[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / choroy / cyoa / dempart / freeb / vichan / vietnam ]

/veganism/ - Go Vegan

What is the difference between animals and humans that justifies killing one for food when we can just eat plants, but not the other?
Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 1fe3c00cab1fadb⋯.jpg (205.51 KB, 1000x1250, 4:5, Grass_Dog.jpg)

 No.1

Daily reminder that you're either a vegan, or you support the internment and slaughter of at least some subset of humans as well as animals.

What's the difference between humans and animals that makes it acceptable to slaughter one for food when we could eat plants, but not the other?

>They aren't human

This implies you would find these things acceptable:

Advanced aliens farming humans

Humans farming aliens

Eating cows/chickens/pigs who's consciousness has been swapped with a humans

>They aren't intelligent

This implies you would find interning severely mentally disabled people (who are less aware than cows/chickens/pigs etc) and breeding them into slaughter acceptable.

>It's tradition, and convenient

Owning slaves, raping children, sacrificing innocents and more have all been cultural tradition that wasn't easily outgrown. Are things of this sort also acceptable, Anon?

>I like the way they taste

If I find something tasty, that makes it acceptable for me to consume it? What if I find newborns tasty?

>We evolved to eat animals

1. Things like rape also have evolutionary value. Is this acceptable behavior for moral agents such as humans, Anon?

2. Carnivores and most omnivores evolved small intestines 3 to 6 times the length of their trunk. They also have a high level of acidity in their gut. These are tools designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly (animal flesh and byproducts). Humans, as well as other herbivores small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and have low levels of acidity.

3. Look at all the herbivores that have canine teeth.

>We must eat meat for our health

For every health claim you make, I'll rebut it and make a stronger, counter claim. For every study you provide, I'll counter with 2.

Post last edited at

 No.2

But I like meat…


 No.3

>>2

>>43

Do you like pussy? Do you rape and kill to get it? Would you pay someone else to rape and kill to get you some pussy?

Post last edited at

 No.4

File: 74a93742924a948⋯.jpeg (214.39 KB, 1500x1125, 4:3, bacon.jpeg)

>>1

>For every health claim you make, I'll rebut it and make a stronger, counter claim.

Bacon makes everything taste better. Prove me wrong.


 No.6

>>4

Spoiler alert

you can't


 No.7

eating cooked meat is the reason why we were able to evolve such intelligent brains and become 'human' in the first place. veganism is a jewish conspiracy to turn people into faggots and niggers, they want the masses to turn into feeble slave goyim while the jews enjoy grass-fed filet mignon

eating meat is perfectly ethical, perfectly healthy, and nutritionally mandatory. the key distinction is to support small, local farms that produce their animals in a humane and healthy manner instead of factory farms where the animals suffer terribly and the resulting food products are very unhealthy- filled with soy-estrogen, antibiotics, artificial hormones, poor nutritional profile, etc.


 No.10

>>7

Eating meat did make us human. We did evolve as omnivores, but meat isn't a necessity in the west.


 No.11

File: 9e01a5e3a12fb75⋯.gif (171.96 KB, 800x336, 50:21, c1hlfviaqm15fhsz1ldq.gif)


 No.14

>>10

>meat isn't a necessity in the west

of course you only want to turn white people into decrepit soyboys


 No.16

>>14

bingo

note how those fucktarded hippies never EVER want to push that shit on brown mongrels that quite literally TORTURE animals, on purpose because muh holy book says so?

that's because this shit is 100% coopted by yids and lefties.

want to really reduce the animal suffering in the world?

start butchering every single non-white.

that's 80% of the food consumption gone, and one that doesn't care or concern itself with ANY form of decency, and very often go overboard to satisfy the sadistic bent of their eldritchean pantheon.

Fuck "vegans", just like feminists crying about muh oppreshun, and very often one and the same.


 No.17

>>10

>omnivore

correct-ish/wrong-ish

we did evolve as [opportunistic] omnivores, but with a main supply based on meat, and taking complements from the vegetal world.

This can be EASILY deduced from SEVERAL factors:

- human groups following animal migrations,

- the importance of the hunt in early human societies,

- the use of pelts/bones as main materials for tools/clothing/construct, bone spears and needles or leather don't grow on trees, mind you.

- the very low yield of the natural vegetal world: all of modern crops have impossibly higher output compared to what was possible back then (and even up to recently, the middle ages in europe, despite very substantial advances in technics and soil work, still required 3/4 of the population to be focused solely on food production),

- the 2 former points crossed with the speed at which you pick clean a natural area (ie: with very low yield) compared to the energy spent gathering that yield.

tl;dr: any attempt at "muh history" from vegans is pure fiction in order to try to justify their delusions.


 No.18

>>3

feminist tier arguments.

of course we did.

that's actually why you're the failure in the long chain of your ancestors you limp-wristed soy-laced fag.

it's not genetic, lest they would have failed before you.

YOU are at fault, noone else.

In nature, you'd be slaughtered, then probably eaten.


 No.19

>>16 The hell are you talking about? Before you go and start bad mouthing any race you like, how about you do a bit of research? Some middle eastern cultures do have animal sacrifice, but no 'torture' as far as I'm aware. Heck, the Indian culture, a brown one, literally worships cows and holds festivals in the names of cows!

Sure! Gladly butcher every single non-white, as long as the non-whites get to butcher every single other white who tries to do that, you nazi scum. Oh and btw, the original white Aryan race was evolved by brown homo sapiens breeding with white neanderthals.


 No.20

File: 50f059c47bf55bc⋯.jpg (48.7 KB, 499x484, 499:484, CVEWaK5UwAAUYOC.jpg)

>>4

>>6

So is your argument that it is acceptable to torture and murder innocent beings as long as they taste good?

>>7

>eating cooked meat is the reason why we were able to evolve such intelligent brains and become 'human' in the first place.

If you knew anything about human history or evolutionary biology you'd know that this is one theory. At the same time in history that our brains began to see the most development, we also began cooking grains and vegetables. Cooking food, even meat, increases its nutritional value. So no, eating animals isn't what made our brain evolve.

>veganism is blah blah blah assumption assumption

Veganism is NOTHING other than individuals rejecting the idea and status of animals as commodities. It's not an ideology, it follows from pre-existing values that animals and humans shouldn't be needlessly and intentionally harmed by moral agents.

>eating meat is perfectly ethical

You didn't answer the question in the OP. If you reply to anything from this post, make it this question: What is the difference between animals and humans that justifies slaughtering one for food when we can eat plants, but not the other. You can of course support slaughtering humans as well to be consistent, but good luck convincing anyone that action is ethical.

