Try a different recipe. Just like not every bacon is good, so isn't every vegan bacon.
Sure. I doubt it will be any better, but, whatever. Maybe Im used to meat of too high quality.
Hitler's life is a very controversial topic among historians. Here is a video to inform you about it:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Also, even if he was a vegetarian, that vegetarianism had nothing to do with nazism.
Hitler HIMSELF said he was a vegetarian. He is known to have pestered fellow german soldiers to convert into vegetarianism. And, no, I wasnt comparing nazism and vegetarianism. You said vegetarians cant be assholes. Yes they can. Im abstinent, I do not drink alcohol (granted, I do actually drink it from time to time, as a tasting, but I have never gotten drunk in my life and abhor the feeling of alcohol in my bloodstream). If I said abstinents cant be assholes, I would be wrong or lying. Hitler was abstinent. And, no, a video in youtube isnt a source.
Wow! I must say I expected to see this argument sooner.
First of all, plants you eat don't try to defend themselves.
Yes they do! Havent you ever heard of nettles, or roses?
I mean, nobody eats nettles or roses, right?
Well that was akward. And, speak for yourself, nerd (ITS A QUOTE, PEOPLE, DONT GET FUCKING OFFENDED FOR A JOKE). Nettle soup is quite the delicacy where I live. And what about thistle soup? Or chestnuts? And almonds, nuts, etc, whose peels are LETHAL, to the point people used them to fish throwing a bag of them at the river and waiting for the fish to die.
Also, a meat-eater kills far more plants than a vegan. Animals we eat also have to be fed.
Not really. The ecological pyramid mantains itself (unless you activelly destroy an enviroment), and although some problems do occur, they are no catastrophic collapses of the trofic pyramid (where do the plants that die without being eaten go? Fun fact: that's how ponds die and become sterile and toxic, read up eutrophization). The more plants we need, the more plants we plant, or we displace niches and fit ourselves in. I'd be willing to predict, in my layman's understanding of ecology, that the base balance is more or less the same with a meat-eater or a plant-eater population. However, since we dont have a pure vegan population to compare ourselves to, we dont really know what would happen. Might work, might not.
Do your research here:
http://www.nutrition.org
And let us know if you come to the same conclusion so that we all laugh at your reading comprehension!
One step ahead of you.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full.pdf
"Bone health
Cross-sectional and longitudinal population-based studies published
within the past 2 decades suggest
no differences in bone
mineral density (BMD), for both trabecular and cortical bone,
between
omnivores and lactoovovegetarians (40). More recent
studies with postmenopausal Asian women showed spine or hip
BMD was significantly lower in long-term vegans (41, 42). Those
Asian women, who were
vegetarian for religious reasons, had
low
intakes of protein and calcium. An inadequate protein and low
calcium intake has been shown to be
associated with bone loss and
fractures at the hip and spine in the elderly (43, 44). Adequate
calcium intake may be a problem for vegans. Although lactoovovegetarians
generally consume adequate amounts of calcium,
vegans typically fall short of the recommended daily intake for
calcium"
It's not. If it were, it wouldn't cause heart disease and cancer.
Vegan diet can cause dieases, including cancer, just as well. You can die by drinking water. Oxygen is a toxin that we only barelly tolerate, and its one of the main reasons for aging, yet we breathe it. It all amounts to a healthy diet, moderation, and exercise.
LOL! Well, people certainly weren't smarter before 1700s, so…
Also, I have shown the study again and again.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155688
The link you provide doesnt show the study, only its abstract, and Im not going to pirate or buy it to prove someone wrong on the internet. Furthermore, you haven't read the abstract. It does NOT mention butchering at all, only links between animal cruelty and violence against humans, which are well known. Butchering is usually done by people who love their animals,kill them in the less painful way possible, and recent developments allow for a painless kill thanks to stunguns (which we use on our butchering).
Burden of proof is definitely on you. You are one asking people to kill countless animals who want to live as much as we do.
Good luck with convincing people to wage a war by switching the burden of proof!
You shifted the question here. You said:
If you ask for a proof (one of the studies showing that), I have linked to it a few times (so, do your homework).
You are the claimant. You are the one posting proof, as you yourself admit. Don't try to pull that bullshit on me again, your dishonesty is getting on my nerves, and we have barelly started.
I was attempting to address the argument that the slaughter and murder are somehow different. In reality, they are not! At least if you have something else to eat, and you do!
"Murder is the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.". Even if we softened "human being" to "being", there is a valid justification for it, and no malice aforethought. Remember, murder and MANSLAUGHTER (which is what you were actually trying to say) are not the same, and even then, yeah, not really, because animals arent persons (not person as in human, but person as in the legal sense. If we discovered an alien race and gave them voting rights and so on, they would have to be persons too).
And what about many people who are suffering from depression caused by the various chemical compounds in meat, dairy and eggs?
http://www.rodalesorganiclife.com/food/vegetarian-diets?page=0%252C0
Invalid source, will ignore claim.
And, again, plants you eat don't try to defend themselves. Animals do!
