard to take some of this stuff you say seriously because you insist on comparing eating meat to stuff like rape, murder and slavery.


Slaughtering innocent sentient beings requires you do the following...

- Out of sheer ignorance, go on with immorality
- Force an innocent sentient creature to do something without consent
- Enjoy pleasure that is mostly all about selfishness

Rape, murder, and slavery all do the same as well. This isn't fucking rocket science, don't play dumb.



Tater said:


> I'm trying to help you figure out a different approach because the one you are using now is not an effective one.


People who message me thanking me and repping me agreeing who aren't even vegan say otherwise.



Tater said:


> You can't just go running around calling people murderers and rapists because they eat meat and expect them to listen to what you have to say.


Do meat eaters fund people who slaughter? Yes, I didn't really call anyone here a murderer but I did say that you support killers. As for you fishing, yeah you are someone who killed for selfish gain. Other than that I didn't really call anyone a murderer so you can stop lying Tattie. Also, when the fuck did I call anyone here a rapist? Like holy fuck, all you do on this thread is lie.



Tater said:


> That's going to end up with a lot of people either pissed off at you or thinking you are a lunatic.


Muslims get pissed off when I tell them Mohammed was a pedophile and show them hadiths of it too.



Tater said:


> people don't like to be browbeaten by people calling them cowards and liars. This is psychology 101.


You've *lied* several times on this thread, you've *acted like a coward* several times on this thread.

You have no one to blame but yourself.



Tater said:


> What you need to be focusing on are the logical aspects of why veganism is a good thing


I am.



Tater said:


> such as environmental impact and health reasons.


I already covered those, next.



Tater said:


> Those are conversations I am willing to have. Believe it or not


Oh, I see what this is. This is your way of STILL trying to avoid the moral argument because you know you have no moral justification for slaughtering sentient beings because when you did try to attempt to defend your moral standing when it comes to you not being vegan you made yourself look fucking horrible. You KNOW when it comes to the moral stance veganism wins every god damn time and on this thread I've shown that several times. You however, just keep running away from the moral arguments because your arguments for morality are fucking retarded. 

Still trying to run away Tater? How very sad.



Tater said:


> but I do want to see mankind come up with better ways to take care of the planet and feed themselves more healthily.


Then go vegan.



Tater said:


> Maybe you should try to find a way to keep some of these morality points to yourself.


*No.*



Tater said:


> Let morality be your reason for wanting change but don't use that as a tool to shame people into agreeing with you.


I have the sneaking suspicion you're admitting in this post veganism is the moral position, but that people should go vegan for whatever reason they want and not because of the moral argument as a whole.

Morality is the biggest reason I'm vegan, it's the biggest reason I left islam, it's the biggest reason I don't want to become a complete asshole. I could go on and on, morality is fucking important.



Tater said:


> It's entirely possible that you could win even me over to your side using logic but you are never ever going to do it by arguing morals.


Can you just come out as a nihilist that doesn't give a shit about the concept of morality? Christ it's getting boring making you look bad, this conversation about morality would be over the second you just tell me you're genuinely a nihilist when it comes to the concept of morality in general.



Tater said:


> Another thing you could do to help yourself out in this thread alone is to stop making these megaposts with 30 quotes breaking down every single sentence of a post and taking many of them out of context.


I'm not taking anything out of context, quit lying and respect your god damn age.



Tater said:


> If you take these paragraphs written here and break them down sentence by sentence, I'm going to continue not reading everything in your megaposts.


So basically what you're doing is...






I actually have a feeling you DO read my posts, but avoid them on purpose because you can't reply for shit just like you couldn't reply to my shorter posts in the beginning of this thread and avoided them. Then again, you might be telling the truth that you do avoid my posts but that would still make you look bad as it would mean that you're basically just going I'M TOO LAZY TO READ ARGUMENTS AGAINST MYSELF or THIS IS TOO LONG AND I NEVER LIKED READING ANYWAY or YOUR POSTS HAVE MADE ME LOOK BAD BEFORE SO IN ORDER FOR ME TO LIVE IN DENIAL MORE I CAN AVOID THEM BECAUSE AVOIDING THE TRUTH HELPS!

*You look like a coward either way.* 



Tater said:


> Of all the things that have gone on in this thread, the fact that you do not even realize how rude, insulting and condescending you have been just blows my mind.


Oh lord, now what...



Tater said:


> This is just from scrolling through the past few pages. Do you genuinely not realize that you sound rude, insulting and condescending when you talk to people that way? Even if you are right about veganism, talking down to people is not an effective way to get them to come around to your way of thinking. You seriously need to reconsider your approach to this topic.


Oh look, Tater posting more detective posts on this thread that are utterly shit.

I call plenty of people sweetheart, from people who I argue with to people I am trying to flatter or lighten to mood with. Bigg Hoss LITERALLY IS a lass, like Jesus Mary & Jospeh. As with the word nyugga, same as the sweetheart calling. Calling you Tattie? What's wrong with Tattie? Is it an insult? Suppose we weren't arguing and I called you Tattie would you still bitch? No. As for the coward comment, yes you are being cowardly in MANY of your posts so I will continue to call you for what you do. Genius? Yeah, because that's such an apparent insult isn't it? The big boy comment? Yes, I am fucking being sarcastic because being proud of hurting innocents doesn't make you big and this stupid macho identity men have needs to fucking die.

So Tater, all this crap with you claiming I'm insulting or being condescending is just you desperately trying to look for just ANYTHING to avoid the moral arguments or try to convince yourself of your stupid idea of vegans looking down on you or thinking they're superior. Cheap tactic, how sad.



Tater said:


> When you say stuff like I'm a murderer and a rapist because I eat meat if I do not go along with your morals and your way of thinking, it's exactly like when religious people say I'm a sinner who will burn in hell if I do not go along with their morals and their way of thinking.


You're a killer when you go fishing. Also, when the fuck did I say you're a rapist because you eat meat? Go on show me, or are you just making more shit up because you just can't stop lying on this thread?

My morals? Nah nyugga, morals isn't the god damn WWE where you can cherry pick who you like and who you don't. I'm like a religious person who tells you you're a sinner who will go to hell? Dude I don't even believe in hell, if you choose to still avoid the vegan lifestyle nothing will happen. My god, just when I think you can't post more dumb posts than your previous posts you surprise me.



Tater said:


> Can't believe I missed this little gem. This says quite a lot.


Make out sessions are more fun than fucking to me because they feel more intimate imo.

So what does it say about me Tater? Tell us.


----------



## RabbitHole (Mar 4, 2014)

I just read this whole thread. Well, I read probably 20% of it, as the remaining 80% is Ghandi posting the same thing over and over and over again. Another neat trick of his is quoting himself and responding to it. 

It's not his views that I find so insane, I have numerous friends who believe that eating meat is morally wrong. I find that as absurd a concept as Tater does, but we are all welcome to our opinions. However, when one comments line-by-line to every single post with the exact same links to articles, youtube videos, etc, I start to feel this isn't about eating meat at all. That is straight up insane. Being vegan is something he just latched on to. If it wasn't that, it could be religion, abortion, etc. Classic narcissistic personality disorder disguised as altruism. Get help dude.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

RabbitHole said:


> I just read this whole thread. Well, I read probably 20% of it, as the remaining 80% is Ghandi posting the same thing over and over and over again. Another neat trick of his is quoting himself and responding to it.


I quote myself because I got bored or repeating myself, new people who didn't read the thread keep coming to this thread and post the same old crappy arguments that were made to look moot in previous pages. How is it my fault that people don't know what the fuck they're talking about?



RabbitHole said:


> but we are all welcome to our opinions.


So morality is about opinions now? So like, it's your opinion that rape is wrong? It's not a fact that rape is immoral? It's just, like, your opinion?

:I



RabbitHole said:


> However, when one comments line-by-line to every single post


I reply to every single post just to make sure all of these stupid arguments are shown for what they really are, stupid arguments.



RabbitHole said:


> with the exact same links to articles, youtube videos, etc,


See my first post to this reply.



RabbitHole said:


> I start to feel this isn't about eating meat at all.


Oh here we go...



RabbitHole said:


> That is straight up insane.


Yep, let's label that one person who doesn't agree with the majority insane so people vilify them more without considering their arguments or thinking about them. Hey man you wanna go on some witch hunts later?



RabbitHole said:


> Being vegan is something he just latched on to.


Well yeah, you latch onto the vegan lifestyle if you want to be a vegan?



RabbitHole said:


> If it wasn't that, it could be religion, abortion, etc.


what



RabbitHole said:


> Classic narcissistic personality disorder disguised as altruism.


Uhm, I don't think I'm better than anybody on this thread. I do however think my stance, is the superior one. Of course you'll just shout NARCISSISM to satisfy yourself and avoid all of my arguments. 

You can lie all you want, it will not help you.


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

25 meatless days so far.

I'm proud.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

> If you take these paragraphs written here and break them down sentence by sentence, I'm going to continue not reading everything in your megaposts.


:draper2

Gandhi, respond like a normal person if you want me to read any of that. I'm not reading your mega-post sentence by sentence breakdowns. 



RabbitHole said:


> I just read this whole thread. Well, I read probably 20% of it, as the remaining 80% is Ghandi posting the same thing over and over and over again. Another neat trick of his is quoting himself and responding to it.
> 
> It's not his views that I find so insane, I have numerous friends who believe that eating meat is morally wrong. I find that as absurd a concept as Tater does, but we are all welcome to our opinions. However, when one comments line-by-line to every single post with the exact same links to articles, youtube videos, etc, I start to feel this isn't about eating meat at all. That is straight up insane. Being vegan is something he just latched on to. If it wasn't that, it could be religion, abortion, etc. Classic narcissistic personality disorder disguised as altruism. Get help dude.


Ha! Well said. :clap

It's funny because I agree with Gandhi about many of his points. The evil of slaughterhouses and the harm to the environment that farming does (both from meat farming and veggie farming) is an issue that needs to be discussed. Eating more healthy is also another topic I'd like to discuss further. I'd like to hear more about which foods, both meat and veggie, are the most healthy and which are not. I'd like to hear more about alternative farming methods, concerning both meat and veggies, that would be more humane and safe for the environment.

The sad part is that he is so high on this insane morality kick that he is unwilling to reasonably discuss any of those topics.

If there is anyone out there willing to discuss better farming methods for all foods, meat and veggie alike, that is a conversation I would very much like to have. The stuff about oysters I found was a good start. They sound like a very good meat source that are easy to farm and do not harm the environment. I like the idea of free range cows and chickens. I am in support of them living happy and healthy lives and be treated right while they are alive. I also support humane ways of killing them for their meat when the time comes. 

Part of the problem could simply be too much meat intake. If society had a more balanced diet, there would be less demand for meat, which would make it easier for farms to have humane setups for them. No meat at all is not the answer though. We just need to reevaluate how we do our farming.

A big one for me is eliminating all this hormone use on the cows and chickens. It's the reason we have 12 year old girls running around with big titties. All the hormones in the food are causing premature puberty. That's about the last thing our society needs lol


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

You can ignore this post too, Tater, I don't even care about you lying or being cowardly in this thread anymore. All I care about, is that your stupid disinformation doesn't spread to people. So I'm going to reply to your stupid posts, you're going to ignore them, and others will see how dumb your posts are and perhaps tell you how stupid your posts were like some have (I'm speaking of non vegans/vegetarians as well) and you'll reply to them. Same old shit in this thread, but it's okay.

I already know you cherry pick what you respond to me and you have so before in long posts of mine, I know you're lying mate. 



Tater said:


> :draper2
> 
> Gandhi, respond like a normal person if you want me to read any of that. I'm not reading your mega-post sentence by sentence breakdowns.


So rebutting all of your arguments, exposing you as a lazy lying coward in this thread, is all not normal? It's only normal when I join in your stupid banter right? Oh wait, you're either pretending to be too lazy to read or you do actually read and you're running away from my posts. 

You want to dish out shit against veganism in the beginning of this thread but can't handle the heat? How macho of you. Notice how in the beginning of this thread I didn't attack any non vegan stance yet you and your buddies did saying shit like vegans have vaginitis, or your stupid _"banter"_ and mockery of vegans & veganism.

Now, how about you post like a _"normal"_ person on this thread and stop being a lazy lying coward on this thread and address my arguments? If you don't, don't worry, I don't expect much from you on this thread.



Tater said:


> Ha! Well said. :clap


Well whaddya know? Tater joining the bandwagon AGAIN to anybody who posts a post against me strictly for the sole reason of it being a post against me. Too chicken to reply to me instead Tater? You want others to do it instead? Weak.



Tater said:


> It's funny because I agree with Gandhi about many of his points. The evil of slaughterhouses and the harm to the environment that farming does (both from meat farming and veggie farming) is an issue that needs to be discussed.


How are slaughterhouses evil? How are they immoral? Oh please explain to me for I need your wise words on morality. Perhaps them being evil is just your opinion man. 



Tater said:


> Eating more healthy is also another topic I'd like to discuss further.


Veggie foods are healthier than meat, we've been over this and I've cited sources with leading health organizations & health professionals. You know what's healthier for you already, quit bullshitting yourself.



Tater said:


> I'd like to hear more about which foods, *both meat* and veggie, are the most healthy and which are not.