>perfectly healthy, and nutritionally mandatory

A bit redundant but I'll clear this up for you. Every major health organization states plainly and openly that a plant based vegan diet is safe and nutritionally sufficient for all stages of life including pregnancy. I don't know where you got this idea that humans require something instead of animal flesh, but we don't. We're simply filtering nutrients and calories through their body.

Unethical, unhealthy, inefficient.

>the key distinction is to support small, local farms that produce their animals in a humane and healthy manner instead of factory farms

Tell me how I humanely, lovingly, benevolently, or kindly take the life of an innocent being that does not want to die? Go look up some of the torture that takes place in "local" or "grass fed" animal production facilities and tell me how it's acceptable.

>soy-estrogen

Also known as phytoestrogen. This is a plant hormone that travels harmlessly through the human body, because we aren't fucking plants. Mammalian hormones found in animal protein, that's a different story.

Man you're learning a lot!


 No.21

>>1

>interning severely mentally disabled people (who are less aware than cows/chickens/pigs etc) and breeding them into slaughter acceptable

we don't need to produce more potato tier humans, they should be put down and fed to the ground.

interestingly enough, this particular segment in your OP tells us it's something that is very VERY close to home for you.

>studies

bullshit green studies with the same credibility that the creationists had.

They never hold any claim, because biology:

it just happen that, very much like for certain types of vitamins, humans cannot synthethise certain proteins, and no, you can't get them from a vegetal source.

a mere cursory look at the state of complete decay of vegans is all it takes to see its effects.

understand that, while we appreciate your sacrifice", for retards should not be tolerated to draw one more breath than absolutely necessary, we are also thankfull that you reduce competition on meat, making it more affordable for us.

>inb4 the tard want to drive meat price up, thinking straight up murder is out of the menu.

reminder: if you're not on top of the food chain, your opinion doesn't matter on the topic of "what's for dinner?"


 No.22

File: 2d6191c6f40dbe3⋯.jpg (38.34 KB, 750x749, 750:749, highland-cattle-calves-12.jpg)

>>16

This is an interesting way to dodge the question in the OP. You just turn around and say "Hey why don't vegans annoy black people?"

Your cognitive dissonance is truly impressive. For the record I apply ethics to individuals regardless of what color they are.

>start butchering every single non-white

But I'm arguing in favor of animal rights and ethical consistency. You can make a consistent position for genocide for a ethnostate, but for one it's not an argument that targets veganism and is thus 100% irrelevant to this board, and secondly you're gunna have a hard time convincing any rational actors that they should genocide people instead of eating plants.

>>18

You realize the greentext parts are people's common answers to the question in the OP, right? What, in your personal opinion, is the difference between humans and animals that justifies torture and murder to one but not the other. I think your reading comprehension failed you here.


 No.24

File: 48dc3d88bc7d9c7⋯.jpg (75.69 KB, 880x1027, 880:1027, BY-3rfHAuM_-png__880.jpg)

>>21

>we don't need to produce more potato tier humans, they should be put down and fed to the ground. interestingly enough, this particular segment in your OP tells us it's something that is very VERY close to home for you.

Well it's close to home in the sense that I love animals, and my dog, and believe applying ethics constantly is important.

Other than that, no, it's not close to home. It's a consistency test. You didn't answer the question in the OP.

>it just happen that, very much like for certain types of vitamins, humans cannot synthesize certain proteins, and no, you can't get them from a vegetable source.

Just so you're aware I'm a medical and nutritional student so this shit isn't getting past me. I've said once already that every major health organization states that plant based vegan diets are safe and nutritionally sufficient for all stages of life including pregnancy. What do you know that all those professionals don't?

Also, vegans have access to a 100% complete amino acid protein profile, easily actually. It's much harder to get the correct ratio of all the proper amino acids the more animal products that you eat, because the nutrients have been filtered through an animal.

> if you're not on top of the food chain, your opinion doesn't matter on the topic of "what's for dinner?"

It does if you are capable of moral agency.

Post last edited at

 No.25

>>24

>just so you're aware, i'm totally an expert, teehee!

no, you're not.

case in point: i'm from the swole side of /fit/, and NOONE ever entertain your shit.

The simple reason being that: it doesn't work.

Stuff yourself as much as you want with beans and what have you, unless you eat meat, your gains will be null, and will be factored by how much meat you chomp.

The human body needs animal protein to make any form of gain, prooving, without any of your ideological mumbo-jumbo and ridiculous attempt at worming your shit, that you are, FACTUALLY, wrong.

dress up any retarded divagation you want, as many made-up theory as you may, PRACTICE, ie REALITY, shows you wrong.

it's simple as that.

it's your road block.

So you can piss shit cry and pretend all day long, nobody will care, because reality won't bend to your feefees.

and that's considering that tens of thousands of people in culturism/power-lifting would really, REALLY like cheaper proteins.

>inb4 you pull up that one crazy tard from YouTube who fails and just happens, to noone surprise, to be literally insane and eat from dumpsters.


 No.28

File: 9a2c4477be13614⋯.jpg (108.65 KB, 646x868, 323:434, 427c69eba36519e614b0b79905….jpg)

>>25

>case in point: i'm from the swole side of /fit/, and NOONE ever entertain your shit.

IMAGINE being so self cucked and stuck in an echo chamber that you ACTUALLY THINK being muscular on /fit/ entitles you to some kind of authority on nutrition. Literally all you need to know to get buff is lift heavy things, eat lots of calories. How about the fact that body builders on average live lives less than 3/4 the length of the average human? Stuffing your face with all those calories derived from animal protein and saturated fat fucking kills you, doesn't matter how swole you are.

>The human body needs animal protein to make any form of gain, prooving, without any of your ideological mumbo-jumbo and ridiculous attempt at worming your shit, that you are, FACTUALLY, wrong.

Okay so what about Germany's strongest man? You realize he's a full blown natty vegan right (and could squish any of you retards on /fit/ with one hand)? Clearly both of our facts can't be true, so you're patently false. This must be embarrassing for you.

Post last edited at

 No.31

Legalize cannibalism.


 No.40

>>1

>unironically using the “name muh trait” fallacy to promote vegophilia

>unironically claiming a baby fed soy formula will be healthier than a breastfed (animal milk fed) baby

>unironically flashing your non-existent credentials to gain authority

Daily reminder if you voluntarily eat a vegan diet, you are being used as a test subject for planned compulsory/ semi-compulsory veganism (only in white countries of course).


 No.43

I thought about going vegan but I just can't. What can I say I love meat.


