After the second deluge (Pole Shift), the roles of the genders changed. The proclivities of the male became exalted and women slowly suffered the removal of their power and status. Aggression, violence, and conquest became dominant. Meat eating (inheard of in pre-diluvian epoch) was necessary during the times of tribulation and was later maintained. — Michael Tsarion, 2022
Actually, you're the one making the claim here. You claimed that veganism is the ethical choice, so the burden of proof is on you, and you should be the one to present the first ethical argument. So I'm asking: why should we be vegan? If veganism is the ethical choice, does that make not being vegan unethical, and if so, why? I'll write my response based on your answer.
Hey, you conceited fuck, you still didn't address my counterargument. Before you singlehandedly declare yourself the victor, maybe address the actual arguments presented? You also haven't made any positive arguments for veganism.
It was created in 1944. By Watson on the basis of ethical grounds and not nutritional ones.
That's exactly where veganism loses every single time and will for ever.
Nutritionally. That's the logic right there.
You can't trade an egg which is the greatest almost complete food for a human for a carrot. The math ain't mathing. End of story.
Even vegetarism is better.
Because to be a vegan you need to take supplements and for that you need a modern world to help sustain you. And you need to take some pretty key ones. So you are essentially relying on the companies to make your powdered nutrients now because you think you are saving the cows.
So meanwhile while they preach they save the animals. They are using copius amounts of water and fields to creates fields of grain and produce to live off of. Eating tons of chemicals cause your fruits and veggies ain't all clean as well.
It's only ethical one way. What about the destruction of land so people plant more crops to support all the vegetables?
Do they practice regenerative farming?
Vegans and vegetarians I often find live in there own bubble of understanding economics.
Therefore it's not an actual way of eating.
It's just a fad that has survived because Western idealogies allow and also feed on that shit. Anyone want a plant burger?
I know a slew of vegans especially women who eat meat now and feel 1000x better.
You have to PAY to be vegan not only out of pocket but internally as well.
You are playing a very dangerous game with your body.
last edited at:
Most crop farms fertilize with blood, bone and feather meal from the slaughterhouses. The vegan plate is downstream of the same killing, just wearing a salad.
my response- Do you have evidence for this? I haven't witnessed or experienced this.
"As a vegan, you need to take supplements and live in a modern society".
my response- This is correct. What's your point?
"As a vegan, your diet requires lots of water and land to produce grain".
my response- Yes. And when you consume animal products, you require 1000x more water and land and grain compared to a vegan. This is because you need to feed your farm animals 1,000 calories for every 1 calories harnessed in the form of meat and dairy. Some dude already made this point, and I already responded similarly.
"Veganism is just a fad."
My response- When all good ideas are new, they can be considered a fad.
"Veganism is more expensive, both financially and internally".
My response- Financially it's actually much cheaper. By paying internally, I'm not sure if you're referring to physical health (addressed above) or mentally. If you mean mentally, then this is partially true depending on the individual. Going against the grain can be psychologically difficult if it causes society to shun you etc.. But whether or not society shuns something doesn't always determine whether or not it is ethical. Most of society shuns Monero too, for example.
"You need blood and bone for the fertilizer. This makes vegans hypocrites."
My response- It doesn't really make vegans hypocrites. Vegans ironically require orders of magnitude less crop fields, as explained above. Furthermore, the bones and blood are useful because of the nitrogen. There is an emerging farming model referred to as "veganic" farming, which obtains all the required nitrogen by cycling dead leaves or something like that. I don't claim that my food comes from veganic farming, but it is an interesting topic. In any case, yeah blood and bones are extremely plentiful because they're a byproduct of animal agriculture, so they're basically free inputs in the current landscape...... This doesn't invalidate my claim that veganism is the ethical choice; if animal agriculture stopped, we'd get the needed nitrogen other ways.
Conclusion- You definitely typed a lot of words, but you failed to "prove me wrong" as requested.
Your post is an ethics claim. Your 6 points try to split that off. So I'll answer them in order.
You asked for evidence that it's inferior nutritionally, and said you haven't witnessed it.
The founder already showed how he handled that. Watson, Vegan News, 1944: "We will not accept that adequate nutrition need violate conscience." Same letter, he said it was too soon to claim the diet was better for the body. Then he dropped milk and eggs anyway. That is the unethical part. The animal got the vote. The human body did not.
The evidence is B12. It is an essential vitamin. Bacteria make it. Plants do not. Natural food sources are meat, fish, eggs, dairy, liver. An egg has it. A carrot does not. You cannot trade those and call it even. The math ain't mathing.
A plate with meat, fish and dairy usually covers it. A vegan plate does not, unless a factory fortifies the food or you take the pill. The body can store it for 2 to 5 years, so you can feel fine while the tank runs down. "I haven't witnessed it" is the delay, not a rebuttal. The end of that delay is anemia and nerve damage. They isolated the vitamin from liver in 1948, four years after Watson told nutrition to sit down.