Oh I'm _sure_ you do.



Tater said:


> I'd like to hear more about alternative farming methods, concerning both meat and veggies, that would be more humane and safe for the environment.


*Tater Translation:* "_GOD DAMN IT I WANT TO FIND A WAY TO JUSTIFY EATING MEAT, fffffffffff!!!_"

lol.



Tater said:


> The sad part is that he is so high on this insane morality kick that he is unwilling to reasonably discuss any of those topics.


I've already pointed out how there is nothing humane about killing sentient animals, period. However you've avoided that post. Morality kick? Why the fuck are you talking about wanting animals to be slaughtered in _"humane"_ ways? Tater stop with this morality kick! 












Tater said:


> The stuff about oysters I found was a good start.


Probably the only good post of yours on this thread was your oysters post because you know it's ethical to eat animals that do not feel pain, and it's funny how you say it was a good start because that implies you know all of your posts in previous pages were complete utter dogshit.



Tater said:


> Part of the problem could simply be too much meat intake. If society had a more balanced diet, there would be less demand for meat, which would make it easier for farms to have humane setups for them. No meat at all is not the answer though. We just need to reevaluate how we do our farming.


Oh, you're pretending I didn't cite sources...

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Nutrition-A-Z/Fat.aspx

https://www.google.com.kw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bda.uk.com%2Ffoodfacts%2FFatFacts&ei=8tMGVIOlL4Wb1AWQmIDQDg&usg=AFQjCNFXEUbri64B49pciVrZjtWmk3RVCg

http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/prevention/healthy-eating/fats-explained.aspx

http://www.world-heart-federation.org/cardiovascular-health/cardiovascular-disease-risk-factors/diet/

http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm274590.htm

Leading health organizations & health professionals think even a little of your precious burgers is bad, go on read. Didn't you make that one thread with Bill Nye mocking religion for ignoring the scientific community? Good times.

Yeah I'm going to keep posting these because you keep avoiding it, so your lies don't fool anyone.




Tater said:


> A big one for me is eliminating all this hormone use on the cows and chickens. It's the reason we have 12 year old girls running around with big titties. All the hormones in the food are causing premature puberty. That's about the last thing our society needs lol


So this is what Tater wants to discuss, 12 year old girls with big breasts. Someone kill me.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

RabbitHole said:


> I have numerous friends who believe that eating meat is morally wrong. I find that as absurd a concept as Tater does,


I'm genuinely troubled by how many people (like you) have come forward and asserted that eating meat is a morally correct position and refuse to accept arguments as to otherwise. The point of an opinion-based argument is to prove one is right over another.

You are free to eat meat (as is anyone; I do) because the law permits you to do so, but justifying it as MORALLY right is absolutely beyond defence. And nobody has offered any defence either.



> Being vegan is something he just latched on to. If it wasn't that, it could be religion, abortion, etc. Classic narcissistic personality disorder disguised as altruism. Get help dude.


now you just seem to be using words you don't understand.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Our evolutionary instincts tell me to eat meat. I cant overcome these instincts and therefore it isn't morally wrong. :kobe3


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> Our evolutionary instincts tell me to eat meat. I cant overcome these instincts and therefore it isn't morally wrong. :kobe3


By this very admission, you are acknowledging that it is possible to overcome the programming (vegetarians/vegans do so) in the interest of morality, yes?

Evolutionary instincts do not always reflect morally right positions. Virtually all sex in the animal kingdom is rape. Does that make rape justifiable?

Extended morality is a cop-out to make people feel better about themselves and get them to abide laws on their own terms (and not simply because they're told to).


----------



## Bfo4jd (Sep 15, 2013)

1) A pig is a real garbage gut. It will eat anything including urine, excrement, dirt, decaying animal flesh, maggots, or decaying vegetables. They will even eat the cancerous growths off other pigs or animals.

2) The meat and fat of a pig absorbs toxins like a sponge. Their meat can be 30 times more toxic than beef .

3) When eating beef or venison, it takes 8 to 9 hours to digest the meat so what little toxins are in the meat are slowly put into our system and can be filtered by the liver. But when pork is eaten, it takes only 4 hours to digest the meat. We thus get a much higher level of toxins within a shorter time.

4) Unlike other mammals, a pig does not sweat or perspire. Perspiration is a means by which toxins are removed from the body. Since a pig does not sweat, the toxins remain within its body and in the meat.

5) Pigs and swine are so poisonous that you can hardly kill them with strychnine or other poisons.

6) Farmers will often pen up pigs within a rattlesnake nest because the pigs will eat the snakes, and if bitten they will not be harmed by the venom.

7) When a pig is butchered, worms and insects take to its flesh sooner and faster than to other animal's flesh. In a few days the swine flesh is full of worms.

8) Swine and pigs have over a dozen parasites within them, such as tapeworms, flukes, worms, and trichinae. There is no safe temperature at which pork can be cooked to ensure that all these parasites, their cysts,and eggs will be killed.

9) Pig meat has twice as much fat as beef. A 3 oz T bone steak contains 8.5 grams of fat; a 3 oz pork chop contains 18 grams of fat. A 3 oz beef rib has 11.1 grams of fat; a 3 oz pork spare rib has 23.2 grams of fat.

10) Cows have a complex digestive system, having four stomachs. It thus takes over 24 hours to digest their vegetarian diet causing its food to be purified of toxins. In contrast, the swine's one stomach takes only about 4 hours to digest its foul diet, turning its toxic food into flesh.


11) The swine carries about 30 diseases which can be easily passed to humans. This is why God commanded that we are not even to touch their carcase (Leviticus 11:8).

12) The trichinae worm of the swine is microscopically small, and once ingested can lodge itself in our intestines, muscles, spinal cord or the brain. This results in the disease trichinosis. The symptoms are sometimes lacking, but when present they are mistaken for other diseases, such as typhoid, arthritis, rheumatism, gastritis, MS, meningitis, gall bladder trouble, or acute alcoholism.

13) The pig is so poisonous and filthy, that nature had to prepare him a sewer line or canal running down each leg with an outlet in the bottom of the foot. Out of this hole oozes pus and filth his body cannot pass into its system fast enough. Some of this pus gets into the meat of the pig.

14) According to Jewish law, pork is one of a number of foods forbidden from consumption by Jews. These foods are known as "non-kosher" foods. In order for a meat to be kosher, it must first come from a kosher animal. A kosher animal must be a ruminant and have split hooves - therefore cows, sheep, goats and deer are all kosher, whereas pigs (having only one sign of kashrut) are not kosher.

15) Qur'an, Holy book of Muslims also prohibits consumption of pork.

"He has made unlawful for you that which dies of itself and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked. But he who is driven by necessity, being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit, then surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." Quran 2:173


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Bfo4jd said:


> 15) Qur'an, Holy book of Muslims also prohibits consumption of pork.
> 
> "He has made unlawful for you that which dies of itself and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked. But he who is driven by necessity, being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit, then surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." Quran 2:173


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Yeah, told you that verse was real. 8*D


----------



## evilshade (Feb 23, 2014)

Proud Vegan here. Love to hunt animals but I dont eat them.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi said:


> You can ignore this post too, Tater, I don't even care about you lying or being cowardly in this thread anymore.


What exactly am I lying about and being cowardly about?


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Tater said:


> What exactly am I lying about and being cowardly about?


I know you already know what you've lied about and how you're being cowardly, there's no point in telling you. I was just going to at first just tell you to go read the posts you avoided, but nah, I'm going to take you down a notch _even more_.

However I will reply to you with how you've lied and acted cowardly, just so everybody who views this thread sees how desperate non vegans like you get to pathetically try and justify their immorality.

*Tater's cowardice:*

- You have, SEVERAL TIMES ON THIS THREAD, avoided MANY of my arguments ESPECIALLY THE MORAL ARGUMENT, once your arguments for morality were all made to look horrible by many on this thread you chickened out and pretended there was no need to discuss the moral argument even though you yourself were defending how you still had a moral stance before. All of my posts that made all of your stupid attacks on veganism/vegetarianism look moot that YOU demanded answers for you avoided in cowardice, and just like a muslim who demands me to show them wife beating in the quran then once I bring them the quran and show them the wife beating verse they don't bother reading and tell me I'm harassing them even though THEY ASKED ME TO PROVE THEM WRONG. You have NO IDEA how most of your posts on this thread resemble that of a cowardly religious person afraid of the truth. People on this thread have seen it throughout A LOT of your posts here, and I believe you don't need me to remind you how A LOT of people on this thread, in my rep, all see through you and MOST OF THEM AREN'T EVEN VEGAN/VEGETARIAN. You're honestly one of the biggest cowards online I've ever discussed anything with, I'm dead serious. Almost 40 pages of you just running, and running, like a _coward_.

*Tater's lies:*

- Whilst avoiding my arguments out of sheer cowardice, you claimed that you wouldn't bother reading a lot of my posts because they were _"too long"_ yet I've seen you even reply long posts of mine on this thread. The thing is, you just cherry pick what you reply to once you think you have something smart to say whilst running away from the other posts I have for you because that in Magic's words make you seem like you're posting like an idiot.

- Whilst avoiding my arguments and claiming being lazy, you claimed I thought I was high & mighty compared to all non vegans on this thread even though I've told you in PMs and on this thread I don't think I'm better than ANYONE because I realize humans all have their pros & cons; I realize that humans are superior to each other in different ways maybe with me with my stance on veganism and you with your ability to do whatever it is I can't do and so on with every god damn human. Several times I've stated that I EMPATHIZE why veganism seemed so foreign to you, I've apologized that I made people here feel like I'm trying to speak as their superior. I've stated a shitload of times, I HATE NO ONE. Several times on this thread, I've stated I don't think anybody here is flat out stupid, but that they were just highly ignorant when it comes to veganism yet you insist of lying to people saying I think I'm better than them. It's like you're shouting TERRORIST TERRORIST to get away with the shit you do. Pathetic.

- You claimed that on this very thread, I called non vegans/non vegetarians crap like being a rapist, show me ONCE where I said people here were rapists. Just ONE post where I go, sir, YOU'RE A RAPIST. You can't find any because you're lying.

- You've pretended to care about being compassionate & empathetic to animals, yet still don't have a problem with animals being slaughtered in your precious _"friendly farms"_ and before you say any of the shit about it being friendly imagine if your disgusting farm had human meat.

- You claimed that I spoke out of context, even though I replied to almost literally ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS.

- You even claimed that I was _"insulting"_ people or _"talking down"_ to people by calling them lass, sweetheart, genius, nyugga, Tattie, even though NONE OF THOSE WORDS ARE EVEN INSULTS. This could be taken off as you not lying and just being a really sensitive guy, a little too sensitive. You know, like the religious people you mock every god damn time I see a thread about religion on this forum. Though assuming you're so _"macho"_ and aren't really that sensitive, you lied about those being insults in a desperate attempt to vilify me to have people ignore my arguments. Psychology 101? Yeah, I like reading on psychology too buddy and I know you're a lair.

- Despite me on PMs with you and here telling you that I would NEVER force anyone to do anything, you've stated that I was trying to _"push my beliefs"_ down peoples throats. You come on this thread, talk all this shit against veganism & vegans then you expect me to just sit there? No. I'm going to fucking call you out on your bullshit, if you can't handle the heat don't dish it out. I wasn't even planning on saying A WORD about why I was vegan on this thread or even present arguments for veganism, notice my first posts on this thread were kind of just _"yeah, I'm vegan, it's cool I guess"_ posts. Then you showed up with your dogshit _"durrr vegans have vaginitis"_ posts and even started making god awful arguments against veganism. It's YOU who started this shit, and you know what? I'm glad you did. 

*All of this shit? I fucking swear to whatever the fuck might or might not be up there, is probably the tip of the iceberg with your lies & cowardice on this thread. Like holy shit, this is just what I remember from reading just the last few pages. I could make an entire god damn documentary about your lies & cowardice on this thread.*

*You can't take back that you've lied & have been a coward, but you can stop being a coward and address my arguments. You're not a coward right? Then respect your age and address my arguments.*

..................................................................

Honestly Tater, I think the biggest reason you're being stubborn on this thread is because of your age. I might be wrong, but this here is just a gut feeling.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

Magic's ma can't go a couple of days without having some meat. :kappa


----------



## Darkness is here (Mar 25, 2014)

I'm just about to have some delicious chicken biryani, hope gandhi doesn't mind.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

George Costanza said:


> Magic's ma can't go a couple of days without having some meat. :kappa


eww


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Gandhi, I find your approach to this topic to be wholly sad and pathetic. Newsflash: your "morals" on eating meat are *your opinions* and not opinions that everyone shares. You can scream FACT from the mountaintops until the day you die and it will never change your opinion into an actual fact.

You think I'm a coward for "avoiding" your arguments. Quite frankly, I find that to be utterly hilarious. When people say ridiculously stupid shit and the more intelligent people in the world choose not to debate against said ridiculously stupid shit, calling the more intelligent people cowards does not change the fact that what you are saying is ridiculously stupid shit. I'll go back to the water is wet argument. If you try to tell me that it isn't, I'm not a "coward" who is "running away" from your arguments. I'm just smart enough not to engage in a point by point debate with such ridiculously stupid shit. I've not lied about a single thing in this thread. I've skimmed along a few of your posts and found things to respond to. Some stuff I read, some stuff I didn't. *shrugs* Why bother reading everything you post when it is all a bunch of silly nonsense? Exactly. You think I am in here justifying my eating of meat. That's hilarious. I don't feel the need to nor do I have to justify something when I'm not doing anything wrong.