 No.45

File: 537ce86462cf928⋯.jpg (191.3 KB, 900x598, 450:299, white-beautiful-cow-kamala….jpg)

>>40

*Strawman #1 - "unironically using the “name muh trait” fallacy to promote vegophilia"

Could you explain how name the trait fails as a consistency test? Are you simply reading wikipedia? If so, there's a short video on youtube that clears up the confused claims on the wiki page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pBcnGmnGGA&t=263s

*Strawman #2 - "unironically claiming a baby fed soy formula will be healthier than a breastfed (animal milk fed) baby"

You are severely confused. Clearly you haven't read shit in this thread. Veganism does not oppose the actual eating of animal flesh or byproducts per se. Veganism is specifically and simply the rejection of the concept and status of animals as commodities. This means that buying animal products is not vegan because it supports the demand of animal products (and thus animal cruelty) via our free markets that are based on supply and demand. By the same token, it would technically be within a vegan's bounds to consume animal products such as roadkill which was not killed intentionally, and would otherwise go to waste.

So obviously, it means breast-feeding your child would be vegan, ffs.

*Strawman #3 - "unironically flashing your non-existent credentials to gain authority"

You want me to prove that I'm a student? Fuck that, most of the full blown doctors out there are retarded, so I don't even believe that my status as a student actually grants me authority. I bring it up when people say something they haven't substantiated, to let them know I'm at least somewhat informed on the topic and am willing to go toe to toe with actual medical claims. Most people on sites like this don't even know how to read a medical study, so it's a sufficient statement to shut up some people who don't actually know what they're even talking about.

>Daily reminder if you voluntarily eat a vegan diet, you are being used as a test subject for planned compulsory/ semi-compulsory veganism (only in white countries of course).

As a test subject by who specifically? Vegans as a whole? Testing what? If we can end human inflicted animal genocide? What is your point here?

It's fitting that you top it off with your identity politics driven ideology. Guess you forgot about the swaths of vegan rastas. But veganism is racist, I guess.

Post last edited at

 No.48

File: fbf1a59b993f426⋯.jpg (67.38 KB, 738x415, 738:415, Emily_Ratajkowski_Sara_Jea….jpg)


 No.50

>>45

Name the trait fails because it makes the assumption that a human’s decision to eat animal foods must be based on a lack of a particular value in the animal. When you eat animal foods, you do so because it’s the best choice for your health and the health of your offspring. It has nothing to do with what qualities the animal does or doesn’t possess. It’s consistent with nature that some animals eat other animals. You remember nature, right?

Nigger, you claimed a plant diet is suitable for all stages of life. This includes newborns. Vegans also (try to) claim that a vegan diet is healthier than an animal based diet. Thus it logically follows that a vegan fed baby will be healthier than a breastfed baby. Breastmilk is animal milk composed largely of saturated fat and animal cholesterol, the two components of food your cult demonizes.

Of course, ask any mother who isn’t an actual nigger, and they will tell you without a pause that breastfed kids are much healthier than non breastfed, and this is backed up by decades of studies.

You don’t need to prove you’re a student. You come across as one without a doubt. You think you know a lot more than you actually do, and you’re puzzled as to why everyone doesn’t have the same enlightened opinion you have.

>Guess you forgot about the swaths of vegan rastas.

Lol damn bro you really got me there. I love veganism nao


 No.54

File: 0527e0b954ff933⋯.jpg (16.7 KB, 640x428, 160:107, tmg-article_tall (1).jpg)

>>50

>Name the trait fails because it makes the assumption that a human’s decision to eat animal foods must be based on a lack of a particular value in the animal

If you don't make decisions based on any values, then what? You couldn't even function if this were true. Whether or not you've thought about it, you have categorized virtually everything in your reality with some kind of value.

>When you eat animal foods, you do so because it’s the best choice for your health and the health of your offspring.

Sounds like a value to me! Good news, it's actually false that animal products are healthy for you!

https://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16554528

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15172426

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/

>It has nothing to do with what qualities the animal does or doesn’t possess.

Then why don't we eat insects? It would be like infinitely more efficient.

>It’s consistent with nature that some animals eat other animals. You remember nature, right?

They also rape each other in nature. Should we legalize rape, Anon? Ever heard of an appeal to nature fallacy?

>Nigger, you claimed a plant diet is suitable for all stages of life. This includes newborns.

Correct! Newborns should be fed a vegan diet, which includes their mother's breast milk. Get this through your head, BREAST MILK GIVEN TO INFANTS IS PART OF A VEGAN DIET.


 No.59

>>54

>Good news, it's actually false that animal products are healthy for you!

>Correct! Newborns should be fed a vegan diet, which includes their mother's breast milk.

Lol you can’t have it both ways, nigger. I know most of the suckers you try and proselytize to don’t see your contradictions so easily, but you will need to put in a bit more effort here. Breast milk is animal milk. It contains saturated animal fat and animal cholesterol, which according to vegan ideology are unhealthy and non-essential components of a diet. And yet it’s exactly what a million years of evolution determined was the healthiest option for a growing human, and you yourself just admitted they should be breastfed.

>Then why don't we eat insects? It would be like infinitely more efficient.

Billions of people do eat insects dumbass. Do you even look at what you write before replying?

>Ever heard of an appeal to nature fallacy?

Yes I have because every vegan pulls out that emergency exit card when they are getting stumped in a debate. This is usually accompanied by asking if the other person would commit rape because it’s natural, which I’m happy to see you have done. You learned the script well.

However, your response about name the trait falls flat. I think you’re going to get very limited mileage out of that particular syllogism and would be well served to come up with a different rhetorical parlor trick.


 No.63

File: c86a5a2fee8886c⋯.jpg (17.76 KB, 750x375, 2:1, 57e1a3cfb0ef97eb018b709b-7….jpg)

>>59

Vegan: Someone who rejects the concept and status of animals as commodities

Mother's milk: A bodily fluid consensually given by a mother to an infant

Now I see the reason you can't be vegan.

Because according to this logic, vegan's can't even suck dick, because cum can be swallowed for nutrients or given to infertile men.

>Billions of people do eat insects

That wasn't my point retard

>Yes I have and I choose to ignore logic

Okay, bye!


 No.65

>>63

Lol what a knockout punch bro.

You didn’t address the issue. You claimed animal foods are not healthy, and then admitted infants should be breastfed. We’re not talking about the ethics aspect here, we’re talking about which diet is nutritionally optimal. So what’s your answer? Do infants get better health outcomes when they aren’t breastfed? Or are your claims inconsistent? Pick one.


 No.67

>Because according to this logic, vegan's can't even suck dick,

No, I would never accuse a vegan of not being able to suck dick.


 No.68

>>65

>we’re talking about which diet is nutritionally optimal. So what’s your answer?