That is inferior. A missing essential vitamin, on a diet whose founder said nutrition doesn't get a veto.
But what would you know about cellular health. You are making a choice for your body based on your fucking feelings and thoughts not logic.
Now not many people understand B12 vitamin stores but you know who should VEGANS!!!!
Like right at the top of the fucking list.
You said the supplement point is correct and asked what the point is.
The point is your ethic needs the factory to not injure people. Skip the pill long enough and the nervous system pays. I can skip a fortified cereal and still get B12 from the egg. You cannot skip the pill and get it from the carrot. So the modern world isn't a fun extra. It is the only reason the ethic doesn't eat the person following it.
You turned "lots of water and land" into 1000 calories of feed for 1 calorie of meat, and called that 1000 times the water, 1000 times the land, and 1000 times the grain.
Those are not the same number. Beef feed conversion is tens of calories in per calorie of meat, not a thousand. Pasture beef isn't on a grain bill at all. Higher land use than beans is a real argument. 1000 times everything is a slogan. The math ain't mathing.
1944 is not "when all good ideas are new." It's been 80 years. It still needs the pill. A good idea that cannot feed a human without a factory nutrient is not a good idea. It's a fad that survived because the factory showed up.
This almost proves my point even more. Do you even know WHO, WHY and WHEN veganism started? Here you are trying to argue for something you live by without even knowing WHERE it started? Young man!
Internally meant the body. You moved it to society shunning you, then used Monero.
Monero being unpopular doesn't put B12 in a carrot. And cheaper depends what you actually buy. The pill, the fortified food, and the body cost are part of the receipt. You left those off and called the beans cheaper.
On the bottom of my comment, you conceded the blood, bone and feather meal, then pointed at veganic farming, then said your food doesn't come from it.
So the plate you eat today is still downstream of the same killing. "We'd get the nitrogen other ways" is the gas well. That's the other way. Not a cleaner ethic. A different industrial input.
You asked to be proved wrong that this is the ethical choice. The founder overruled nutrition on purpose. The missing vitamin is the proof he refused to wait for.
"Lack of B12 in a vegan diet is proof that the diet is nutritionally inferior."
my response- As long as you're adequately supplementing B12, your body won't run out of B12 stores.
1a) "Donald Watson made it clear that even if this new diet idea proves inadequate, he would support it and follow it regardless out of principle. This invalidates veganism."
my response- Donald Watson was a gangster. I personally wouldn't have been willing to risk my own health for the sake of this principle at that time in history. He put himself through an experiment which was probably very scary at the time....... he ended up living a healthy active life and died at age 95, remaining a very active "fell-walker" and gardener until shortly before his death. So although he would've personally been willing to harm himself, he didn't. His experiment proved that animal products aren't required to survive or thrive.
"If you can't do the right thing without the help of factories, then it's not really the right thing".
my response- ......................... huh?
"Your stated numbers regarding land and water use aren't exactly correct."
my response- No they're not exactly precise numbers, but that's obvious. Everything isn't going to be a factor of exactly 1,000..... I was using a round clean number to illustrate my point. Here's my point without numbers stated- "A diet including dairy and meat requires way more land and crop production, therefore the concerns for field mice and insects increase massively if you include animal products in your diet."
"People haven't been doing veganism for a long time and it requires a pill. This means it's not a good idea."
my response- Pills are awesome. They have benefited humanity greatly and are one of the many reasons humans are living longer and healthier. As far as being a new idea, yes veganism is a new idea...... what's your point? Monero has only been a thing for 12 years or so, correct?
"Veganism causes your body to suffer."
my response- I have not witnessed or experienced this. Do you have any proof?
5a) "Whether or not it's cheaper depends on what you buy".
my response- You're correct. What's your point?
"You conceded about the blood, bones, and feathers. You admitted that your food benefits from these inputs."
my response- Veganic farming doesn't require "the gas well". It rotates leaves or something like that, idk. Look it up if you're interested. My understanding is that the important thing is nitrogen. Yeah my food doesn't currently come from veganic farming.... but I will switch to that if I see it on store shelves. This doesn't invalidate my argument; doing 99% the right thing isn't as bad as doing 0% the right thing, if that makes sense.
SIDE NOTE- This is neither here nor there, because there's nothing inherently wrong with pills.... but before the industrial revolution, humans got B12 from untreated drinking water and from the trace amounts of dirt on their vegetables...... Likewise, in our modern industrial world, the farm animals also need to be supplemented with B12. So the B12 you're getting from hamburgers etc.. wouldn't be there if the cows weren't given B12 pills at the farm.
I look forward to your response. So far, my assertion that "veganism is the ethical choice" hasn't been proven wrong.
This is all you get because you are starting to show your colors.
I've met many vegetarian and vegans in my time as a nutritionist and often they end up proving one thing to me. They have no clue how their own bodies actually work. Their decisions are solely based on mental idealogies and they are often bad ones. The body gets no say in their "NEW" life and now the control "YOU" doesn't have the education and knowledge to understand the damage you are doing.
