I guarantee you he wasn't even a FE-er.
I was. Well, some of the arguments they present appear sensical and even convincing until you analyze them. But, you are right, most of them, including ones I was presenting, immediately appear ridiculous.
He is still an idiot.
Hey, aren't you one with the bacon argument? Aren't you one who tries to debate FET in the threads about technology?
How exactly did he think that trolling about being vegan and spreading pseudoscience is going to help animal rights?
I just wasn't expecting that I will have to defend the animal rights. Nobody whom I know in real life is so strongly against animal rights. Except that they believe that somehow animal rights can be fulfilled despite us eating meat. When people on this forum denied that animals should have rights, I was just writing down the rhetorics that first came into my mind. I didn't expect to have such discussions. As for pseudoscience, look, I don't have the knowledge needed to recognize the difference between science and pseudoscience when it comes to nutrition and, let's face it, nobody has.
Seriously, dude, are you really going to use talking cows as an argument?
Well, when I use that argument in real life, it shuts people up.
But, yeah, he is supposed to have a rational discussion with someone who advocates for the rebirth of the animal sacrifices. How can anyone today be so superstitious to believe that sacrificing animals does any good?
I don't know. How can some people think that terrorism does any good? How was I thinking that the Earth was flat? They have been convinced by some fallacious arguments and they don't show them for us to explain why they are wrong.
How can you have a rational discussion with someone who denies that babies feel pain?
Well, the funny thing is that doctors used to believe that all until recently.
As for the moderate drinking, yes, it does have small health benefits, it reduces the risk of heart disease, it's just that the risks, especially for the young people, greatly outweigh the benefits.
What's more likely: that it truly reduces the risk of you getting a heart disease or that it just reduces the probability of you living long enough to get a heart disease?
And, whoever wins the debate, it doesn't matter because none of you experts in anything related to the field.
You are right, having such debates is addictive. And I am unlikely to win the debate, I simply can't empathize with meat-eaters to even explain what they get wrong. What has to be in your head to voluntarily eat something someone has to be killed for you to eat?