That the vegan diet is optimal. The hormones and nutrients from mother's milk are actually utilized by growing infants, whereas in adults they fuck up your endocrine system. Cholesterol is an issue long term, plus infants actually utilize the cholesterol from mother's milk.


 No.70

>>68

Interesting. If you know this for a fact, you will be able to answer at least two of the following three questions:

1. What is the biochemical change that occurs in the developing human to cause these components of breastmilk to not only become no longer necessary, but to actually become harmful to health?

2. At what approximate age does this change occur?

3. What are the adaptational or evolutionary advantages conferred to the species that would cause this abrupt shift in nutrient requirements.


 No.71

>>70

>1. What is the biochemical change that occurs in the developing human to cause these components of breastmilk to not only become no longer necessary, but to actually become harmful to health?

After infancy mammals do not possess the proper enzymes to digest dairy.

>2. At what approximate age does this change occur?

Should probably be completely phased out after about a year.

>3. What are the adaptational or evolutionary advantages conferred to the species that would cause this abrupt shift in nutrient requirements.

If you take growth hormones for extended periods of time, and aren't a rapidly growing infant, you get fucking cancer and die, which is bad news for being alive and reproducing.

Post last edited at

 No.73

>>71

You didn't answer a single one of the questions.

1.Which enzyme are you referring to, and when does it disappear and how?

2. I didn't ask when you think an infant should stop breasfeeding. I asked at what point the biochemical change occurs that suddenly makes breastmilk unhealthy or as you say dangerous.

3. That doesn't explain why a group of humans for whom breastmilk becomes unhealthy would have achieved better survival than a group for whom breastmilk remains healthy, (in other words a group that doesn't undergo this theoretical biochemical change that we are discussing)


 No.75

>>73

Fuck this I'm banning you again.

>1.Which enzyme are you referring to, and when does it disappear and how?

Do I look like google you fucking autist? Google the enzyme, and it disappears because YOUR FUCKING ORGANS STOP PRODUCING IT. Do you want me to lecture you on how your fucking organs and cells work? Am I getting a salary?

>2. I didn't ask when you think an infant should stop breasfeeding. I asked at what point the biochemical change occurs that suddenly makes breastmilk unhealthy or as you say dangerous.

Around 1 year, holy shit

>3. That doesn't explain why a group of humans for whom breastmilk becomes unhealthy would have achieved better survival than a group for whom breastmilk remains healthy, (in other words a group that doesn't undergo this theoretical biochemical change that we are discussing)

Because men can reproduce for decades and decades? Because natural selection favors healthy actors? etc..

Post last edited at

 No.77

>>75

>banning literally the only other person posting on this board beside yourself

Your answer to the first question is "google it", which I have done, and I'm not seeing what you claim

The second answer deserves a source. You banned me for not posting evidence, where's your evidence? You didn't just make it up did you?

I think we can leave the third question alone for now since you don't really understand what it's asking.


 No.82

>>77

>Your answer to the first question is "google it", which I have done, and I'm not seeing what you claim

It's literally the reason that so many people (and basically everyone to some degree) is lactose intolerant. Research lactose intolerance on your own, I'm not going to educate you outside of veganism.

>The second answer deserves a source. You banned me for not posting evidence, where's your evidence? You didn't just make it up did you?

It doesn't deserve a source. Unless you're arguing that we should be consuming human breast milk as adults. As far as cow/livestock milk, from what we can digest, it's mostly saturated fat and basically hormones. Again, not getting into mechanical biology here, and it's late. Spend some time of your OWN on pubmed.


 No.87

>>82

Has any study been done showing lactose intolerance symptoms being caused as a result of consuming breastmilk?

>it doesn't deserve a source

Ok cool, then don't ban me for no sources. You've banned me 7 times now you absolute pussy.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.93

File: ef86674c9cc1a85⋯.png (252.99 KB, 950x633, 950:633, iStock_000026188767_Full.png)

>>87

>Has any study been done showing lactose intolerance symptoms being caused as a result of consuming breastmilk?

Oh. My. God.

Lactose intolerance: digestive disorder caused by the inability to digest lactose, the main carbohydrate in dairy products

Breastmilk: literally fucking dairy

>Ok cool, then don't ban me for no sources. You've banned me 7 times now you absolute pussy.

You're getting banned an 8th time for thinking that I've been banning you for a lack of sources. Plus, I already linked sources that are MUCH more relevant to your health and veganism than whether or not children should consume breastmilk. Just scroll up.


 No.103

>>93

posting this reply a FOURTH time because BO likes to delete what he disagrees with

>Oh. My. God. Lactose intolerance: digestive disorder caused by the inability to digest lactose, the main carbohydrate in dairy products Breastmilk: literally fucking dairy.

So you're admitting there is no study showing a negative reaction to breastmilk consumption beginning at any particular stage of life? If what you claim is true, there should be at least one documented instance of this.

inb4 ban #11 and deletion

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.104

File: 316b9b6dfaf0f6a⋯.jpg (46.46 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 1497324208799.jpg)

>>103

just imagine asking if breast-milk causes lactose intolerance symptoms


 No.113

File: 62171355e4f1046⋯.jpg (80.51 KB, 500x375, 4:3, consider.jpg)

It's morally acceptable to exploit animals for our benefit because humans are the superior race of this planet.


 No.114

>>113

Might makes right?

Good luck selling that!


 No.117

File: 526d244938cb067⋯.png (90.15 KB, 642x441, 214:147, nature.png)

>>114

No need. Every creature in this world is born knowing that.


 No.131

The "meat isn't healthy" argument falls flat on its face when you take into account organ meats. Show me one plant that has the same nutritional value as a liver.


 No.143

>>131

Not contributing to atherosclerosis or levels of IGF1 in your blood seems to be of pretty high nutritional value. Everything we need that can be found in a liver can also be found through a vegan alternative, that doesn't cause these health issues. Animal products tend to have a wider variety of nutrients, while plants tend to have a higher density.


 No.156

>>1

Allow multiple images and embedded videos please, for efficiency of posting vegan resources.


 No.158

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.159

>>158

Thank you


 No.163

The new, most heavily policed board on 8chan. Even more religious and dogmatic than muslims…. imagine having less mental clarity and self control than a 60 iq sand monkey.


 No.164

>>143

You're making veganism out to be this perfect solution (i'm assuming you're the one that started the thread). There has to be a reason why people at large haven't gone on this "perfect diet" through out human history.


 No.166

>>164

>There has to be a reason why people at large haven't gone on this "perfect diet" through out human history.

It's because most people throughout human history are hedonistic morons. Only the relative few push the human race farther.


 No.167

I've answered yes on all points, what do I win?


 No.169

>>166

Most people would realize it if plants could fully sustain them and a plant based diet would win history considering the fact that farming has been around for thousands of years.