When I first started posting in this thread, I mocked your vegan beliefs. I think the idea that humans should not eat meat because of some moral reason to be one of the stupidest fucking ideas I have heard in my entire life. On the other hand, no matter how fucking stupid I personally think it is, I also believe that you have the right to believe whatever stupid shit you want to believe in. I apologized for my mocking, tried to show respect for your beliefs (no matter how fucking stupid I think they are) and tried to engage you in a civil discussion. This is a foreign concept to you though. You cannot show any respect whatsoever to anyone who believes differently than you. Instead, you talk down to anyone who dares disagree with your new found belief system. No matter how right you think you are, condescending is never a good route to go if you are trying to convince other people they are wrong and you are right. Considering your attitude on this topic, you absolutely deserve to be mocked for believing in such retarded bullshit.

As far as my own mocking of Christian beliefs goes, yeah, I've been guilty of that. Yet, I do not go out and actively seek Christians to mock. The ones who keep it to themselves and don't go out and try to brainwash the world, I have no problem with whatsoever. I feel the same way about vegans. Veganism is every bit as fucking retarded as Christianity but you won't find me walking up to either and mocking them simply for their beliefs. Believe whatever stupid shit you want to believe. The moment I start having a problem is when people start pushing their dumbass beliefs on society. Then you can straight up GTFO with that shit.

You spent most of your life under one belief system. Until relatively recently, you did not see anything wrong with eating meat. You yourself have admitted that you love chicken wings. Then, somewhere along the way, you found a new belief system and HOLY SHIT, YOU GOTTA GO TELL THE WORLD! Actually, a large part of why you are being so shitty to everyone else is because you are disgusted with yourself for eating meat for all those years. You're taking out your anger at yourself on everyone else because they haven't "seen the light" and converted to veganism as well. You're basically acting like any religious nut with a new found religion. You hate yourself for all your past sins and now you consider it your job to convince everyone else to believe what you now believe so they don't commit the same sins that you did.

Humans have been eating meat throughout their entire history. Without the ability to hunt and kill for meat to survive, we would have never risen to the top of the food chain. Now that we have gotten to the top of the food chain, some people think we should stop eating meat. Well, if eating meat is what got us to the top, I do not think we should stop eating meat now that we've gotten here. I say, stick with what got you to the dance. Eating meat was not immoral for all those tens of thousands of years. It does not magically become immoral just because we are living in a more advanced society. 

There was a time when humans were hunter gatherers. They roamed the land, hunted the wild for meat and gathered what veggies they could find. That was not a very efficient process, so they invented farming. It wasn't immoral when they were hunting meat in the wild for survival. When they started farming meat, that didn't all of a sudden make it immoral. That was simply being smart and making the food supply a more efficient and bountiful one. 

Now, somewhere along the way we lost our way and along came all the hormones and slaughterhouses and other unethical farming practices. That is something I think should be changed. The problem has never been eating meat. It isn't now either. When humans were all hunters, they did not torture the animals they hunted for food. Farming may be smarter and more efficient than hunting for every meal but it doesn't mean the animals being farmed for food should be tortured. Again, the problem is not in the eating of meat. The problem is in how we are going about farming the meat. Eating healthy, taking care of the planet and treating farm animals ethically are all very good things. Those are the problems we need to be working on.

Humans may be smarter than the rest of the critters in the animal kingdom but fundamentally we're still the same. It is not immoral when a lion kills and eats a gazelle. If the lions were smart enough, I'm sure they would have some gazelles in a fenced in field where they could eat them any time they wanted to. Just because we're smarter than the lion doesn't make our eating of meat immoral. The concept of morality is a human construct. It is not a fact of life. Like many other human constructs, what is true for some is not true for all. To you, Gandhi, eating meat is immoral. If that works for you, great. For me, it is not immoral. Morality varies greatly from society to society. In some societies, it is okay for a grown man to marry a thirteen year old girl. Other societies would consider that immoral. In some societies, sex before marriage is immoral. I sure as fuck do not agree with that one lol. If you want to live a vegan lifestyle, then more power to ya. If you want to consider eating meat to be immoral, then good on you. I do not want to live a vegan lifestyle and I do not consider eating meat to immoral. End of story. Period. Deal with it.

At the end of the day, I really don't particularly care about any whackjob's insane belief systems as long as they do not infringe on the way I choose to live my life. I'm going to continue eating meat and you're going to continue believing all this whacked out veganism bullshit. I'm going to continue trying to buy meat products that do not come from the big time farming slaughterhouse operations. I'm going to continue buying fish from the local markets. I'm going to live by own code of moral ethics concerning meat. I will continue to buy the meat that doesn't come from hormoned up, tortured animals, because that is what I consider to be right. That is what I believe in and that is what I will do. You can go right on believing all this vegan nutjob bullshit and it will not affect my life in any way, shape form or fashion. I hope your belief system brings you happiness, I really do. I know mine does.

And with that, I am officially done with this thread. Everything that needs to be said has been said. If you feel the need to break all this down into another one of your megaposts, be my guest. I won't be back and I won't be reading it. Whatever you do, I hope it brings you the peace of mind that you are so desperately striving for. 

I'm going to go cook a steak and cheese omelette for breakfast now and drink a big glass of milk with it.








TL;DR version



Gandhi
:ajscream



Tater


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

*What I learned from this thread...*

*- Tater likes lying about veganism & vegans
- Tater is pretty cowardly against vegan arguments
- Tater doesn't give a shit about the concept of morality
- Tater doesn't give a shit about his health or how he's fat
- Tater likes being hypocritical*












Tater said:


> You think I'm a coward for "avoiding" your arguments. Quite frankly, I find that to be utterly hilarious. When people say ridiculously stupid shit and the more intelligent people in the world choose not to debate against said ridiculously stupid shit, calling the more intelligent people cowards does not change the fact that what you are saying is ridiculously stupid shit.


When did I say ridiculously stupid shit? Show me, back up your statement and MAKE ME look stupid or else nothing you just said means fuck all. More intelligent people? Oh, so you ARE saying you're smarter than I am? And I'm the one who thinks he's superior right? I'm the smug one right? God you're dishonest. If you're so intelligent about this topic, you would have made my arguments look like utter crap in seconds but you didn't and couldn't. Weak.



Tater said:


> I'll go back to the water is wet argument. If you try to tell me that it isn't, I'm not a "coward" who is "running away" from your arguments. I'm just smart enough not to engage in a point by point debate with such ridiculously stupid shit.


Explain how veganism is as stupid as thinking water isn't wet, now. Oh you won't? Oh yeah I forgot, you're quite the coward on this thread. 



Tater said:


> I've not lied about a single thing in this thread.


Read the post above ZOMBO's post on this page, you lair.



Tater said:


> I've skimmed along a few of your posts and found things to respond to. Some stuff I read, some stuff I didn't. *shrugs* Why bother reading everything you post when it is all a bunch of silly nonsense?


So just like I said, you cherry pick and according to you don't really bother reading any of my arguments yet claim my all arguments are _"ever so stupid"_.

:maury



Tater said:


> You think I am in here justifying my eating of meat. That's hilarious. I don't feel the need to nor do I have to justify something when I'm not doing anything wrong.


*You've posted several posts against me trying to tell me how you eating meat is fine and even in the post I'm replying to you're doing it.
*


Tater said:


> I am an animal. I eat animals. I eat plants too. I eat life. My level of intelligence does not make me different from the other animals. We are all animals and we all eat life to live. That is my position on the topic and I don't particularly expect you to agree with me. I agree that the animals we feed on should not be abused and forced to live in inhumane conditions but that in no way means I think man should stop eating meat. Your whole empathy and compassion argument is, IMHO, retarded. My empathy and compassion ends at treating the animals right while they are alive. It ain't going to stop me from eating them.


You're a lair.



Tater said:


> When I first started posting in this thread, I mocked your vegan beliefs.


Just gave me more ammo to use against you tbh, so thanks for posting your stupid posts.



Tater said:


> I think the idea that humans should not eat meat because of some moral reason to be one of the stupidest fucking ideas I have heard in my entire life.


*Tater is admitting he doesn't care about a moral reason for something.* 





Tater said:


> tried to show respect for your beliefs (no matter how fucking stupid I think they are) and tried to engage you in a civil discussion.


I've been respectful to you since the beginning of this thread, yeah I've made you uncomfortable with how I'm calling you out on your bullshit but I have been respectful nonetheless.

I'm like, half your fucking age; yet you only decided to _"try"_ to have a civil conversation after a shitload of pages of you posting stupid mockery posts.



Tater said:


> This is a foreign concept to you though. You cannot show any respect whatsoever to anyone who believes differently than you. Instead, you talk down to anyone who dares disagree with your new found belief system.


Show me posts where I don't show respect or talk down to them, now. 

Oh, you can't? Oh yeah, it's because you're _lying_.



Tater said:


> No matter how right you think you are, condescending is never a good route to go if you are trying to convince other people they are wrong and you are right.


Show me where I'm condescending in this thread now, or else I'm going to keep calling you a lair.

Why don't you like to back up anything you say? Oh, I know, it's because all you do on this thread is _lie_.



Tater said:


> Considering your attitude on this topic, you absolutely deserve to be mocked for believing in such retarded bullshit.


There you have it folks, all Tater wants to do is mock people who are different than him. You started this thread by mocking, and you've continued on with this thread by piss poor mockery followed by your _"respectful"_ act that didn't last long.

Just, lel.



Tater said:


> As far as my own mocking of Christian beliefs goes, yeah, I've been guilty of that. Yet, I do not go out and actively seek Christians to mock.


What makes you think I go about preaching veganism to people? I've stated before I only talk about this when the topic arises between people, that way nobody feels forced when speaking of this subject with me.

Your strawman arguments won't help you.



Tater said:


> The ones who keep it to themselves and don't go out and try to brainwash the world


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



Tater said:


> Veganism is every bit as fucking retarded as Christianity but you won't find me walking up to either and mocking them simply for their beliefs.


How is veganism like christianity? Oh, you can't explain? Oh silly me, I keep forgetting you can't back up anything you say.

You probably can't even present good arguments why atheism is true, from what I've seen on this thread your argumentation skills are fucking atrocious. 



Tater said:


> The moment I start having a problem is when people start pushing their dumbass beliefs on society.


I didn't force anyone to do anything and this is literally a thread about veganism. fpalm



Tater said:


> You spent most of your life under one belief system. Until relatively recently, you did not see anything wrong with eating meat.


Yeah, because I was highly ignorant of veganism like most people on this thread were before.



Tater said:


> You yourself have admitted that you love chicken wings.


Yep, shit's delicious.



Tater said:


> Then, somewhere along the way, you found a new belief system and HOLY SHIT, YOU GOTTA GO TELL THE WORLD!


I don't preach to random people I meet, I only speak of veganism when the topic arises from someone else or when somebody genuinely wants to know why I'm a vegan and gives me that _"I'll listen, don't worry"_ signal. If you're somewhere online where veganism is discussed, I will speak. Otherwise, I won't bother you. Keep lying about me though, as you've seen it's not helping you whatsoever on this thread.

You know what happens to me now because I'm a vegan though? I get told to eat non vegan foods, I say _"thanks, but I'm a vegan"_, and people get defensive and even sometimes angry with me saying I'm being rude or stupid without me saying a god damn word about why I'm a vegan sometimes. It's like a bunch of christians getting angry at finding out someone is an atheist.



Tater said:


> You're taking out your anger at yourself on everyone else because they haven't "seen the light" and converted to veganism as well. You're basically acting like any religious nut with a new found religion. You hate yourself for all your past sins and now you consider it your job to convince everyone else to believe what you now believe so they don't commit the same sins that you did.


Uhm, why the fuck would I hate myself? I was ignorant with veganism, the fact that not only did I feel guilty and realize I was wrong but I also CHANGED is MORE than enough for me to forgive myself.



Tater said:


> Humans have been eating meat throughout their entire history.


They have been raping, murdering, discriminating, and doing all sorts of immoral things throughout their history too. I don't know if you've noticed, but they still are.



Tater said:


> Without the ability to hunt and kill for meat to survive, we would have never risen to the top of the food chain.


Hunting for the sake of survival during primitive times of the Ice Age is not as living today, quit bullshitting yourself.



Tater said:


> Now that we have gotten to the top of the food chain


More like the bully chain, I thought the food chain is more concerned with food for survival rather than food for nothing but plate pleasure mixed with a little sadism for some people.



Tater said:


> Well, if eating meat is what got us to the top, I do not think we should stop eating meat now that we've gotten here. I say, stick with what got you to the dance. Eating meat was not immoral for all those tens of thousands of years. It does not magically become immoral just because we are living in a more advanced society.


By that logic a poor person that had to steal before to survive, but then became ridiculously rich should continue stealing. Great argument there mate.

God your posts are stupid.



Tater said:


> Now, somewhere along the way we lost our way and along came all the hormones and slaughterhouses and other unethical farming practices.