Count your own concessions before you ask for proof again. The pill. The round number. The receipt. The veganic farm you described as "idk, look it up." That's not proving me wrong. That's agreeing with me and asking what my point is.
And on the side note, you had it backwards. Cows don't take B12 pills. The bacteria in her rumen make it out of cobalt in the grass. That's exactly why the beef and the egg have it and the carrot doesn't. The cow is the factory, and she runs on grass. You're the one who needs the lab.
Watson living to 95 is one man, and he lived in the supplement era. His own letter still said nutrition doesn't get a veto. One survivor doesn't rewrite the founder's own words.
Numbered, so we're even.
"As long as you're adequately supplementing B12." That's my point said back to me. The diet is still missing the vitamin. The pill is the diet failing and the factory catching it. You've conceded that twice now.
1a) Watson. One man is an anecdote, not evidence. He lived into the supplement era, so his 95 years are the pill's work, not the carrot's. And his own letter still said nutrition doesn't get a veto. You calling him a gangster for risking his own health is the closest you've come to admitting the diet was a gamble.
Let me spell it out since you asked huh.
The pill is not awesome. The pill is a receipt that says you are missing something. If you need it medically, fine, that's the body failing and science stepping in. But yours isn't medical. Yours is a choice. You chose the gap, then bought the patch, then called the patch a victory. An ethic that needs a permanent industrial rescue to not hurt the person following it isn't the ethical choice. It's a mental game.
You retreated from 1000x to "a round clean number to illustrate my point," and now you're arguing goliath's field mice point instead of your own. Round numbers aren't arguments. The math still ain't mathing.
Pills are awesome for medicine. Awesome for a choice? No. And Monero doesn't need a pill to work. Your diet does. That's the difference between new and incomplete.
I gave you the proof. B12, the stores, the 2 to 5 years, the nerve damage. You conceded the supplement, then asked for proof of the same thing. That loop is done.
5a) You said you're correct and asked what's my point. The point was the receipt. You left the pill and the body cost off your cheaper claim. Still there.
You cited veganic farming, didn't know how it works, and said you'll switch when you see it on shelves. So today's plate is still downstream of the same killing. 99 percent of the right thing still counts the same deaths as 0. You just put a smaller number on yours.
In the past (pre-industrial revolution), B12 was plentiful in meat, eggs, untreated drinking water, and even on vegetables due to trace amounts of untreated dirt. This is no longer the case.
See the valleyvet link above? I imagine this "Rooster Booster" supplement and others like it are adding a substantial amount of B12 to the eggs and other items.
You seem to be romanticizing nature, thinking that if you can't do something without technology, then it's not good? Without technology, none of us would be alive. Factories are good. Supplements are good. Health is good. This is human.
Nature is good too. But humans are very smart and inventive. We're able to harness the benefits of nature while protecting ourselves from the downsides of it (to a degree).
Even if you don't take the pill yourself, you would still run out of B12 if your animals weren't getting it.
If we as a society stopped all supplementation, you and I would probably run out of B12 reserves at the same time. You are supplementing B12, you're just not aware of it.
Three replies ago you were "huh" and "idk, look it up." Now it's tidy paragraphs, a link pile, and "this is human." You turned a robot on. It didn't read the labels either. That's the slop. Dressed up, and still wrong.
Rooster Booster is a chicken bottle. It says poultry. Stress, illness, appetite. Then you wrote "I imagine" it dumps a substantial amount of B12 into eggs. Imagine harder. A guess with a URL under it is still a guess.
Durvet is a shot. Injectable. Cattle, sheep, swine, when the animal is sick, stressed, or short. That is a vet rescue, not the reason a steer on grass has B12 in the meat. You found a syringe and called it the food chain.
The pig link is a pig. Pigs don't have a rumen. You googled the wrong stomach and acted like you found the conspiracy.
Here is the part your helper didn't check. A cow does not get her B12 from a pill. Bacteria in the rumen make it out of cobalt in the grass. That ran before factories and it still runs. Cobalt is a mineral in the dirt. It is not a B12 capsule. She builds the vitamin. You buy the vitamin. Chickens and pigs are a different animal. They don't make it. She does. You stacked four links from three species and pretended they were one fact.
So no. If the pills stopped tomorrow I would not run out with you. My beef still makes it. Your carrot still doesn't. Your stores last 2 to 5 years, which is why you feel fine and think that means you won.
And then the robot said the quiet part for you. Factories are good. Supplements are good. This is human. You stopped arguing the diet is complete. You're proud it has a pharmacy. That's the concession.
An ethic that needs a syringe to keep its own story standing isn't an ethic. It's a subscription with a manifesto.
And keep supporting, bro. Your last reply was free. How many more you got?
That's how Stasher works. Put your money where your mouth is boi
Why do you think virtually all farm animals are supplemented with B12?
Yeah I know about that thing where the gut creates it.... but in modern times without that supplement their gut won't create it.
