pull down to refresh
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.
- 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.
Real ethical hey.
hello there,
Here are my numbered responses to your responses:
- "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.
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?
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.