But you somehow really think that you are smarter than your own body/instinct and most people throughout history.


 No.171

>>169

People ate majority starch-based diets during human history, actually, longer than we've been human. Meat was adopted as food as an extended source of calories, but is ultimately unnecessary. Doctors have verified in the thousands and in large organizations that a vegan diet is perfectly fine for all humans, and if you cared you'd see that it is better for you physically. The diet did win history, and you can also note that people who had the majority of food-related health problems in history were rich people who ate lots of meat, and the same is now except it's everyone as meat is artificially cheap and the poor can have as many animal products as they wish. Go vegan and see.


 No.172

>>171

So you're saying eating too much meat is bad. You'll never convince obese fucks to stop eating too much, because they have low IQ and decreased brain volume, it's a self perpetuating problem. Others are likely paying attention to their diet as it is. No problem to solve.


 No.173

>>166

>humanity was trash until i showed up with my soy wisdom

vegan enlightenment


 No.175

File: 16e7da936a7cf0b⋯.jpg (28.56 KB, 609x606, 203:202, desktop-1421347722.jpg)

OK If they're the best arguments possible, let's take a look

>They aren't human. This implies you would find these things acceptable: Advanced aliens farming humans, Humans farming aliens, Eating cows/chickens/pigs who's consciousness has been swapped with a humans

Is this a joke?

>We evolved to eat animals

Ya we did

>1. Things like rape also have evolutionary value. Is this acceptable behavior for moral agents such as humans, Anon?

You don't have to find 3 to 4 sources of rape every day to subsist

>2. Carnivores and most omnivores evolved small intestines 3 to 6 times the length of their trunk. They also have a high level of acidity in their gut. These are tools designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly (animal flesh and byproducts). Humans, as well as other herbivores small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and have low levels of acidity.

So your telling me my body isn't made for eating meat by giving me this odd statistic about my intestines? While I can tell you that I do need meat on account of the fact that I crave meat.

>3. Look at all the herbivores that have canine teeth.

Where are they on the food chain, nigga? Not above me

>We must eat meat for our health. For every health claim you make, I'll rebut it and make a stronger, counter claim. For every study you provide, I'll counter with 2.

So? There's a drawing pool of thousands of bullshit studies on both sides. Noones gonna sit through it and you'll run out eventually

>I like the way they taste… If I find something tasty, that makes it acceptable for me to consume it? What if I find newborns tasty?

Bruh

>It's tradition, and convenient… Owning slaves, raping children, sacrificing innocents and more have all been cultural tradition that wasn't easily outgrown. Are things of this sort also acceptable, Anon?

It isn't tradition, it isn't historically convenient. Owning slaves and all that shit isn't tradition, like the concept of any bad thing isn't a tradition. You're just equating eating meat with something evil, while neglecting to mention how.

Wtf is wrong with you


 No.178

>>143

>Everything we need that can be found in a liver can also be found through a vegan alternative,

This is plainly incorrect. I'll give just one example: Vitamin A (retinol) is an animal hormone which can not be found in plants. The beta-carotene in plant foods can only be converted to retinol by about 50% of the population, and the absorbtion rate is less than 10%


 No.194

>>166

big brane vegan take


 No.199

File: b59db1b054a2eac⋯.jpg (598.25 KB, 2048x1558, 1024:779, 1497324725600.jpg)

>>175

>OK If they're the best arguments possible, let's take a look

No, you're not supposed to address my responses, necessarily. This parts in green text are common answers to the main question in the OP. The comments beneath each answer are the logical conclusions of the stated answer.

YOUR answer can be whatever you want, and we can see what the reductio is, and if you'd still accept that answer.

>Is this a joke?

No, if you say that the reason it's okay to kill animals is because they aren't a part of your species then: you would support an alien species' right to slaughter humans for food, when they could just eat plants instead.

You'd be supporting humans farming aliens, because they aren't humans.

And you'd be okay with eating a cow who's consciousness has been swapped with a dumb human, because it's not a part of your species.

>Ya we did

Not an argument unless you plan to appeal to nature

>You don't have to find 3 to 4 sources of rape every day to subsist

What if I just rape someone once every year or so? Once a decade? Do I get one free rape per lifetime? I mean, what if you have access to consensual sex that harms nobody, but you just really love raping people?

>So your telling me my body isn't made for eating meat by giving me this odd statistic about my intestines? While I can tell you that I do need meat on account of the fact that I crave meat.

I craved Velveeta mac 'n cheese for 6 months straight when I went vegan. Turns out I was actually craving food that is trash for me. Did you know our ancestors didn't even HAVE Velveeta cheese???!!!

>So? There's a drawing pool of thousands of bullshit studies on both sides. Noones gonna sit through it and you'll run out eventually

Fine with me! I prefer to get the ethical side of the discussion completely squared away before going into nutrition anyway, unless I have a feeling that the person may have health anxiety.

>Bruh

Well, "because they taste good" is an answer who's frequency would surprise you.

>It isn't tradition, it isn't historically convenient. Owning slaves and all that shit isn't tradition, like the concept of any bad thing isn't a tradition. You're just equating eating meat with something evil, while neglecting to mention how.

First off, it's not the eating of the meat. It's the killing of the animal, when you could have eaten a plant for food instead. Secondly, when these atrocities were acceptable in the past, they were acceptable because they weren't regarded as evil. Them being evil is a new revelation, as far as human history is concerned. My assertion is that we oppress, exploit and enslave animals, and that's wrong, and that it's something that we need to change because we can justify it, just like we can't justify slavery, rape, sacrifice, etc.

If you disagree with that statement, then answer the question in the OP.

Post last edited at

 No.204

File: 756499a0b26647e⋯.jpg (526.28 KB, 866x1550, 433:775, 1kojf01ij209jsj.jpg)

>>199

Based and veganpilled.

I'm vegan by the way


 No.211

>>171

People ate meat and wild plants, then they farmed and STILL ate meat.

I can clearly see that veganism is the worse diet that decays the body at a greatly increased rate.

Many doctors also say, correctly so, that you need meat, but it does not matter what they say on diet.

People who eat lots of meat live the longest, which is why remains seem to be younger and is why people are assumed to have died younger throughout history.


 No.213

>>199

We had cheese longer than we had pasta.

Also who cares about your alien hypothetical? If the aliens are so powerful and domineering then they are going to do whatever they are going to do.

Morality is not an argument, especially considering that at best it is a social contract i.e. tool of enslavement so applying it other animals is even more illogical.


 No.214

>>213

That you disregard morality shows the value of you as a being, son of Belial, worthless, and lkely a human with minimal free will also, if any.