Do you think farmers are spending their hard-earned money on B12 supplements for their animals for no reason? Why would they spend all that money if the animals' guts supplied it reliably?
We could all survive on a vegan diet. But we could not thrive. Our bodies can't get all necessary nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and fats from vegetables alone. The ethical choice is the nature's choice. Don't mistreat your body nor your children's body with anything less than what nature intended.
Force a lion onto a vegan diet and see how long they survive in the wild. I would bet not very long.
i actually have no issue with being vegan or whatever, but if you are saying its better morally because you are not killing,,, what of the mice in the combine harvester that collects your wheat or the bees killed to make monoculture almond milk or the bird that starves or the insects under the wheels or your delivery truck or the rodents poisoned in the food packaging plant or... See its all just slective bias thinking
All the examples of suffering you pointed out are multiplied 1000x when you include animal products in the mix. This is because you need to feed the animals 1,000 calories for every 1 calorie you produce in meat/dairy/etc.. Where do all those calories come from? Plants. Plants which when harvested kill mice (however most successfully run away from the harvester BTW) and bugs like you said. If you consume animal products, you ironically require orders of magnitude more plants than a vegan.
Numbers aside, it's just feels dirty and wrong to hold sentient beings in captivity.... locked up in your shed or whatever.
it's simply degrees. everyone is killing creatures everyday. and if you become a self sufficient farmer living off your land, you enslave creatures, contort their nature and inadvertently kill them regardless of you desire not to harm.
i also think vegan isn't healthy - a vegan can eat 100% junk food. it's about minimising harm of animals, but not necessarily about your own health.
plant eaters who eat a low fat whole starch diet are generally very healthy, but many wouldn't call themselves "vegan" because their focus isn't on non harm to animals it's on health and improvement of themselves.
My response- Correct, you can't. But my point is that you can reduce unintentional harm 1,000 fold and at the very least not hold sentient beings captive.
"Vegan diets aren't healthy if you only eat vegan junk food."
My response- Correct, I agree.
"Plant Based eaters eat more plants to gain better health, not to help animals."
My response- Yes these people exist. They're often referred to as "plant-based" rather than "vegan".
What overall point are you trying to make with these stated thoughts?
there aren't health benefits from being vegan vs being plant based. the feeling of moral superiority or value signalling that vegan's enjoy is only possible until the vegan studies where their food comes from and how it is produced. many people would become plant based or vegan if they had to kill their own livestock, chickens. it's interesting the vegetarian who eats fish because they don't think the face has as much appeal as a duck or a pig :). Main point: it's all how you decide to run your head space.
What's the actual case you're making? Veganism is objectively retarded, but telling you the best reason why it's retarded depends greatly on your argument.
I'm not epistemologically christian so I have no duty to harm things the least, no architecture of sin, animal sacrifice was practiced in the earlier days of my people so it is explicitly considered ethical. My people probably wouldn't have survived without it since they made treks across non-fertile land without time to cultivate crops. Meat is often maligned in the current day because the types of meat people eat aren't the most nutritionally dense, but organ meat and eggs is nutritionally dense. Eating meat has also been good historically because it provided practice with practical violence. The further the individuals in your society are from practicing violence, especially killing, the more distant and foreign it becomes and when the time arises to be violent against a tyrant or invader you become squeamish and reluctant. Violence of the people is a major factor that has kept tyrants and invaders in check and it does no good to domesticate humans into herbivores just to allay some odd moral fear.
This doesn't prove me wrong as requested. Lets go through each of your points:
"My ancestors did X thousands of years ago because they needed to in order to not die out. This makes X ethical".
response- Can you explain why this is logical?
"Some meat is more nutrient-dense than others."
response- True. What's your point?
"If we don't commit violence regularly, we'll all get soft and won't be able to dish out violence when we need to for self defense and defense of our families."
my response- False. We can be civilized and peaceful as much as possible and still be able to dish out violence when we need to for defense etc.. This is exactly why martial arts, weight lifting, and guns (for self defense) exist.
Honestly bro, this is disappointing. Is this the best you can come up with?
My point is that my epistemological foundation is based on the faith and practices of my ancestors which explicitly allowed this. I also draw on Nietzschean concepts. I feel no ethical need to minimize the suffering of other animals or people.
"Some meat is more nutrient-dense than others."
My point was addressing the common vegan talking point that being vegan is healthier than eating meat is often based off of how unhealthy the typical diet is not how healthy meat eating can be. Regardless, that's not really an ethical point so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.
my response- False. We can be civilized and peaceful as much as possible and still be able to dish out violence when we need to for defense etc.. This is exactly why martial arts, weight lifting, and guns (for self defense) exist.
Recreational sparring and killing animals via slaughtering or hunting is not the same thing. The point is being familiar with taking a life. Outsourcing that to large factories (which I agree are poor handlers of animals) was a net negative. Has the world gotten more free since we stopped killing pests, livestock, and prey ourselves? No, the state has gotten continuously larger and the will of people to resist tyrants has diminished as violence has become more distant and abstract. We are domesticated now because we have become prey and not predators. This is obviously multifactorial, but I think to deny this is to be purposefully obtuse.