Stop pretending to care about ethics concerning animals when you think it's okay to kill them for absolutely no good reason but your selfish pleasure.



Tater said:


> The problem has never been eating meat. It isn't now either.


Scientific community says otherwise.

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Nutrition-A-Z/Fat.aspx

https://www.google.com.kw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bda.uk.com%2Ffoodfacts%2FFatFacts&ei=8tMGVIOlL4Wb1AWQmIDQDg&usg=AFQjCNFXEUbri64B49pciVrZjtWmk3RVCg

http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/prevention/healthy-eating/fats-explained.aspx

http://www.world-heart-federation.org/cardiovascular-health/cardiovascular-disease-risk-factors/diet/

http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm274590.htm

Your precious science, fellow godless man. 



Tater said:


> When humans were all hunters, they did not torture the animals they hunted for food.


And you know this, how? Quit making shit up.

Animal welfare is only a recent thing in human history, there was a time when animals were considered beasts who deserved absolutely no mercy by a lot of humans. 



Tater said:


> Farming may be smarter and more efficient than hunting for every meal but it doesn't mean the animals being farmed for food should be tortured.


Ancient Egyptians _"one of the first human civilizations"_ used to go hunting killing innocent animals who were just minding their own business. You don't know shit.



Tater said:


> Eating healthy


*Tater telling people to go vegan.*



Tater said:


> taking care of the planet


*Oh shit he's doing it again!*



Tater said:


> and treating farm animals ethically


How is it ethical to enslave an animal?



Tater said:


> Humans may be smarter than the rest of the critters in the animal kingdom but fundamentally we're still the same.














Tater said:


> It is not immoral when a lion kills and eats a gazelle.


Lions need meat to survive and are too stupid to comprehend morality like humans do.

You're not a lion.



Tater said:


> If the lions were smart enough, I'm sure they would have some gazelles in a fenced in field where they could eat them any time they wanted to.


:HA



Tater said:


> Just because we're smarter than the lion doesn't make our eating of meat immoral.


We have alternatives to cause less suffering, they don't. It is immoral.



Tater said:


> The concept of morality is a human construct.


A human construct that keeps people from raping others or murdering innocents.

A human construct that has served humanity well to progress.



Tater said:


> It is not a fact of life.


Come out as a nihilist when it comes to morality, I'm getting bored of your act.



Tater said:


> For me, it is not immoral.


For me, going on a jihad and bombing some westerns is not immoral because of my muslim faith. Don't you dare judge me now, because to each their own when it comes to morality right?



Tater said:


> Morality varies greatly from society to society.


A society that thinks rape is moral is a society that doesn't know why the fuck morality was even created or how morality works.



Tater said:


> In some societies, it is okay for a grown man to marry a thirteen year old girl.


Go advise pedophiles to move to these societies then and fuck all the little girls they want, so that what they do isn't considered _"immoral"_.



Tater said:


> I do not want to live a vegan lifestyle and I do not consider eating meat to immoral.


I'm already aware you're lazy, don't really give a shit about what's immoral or not, and enjoy the taste of foods that give most humans worldwide heart attacks.



Tater said:


> At the end of the day, I really don't particularly care about any whackjob's insane belief systems


So you're saying I'm a whackjob?



Tater said:


> I'm going to continue trying to buy meat products that do not come from the big time farming slaughterhouse operations.


Why bother pretending you care at all when there isn't really much of a difference?



Tater said:


> I'm going to live by own code of moral ethics concerning meat.














Tater said:


> I will continue to buy the meat that doesn't come from hormoned up, tortured animals


You are torturing animals by slaughtering them.



Tater said:


> That is what I believe in and that is what I will do.


You sound like a religious person.



Tater said:


> And with that, I am officially done with this thread.


You were done like, 30 pages ago.



Tater said:


> If you feel the need to break all this down into another one of your megaposts, be my guest.


Yeah, always a pleasure calling you out on your dogshit Tattie.



Tater said:


> I won't be back and I won't be reading it.


Other than myself knowing you have no shame when it comes to lying so it's very possible you'll lurk on this thread and read, thanks for proving my point more that you're a coward.



Tater said:


> I'm going to go cook a steak and cheese omelette for breakfast now and drink a big glass of milk with it.












.....................................................................................



Tater said:


> Welp, I tried. There is no reasonable conversation to be had if that's how he wants to be about it.





Coach. said:


> *You didn't try. Tail between your legs as you back away in defeat.*


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Goku said:


> By this very admission, you are acknowledging that it is possible to overcome the programming (vegetarians/vegans do so) in the interest of morality, yes?
> 
> Evolutionary instincts do not always reflect morally right positions. Virtually all sex in the animal kingdom is rape. Does that make rape justifiable?
> 
> Extended morality is a cop-out to make people feel better about themselves and get them to abide laws on their own terms (and not simply because they're told to).


Why is it immoral for me to eat meat? Explain without bringing up how these animals are raised/treated that I have absolutely nothing to do with it. I wish they'd be regulated better, but I'm not going to stop eating meat because of it nor is it an "immoral choice" on my part as far as I can see.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> Why is it immoral for me to eat meat? Explain without bringing up how these animals are raised/treated that I have absolutely nothing to do with it. I wish they'd be regulated better, but I'm not going to stop eating meat because of it nor is it an "immoral choice" on my part as far as I can see.


Because animals don't want to be killed for food.

I never said you'd have to stop eating meat.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> Why is it immoral for me to eat meat? Explain without bringing up how these animals are raised/treated that I have absolutely nothing to do with it. I wish they'd be regulated better, but I'm not going to stop eating meat because of it nor is it an "immoral choice" on my part as far as I can see.


You have absolutely nothing to do with it? You might not kill the animals yourself, but you fund the same people who do. To say that you have completely nothing to do with it is dishonest. You wish they were regulated better? So it's okay to make a business out of slaughtering creatures that are sentient animals like yourself? What is this horseshit? By your logic it's A OK to fund people who do immoral things if you yourself are not doing the immoral act to create the product, suppose a company makes a product by killing healthy human infants who are tricked into being slaughtered would you still buy that product and go _"oh well, I didn't do the killing myself!"_. Like shit, are you even going to argue that they'd have to _"murder the infants humanely"_ as if such a thing exists?. Do you see how stupid that line of thought is?


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

@goku no animal wants to be killed period. no organism for that matter. the whole point of life is surviving and reproducing.

Every major cooperation you fund is filled with immoral objectives and mostly unethical people.

I buy sneakers, so I'm to blame for child labour because I fund it.

I buy clothes, same thing.

Even medications used to be tested on animals, and in some places probably still are, to find a cure for humans.


_Your_ entire argument is stupid by trying place blame on me for something I have NOTHING to do with nor want to happen. However, I WANT to eat meat and if they're the only affordable option that is the one I'll have to choose(id much prefer farm raised animals whenever I'm given the chance). All you're doing is guilt tripping and misplacing blame, fuck off with that shit because it just makes you come off as an elitist douche.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> @goku no animal wants to be killed period. no organism for that matter. the whole point of life is surviving and reproducing.


Yes, but human morality is not about surviving and reproducing.

I'm no proponent of morality. Just saiyan.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> Every major cooperation you fund is filled with immoral objectives and mostly unethical people.


That's a very bold statement, literally EVERY major cooperations is filled with mostly unethical people? Are a lot of cooperations like this? Yes. Literally all of them? Uhm, no?



SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> I buy sneakers, so I'm to blame for child labour because I fund it.


Other than some people being able to make their own footwear, yes you are somewhat to blame and I will admit I am to blame as well with some of my footwear. Tell me Magic, do you not want the sneakers you get not to be made off cruel child labor? You want that to change right? Or do you not give a shit? Are you going to tell me you'd rather more sneakers are made so that more people get them rather than fix the issues with child labor to make the sneakers we wear? Alternatives could be made for some people and would be made for everyone if the child labor crap was confronted on a large scale. I'd rather we get less sneakers, or less fancy sneakers, than have children suffer. 



SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> I buy clothes, same thing.


Same thing with sneakers.



SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> Even medications used to be tested on animals, and in some places probably still are, to find a cure for humans.


They were tested on animals, then on humans, and disasters happened to both. The difference is animals didn't go willingly, humans for the most part did because some people are whores when it comes to money.



SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> Your entire argument is stupid by trying place blame on me for something I have NOTHING to do with nor want to happen. However, I WANT to eat meat and if they're the only affordable option that is the one I'll have to choose(id much prefer farm raised animals whenever I'm given the chance). All you're doing is guilt tripping and misplacing blame, fuck off with that shit because it just makes you come off as an elitist douche.


Bollocks.

You DO have something to do with it, you just aren't as guilty as the ones who started the god awful business. I probably already buy other shit that you haven't mentioned that does consist of unethical practices without me noticing, that doesn't mean that I want it to continue if I know about those practices or that I'd support them. Humans as time goes, keep trying their hardest to keep a _"moral"_ image to keep societies stable & calm, this is why people get outraged when they hear shit like child labor and give cooperations caught doing immoral acts shit. People aren't going to let it go, the only ones who will, are those who prefer their selfishness over the well being of others.

If meat is the only affordable option for you? 



Gandhi said:


> The biggest reason why veganism isn't the norm is because of ignorance of the topic of veganism from most people that leads to a ridiculous demand for animal products, this results in slaughter houses & fishermen getting their money and giving people what they want. If vegans kept educating people of veganism and made people become vegan (like I have been educated and eventually turned vegan) things will change it just won't happen overnight; as the percentage of vegans goes up and the percentage of non vegans goes down, the supply will match the demand. Cooperations don't care what they sell as long as it's profitable & legal. If a company can make more money selling cucumbers than selling animal parts, it will change itself so that it remains a profitable business. New jobs would be available to people who were formerly working in slaughter houses etc; as the availability of vegan food increases the already cost of vegan foods would continue to decrease, making it even MORE affordable to everyone. All the money you spend on health care could be saved and used elsewhere because of the vegan diet being healthy, saving more money for everybody resulting in a better quality of life. Not to mention the planet won't face the absolute fucking disaster of animal agriculture that is ruining the planet. If you care about future generations of humans, you will consider veganism.


If you're SO POOR all you can afford to eat is _trash_, I'd wish people could help you but if no one will I wouldn't really hold you accountable because you're doing what you're doing for survival rather than just having several alternatives and choosing the selfish pleasurable one.



SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> (id much prefer farm raised animals whenever I'm given the chance).


You say that like it's any fucking better.



SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> All you're doing is guilt tripping and misplacing blame, fuck off with that shit because it just makes you come off as an elitist douche.


I'm not going to fuck off.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

SKEPTICAL MAGIC said:


> Every major *cooperation* you fund is filled with immoral objectives and mostly unethical people.





Gandhi said:


> That's a very bold statement, literally EVERY major *cooperations* is filled with mostly unethical people? Are a lot of *cooperations* like this? Yes. Literally all of them? Uhm, no?


umm..


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

0:47


----------



## Possibly Barry Evans. Definitely theproof. (Sep 25, 2014)

Never tried it, never will. Even after watching all of the sick behind the scenes butcher films, I still eat the shit.


----------



## Genking48 (Feb 3, 2009)

I couldn't be able to do that. I'm like a reverse vegetarian, I love meat and fucking despise vegetables.


----------



## Possibly Barry Evans. Definitely theproof. (Sep 25, 2014)

AKBest Miyazawa Sae said:


> I couldn't be able to do that. I'm like a reverse vegetarian, I love meat and fucking despise vegetables.


I went through that period.


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

I'll be rocking a vegan pizza from scratch this afternoon. Made Millionaire Shortbread the other day. Baking is a blast.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Henry Hill said:


> I'll be rocking a vegan pizza from scratch this afternoon. Made Millionaire Shortbread the other day. Baking is a blast.


Vegan pizza made not give a shit about normal pizza anymore, good stuff. :banderas


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

Gandhi said:


> Vegan pizza made not give a shit about normal pizza anymore, good stuff. :banderas


I've never made it before so hope it goes smoothly. Pizza is the one major thing I miss from being vegetarian so would be good to bake the ideal replacement.



> I also support humane ways of killing them for their meat when the time comes.


There is no humane way of killing something. Those two words should never be used in a sentence together. One problem with this theory is that it also ignores the psychology of the animal who is being bred to die. The animal is not stupid, it has built a natural distrust of humans because it knows its fate similar to how a dog has a natural affection with humans because it knows the human in 99% of cases will be affectionate towards it. Part of the intense horror for animals is not just the physical act of killing but the mental torture that comes with that process. So even if the death was instantaneous, there is still nothing humane about it.



> It's also kinda hard to take some of this stuff you say seriously because you insist on comparing eating meat to stuff like rape, murder and slavery. That's just insane.


It's only insane because it goes against the morality consensus. The morality consensus tells us that rape and murder are evil and thus result in punishment. The only thing separating one moral stance from another is consensus. If 90% of the planet decided that slaughtering animals was abhorrent, then your views would suddenly be antiquated but that wouldn't mean that they held any less value. 

Being in the 90% doesn't necessarily make you right just as being in the 10% doesn't necessarily make you wrong.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Henry don't bother with Tater, he's already ran off in fear. :jesse



Henry Hill said:


> I've never made it before so hope it goes smoothly. Pizza is the one major thing I miss from being vegetarian so would be good to bake the ideal replacement.