 No.215

Btw human anatomy is actually more like carnivores than herbivores.

You can magnify the ways that we are different from a lion, but you must also refuse to do so on a herbivore or you will realize how inaccurate your analysis of mankind is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USVkGWNmkLk


 No.216

>>214

There is no free will.

Worth is subjective.


 No.219

File: de86f2e4c5798fb⋯.jpg (18.85 KB, 353x334, 353:334, 1498947662731.jpg)

>>216

How's 8th grade?


 No.220

>>219

Hol' up imma go eat a beef burrito and maybe some bacon.


 No.221

>>220

I will eat three asparagus for every bacon/beef burrito you have.


 No.222

>>221

Asparagus is the side at best. That is no meal.


 No.225

File: 7963aad7f323bb3⋯.jpg (95.39 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg)

>>213

>We had cheese longer than we had pasta.

Velveeta isn't cheese. The reason I "craved" dairy was because of casomorphin. It makes dairy chemically addictive at about 1/10th the strength of heroine. Some people have experienced light cheese withdrawals.

I brought it up because you said if you crave something, that's a sign that you need it. To base your argument on something like this is fallacious. There are plethora of things in your life that you crave and do not require, and would even be better off without.

>Also who cares about your alien hypothetical? If the aliens are so powerful and domineering then they are going to do whatever they are going to do.

You're not understanding the hypothetical.

If you say that in your opinion, we have the right to exploit, enslave, and slaughter animals for food because we're

1. separate species

and

2. we are superior

Then you are saying that you would personally support an advanced alien's right to come to Earth and torture humans for food instead of eating plants. This is at best a concept known as "Might makes right", with some added speciesism. If you agree to this conclusion, then you hold a consistent position. The issue for you then becomes convincing anyone else that we should support alien's right to genocide humans.

>Morality is not an argument, especially considering that at best it is a social contract i.e. tool of enslavement so applying it other animals is even more illogical.

Well this is a bit confusing, then. Are you saying that things like slavery etc. should be acceptable? If no, then why not (since you're not basing it off of humans being moral agents)? You can't say well because it's illegal, because then you'd be saying that in the 20th century the slave owners were right (unless you believe this).

So, onto this idea of morality being a social construct, and thus by virtue of being a social construct, evil, or at least a tool used by (someone? something?) to restrict people's freedom. You must at least agree that individuals must hold fundamental axioms, or faith claims, in order to operate in the world. Even if you haven't done much thinking on them, they must be there. Each individuals axioms are informed by their genetics, environment, the people around them, the time period etc. and these are passed down in some effect over time and over generations to new individuals. This is the most fundamental thing I'm talking about when I say moral, or morality. It's not fake, or a "construct" that is "used" to "oppress". It is a necessary component of being an individual and especially a moral agent, as humans are. Good luck convincing people that their senses of right and wrong have no real value to individuals or society.


 No.227

>>225

I'm actually a different person, but I do accept his argument that your body is smart and has cravings for a reason.

You are simply brainwashed into belittling the innate intelligence of your body that only wants to do what is best for your health.

I will say that cheese is overrated but it is prominent and convenient. We crave meat above all because our body knows that it is best for us above all.

I do understand the hypothetical and it is again, you pushing a moral argument which is not even an argument.

You are "speciest" against plants and people. Might does in fact might right as can be seen through all of nature and history. The issue for is convincing people to become vegan, which a significant population of the people will never be and the ones that are, are too weak to form a lasting or serious militia.

I would not have to support the alien's might or "right" to genocide. I would support my own might which would include that of people resisting the aliens. If you lie to the aliens with vegan propaganda and they happen to be convinced then that is the might of lies. Your hypothetical is just a giant stretch in every direction because you do not have a solid argument to make on its own grounds.

I am not saying anything should be acceptable to others because people will vary in what they find acceptable to them.

I don't think slavery is worth it on a logical standpoint of depreciating work promoting impoverishment and possible escape or rebellion.

Either way it still has nothing to do with other animals because they are not part of the social contract since they cannot make personal demands out of it.

I never said it was "evil," because there is no such thing as evil. Morality confuses our natural axioms with something imaginary.

That is why something that may be reciprocally bad for you is now "evil," as some sort of greater concept that doesn't really exist. It literally is a tool to restrict people's freedom.


 No.228

>>227

make right*


 No.230

File: c8427095c2f6a6d⋯.jpg (212.26 KB, 1156x650, 578:325, Camels-by-Roland-Seitre-Mi….jpg)

>>227

>You are simply brainwashed into belittling the innate intelligence of your body that only wants to do what is best for your health.

Could you tell me what the leading cause of death in the world is? What about in your country? Do you know the processes by which this disease develops?

>We crave meat above all because our body knows that it is best for us above all.

If this were true it wouldn't cause heart disease or introduce non-essential and harmful hormones. We crave meat in particular because it is particularly calorically dense, and if you have forgotten, we were hunter gatherer's and tribes for around 10,000 years, where meat was often a necessary tool.

It is no longer a necessity in the lives of civilized humans, and thus must have another justification, if we are to continue. This is where the question of "what's the difference that justifies slaughter" comes in.

>I do understand the hypothetical and it is again, you pushing a moral argument which is not even an argument.

You said it's not an argument, without providing any detail. You're right, it isn't itself an argument. It is what is called a reductio of your answer to the above question being "we are superior and a different species." If you support one conclusion of these values, but not another, then this is known as a double standard. Double standards are contradictions that break the law of non-contradiction in basic logic.

To accept inconstant positions would be to accept even worse conclusions than supporting an alien's right to genocide humans for taste pleasure.

>You are "speciest" against plants and people?

No? And how can I be speciesist against my own species lmfao?

>Might does in fact might right as can be seen through all of nature and history.

So historically, since the white population of America had the upper hand on the black population, and it was historically accepted to enslave them, it was in your opinion a morally acceptable act? Something that shouldn't be brought to an end?

This is one conclusion of supporting an idea like "might makes right". If I'm stronger than you, than what is yours is actually mine, and your life less significant. Good luck convincing people this is an acceptable philosophy.

>The issue for is convincing people to become vegan, which a significant population of the people will never be and the ones that are, are too weak to form a lasting or serious militia.

There's no need, it will almost certainly be phased out simply through time and over generations. There's no avoiding this.

>I would not have to support the alien's might or "right" to genocide. I would support my own might which would include that of people resisting the aliens.

Yes and also, that if it turned out that the aliens were in fact stronger, you would support their right to do what they wish. OR, you reject the notion of consistent application of your beliefs. Both of which I've already talked about.

>If you lie to the aliens with vegan propaganda and they happen to be convinced then that is the might of lies.