I do not view pacifism or having an overactive empathy response as masculine or becoming of a man of strong character. I struggle to see how any such person could function throughout the day when everyday, everywhere people and animals are dying in horrific manners.
You did not address my arguments in good faith. Furthermore, your ethical points so far have not even been ethical. Your point has largely been "you can go without". Can you tell me why I should ethically?
You have not made any positive arguments and your argument that people want to reduce animal harm at a higher preference than the enjoyment or benefit conferred from consuming animal products. I do not have that preference.
What are your positive arguments besides animals are nice and hurting things is mean and imagine if everyone was kind?
Update- Ok, I knew the non-vegans were going to lose this argument..... But I didn't think they would crash THIS HARD.
Astonishingly, the best argument any of you came up with is:
"Veganism is not the ethical choice because I have a personal vendetta against nutritional supplements and factories".
...... (no, really)
This has been stimulating and engaging. I thank the responders for their participation. If anybody else has anything to add, don't hesitate.
Every comment supports the miners with fees and also supports this cool website!
peace out brothers
Actually, you're the one making the claim here. You claimed that veganism is the ethical choice, so the burden of proof is on you, and you should be the one to present the first ethical argument. So I'm asking: why should we be vegan? If veganism is the ethical choice, does that make not being vegan unethical, and if so, why? I'll write my response based on your answer.
Hey, you conceited fuck, you still didn't address my counterargument. Before you singlehandedly declare yourself the victor, maybe address the actual arguments presented? You also haven't made any positive arguments for veganism.
Veganism doesn't work.
It was created in 1944. By Watson on the basis of ethical grounds and not nutritional ones.
That's exactly where veganism loses every single time and will for ever.
Nutritionally. That's the logic right there.
You can't trade an egg which is the greatest almost complete food for a human for a carrot.
The math ain't mathing. End of story.
Even vegetarism is better.
Because to be a vegan you need to take supplements and for that you need a modern world to help sustain you. And you need to take some pretty key ones. So you are essentially relying on the companies to make your powdered nutrients now because you think you are saving the cows.
So meanwhile while they preach they save the animals. They are using copius amounts of water and fields to creates fields of grain and produce to live off of. Eating tons of chemicals cause your fruits and veggies ain't all clean as well.
It's only ethical one way. What about the destruction of land so people plant more crops to support all the vegetables?
Do they practice regenerative farming?
Vegans and vegetarians I often find live in there own bubble of understanding economics.
Therefore it's not an actual way of eating.
It's just a fad that has survived because Western idealogies allow and also feed on that shit. Anyone want a plant burger?
I know a slew of vegans especially women who eat meat now and feel 1000x better.
You have to PAY to be vegan not only out of pocket but internally as well.
You are playing a very dangerous game with your body.
Most crop farms fertilize with blood, bone and feather meal from the slaughterhouses. The vegan plate is downstream of the same killing, just wearing a salad.
Real ethical hey.
Ok lets go through your points bro.
my response- Do you have evidence for this? I haven't witnessed or experienced this.
my response- This is correct. What's your point?
my response- Yes. And when you consume animal products, you require 1000x more water and land and grain compared to a vegan. This is because you need to feed your farm animals 1,000 calories for every 1 calories harnessed in the form of meat and dairy. Some dude already made this point, and I already responded similarly.
My response- When all good ideas are new, they can be considered a fad.
My response- Financially it's actually much cheaper. By paying internally, I'm not sure if you're referring to physical health (addressed above) or mentally. If you mean mentally, then this is partially true depending on the individual. Going against the grain can be psychologically difficult if it causes society to shun you etc.. But whether or not society shuns something doesn't always determine whether or not it is ethical. Most of society shuns Monero too, for example.
My response- It doesn't really make vegans hypocrites. Vegans ironically require orders of magnitude less crop fields, as explained above. Furthermore, the bones and blood are useful because of the nitrogen. There is an emerging farming model referred to as "veganic" farming, which obtains all the required nitrogen by cycling dead leaves or something like that. I don't claim that my food comes from veganic farming, but it is an interesting topic. In any case, yeah blood and bones are extremely plentiful because they're a byproduct of animal agriculture, so they're basically free inputs in the current landscape...... This doesn't invalidate my claim that veganism is the ethical choice; if animal agriculture stopped, we'd get the needed nitrogen other ways.
Conclusion-
You definitely typed a lot of words, but you failed to "prove me wrong" as requested.
Ahhhh vegans....they always show themselves.
Alright I'm warmed up now big Mike ready!!
Your post is an ethics claim. Your 6 points try to split that off. So I'll answer them in order.
The founder already showed how he handled that. Watson, Vegan News, 1944: "We will not accept that adequate nutrition need violate conscience." Same letter, he said it was too soon to claim the diet was better for the body. Then he dropped milk and eggs anyway. That is the unethical part. The animal got the vote. The human body did not.