If you're interested, do what I do when I get real lazy to make actual vegan pizza or buy them.

Ok so...










Get bread that's in the shape of a pizza (I get Lebanese brown bread), get sauce, get whatever you want on your pizza, do what's obvious, heat it up, then you'll get a _"vegan pizza"_ rip off. It looks cheap as fuck and not worth eating even when it's done, but depending on how you make it I myself love it.

In other words, instead of experimenting on animals experiment on plant foods. 8*D

Honestly one of the biggest changes I've had to get used to when I became vegan, is that if I want to spoil myself with certain vegan deliciousness I have to force myself to learn how to cook AND experiment with cooking. I actually hated that at first, but shit it always feels good to go out shopping, get ingredients for food, then cook your meals and then eat them and be like....

_"mmmmmmmmmm that fancy restraunt in town ain't got nothing on me"_. kada


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

Gandhi said:


> If you're interested, do what I do when I get real lazy to make actual vegan pizza or buy them.
> 
> Ok so...
> 
> ...


Ha ha, that's tempting but I've already got my flour and yeast out ready to rock some dough. It tastes better when you've put the effort in. I will maybe upload pics later if it goes to plan 



> Henry don't bother with Tater, he's already ran off in fear.


I don't want to tell people to stop eating meat because that should be their own decision if they so choose based on their own period of reflection. However the concept of humane killing just doesn't gel. You can label it a death less painful but humane suggests compassion and there is nothing compassionate about killing a living thing no matter the method involved.


----------



## QWERTYOP (Jun 6, 2013)

I would kill myself before being a veggie.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Henry Hill said:


> Ha ha, that's tempting but I've already got my flour and yeast out ready to rock some dough. It tastes better when you've put the effort in. *I will maybe upload pics later if it goes to plan*














Henry Hill said:


> I don't want to tell people to stop eating meat because that should be their own decision if they so choose based on their own period of reflection. However the concept of humane killing just doesn't gel. You can label it a death less painful but humane suggests compassion and there is nothing compassionate about killing a living thing no matter the method involved.


:clap


----------



## DoYouRealize??? (Jul 24, 2011)

I find a steak to be much more filling than a salad, even though I think they're equally delicious. Salads usually don't make me feel greasy as fuck afterwards, though.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

what does vegan pizza substitute cheese with??


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Goku said:


> what does vegan pizza substitute cheese with??


Well, it depends on what you mean by vegan pizza.

I usually just get the types that you know, don't substitute cheese with anything and they're still great. Then there's soya cheese used as I've heard, but I fucking hate soya and only eat it when I have to for health or when it's just around but that's just me.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

I just made a vegetarian pizza for fitba day (i.e. used cheese).


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

Goku said:


> what does vegan pizza substitute cheese with??


I use a product called Cheezly made from a blend of potato starch, vegetable fat and soya protein. Eaten dry in sandwiches it doesn't have the same quality texture as a dairy cheese but when cooked for a toastie or pizza wrap it comes out real nice.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

googling cheezly nao


----------



## QWERTYOP (Jun 6, 2013)

The human body is specifically designed for eating meat. There are enzymes in the stomach which exist ONLY for the function of breaking down meat. Many veggies (and even more vegans) have to take supplements to give their bodies the nutrients that they miss out on by not eating meat. Not eating meat is unnatural and unhealthy. We're supposed to eat meat.


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

QWERTYOP said:


> The human body is specifically designed for eating meat. There are enzymes in the stomach which exist ONLY for the function of breaking down meat. Many veggies (and even more vegans) have to take supplements to give their bodies the nutrients that they miss out on by not eating meat. *Not eating meat is unnatural and unhealthy. *We're supposed to eat meat.


I think you need to do a bit more research. The great thing is that the man who invented the term vegan and helped spread its fame used to regularly go on 200 mile bike rides and lived to the age of 95 despite people at the time telling him that his diet was leading him to an early grave. Obviously genes play an enormous role in health but a dairy free diet is rarely if ever a hindrance.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

QWERTYOP said:


> The human body is specifically designed for eating meat.


The human body is specifically designed for survival.



QWERTYOP said:


> There are enzymes in the stomach which exist ONLY for the function of breaking down meat.


Mhm, must have been very useful back when humans lived during the Ice Age. Oh yeah and, I'm sure you're aware of how humans generally can digest a lot of unhealthy horrid foods.



QWERTYOP said:


> Many veggies (and even more vegans) have to take supplements to give their bodies the nutrients that they miss out on by not eating meat.


Oh, the supplements argument, wooooohooooo.

You do realize on a raw balanced vegan diet, you don't really need that shit right? Before you say _"yes you do"_, well yes many vegans do need supplements because they don't get organic plant foods with high sources of the nutrients they need. An apple that's been chemically altered to be as big as Nikki Bella's breasts to get sold more isn't as good for you as an apple you just picked up from a tree. The Nikki Bella apple is, nonetheless, still FAR more healthy than the chemically altered meat foods non vegans eat. Of course you can say that meat that isn't altered is healthier than burgers the size of cowshit, but I'll still tell you how vegan natural foods are healthier than the meat of a deer you hunted from the wild. Point is, vegan foods are RIDICULOUSLY FAR healthier. So yeah, woohoo veganism.

Do you even know where they make supplements for vegans? They get them from vegan sources with high sources of the the nutrients you need, as in the foods that are mostly organic, sometimes from foods most humans don't in this day and age enjoy like seaweed.

I'm not going to talk much about how many Buddhist Shaolin monks in ancient times & present times are vegetarian/vegan and you know, most of them would probably be able the beat the living crap out of everybody you know. 

But fuck that, lemme instead introduce you to Al-Ma'arri.










Syrian philosopher born way back in 973 CE, the fucker lived to his 80s normally and was a *vegan*. I'm pretty sure humans didn't even know much let alone _at all_ about supplements back in his day.

Also just for shits and giggles since you didn't bother reading this thread...










Mac Danzig, *vegan* UFC fighter.

That being said, what's wrong with supplements that are natural? I don't even understand why non vegans think I give a shit about this argument, it's ridiculously stupid and I've always thought it was odd for non vegans to use even in my early days as a vegan. Hell forget this, I would survive a long healthy life on a strictly raw balanced vegan diet however you would not survive long with a strictly meat diet. What does that tell you about your precious meat?

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Nutrition-A-Z/Fat.aspx

https://www.google.com.kw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bda.uk.com%2Ffoodfacts%2FFatFacts&ei=8tMGVIOlL4Wb1AWQmIDQDg&usg=AFQjCNFXEUbri64B49pciVrZjtWmk3RVCg

http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/prevention/healthy-eating/fats-explained.aspx

http://www.world-heart-federation.org/cardiovascular-health/cardiovascular-disease-risk-factors/diet/

http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm274590.htm

See all those links? Literally the leading health organizations & health professionals WORLDWIDE. Science says eating meat is bad, it causes heart attacks which is the #1 cause of death to humans worldwide.



QWERTYOP said:


> Not eating meat is unnatural and unhealthy.


Yeah, newest scientific studies show otherwise, balanced vegan diet doesn't have side effects like heart attacks sweetheart. Oh and, vegans who live their lives eating nothing but french fries are being idiots.



QWERTYOP said:


> We're supposed to eat meat.


Yes we are.....when plant foods aren't available whatsoever or rarely out of desperation for survival.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Henry Hill said:


> Ha ha, that's tempting but I've already got my flour and yeast out ready to rock some dough. It tastes better when you've put the effort in. I will maybe upload pics later if it goes to plan
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to tell people to stop eating meat because that should be their own decision if they so choose based on their own period of reflection. However the concept of humane killing just doesn't gel. You can label it a death less painful but humane suggests compassion and there is nothing compassionate *about killing a living thing no matter the method involved.*





Gandhi said:


> :clap


not sure what you guys consider plants if not living. are they mythical? oh wait they're not animals, animals>plants because...???...well there's no real reason, just because vegans said so. plants are obviously meant to be food and not phototrophic organisms that provide the entire earth with oxygen.

my bad, i guess you guys also probably dont use any wood based material as what logging companies due to forests is totally fine and moral.




Gandhi said:


> That's a very bold statement, literally EVERY major cooperations is filled with mostly unethical people? Are a lot of cooperations like this? Yes. Literally all of them? Uhm, no?


i'd say the vast majority and it's not really that bold of a statement. even pharmaceutical companies, the ones that are supposed to make cures/drugs for threatening diseases, wont do so unless the money is worth it.




> Other than some people being able to make their own footwear, yes you are somewhat to blame and I will admit I am to blame as well with some of my footwear. Tell me Magic, do you not want the sneakers you get not to be made off cruel child labor? You want that to change right? Or do you not give a shit? Are you going to tell me you'd rather more sneakers are made so that more people get them rather than fix the issues with child labor to make the sneakers we wear? Alternatives could be made for some people and would be made for everyone if the child labor crap was confronted on a large scale. I'd rather we get less sneakers, or less fancy sneakers, than have children suffer.


this is a whole lot of wut. I wish regulations were placed universally to at the very least assure these kids get paid adequately(because a lot of them to do it simply to help their families and wouldnt even want to stop given the choice) and taken care of with proper working conditions, but i'm also aware that this is something I couldn't change myself without an already going campaign for it. The same thing is true for animals, I know that the way they're raised and butchered isnt done in a humane way, but I also know I'm quite powerless to cause a gigantic movement to stop it.

You can't be blamed for things you're powerless to stop. 


> Same thing with sneakers.


so are you immoral for wearing clothes?



> They were tested on animals, then on humans, and disasters happened to both. The difference is animals didn't go willingly, humans for the most part did because some people are whores when it comes to money.


Yes those people are monsters and whores because they're suffering from a disease that gets no funding to support it so instead they have to take prototype drugs to try to stay alive.



> Bollocks.
> 
> You DO have something to do with it, yosu just aren't as guilty as the ones who started the god awful business. I probably already buy other shit that you haven't mentioned that does consist of unethical practices without me noticing, that doesn't mean that I want it to continue if I know about those practices or that I'd support them. Humans as time goes, keep trying their hardest to keep a _"moral"_ image to keep societies stable & calm, this is why people get outraged when they hear shit like child labor and give cooperations caught doing immoral acts shit. People aren't going to let it go, the only ones who will, are those who prefer their selfishness over the well being of others.
> 
> ...


I never said I'm poor so I eat meat because it's more affordable than veggies/fruit(both of which i get for free); I said I'd prefer to buy local meat that was raised properly and with care than buying meat produced by corporations that stuff with it with god knows what. The problem is that isn't always available and it's pricey.

And again I have no interest in not eating meat, that doesnt mean I condone butchery practice, but that I'm going to eat what's affordable available. 






> You say that like it's any fucking better.


All my friends that raise animals care for them well, treat them well, and do a quick kill. So ya it is better, sorry that raising animals to eat them offends you so much but to try to say it's the same thing is ridiculous.




> I'm not going to fuck off.


nor will you jump off your high horse and form logical arguments rather than trying to pin the blame on everyone.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

WISE MAGIC said:


> not sure what you guys consider plants if not living. are they mythical? oh wait they're not animals, animals>plants because...???


Life is not the issue, *sentience* is.

Plants do not have bloody nervous systems or brains. Like I've said a shitload of times, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli but they don't choose what they do. They track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants and that's it. I can cut up a plant all day and it won't feel any pain whatsoever. It simply doesn't care what happens to it and doesn't really know what the fuck it does either. Why the hell should I care about killing plants for survival? How can I empathize with a living thing that isn't even sentient? That's literally impossible. Why have compassion for a plant you're killing for food? Like, compassion is the concern for the suffering of others. What suffering does a plant go through? They feel pain just as much as christians genuinely feel an actual god speaking to them before bed. I'm not saying we should go burn plants for fun, that'd be stupid, but the damn thing doesn't care if you cut it up to make a salad. If magically plants could suddenly just say ONE SENTENCE to humans whilst still not being sentient, they'd literally go _"dunno duncare"_.










What a pretty flower.



WISE MAGIC said:


> i'd say the vast majority and it's not really that bold of a statement. even pharmaceutical companies, the ones that are supposed to make cures/drugs for threatening diseases, wont do so unless the money is worth it.


So first you say every major cooperation then you say the vast majority, ok. Most humans don't care about morality as much as we'd like to think and screw others over for selfish reasons, that doesn't mean we shouldn't call them out on their bullshit and atleast try not to support them by getting or fighting for alternatives.



WISE MAGIC said:


> I wish regulations were placed universally to at the very least assure these kids get paid adequately(because a lot of them to do it simply to help their families and wouldnt even want to stop given the choice) and taken care of with proper working conditions,


Cool.



WISE MAGIC said:


> but i'm also aware that this is something I couldn't change myself without an already going campaign for it.


I know.



WISE MAGIC said:


> The same thing is true for animals, I know that the way they're raised and butchered isnt done in a humane way, but I also know I'm quite powerless to cause a gigantic movement to stop it.


You alone cannot do a thing, same with me. 