But you're the one lying, or you're at least confused about how you should treat animals and humans, as well as nutrition and medicine.

>I am not saying anything should be acceptable to others because people will vary in what they find acceptable to them.

But surely you agree there should be a consensus on some things. We can agree that it would be inconsistent with society's values to commit certain heinous crimes and that we should enact systems to minimize certain acts. You probably agree at least up to the point of us having a centralized government to help govern society (though, we are on a shitty image-board so who knows). Therefor you wouldn't find it acceptable for people to try to change these things, and you would likely take some kind of action.

This is an example of what vegans are doing. We acknowledge that there is inconsistency with how we apply our values to animals when compared to humans as well as other animals, and aim to minimize/cease further harm to them.

>I don't think slavery is worth it on a logical standpoint of depreciating work promoting impoverishment and possible escape or rebellion.

What about the fact that they're innocent lives? Why don't you think about that first, Anon? Surely you wouldn't want to be a slave yourself.

>Either way it still has nothing to do with other animals because they are not part of the social contract since they cannot make personal demands out of it.

Neither can certain humans. The severely mentally disabled, for example. Is this another empty trait that you'd like to add onto "species" and "might makes right"?

>I never said it was "evil," because there is no such thing as evil. Morality confuses our natural axioms with something imaginary.

Well the way you mentioned it implied that restricting people's freedoms was inherently against your beliefs. Evil is a satisfactory word. I don't see how the transfer and evolution and application of these axioms, which I'm saying is basically "morality", and as you get more specific, ethics is "imaginary". Or even what you mean by imaginary for that matter. It is an invisible tool of the mind, but has immense value to the individual and society.

>That is why something that may be reciprocally bad for you is now "evil," as some sort of greater concept that doesn't really exist. It literally is a tool to restrict people's freedom.

This is not how I imagine evil, personally. This seems a more self fulfilling and naive notion of evil.

Post last edited at

 No.231

>>230

Yeah, heart attacks from lots of carbs, plant oil, and pollution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qZomOx6ArA

I never said that we are superior, but I am superior to other animals and to you vegans. I see no inconsistency, you are the one tacking on your sense of morality as if it were an objective point instead of something that I shall dismiss since I do not share it.

My opinion has nothing to do with moral acceptance.

"What is yours is actually mine" ever heard of imminent domain? Red flag laws? Plain thievery? What people accept does not change reality.

Yet the global population has remained at a 99% rate of consuming meat.

It does not matter if I "support" the bringing of light to the rule of might in this world, as it remains the truth.

You assume that we can agree on that. Governments always change as they are always destroyed, decayed, usurped, rebuilt, or any mix of these things. Their only consistency is having taxes and implementing control over lower classes/the population, and the concept of crime is one way to do so.

We can argue over the nature of society and morality all day but I ultimately shall not follow your vegan sense of morality since it conflicts with my well-being which is what any basic service of "morality" boils down to.

All life is self-fulfilling i.e. centric.


 No.233

File: 511c5e4e4dbf160⋯.jpg (150.61 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault (1).jpg)

>>231

>Yeah, heart attacks from lots of carbs, plant oil, and pollution.

This man is a fucking chiropractor. He talked about inflammation instead of the actual causal risk factor for plaques to occur (atherosclerosis, leading cause of heart disease). You linked a literal fucking chiropractic cholesterol denier

Here

(real surgeon who has reversed heart disease in countless patients without the use of medicine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GPo8Ir0yn4

You rarely ever see Dr. Berg actually reference any medical research for what he claims. And he never went to med school… Why take this guy seriously? Here is a handful of studies published and still accepted today (one or two Dr. Berg has actually used as a source before, even though the conclusion actually supported the opposite of his own claim. He's a fraud) that go to clear up his medical illusions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15172426

http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/70/24/2979

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25855712?fbclid=IwAR2hfCYr3GJ1ND8GBzHNgZzjHA_YM7M93ZS5ht6UkOhH39tM1axG5QgBkzU

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3773199

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3560398

http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/52/3/216

https://radiology.ucsf.edu/patient-care/for-patients/video/calcium-score-vs-coronary-cta

>I never said that we are superior, but I am superior to other animals and to you vegans. I see no inconsistency, you are the one tacking on your sense of morality as if it were an objective point instead of something that I shall dismiss since I do not share it.

Yea, so then by you own definition you would support subjecting another species to torture for taste pleasure by virtue of them being weaker and not of your species. Unless your species becomes the victim. This is a double standard, which you said you accept. Then, according to you, how someone acts is either always justified, or never needs justified. Then people can just do as much harm as they want.

>My opinion has nothing to do with moral acceptance.

But so far according to what you've told me, your opinion seems to be to just let people cause as much harm as they want, because they need not act consistently. If oh I don't know, we were talking about the future of our species and the optimal way to structure our society going forward, would you really assert that people shouldn't be punished for acting inconsistently with societally accepted values? Just let them commit their crimes and trample on each other's lives.

>"What is yours is actually mine" ever heard of imminent domain? Red flag laws? Plain thievery? What people accept does not change reality.

Absolutely hilarious that you top it off with "What people accept does not change reality" when you literally FUCKING LIVE in the most privileged age in human history where these types of things are happening at unprecedentedly low rates. You think this was a coincidence? Surely you don't think people should go back to stealing everything from each other left and right. Things are getting, and have gotten better, and it's exactly because of people standing up for good ideas, which you say is a "tool" to restrict freedom. You're severely confused, so I think I'm about done with this conversation.

>Yet the global population has remained at a 99% rate of consuming meat.

Give me some stats then, retard. You can't just make shit up. Poor countries have little access to meat and animal products. The poorest parts of the world live almost exclusively on grains, nuts, fruits and vegetables. More than 1% of the population of the US is vegan, and it's not even the most vegan country.

You're a bigger sophist than that retard chiropractor you linked.

>It does not matter if I "support" the bringing of light to the rule of might in this world, as it remains the truth.

If we found it "right" to go up and mug someone that's smaller than you then it wouldn't get you thrown in jail. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

>You assume that we can agree on that. Governments always change as they are always destroyed, decayed, usurped, rebuilt, or any mix of these things. Their only consistency is having taxes and implementing control over lower classes/the population, and the concept of crime is one way to do so.

Yea except for all those times in history that they led to massive advances in human well-being and we still implement such ideas today. I'm not derailing, and you don't have to sell me on the atrocities of governing bodies in history. It's not really to my point though, either.

>We can argue over the nature of society and morality all day but I ultimately shall not follow your vegan sense of morality since it conflicts with my well-being which is what any basic service of "morality" boils down to.