The evidence is B12. It is an essential vitamin. Bacteria make it. Plants do not. Natural food sources are meat, fish, eggs, dairy, liver. An egg has it. A carrot does not. You cannot trade those and call it even. The math ain't mathing.
A plate with meat, fish and dairy usually covers it. A vegan plate does not, unless a factory fortifies the food or you take the pill. The body can store it for 2 to 5 years, so you can feel fine while the tank runs down. "I haven't witnessed it" is the delay, not a rebuttal. The end of that delay is anemia and nerve damage. They isolated the vitamin from liver in 1948, four years after Watson told nutrition to sit down.
That is inferior. A missing essential vitamin, on a diet whose founder said nutrition doesn't get a veto.
But what would you know about cellular health. You are making a choice for your body based on your fucking feelings and thoughts not logic.
Now not many people understand B12 vitamin stores but you know who should VEGANS!!!!
Like right at the top of the fucking list.
The point is your ethic needs the factory to not injure people. Skip the pill long enough and the nervous system pays. I can skip a fortified cereal and still get B12 from the egg. You cannot skip the pill and get it from the carrot. So the modern world isn't a fun extra. It is the only reason the ethic doesn't eat the person following it.
Those are not the same number. Beef feed conversion is tens of calories in per calorie of meat, not a thousand. Pasture beef isn't on a grain bill at all. Higher land use than beans is a real argument. 1000 times everything is a slogan. The math ain't mathing.
This almost proves my point even more. Do you even know WHO, WHY and WHEN veganism started? Here you are trying to argue for something you live by without even knowing WHERE it started? Young man!
Monero being unpopular doesn't put B12 in a carrot. And cheaper depends what you actually buy. The pill, the fortified food, and the body cost are part of the receipt. You left those off and called the beans cheaper.
So the plate you eat today is still downstream of the same killing. "We'd get the nitrogen other ways" is the gas well. That's the other way. Not a cleaner ethic. A different industrial input.
You asked to be proved wrong that this is the ethical choice. The founder overruled nutrition on purpose. The missing vitamin is the proof he refused to wait for.
Real ethical hey.
hello there,
Here are my numbered responses to your responses:
my response- As long as you're adequately supplementing B12, your body won't run out of B12 stores.
1a) "Donald Watson made it clear that even if this new diet idea proves inadequate, he would support it and follow it regardless out of principle. This invalidates veganism."
my response- Donald Watson was a gangster. I personally wouldn't have been willing to risk my own health for the sake of this principle at that time in history. He put himself through an experiment which was probably very scary at the time....... he ended up living a healthy active life and died at age 95, remaining a very active "fell-walker" and gardener until shortly before his death. So although he would've personally been willing to harm himself, he didn't. His experiment proved that animal products aren't required to survive or thrive.
my response- ......................... huh?
my response- No they're not exactly precise numbers, but that's obvious. Everything isn't going to be a factor of exactly 1,000..... I was using a round clean number to illustrate my point. Here's my point without numbers stated- "A diet including dairy and meat requires way more land and crop production, therefore the concerns for field mice and insects increase massively if you include animal products in your diet."
my response- Pills are awesome. They have benefited humanity greatly and are one of the many reasons humans are living longer and healthier. As far as being a new idea, yes veganism is a new idea...... what's your point? Monero has only been a thing for 12 years or so, correct?
my response- I have not witnessed or experienced this. Do you have any proof?
5a) "Whether or not it's cheaper depends on what you buy".
my response- You're correct. What's your point?
my response- Veganic farming doesn't require "the gas well". It rotates leaves or something like that, idk. Look it up if you're interested. My understanding is that the important thing is nitrogen. Yeah my food doesn't currently come from veganic farming.... but I will switch to that if I see it on store shelves. This doesn't invalidate my argument; doing 99% the right thing isn't as bad as doing 0% the right thing, if that makes sense.
SIDE NOTE-
This is neither here nor there, because there's nothing inherently wrong with pills.... but before the industrial revolution, humans got B12 from untreated drinking water and from the trace amounts of dirt on their vegetables...... Likewise, in our modern industrial world, the farm animals also need to be supplemented with B12. So the B12 you're getting from hamburgers etc.. wouldn't be there if the cows weren't given B12 pills at the farm.
I look forward to your response. So far, my assertion that "veganism is the ethical choice" hasn't been proven wrong.
This is all you get because you are starting to show your colors.
I've met many vegetarian and vegans in my time as a nutritionist and often they end up proving one thing to me. They have no clue how their own bodies actually work. Their decisions are solely based on mental idealogies and they are often bad ones. The body gets no say in their "NEW" life and now the control "YOU" doesn't have the education and knowledge to understand the damage you are doing.
Count your own concessions before you ask for proof again. The pill. The round number. The receipt. The veganic farm you described as "idk, look it up." That's not proving me wrong. That's agreeing with me and asking what my point is.