Gandhi said:


> Oh?
> 
> First of all let's assume going vegan won't change anything, so what? If the entire world is mostly okay with slavery with humans, would you be okay with slavery and say being against it is useless because things will never change? Let's say you can't stop people being raped worldwide (you can't, rape will always exist) does that mean you get to abandon your morality and go rape someone? No. Morality plays a big part, a _very_ big part.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying you're a horrid person for not going vegan/vegetarian, I'm just saying you're in a sense lazy which is in a way immoral. Perhaps lazy is a strong word, perhaps you're more like a white guy in the 1800s who knew what black people went through was disgusting & immoral but won't do anything because they feel powerless to stop it unfortunately. I completely understand that, but you have a FAR easier option than that white person. Veganism isn't even that hard once you get used to it, and this is coming from someone who fucking loves meat like crazy _(Sokka style, I'm not kidding)_. All you do is avoid certain foods (which are fucking unhealthy anyway), avoid certain products, look for alternatives, etc. 2014 (almost 2015) it's easier than fucking ever and it'll only get better and better as time goes on and you can see that already with how vegan products aren't as rare as they used to be 10 years ago. You don't want to go vegan? Suit yourself, but for people to actually say veganism isn't the right choice just baffles me. I can't think of ANY major movements based on honor that either didn't have to have people working VERY hard or waiting for decades or even HUNDREDS OF YEARS for them to become powerful and accepted by society. Doing the right thing isn't always easy.



WISE MAGIC said:


> You can't be blamed for things you're powerless to stop.


A person who just sits there and watches a child get raped, even if he himself is a weakling, wishes to beat the living shit out of rapist, but can't in fear for his life, can't run off and just expect people not go _"why didn't you atleast try ANYTHING?"_. Of course he is trying to be logical about it, he's a weakling and cannot stop the rapist (though he could have atleast tried). This is one of the reasons why I would NEVER force anyone to go vegan and why I'd NEVER look down on someone who refuses to go vegan, it's fucking stupid because I know many think it's ridiculously hard and for some it really REALLY is. My biggest issue with non vegan stances is mostly with people who think slaughter houses are just _"humans being on the top of the food chain baby"_. Non vegans who want animals to be killed _"humanely?"_ don't really know what they're talking about. 

Yeah, I'll get into that just keep reading...



WISE MAGIC said:


> so are you immoral for wearing clothes?


Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know all clothes were made out of non vegan products. 

Not all clothing is made from cruelty to humans too, and if you tell me to choose between an average cruelty free piece of clothing over a fancy piece of clothing made out of cruelty I'll choose the average piece of clothing almost every time.



WISE MAGIC said:


> Yes those people are monsters and whores because they're suffering from a disease that gets no funding to support it so instead they have to take prototype drugs to try to stay alive.


You misunderstood.

I'm talking about humans who are fine, and accept being experimented on for a shitload of cash so that scientists make sure the tests they did on animals were safe on humans as well. They get paid handsomely because, well, experiments are experiments.



WISE MAGIC said:


> I never said I'm poor so I eat meat because it's more affordable than veggies/fruit(both of which i get for free);


I really don't see why you don't even consider veganism if you have these much choices.



WISE MAGIC said:


> I said I'd prefer to buy local meat that was raised properly and with care than buying meat produced by corporations that stuff with it with god knows what.


Oh god...this again...



Gandhi said:


> Suppose humans did reach a point where all factory farms treated animals "humanely" when killing them for food and even had them die peaceful deaths, just a quick painless poke behind the neck and BAM they're dead and ready to become a tasty chicken mcnugget. Keep imagining here, would you still be okay with this to humans? I mean, what if I'm having someone just enjoy their time with me then BAM BAM with just one painless poke behind the neck they're dead and it's time to have some human yummy yum yums. Notice how I stated "have them enjoy their time with me" before I killed them? Because that's what you're arguing for with non humans, deception to kill a being that didn't know any better ignoring all empathy & compassion knowing that being does not want to die and not caring. It would be a different story if you're walking down the street and a cow just dies randomly and you decide to eat it, it's the killing and usage of animals as our property that I'm against.


Address this.



WISE MAGIC said:


> The problem is that isn't always available and it's pricey.


Other than it being of no use for a moral society...



Gandhi said:


> And before you give me shit about "free range" nonsense, realize it's all about marketing and not about animal welfare. The term "free range" has no legal meaning and no government regulation. Terms like "free range" are more about making people feel better about consuming animal products hence increase sales & profits, and less about the actual concern for the animals themselves. And again, let me remind you that humans do not need animals to be healthy or even survive. The issue shouldn't be how we treat animals and should rather be focused on why we use them at all. We have no nutritional requirements to eat meat, and can as you've seen be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet. If this is the case, what justification do we have for enslaving & killing even so called "well treated" animals. If it's wrong to harm animals unnecessarily, this would mean it is wrong to harm animals for fun or pleasure. So why do you support the killing of innocent animals by the billions? It is for plate pleasure, you don't have to be dishonest about it.


Free range, whatever the fuck non vegans eat thinking animals are killed for food _"humanely"_ is dogshit.



WISE MAGIC said:


> I'm going to eat what's affordable available.


That does sound reasonable for survival, I guess, but you're not poor and can go on a vegan diet.

You thinking this free range nonsense matters is pointless.



WISE MAGIC said:


> All my friends that raise animals care for them well, treat them well, and do a quick kill. So ya it is better, sorry that raising animals to eat them offends you so much but to try to say it's the same thing is ridiculous.


What your friends do might be less cruel but it is cruel nonetheless, I never said it was the same.



WISE MAGIC said:


> nor will you jump off your high horse and form logical arguments rather than trying to pin the blame on everyone.


When it comes to our stances towards animals, yeah I do hold the moral position whether you like it or not. You might think I'm trying to tell you I'm superior but I'm not really. Logical arguments? Oh don't worry, I try.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Gandhi said:


> Life is not the issue, *sentience* is.
> 
> Plants do not have bloody nervous systems or brains. Like I've said a shitload of times, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli but they don't choose what they do. They track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants and that's it. I can cut up a plant all day and it won't feel any pain whatsoever. It simply doesn't care what happens to it and doesn't really know what the fuck it does either. Why the hell should I care about killing plants for survival? How can I empathize with a living thing that isn't even sentient? That's literally impossible. Why have compassion for a plant you're killing for food? Like, compassion is the concern for the suffering of others. What suffering does a plant go through? They feel pain just as much as christians genuinely feel an actual god speaking to them before bed. I'm not saying we should go burn plants for fun, that'd be stupid, but the damn thing doesn't care if you cut it up to make a salad. If magically plants could suddenly just say ONE SENTENCE to humans whilst still not being sentient, they'd literally go _"dunno duncare"_.
> 
> What a pretty flower.


First of all, plants are well aware of what they do as it's their functions and their whole purpose is to fulfill that function. They aren't just doing shit because it magically worked out that way.

Secondly, you're telling me to sympathize with animals that's entire purpose is to feed themselves, find the best quality mate, reproduce, and ensure that offspring survives. that's it. these things don't care about anything else, they aren't worried about what's happening around them, they simply have their biological purpose to fulfill. Why should I show compassion for these organisms? Because they get butchered, which would likely be a quick death? Because they're unable to fulfill their biological purpose? Tough, so are plants that try to spread their seed across an area, but can't because we control their growth. 

Thirdly, their sentience doesn't go beyond "feeling". They can't think for themselves about things that don't concern them, they don't make choices based on morality, they don't judge, they simply don't care about things outside of their goal in life: reproducing.
You think animals would give a lot fucks if they could talk? They'd look at you with indifference if they encountered you randomly.




> So first you say every major cooperation then you say the vast majority, ok. Most humans don't care about morality as much as we'd like to think and screw others over for selfish reasons, that doesn't mean we shouldn't call them out on their bullshit and atleast try not to support them by getting or fighting for alternatives.


I agree to a degree, but that doesn't mean I'm going to force myself to do something I simply have no interest in doing: eating meat.





> I'm not saying you're a horrid person for not going vegan/vegetarian, I'm just saying you're in a sense lazy which is in a way immoral. Perhaps lazy is a strong word, perhaps you're more like a white guy in the 1800s who knew what black people went through was disgusting & immoral but won't do anything because they feel powerless to stop it unfortunately. I completely understand that, but you have a FAR easier option than that white person. Veganism isn't even that hard once you get used to it, and this is coming from someone who fucking loves meat like crazy _(Sokka style, I'm not kidding)_. All you do is avoid certain foods (which are fucking unhealthy anyway), avoid certain products, look for alternatives, etc. 2014 (almost 2015) it's easier than fucking ever and it'll only get better and better as time goes on and you can see that already with how vegan products aren't as rare as they used to be 10 years ago. You don't want to go vegan? Suit yourself, but for people to actually say veganism isn't the right choice just baffles me. I can't think of ANY major movements based on honor that either didn't have to have people working VERY hard or waiting for decades or even HUNDREDS OF YEARS for them to become powerful and accepted by society. Doing the right thing isn't always easy.


You can't preach that humans are so advanced that they're above eating meat and then compare eating meat to slavery. Human suffering is worse due to the amount of emotions we possess as well as general cognitive ability. 

Not eating meat is not the right choice in my mind. Animals being tortured/abused is wrong, but I don't include eating meat into that category. It's eating. Do we have to eat them to survive? Of course not, but that doesn't make it wrong to do so. There a lot bigger problems we're causing to species throughout the world from pollution, loss of habitat, poaching, etc that are a lot worse than what's happening to chickens/cows/roosters/lamb/etc. Causing SPECIES to go extinct is something that we need to concern ourselves with, not breeding meat.



> A person who just sits there and watches a child get raped, even if he himself is a weakling, wishes to beat the living shit out of rapist, but can't in fear for his life, can't run off and just expect people not go _"why didn't you atleast try ANYTHING?"_. Of course he is trying to be logical about it, he's a weakling and cannot stop the rapist (though he could have atleast tried). This is one of the reasons why I would NEVER force anyone to go vegan and why I'd NEVER look down on someone who refuses to go vegan, it's fucking stupid because I know many think it's ridiculously hard and for some it really REALLY is. My biggest issue with non vegan stances is mostly with people who think slaughter houses are just _"humans being on the top of the food chain baby"_. Non vegans who want animals to be killed _"humanely?"_ don't really know what they're talking about.


I'm not watching a cow be butchered, so that analogy doesn't apply. If I saw an animal being abused I'd try to stop that person, the same as I'd try to stop the rapist. However, I cannot stop rapists in, say, Pakistan from raping children as it's not physically possible. And then you coming in and saying it's my fault as I'm not doing anything to cause a change. 

And no you can't kill an animal for food "humanely" because that doesn't make sense, BUT you can kill an animal without forcing it to live in a shitty place where it has no room to move; forcing feeding it vitamins, among other things, to make it grow; and then killing it after a very brief life. You can't kill an animal humanely, but you can raise it humanely before you kill it and there is a difference.




> Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know all clothes were made out of non vegan products.
> 
> Not all clothing is made from cruelty to humans too, and if you tell me to choose between an average cruelty free piece of clothing over a fancy piece of clothing made out of cruelty I'll choose the average piece of clothing almost every time.


And if you tell me to choose between meat that was raised in a slaughterhouse or one that was raised without cruelty, I'll choose the latter every time.




> You misunderstood.
> 
> I'm talking about humans who are fine, and accept being experimented on for a shitload of cash so that scientists make sure the tests they did on animals were safe on humans as well. They get paid handsomely because, well, experiments are experiments.


I didn't misunderstand:

"The difference is animals didn't go willingly,* humans for the most part did* "

^for the most part that isn't how it's done if medicine needs to be created, especially in a hurry. They take infected victims that are likely fucked either way and give them the option of trying it out because they're fucked regardless.



> I really don't see why you don't even consider veganism if you have these much choices.


because I enjoy meat and it's always been apart of my diet. I don't eat a steak every day or anything, but I've always loved eating meat and prefer it in the curries I eat.





> Address this.


Well you can't "humanely" kill anything unless it's a mercy kill.

And again humans are more valuable as a species to me than other organisms. They're smarter, they have more cognitive processes, they feel more, and they have far more emotions. I don't consider any animal value equal to that of a human life and nothing you say can change that as we are simply a far more advanced species. This, again, is the very reason you think we're above eating meat, simply because how advanced we are that we can do without it.

No being wants to die. Even non-living viruses want to ensure their "survival" so stop with that. A plant doesn't want to die, NOTHING WANTS TO DIE. survival is what life is all about so stop making it seem like it's an animal thing. 

Fruits don't want to be grown in orchards where it's impossible to spread their seed and they're stuck there until death. They care as much as the animals do. Why? Because both are failing their basic function to spread their seed and ensure survival. 



> Other than it being of no use for a moral society...


point me toward this moral society, I'm not quite sure it exists.



> Free range, whatever the fuck non vegans eat thinking animals are killed for food _"humanely"_ is dogshit.


I eat meat so I don't have to kill those poor, defenseless plants that didn't sign up for being used as a food source. 

You know what the difference between vegans and non-vegans? The value they put into an animal life. I value their existence as a species, I, however, do not value their individual lives to the point where I think we shouldn't eat them at all because they're alive and want to reproduce.

I can compare animals to a plant because I know that's as far as their thoughts go. Eat. Sleep. Mate. Reproduce. Care for offspring. Die.

Plants just don't have to care for their offspring because they can't and theirs no reason to.