As I've proven before, yes they do. Quite harshly actually. I'll go even further. Plants (and fungi) activelly try to KILL animals. Nettle, poison ivy are the MILD examples of this. I would bet there are at least a couple of lethal species of fungi where you live. Mould can cause lung infection. There is even a species of fungi that "controls" ants to kill themselves in a way that results in further reproduction of the mould.
So, how can it improve? This is the way it makes the most money. And they care only about money. And it's a good thing because, well, we can change what they do by paying them to do something other than killing innocent animals!
What about furthering local and ethical meat production? Surelly that's easier and better than making EVERYONE a vegan? At least this plan is known to work, that's how humanity lived for millenia.
You seem not to realize that constantly lactating is very unhealthy.
If you force all of your cattle to lactate all the time, yeah. Good to know you are not supposed to do that, then.
OK, admittedly, my source was unreliable (a youtube video from a vegan vloger). But that still doesn't negate my point. They still live only half as much as they could!
Could is the keyword. Humans can live for 120 years. Human life expectancy is 67.2 as of 2010. Half as they could!
Cows are better fed with soy and grains than with grass.
Soy doesnt grow where I live, and grains are for humans, not cattle. Its not like we have hundreds of hectareas to farm. We really needed that bread.
Well, that's exactly the point! It feeds livestock instead of people!
Are you even reading what I write? The problem is that the livestock is GOING OUT OF THE COUNTRY. If the livestock stayed, THEY COULD JUST MILK THE DAMN GOAT.
Because that wouldn't solve the problem! They don't have enough food for both the livestock and the people! The only solution is to get rid of the livestock!
My system has several milllenia of human history to prove itself. Yours doesnt. Prove that my solution wouldnt solve the problem. And, yes they do have food for both. The problem is that THE FOOD IS GOING OUT OF THE COUNTRY. YOU ARE STARVING AND SELLING COWS FOR BWANA.
Look, the supply equals demand.
Oh god not another free market cultist.
If there were a way to increase the supply, it would increase.
No! It wouldnt! You dont even know the damn law you are using. Supply has an equilibrium point. Go above that and NO ONE BUYS YOUR COWS.
Don't you think that people have enough motivation to do that?
They dont, because the ones doing the decisions are the aristocratic elites of the country. Of course farmers would just keep the livestock for themselves, but they are being exploited. Welcome to economics.
It's just that they can't. We have to deal with the fact that resources are limited. We can feed ourselves, but we can't feed both ourselves and the livestock.
Wrong, specially since we can quite easily feed livestock with food we cant eat. Cows and goats do not compete with humans in the trophic pyramid.
What are you talking about? We would HAVE more food for ourselves, we wouldn't have to feed the billions of animals any more!
Yes, we could eat all the grass we wanted!
How?!
- Reduced soil degradation from extensive forestry
- Increased flower cover, which could prevent the incoming bee catastrophe that may happen in our lifetime
- Prevention of massive fires such as the ones my country (or California) suffers every god damn year. Fields dont burn
- Preservation of local biodiversity, foreign forestry activelly exterminates local plant life, acidifies the land, dries the soil, and causes a higher risk of landsliding
It is impossible when you have to produce so much food! You simply can't regulate so many workers!
It is impossible to prevent farmers from using carcinogenic fertilizer when you have to produce so much food for humans that you didnt have to produce before because cows eat grass! You simply can't regulate so many workers!
See the problem there? The strawman works both ways.
What a word salad!? Look, the parasites are far more likely to destroy fields than forests, because it is enough that it attacks only one type of a plant! As for the fires in the forests, look, deforestation itself kills the animals, while the forests themselves don't.
Have you ever been to a field? Have you ever been to a forest? Because I think you are confusing one with the other. Also, many animals only live in fields. See those sparrows, crows, and magpies on the cities? They had to migrate because people dont plant fields anymore, and they cant live on grains on the rural. They now eat shit from the street. Great!
You don't FORCE anyone to eat meat. Just like, when you smoke, you don't have to force anyone to smoke. But if you smoke, people around you are more likely to start smoking also. The same goes for eating meat. Is that so hard to understand?
So you also want to ban smoking? And alcohol? And sniffing paint?
Yes, it is! Imagine if people started selling corpses to be eaten! That would increase the number of murderers countless times! People would murder each other because of money they would get for selling corpses!
Why would people go through the hastle of murdering someone for the price of meat? Do you know how cheap meat is? Do you know how many people die every day? Do you know how many years in prison do you get for murdering with the aggravant of contract killing? I would bet the sentence is death in the US, and max penalty in any european country. And, again, sliding slope, since I already said there are legal reasons to criminalize canibalism. I simply said there is no moral problem with it, same as there is no moral hurdle with sticking a fork into a wall socket. Its simply stupid, and you shouldnt do it.
Are you trolling or what? I do know that animals I eat were murdered!
They werent
And I know that, if I buy them, they are going to murder more and more animals. Waiting for an animal to die naturally is inefficient.
What the hell are you rambling about? Think hard about this for a moment. An animal dies. Gee, I wonder why an animal has just died! Everyone knows death is a completelly hygenic proccess, and there is no risk asociated with eating the corpse of an animal that died of a reason unknown. I should stick its corpse into my mouth!
Same works for humans.