And on the side note, you had it backwards. Cows don't take B12 pills. The bacteria in her rumen make it out of cobalt in the grass. That's exactly why the beef and the egg have it and the carrot doesn't. The cow is the factory, and she runs on grass. You're the one who needs the lab.
Watson living to 95 is one man, and he lived in the supplement era. His own letter still said nutrition doesn't get a veto. One survivor doesn't rewrite the founder's own words.
Numbered, so we're even.
1a) Watson. One man is an anecdote, not evidence. He lived into the supplement era, so his 95 years are the pill's work, not the carrot's. And his own letter still said nutrition doesn't get a veto. You calling him a gangster for risking his own health is the closest you've come to admitting the diet was a gamble.
The pill is not awesome. The pill is a receipt that says you are missing something. If you need it medically, fine, that's the body failing and science stepping in. But yours isn't medical. Yours is a choice. You chose the gap, then bought the patch, then called the patch a victory. An ethic that needs a permanent industrial rescue to not hurt the person following it isn't the ethical choice. It's a mental game.
5a) You said you're correct and asked what's my point. The point was the receipt. You left the pill and the body cost off your cheaper claim. Still there.
Hello there,
In modern times, farmed animals are absolutely supplemented with B12. See below.
https://www.valleyvet.com/rooster-booster-liquid-b-12-plus-vitamin-k
https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/durvet-hi-level-vitamin-b-complex
https://www.nbinno.com/article/nutritional-chemicals/vitamin-b12-feed-additive-animal-nutrition-mo
https://spectrumcare.pet/farm-animals/pig/medications/cobalamin
In the past (pre-industrial revolution), B12 was plentiful in meat, eggs, untreated drinking water, and even on vegetables due to trace amounts of untreated dirt. This is no longer the case.
See the valleyvet link above? I imagine this "Rooster Booster" supplement and others like it are adding a substantial amount of B12 to the eggs and other items.
You seem to be romanticizing nature, thinking that if you can't do something without technology, then it's not good? Without technology, none of us would be alive. Factories are good. Supplements are good. Health is good. This is human.
Nature is good too. But humans are very smart and inventive. We're able to harness the benefits of nature while protecting ourselves from the downsides of it (to a degree).
Even if you don't take the pill yourself, you would still run out of B12 if your animals weren't getting it.
If we as a society stopped all supplementation, you and I would probably run out of B12 reserves at the same time. You are supplementing B12, you're just not aware of it.
I look forward to your response bro,
Hello there. That's new.
Three replies ago you were "huh" and "idk, look it up." Now it's tidy paragraphs, a link pile, and "this is human." You turned a robot on. It didn't read the labels either. That's the slop. Dressed up, and still wrong.
Rooster Booster is a chicken bottle. It says poultry. Stress, illness, appetite. Then you wrote "I imagine" it dumps a substantial amount of B12 into eggs. Imagine harder. A guess with a URL under it is still a guess.
Durvet is a shot. Injectable. Cattle, sheep, swine, when the animal is sick, stressed, or short. That is a vet rescue, not the reason a steer on grass has B12 in the meat. You found a syringe and called it the food chain.
The pig link is a pig. Pigs don't have a rumen. You googled the wrong stomach and acted like you found the conspiracy.
Here is the part your helper didn't check. A cow does not get her B12 from a pill. Bacteria in the rumen make it out of cobalt in the grass. That ran before factories and it still runs. Cobalt is a mineral in the dirt. It is not a B12 capsule. She builds the vitamin. You buy the vitamin. Chickens and pigs are a different animal. They don't make it. She does. You stacked four links from three species and pretended they were one fact.
So no. If the pills stopped tomorrow I would not run out with you. My beef still makes it. Your carrot still doesn't. Your stores last 2 to 5 years, which is why you feel fine and think that means you won.
And then the robot said the quiet part for you. Factories are good. Supplements are good. This is human. You stopped arguing the diet is complete. You're proud it has a pharmacy. That's the concession.
An ethic that needs a syringe to keep its own story standing isn't an ethic. It's a subscription with a manifesto.
And keep supporting, bro. Your last reply was free. How many more you got?
That's how Stasher works. Put your money where your mouth is boi
hello there,
Why do you think virtually all farm animals are supplemented with B12?
Yeah I know about that thing where the gut creates it.... but in modern times without that supplement their gut won't create it.
Do you think farmers are spending their hard-earned money on B12 supplements for their animals for no reason? Why would they spend all that money if the animals' guts supplied it reliably?
Did you read the links I posted?
We could all survive on a vegan diet. But we could not thrive. Our bodies can't get all necessary nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and fats from vegetables alone. The ethical choice is the nature's choice. Don't mistreat your body nor your children's body with anything less than what nature intended.
Force a lion onto a vegan diet and see how long they survive in the wild. I would bet not very long.
Hello,
Ok so your point is that veganism isn't the ethical choice because vegans will inadvertently harm themselves via nutrient deprivation.