----------



## shutupchico (Apr 24, 2007)

nah, i dislike the majority of vegatables too much to do that. i did limit my intake of red meat to once a week awhile back, almost always steak, and have felt better for it since. occasionally i'll cheat, and have meat twice, but if i eat hamburger, or roast beef, it's definately only once.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

> I value their existence as a species, I, however, do not value their individual lives to the point where I think we shouldn't eat them at all because they're alive and want to reproduce.


Irony.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Not at all. I don't want to see any animal go get extinct due to humans, which is more likely from other causes and not from eating them, but that doesn't mean I'm against using them for food when it wont actually lead to their extinction.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

The ironic bit was how apt a description that was to human beings as well (aside from the eating them part).


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

Anyone who thinks animals have a limited degree of emotions hasn't done research on animals period. That's simply a method for distancing yourself from the thing you eat. There have been studies on animal sanctuaries and the animals there have been full of life, energy, affectionate and behaved in a manner similar to how a dog or cat will approach their owner. This is because the animal has come to recognise that they are in a safe place. An animal being bred to slaughter has had all life and willpower sucked out of it. 

In regards to the issue of morality, let's say this is a percentage based on the average viewpoint:

99% say disapprove of murder

95% disapprove of rape

85% disapprove of slavery

80% disapprove of racism

10% disapprove of eating animals 


However if we go back in history, that 10% also applied to some of the categories above it so the nature of morality is subject to the changing consensus of opinion. Things we think are arbitrary now might be considered immoral at a later date. Doesn't mean your present opinion is right or wrong, just that it might not always be in line with what the general moral perception ends up being.

Also away from the moral debate entirely, a vegan diet could be good for the human race. The enormous resources used to fund the meat industry could be used to actually feed poorer parts of the world. So essentially we're eating animals to prevent other humans from eating. What kind of a fucked up cycle is that?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Henry Hill said:


> What kind of a fucked up cycle is that?


To answer this question, I would tweak the Darwinian notion of "survival of the fittest" to the "will of the fittest".


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Kobe. said:


> First of all, plants are well aware of what they do as it's their functions and their whole purpose is to fulfill that function. They aren't just doing shit because it magically worked out that way.


Who said anything about magic? Plants are alive but are not sentient, that's all there is to it. Like I've said before, plants simply react to their environmental stimuli, track the sun, respond to gravity, react to the lack of the sun's energy during the night, and produce chemicals that react to other plants and that's it. 

They have no idea what they do, they have no control, they simply do it because of their fate of being born as plants. All plants, ALL OF THEM, act the same depending on the conditions they're put in but other than that they have no conscience. They're the embodiment of a _"primitive soulless living creature"_ similar to bacteria or any living thing that isn't sentient (and I'm not saying a soul exists I'm just trying to word myself in way you understand me (I'm sure you do anyway). None of them feel pain to suffer nor do they give a shit, sentient beings however do feel pain and because of this are VERY different when it comes to how they perceive the world.



Kobe. said:


> Secondly, you're telling me to sympathize with animals that's entire purpose is to feed themselves, find the best quality mate, reproduce, and ensure that offspring survives.


Originally the entire purpose of humans is to feed themselves, find the best quality mate, reproduce, and ensure that offspring survives. It isn't that simple as in it's not just that we're both just eat-fuck-survive mindless machines. Sentience making us feel pain plays a HUGE part in animals to feel sorrow, happiness, empathy, compassion, fear, and all sorts of complex emotions.



Kobe. said:


> these things don't care about anything else, they aren't worried about what's happening around them, they simply have their biological purpose to fulfill.


These things? Yeah, that's what it has come down to now, they're just _"things"_ rather than individuals. You'll probably make fun of me, I don't care, but this has to be one of the most depressing posts on this thread.

Animals aren't worried about what's happening around them when it has nothing to do with their biological making you speak of? Are you sure?



> *Scientists Finally Conclude Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Beings:*
> 
> My colleague Michael Mountain published a summary of a recent meeting held in Cambridge, England at which "Science leaders have reached a critical consensus: Humans are not the only conscious beings; other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too." At this gathering, called The Francis Crick Memorial Conference, a number of scientists presented evidence that led to this self-obvious conclusion. It's difficult to believe that those who have shared their homes with companion animals didn't already know this. And, of course, many renowned and award-winning field researchers had reached the same conclusion years ago


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-finally-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings

All the references redirect to sources, check'em out. 

Now let's show you even more how these scientists aren't talking out of their asses...






A bloody cat, of all the animals, defends a human child. The cat will not reproduce with the child, the child does not feed the cat, and the child does not even provide security for the cat. 

Has it ever occurred to you that animals, just like humans who are also animals, form bonds based on affection? That just like humans, many of them seek comfort in companionship & friendship? I've had cats before, a couple of male & female and the male was very affectionate with me from childhood till the day he died when I was older. He'd always run to me to play with me when I came home, he'd meow like crazy and wake me up just so I could open my room's door and let him jump on my bed so he can sleep next to me. Oh and another thing, this is a little off topic but my male cat preferred cucumbers over meat foods for some reason _"no I wasn't vegan back then, and only found out he REALLY liked cucumbers by accident"_. I know the little guy did sometimes just think for food, but even after food he'd sometimes just want to play around and be around me. The other female cat? Less affectionate, but still had her moments nonetheless. Sentient animals are not just creatures with no emotions that just live to eat fuck & survive, they're much more.

Oh, you're not convinced?



> *Loyal Dog, Capitán, Sits By Owner's Grave For Six Years:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/capitan-dog-grave-owner-six-years-_n_1882587.html

My uncle's friend used to have a dog, and I actually did know this dog and he was quite friendly. My uncles friend was pretty damn old, and unfortunately hit the bucket. Do you know what this dog did? It fucking howled for hours when he saw his friend's (yes I said friend) corpse on bed. (I didn't see the howling part, but I was told). When given food after the man was buried, the dog refused to eat and eventually died. Before his death I fucking watched him on some days just sit there refusing to eat and it was one of the most fucking depressing sights I've ever seen. The dog did not care about eating, fucking, or surviving. He _cared_ about his companionship & friendship to his _friend_. 

You want more? I could go on all day...






A fucking lioness and a baby antelope. The lioness is not with the antelope for food, reproduction, or survival. 

I could go on for hours, just thinking of experiences I've had with animals or articles and studies that show how affectionate or _"primitively moral"_ animals can be and that what you say is absolute nonsense.

I'm not saying these animals are these completely benign innocent creatures, obviously they aren't just like humans (who are also animals) aren't and both of us do have natural instincts that make us want to throw our consciousnesses in garbage cans. However they do feel, and are not just _"things"_ with no abilities to be aware of concepts like compassion or empathy or the desire for companionship & friendship. Primitive? Yes, FAR more primitive than humans because of their lack of intelligence. However the same could be said for our evolutionary ancestors, savage in morality but still sentient beings nonetheless. I'm not saying all animals perceive these things the same, depends on the animal's condition and species but in the end they all do in a sense share what we have only it's primitive compared to humans. 

Of course animals control their primitive wretched urges less than humans do, but humans don't really do that good either. Gynocentrism with the bias both genders naturally have favoring females is unjust hence unethical. Men are naturally polygamous, this is why many men naturally are okay with the idea of fucking women left and right; or why some men think it's A OK to cheat on women who trust them for companionship & friendship. Hell, or women who naturally just want the best mate for reproduction so they become gold diggers or manipulate men's emotions to get to the top not caring about morality. Shit, humor itself is FILLED with the human natural amusement for sadism (although it could be argued that so long as nobody gets literally hurt, a joke is a joke). In fact forget humor, humans in general naturally have a hard on for sadism in general despite many people denying it. Men actually all want to show dominance to gain the best mate, and in ancient times I'm sure you know men didn't go with ethical ways to show dominance. Dominance isn't even just for acquiring mates, it's to go kill a bunch of bears minding their own business in some forest just so some men brag about it later about how _"macho"_ they are (infact, in ancient times tales of killing beasts who just minded their own business are quite common). Many of our natural instincts do not care about morality whatsoever, the way humans have evolved with intelligence is why now we know being some asshole who cheats on a good woman is douchey, why the act of being a gold digger just screams cunt, why sadism on innocents is now mostly considered wrong. Intelligence brought morality's empathy & compassion, and whilst animals are not as intelligent they're not flat out biblical levels of retarded either.



Kobe. said:


> Why should I show compassion for these organisms?


Why? The same reason you show compassion for the disabled, the weak, the ignorant, the innocent who can go through suffering they don't deserve. Trust me when I tell you compassion is not overrated, it really isn't in a world like the one you and I live in.



Kobe. said:


> Because they get butchered, which would likely be a quick death?


Excluding how the majority of animals slaughtered for human pleasure aren't given a quick death, how exactly is a quick death compassionate? It's not. The animal has done NOTHING to hurt you on purpose, what the fuck did some pig do to you? Nothing. What's your excuse for having them killed when they obviously are sentient beings who desire to live? 

Also, no matter how much you sugar coat it you still inflict suffering to animals you give a _"quick death"_. Do you really expect your precious free range farms to always kill animals perfectly quickly _"enough"_? Do you really expect them to care for these animals this much, and STILL produce so much meat for BILLIONS of people worldwide? The reason why slaughterhouses are more successful is because they get the job done and they do it fast to feed billions of people who want their meat NOW. The people behind slaughterhouses do not care about ethics when it comes to animals, all they care about is distributing products (which to them is the flesh of animals) so they can get money off human selfishness. To them, those animals are not individuals with a conscience or anything rather they're nothing but burgers waiting to be made. There's nothing compassionate about quick deaths no matter how much you desperately try to dishonestly convince yourself otherwise.



Kobe. said:


> Because they're unable to fulfill their biological purpose? Tough


Your usage of the word _"tough"_ here just shows how you value the concept of compassion in general, sad.



Kobe. said:


> so are plants that try to spread their seed across an area, but can't because we control their growth.


*Plants. Are. Not. Sentient.*



Kobe. said:


> Thirdly, their sentience doesn't go beyond "feeling". They can't think for themselves about things that don't concern them, they don't make choices based on morality, they don't judge, they simply don't care about things outside of their goal in life: reproducing.
> You think animals would give a lot fucks if they could talk? They'd look at you with indifference if they encountered you randomly.


I'm glad you posted this, time for you to get reintroduced to a chimpanzee people who bother reading on anthropology know very well of. Old story that I've known about for years, but I'm sure you know it too.

Meet the chimpanzee, Washoe.



> Washoe (c. September 1965 – October 30, 2007) was a female common chimpanzee who was the first non-human to learn to communicate using American Sign Language—to a limited degree—as part of a research experiment on animal language acquisition.
> 
> *Self-awareness and emotion:*
> 
> ...





> Washoe herself lost two children; one baby died shortly after birth of a heart defect, the other baby, Sequoyah, died of a staph infection at two months of age.


Empathy. Compassion.



> When Washoe was shown an image of herself in the mirror, and asked what she was seeing, she replied: "Me, Washoe". Primate expert Jane Goodall, who has studied and lived with chimpanzees for decades, believes that this might indicate some level of self awareness. Washoe appeared to experience an identity crisis when she was first introduced to other chimpanzees, seeming shocked to learn that she was not human. She gradually came to enjoy associating with other chimps.
> 
> Washoe also enjoyed playing pretend with her dolls, which she would bathe and talk to and would act out imaginary scenarios.
> 
> When new students came to work with Washoe, she would slow down her rate of signing for novice speakers of sign language, which had a humbling effect on many of them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)

All the references redirect to sources in the wiki page.

Still think animals are ever so indifferent to others and only care about their barbaric natural desires? Yeah, scientists don't think so and many have since ancient times always known this as well. I hope you reconsider your views on your dealings with your fellow sentient beings, I really hope you do.

_“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.” 

“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.”

“Compassion is the basis of all morality.”_

*- German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer*



Kobe. said:


> I agree to a degree, but that doesn't mean I'm going to force myself to do something I simply have no interest in doing: eating meat.


If you care about morality, you will consider to stop eating meat.



Kobe. said:


> You can't preach that humans are so advanced that they're above eating meat and then compare eating meat to slavery. Human suffering is worse due to the amount of emotions we possess as well as general cognitive ability.


You'd say human suffering is worse because you yourself as a human are naturally biased for your own species as are most if not all species in the world. Suffering is suffering, pain is pain, there is no good reason to create it simply for selfish pleasure.



Kobe. said:


> Not eating meat is not the right choice in my mind. Animals being tortured/abused is wrong, but I don't include eating meat into that category. It's eating. Do we have to eat them to survive? Of course not, but that doesn't make it wrong to do so. There a lot bigger problems we're causing to species throughout the world from pollution, loss of habitat, poaching, etc that are a lot worse than what's happening to chickens/cows/roosters/lamb/etc. Causing SPECIES to go extinct is something that we need to concern ourselves with, not breeding meat.


You are torturing/abusing animals by supporting the usage of them for food, free range farms just do it in different ways that most people think are _"ethical"_ so that they can ignore their conscience when eating the food. So, you don't need meat to survive yet you think it's alright to cause suffering simply for petty selfish pleasure?