Do you have evidence that this is true? I've never witnessed or experienced this before.
i actually have no issue with being vegan or whatever, but if you are saying its better morally because you are not killing,,, what of the mice in the combine harvester that collects your wheat or the bees killed to make monoculture almond milk or the bird that starves or the insects under the wheels or your delivery truck or the rodents poisoned in the food packaging plant or... See its all just slective bias thinking
All the examples of suffering you pointed out are multiplied 1000x when you include animal products in the mix. This is because you need to feed the animals 1,000 calories for every 1 calorie you produce in meat/dairy/etc.. Where do all those calories come from? Plants. Plants which when harvested kill mice (however most successfully run away from the harvester BTW) and bugs like you said. If you consume animal products, you ironically require orders of magnitude more plants than a vegan.
Numbers aside, it's just feels dirty and wrong to hold sentient beings in captivity.... locked up in your shed or whatever.
Thanks for responding.
it's simply degrees. everyone is killing creatures everyday. and if you become a self sufficient farmer living off your land, you enslave creatures, contort their nature and inadvertently kill them regardless of you desire not to harm.
i also think vegan isn't healthy - a vegan can eat 100% junk food. it's about minimising harm of animals, but not necessarily about your own health.
plant eaters who eat a low fat whole starch diet are generally very healthy, but many wouldn't call themselves "vegan" because their focus isn't on non harm to animals it's on health and improvement of themselves.
So to sum up your thoughts there....
My response- Correct, you can't. But my point is that you can reduce unintentional harm 1,000 fold and at the very least not hold sentient beings captive.
My response- Correct, I agree.
My response- Yes these people exist. They're often referred to as "plant-based" rather than "vegan".
What overall point are you trying to make with these stated thoughts?
there aren't health benefits from being vegan vs being plant based.
the feeling of moral superiority or value signalling that vegan's enjoy is only possible until the vegan studies where their food comes from and how it is produced.
many people would become plant based or vegan if they had to kill their own livestock, chickens.
it's interesting the vegetarian who eats fish because they don't think the face has as much appeal as a duck or a pig :).
Main point: it's all how you decide to run your head space.
What's the actual case you're making? Veganism is objectively retarded, but telling you the best reason why it's retarded depends greatly on your argument.
My argument is that veganism is the ethical choice.
If you can, prove me wrong.
I'm not epistemologically christian so I have no duty to harm things the least, no architecture of sin, animal sacrifice was practiced in the earlier days of my people so it is explicitly considered ethical. My people probably wouldn't have survived without it since they made treks across non-fertile land without time to cultivate crops. Meat is often maligned in the current day because the types of meat people eat aren't the most nutritionally dense, but organ meat and eggs is nutritionally dense. Eating meat has also been good historically because it provided practice with practical violence. The further the individuals in your society are from practicing violence, especially killing, the more distant and foreign it becomes and when the time arises to be violent against a tyrant or invader you become squeamish and reluctant. Violence of the people is a major factor that has kept tyrants and invaders in check and it does no good to domesticate humans into herbivores just to allay some odd moral fear.
This doesn't prove me wrong as requested. Lets go through each of your points:
response- Can you explain why this is logical?
response- True. What's your point?
my response- False. We can be civilized and peaceful as much as possible and still be able to dish out violence when we need to for defense etc.. This is exactly why martial arts, weight lifting, and guns (for self defense) exist.
Honestly bro, this is disappointing. Is this the best you can come up with?
Pathetic.
Thank you for your bad faith strawman.
My point is that my epistemological foundation is based on the faith and practices of my ancestors which explicitly allowed this. I also draw on Nietzschean concepts. I feel no ethical need to minimize the suffering of other animals or people.
My point was addressing the common vegan talking point that being vegan is healthier than eating meat is often based off of how unhealthy the typical diet is not how healthy meat eating can be. Regardless, that's not really an ethical point so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.
Recreational sparring and killing animals via slaughtering or hunting is not the same thing. The point is being familiar with taking a life. Outsourcing that to large factories (which I agree are poor handlers of animals) was a net negative. Has the world gotten more free since we stopped killing pests, livestock, and prey ourselves? No, the state has gotten continuously larger and the will of people to resist tyrants has diminished as violence has become more distant and abstract. We are domesticated now because we have become prey and not predators. This is obviously multifactorial, but I think to deny this is to be purposefully obtuse.
I do not view pacifism or having an overactive empathy response as masculine or becoming of a man of strong character. I struggle to see how any such person could function throughout the day when everyday, everywhere people and animals are dying in horrific manners.
You did not address my arguments in good faith. Furthermore, your ethical points so far have not even been ethical. Your point has largely been "you can go without". Can you tell me why I should ethically?
You have not made any positive arguments and your argument that people want to reduce animal harm at a higher preference than the enjoyment or benefit conferred from consuming animal products. I do not have that preference.
What are your positive arguments besides animals are nice and hurting things is mean and imagine if everyone was kind?