Bigger problems? A lot of pollution is caused thanks to slaughterhouses & mass fishing, same with loss of habitat. Do you even know what happens to chickens in slaughterhouses? Have you seen what disgusting methods are used to make KFC happy? Breeding meat DOES cause issues, we're wasting A LOT of plant foods & resources on MILLIONS of FORCE BRED animals who live to simply suffer and get slaughtered so we can feed BILLIONS of humans simply for petty plate pleasure. This is fucking destroying the planet, animal lives, human health, fucking everything.



Kobe. said:


> I'm not watching a cow be butchered, so that analogy doesn't apply. If I saw an animal being abused I'd try to stop that person, the same as I'd try to stop the rapist. However, I cannot stop rapists in, say, Pakistan from raping children as it's not physically possible. And then you coming in and saying it's my fault as I'm not doing anything to cause a change.


The analogy does work, my point with it is that you know of the wrong doings of someone but instead of trying to stop them you just walk away. Also I'm not necessarily saying it's wholly your fault, I'm saying the problem exists and instead of trying to solve it you just leave it existing and in your case you're making it even worse. 



Kobe. said:


> And no you can't kill an animal for food "humanely" because that doesn't make sense, BUT you can kill an animal without forcing it to live in a shitty place where it has no room to move; forcing feeding it vitamins, among other things, to make it grow; and then killing it after a very brief life. You can't kill an animal humanely, but you can raise it humanely before you kill it and there is a difference.


Have fun feeding billions of people who want to taste the newest chicken mac today with that tactic when it comes to breeding animals for slaughter. Oh, and yeah as I've said before it's not humane to have animals exist around you just for you to take advantage of them and abuse them later.



Kobe. said:


> And if you tell me to choose between meat that was raised in a slaughterhouse or one that was raised without cruelty, I'll choose the latter every time.


Why have to pick between the lesser of two evils? Why not avoid both?



Kobe. said:


> I didn't misunderstand:
> 
> "The difference is animals didn't go willingly, humans for the most part did "
> 
> ^for the most part that isn't how it's done if medicine needs to be created, especially in a hurry. They take infected victims that are likely fucked either way and give them the option of trying it out because they're fucked regardless.


Ok, granted for the most part what you're saying is true for most humans who go through these experiments. However animals are not _"fucked either way"_, so they're forcing animals to go through immense suffering. Great.



Kobe. said:


> because I enjoy meat and it's always been apart of my diet.


Since when has _"because I enjoy it"_ been a good justification for something that lacks compassion & empathy that's in general immoral? This is petty plate pleasure.



Kobe. said:


> Well you can't "humanely" kill anything unless it's a mercy kill.


At least you're not lying about it like Tater was, lol.



Kobe. said:


> And again humans are more valuable as a species to me than other organisms. They're smarter, they have more cognitive processes, they feel more, and they have far more emotions. I don't consider any animal value equal to that of a human life and nothing you say can change that as we are simply a far more advanced species. This, again, is the very reason you think we're above eating meat, simply because how advanced we are that we can do without it.


Humans are superior, I never argued against that. However humans yes you know do not need meat, so why are we causing suffering to animals to begin with? Why do we value our selfishness over the suffering of an innocent just because that innocent happens not to be human? I've said it before and I'll say it again, pain is pain, we shouldn't try to find ways to inflict it to the innocent.



Kobe. said:


> No being wants to die. Even non-living viruses want to ensure their "survival" so stop with that. A plant doesn't want to die, NOTHING WANTS TO DIE. survival is what life is all about so stop making it seem like it's an animal thing.


Without pain or suffering, there is no desire to pleasures in general so no they don't really have much of a desire to live or die. Viruses don't care or even care about not caring, they're just empty beings, like a machine gun that's being spammed automatically. Viruses are essentially just mindless beings that fit somewhat well with your idea of animals that they _"eat-fuck-survive"_ and really have no emotions.



Kobe. said:


> point me toward this moral society, I'm not quite sure it exists.


It doesn't exist and never will, but that doesn't mean we can't work on trying to society as moral as we can. As in, we should never stop trying to progress.



Kobe. said:


> I eat meat so I don't have to kill those poor, defenseless plants that didn't sign up for being used as a food source.


How are they poor? They feel no pain, cut'em up and they won't give a fuck.



Kobe. said:


> You know what the difference between vegans and non-vegans? The value they put into an animal life. I value their existence as a species, I, however, do not value their individual lives to the point where I think we shouldn't eat them at all because they're alive and want to reproduce.


What you say on vegans & non vegans, completely accurate. Why not value these animals as individuals? They're sentient, just like you.



Kobe. said:


> I can compare animals to a plant because I know that's as far as their thoughts go. Eat. Sleep. Mate. Reproduce. Care for offspring. Die.


Other than the fact that what you said also heavily applies to humans, sentience makes animals humans & non humans alike be much more complex than that in what they perceive life.



Kobe. said:


> Plants just don't have to care for their offspring because they can't and theirs no reason to.


Plants. Don't. Care.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

I'm not doing this argument forever. All your examples are from animals that were raised, cared for, and taught by humans and thus they treat them as their families. That chimp? Learned from humans and thought it was human itself which is how it how was raised. Take these animals away from humans and none of this occurs.

That Lion taking care off the baby isnt uncommon in the wild. It just saw a baby and let it's natural parental instincts take over to take care of it. 


I don't value individual animal lives because they don't do anything that I particularly care for. I'm not a saint that cares for every living creature just because they have basic senses and can feel pain. Pain doesn't mean anything in regards to emotions or anything else, it's a defense mechanism to ensure you don't damage your body beyond repair.

I am incapable of caring for animals the way you care for them because I don't value them beyond their purpose in the biosphere. I don't value humans that are born to diseases that make them a burden to society rather than contribute to it. That doesn't make me an immoral, compassionless, insensitive human, it just means we differ in our values and morals. Not everyone has the same moral system and not eating meat doesn't fall into mine.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Oh, I want to post another thing replying to you Magic I forgot to post.



Kobe. said:


> they don't make choices based on morality, they don't judge, they simply don't care about things outside of their goal in life: reproducing.


So neutered dogs who are loyal to their companions do everything they do because they want to reproduce?


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

"All your examples are from animals that were raised, cared for, and taught by humans and thus they treat them as their families. That chimp? Learned from humans and thought it was human itself which is how it how was raised. Take these animals away from humans and none of this occurs."

^.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

I was typing, Magic. lol.



Kobe. said:


> I'm not doing this argument forever. All your examples are from animals that were raised, cared for, and taught by humans and thus they treat them as their families.


Oh?






Pretty sure those Baboons don't celebrate thanks giving with that Impala.

Let's for a second imagine you're right though, just to destroy your argument even more. You're saying once animals are given the chance to join human families or communities, they show the same emotions we do after they're taught? You know, just like a criminal who after learning you discover isn't so bad after all? So they're not so mindless beasts after all now are they?

I digress, as they're not the beasts you claim they are and even when isolated from humans they show they have a conscience. Here's some food for though, why would some animals be monogamous? I'm sure you're aware some animals are this way. I'm not talking about love or shit, I'm talking about trust based on friendship & companionship and even going through the burden of taking equal responsibility of offspring then after their offspring leaving just living together. Are animal versions of monogamy for the most part primitive? Fuck yeah they are, but it's still there. The males could fuck every female out there and spread their seed more successfully, but they don't.

Here's some monogamous animals in the wild:










Waved albatross.










California mice.










Black vultures.










Kirk's Dik-dik.










Convict cichlid.










Prairie voles.

I could mention more, and many of these animals even when given the chance to mate again refuse out of loyalty. Shit, the male voles for the most part don't even mate after their female mate dies. So much for caring for reproduction and nothing else.



Kobe. said:


> That Lion taking care off the baby isnt uncommon in the wild. It just saw a baby and let it's natural parental instincts take over to take care of it.


Why is it that humans value parental instincts? Perhaps it's because, I don't know, they're instincts based on compassion? To want to care and comfort a weakling you want as your own? Why do people celebrate good parents? Why is it that people who get kids yet don't care of them are considered immoral? Parental instinct is compassionate.



Kobe. said:


> I don't value individual animal lives because they don't do anything that I particularly care for.


Since you only care for the species, rather than an individual animal, why don't you go abuse a dog then? It's life has no value, right? It's not immoral, right? Go on, say it's okay.



Kobe. said:


> I'm not a saint that cares for every living creature just because they have basic senses and can feel pain.


You make it sound like I think I'm a saint.

Humans in general are fucking disgusting by some of their natures, no human is a saint and the idea of a human who is one only exists in fairy tales. 



Kobe. said:


> Pain doesn't mean anything in regards to emotions or anything else, it's a defense mechanism to ensure you don't damage your body beyond repair.


I guess sorrow or depression means nothing, right? Those brains we have? Who cares right?



Kobe. said:


> I don't value humans that are born to diseases that make them a burden to society rather than contribute to it.


Almost everyone contributes to society in their own way, and almost everybody is a burden to society in their own way.

- You're a burden to society by helping people ruin the planet more
- You're a burden to society by not being compassionate, hence burden others

I could mention things about myself as well, anybody really. Everything I do that's horrid I wish I could change and sometimes force myself to change sometimes because of my conscience.



Kobe. said:


> That doesn't make me an immoral, compassionless, insensitive human


I know it doesn't, it just means when it comes to animals you're being immoral. Your stance towards animals is immoral, you as a whole are not. Nobody is, and nobody is wholly moral either but many do try their hardest.



Kobe. said:


> it just means we differ in our values and morals.


Compassion is essential to morality, this isn't an opinion.



Kobe. said:


> Not everyone has the same moral system and not eating meat doesn't fall into mine.


You're basically doing the same mistake Tater did now, this isn't about just you and morality doesn't work that way.

Morality is about doing what's right, you're doing something based on sheer laziness & selfishness.


----------



## RabbitHole (Mar 4, 2014)

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-foster-farms-chickens-killed-20140930-story.html

This is messed up. If you can kill a chicken every 20 seconds, that's 3 a minute, 180 an hour...so nearly 5 hours of killing chickens with a golf club?


----------



## Ghetto Anthony (Feb 19, 2004)

Bump.

Vegetarian for over 2 months now. Since September 1st.

Holy shit.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

Ghetto Anthony said:


> Bump.
> 
> Vegetarian for over 2 months now. Since September 1st.
> 
> Holy shit.


----------



## shought321 (Aug 5, 2012)

My mother raised me as one. I was a leaf eater until I was 12/13, horrible way to live.


----------



## Stipe Tapped (Jun 21, 2013)

I went vegetarian for 2 weeks when I was 14 to try to get with this girl in my class who was into all that stuff. Turns out she didn't interest me as much as steak.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

King Of Zydeco said:


> I went vegetarian for 2 weeks when I was 14 to try to get with this girl in my class who was into all that stuff. *Turns out she didn't interest me as much as steak.*


That sounds gay.


----------



## NoyK (Jul 25, 2011)

I've thought about trying it out in the past, but..





























Nah im good


----------



## Melrose92 (Apr 16, 2013)

The more i look into the meat industry it fucking sickens me and makes me want to go vegetarian. Quite frankly im so used to eating meat i dont know where to start etc so i just put all the horrible shit iv seen and read to the back of my mind.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

lol


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

personify animals


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

Had some Louisiana style chicken wings last night. :banderas


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

did you break them off the chickens yourself?


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

Nope, just took them out of the box, heated them in the oven for 20 minutes and enjoyed. Convenient and tasty all at once.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

not quite the same adrenaline rush tho.


----------



## Kaze Ni Nare (Dec 1, 2013)

Melrose92 said:


> The more i look into the meat industry it fucking sickens me and makes me want to go vegetarian. Quite frankly im so used to eating meat i dont know where to start etc so i just put all the horrible shit iv seen and read to the back of my mind.


In all seriousness, that's how I feel. Not just that, but eating cleaner in general & getting away from the Top Ramen shit & things of that nature. At the moment I'm barely squeaking by in life but it's something I want to put more of an emphasis on in the future. Cause it's not really meat that bothers me, meat is fine - but it's just food and I don't care about it that much. The way the meat is processed is disgusting though.

I blame Pokemon, shit made me look at animals differently. Stupid pocket monster bullshit, ruined my life.


----------



## THEBROODRULEZ666 (Oct 5, 2010)

Nope, and this is a good enough reason.


----------



## Gandhi (Sep 15, 2012)

THEBROODRULEZ666 said:


> Nope, and this is a good enough reason.


Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww.


----------



## Bo Wyatt (Dec 19, 2011)

I was vegan & Straight Edge in my teens. I live in a small town, and I was actually the only vegan(there was even no vegetarians) in school.


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

LlamaFromTheCongo said:


> I haven't eaten meat in a month, sadly I cant say I'm a vegan yet cause I occasionally drink milk, But yeah, shit feels pretty good. I feel a lot healthier. I used to think "How the fuck can people go without eating meat?" But now even the thought of eating meat makes me gag.


Neither makes sense because if society would collapse they would all eat meat. They only exist because society has allowed them to have other options. Which I think is great for people who don't want to eat meat.


----------



## NT86 (Nov 23, 2008)

Indian vegetarian food is out of this world, especially palak paneer or chana masala with just about any Indian bread. As I train a lot I avoid it except for special occasions plus the preparation can take a while. I believe there are chefs who are increasingly devising ways of making it healthier by adapting the recipes and ingredients with a few alternatives.


----------