What well-being will be lost? Some convenience? It's not convenient to have to feed your dog, but at least it gets to eat, and live. Taste pleasure? Surely not because there are plenty of other tasty things that you wouldn't kill to consume. And certainly not your health.

>All life is self-fulfilling i.e. centric.

It is many things that must be reconciled properly, not boiled down to a platitude.

Post last edited at

 No.238

File: 2c23f3bb3c82ef3⋯.png (128.72 KB, 354x504, 59:84, 1506167774818.png)

>>233

> cholesterol denier


 No.239

>>233

Lol we do not "deny" cholesterol (what our cells are made of) my boy. That cow is looking mighty tasty.


 No.240

>>20

> If you knew anything about human history or evolutionary biology you'd know that this is one theory. At the same time in history that our brains began to see the most development, we also began cooking grains and vegetables. Cooking food, even meat, increases its nutritional value. So no, eating animals isn't what made our brain evolve.

It's the high fat in bone marrow, brain and fatty meat cuts that caused our brain to evolve you retard, not the bare calorie surplus.

> Veganism is NOTHING other than individuals rejecting the idea and status of animals as commodities. It's not an ideology, it follows from pre-existing values that animals and humans shouldn't be needlessly and intentionally harmed by moral agents.

Animals aren't humans. Their dietary nutrients are needed for *optimal* health. You can survive on a vegan diet for a few years - then your teeth fall out, your bone density decreases, your muscle mass becomes non-existent, your mental performances degrades, you age rapidly from the oxidative damage, etc. Veganism is an active starvation diet. Not calorie wise, but nutritional starvation.

> You didn't answer the question in the OP. If you reply to anything from this post, make it this question: What is the difference between animals and humans that justifies slaughtering one for food when we can eat plants, but not the other. You can of course support slaughtering humans as well to be consistent, but good luck convincing anyone that action is ethical.

See above. Also we can't eat humans due to prions and tons of pollutants being bound up in human fat.

> A bit redundant but I'll clear this up for you. Every major health organization states plainly and openly that a plant based vegan diet is safe and nutritionally sufficient for all stages of life including pregnancy. I don't know where you got this idea that humans require something instead of animal flesh, but we don't. We're simply filtering nutrients and calories through their body.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Veganism is dysgenics and the ones in power are gleefully looking forward to eradicating the lower classes. Also nearly all studies are comparative, questionaires or other rubbish with zero actual science behind it. Often they're also bankrolled by the adventist church who has a religious bias.

> Tell me how I humanely, lovingly, benevolently, or kindly take the life of an innocent being that does not want to die? Go look up some of the torture that takes place in "local" or "grass fed" animal production facilities and tell me how it's acceptable.

Animals have no will nor do they have agency. You kill someone or something humanely by doing it with the least amount of pain and trauma possible. Look up EXIT. Would I rather get a bolt to the head like most European slaughter or be bled out in a Kosher/Halal slaughter over hours dangling alive from the ceiling? I'll take the former.

> Also known as phytoestrogen. This is a plant hormone that travels harmlessly through the human body, because we aren't fucking plants. Mammalian hormones found in animal protein, that's a different story.

Hey retard, phytoestrogens do actually end up in the bloodstream, they do bind to estrogen receptors and they do exhibit estrogenic activity. And no, "mammalian hormones" cannot do the same. They have no hormonal activity when eaten because they're not methylated so they have no bioactive properties.

t. someone who actually knows shit about biochemistry

>>22

> This is an interesting way to dodge the question in the OP. You just turn around and say "Hey why don't vegans annoy black people?"

Ok. Why don't they?

> Your cognitive dissonance is truly impressive. For the record I apply ethics to individuals regardless of what color they are.

Nah nigger we both know why. Because you know only whites eat up your guilt propaganda.

> it's not an argument that targets veganism and is thus 100% irrelevant to this board, and secondly you're gunna have a hard time convincing any rational actors that they should genocide people instead of eating plants.

No prob let's sterilize them then.

(1/3)


 No.241

>>25

> Just so you're aware I'm a medical and nutritional student so this shit isn't getting past me. I've said once already that every major health organization states that plant based vegan diets are safe and nutritionally sufficient for all stages of life including pregnancy. What do you know that all those professionals don't?

Appeal to authority fallacy yet again.

> Also, vegans have access to a 100% complete amino acid protein profile, easily actually. It's much harder to get the correct ratio of all the proper amino acids the more animal products that you eat, because the nutrients have been filtered through an animal.

Prove it. I'll wait. While you're at it let's see where you get all your B vitamins from. Inb4 supplements.

> It does if you are capable of moral agency.

I have no problem with vegans taking their ethics over their own personal health. It's eugenics for the rest of us since your women become infertile and your men's sperm count plummets. On top of most vegans getting vasectomies and tubes tied. Veganism is largely a self solving problem apart from the propaganda.

> IMAGINE being so self cucked and stuck in an echo chamber that you ACTUALLY THINK being muscular on /fit/ entitles you to some kind of authority on nutrition. Literally all you need to know to get buff is lift heavy things, eat lots of calories.

Sounds like that guy hit you in your weakspot. Which is it, are you fat or a skelly?

> How about the fact that body builders on average live lives less than 3/4 the length of the average human? Stuffing your face with all those calories derived from animal protein and saturated fat fucking kills you, doesn't matter how swole you are.

It's the gear you muppet. Look up what the autopsy report of Andreas Münzer showed.

> Okay so what about Germany's strongest man? You realize he's a full blown natty vegan right (and could squish any of you retards on /fit/ with one hand)? Clearly both of our facts can't be true, so you're patently false. This must be embarrassing for you.

Gear surpasses nutrition to a large extent. While vegan proteins are inferior they are not completely unusable. The most anabolic proteins are whey isolate and from that down there's the meat derived ones and loooong afterwards come the plant proteins. Fitbro is right in that a natty will not gain shit on vegan proteins but put some tren into your ass and you can eat McD & Ben Jerries daily and look like a god. Every strongman in the world is a walking anabolics repository. They hold enough depot injections in their ass at any time to supply an entire gym.

t. someone who uses gear

>>45

> So obviously, it means breast-feeding your child would be vegan, ffs.

Hah! Tell that to your other vegan lunatics. They say the exact opposite.

> It's fitting that you top it off with your identity politics driven ideology. Guess you forgot about the swaths of vegan rastas. But veganism is racist, I guess.

What's there not to get? Whites the absolute #1 target group of vegans. I don't see you shits attacking the Japanese or the Nigerians - or even better the fucking kikes who bleed out cattle willfully and while at full conscious.

>>54

> it's actually false that animal products are healthy for you!

Prove it. Unprocessed animal foods from high quality sources are the least inflammatory, most bioavailable, most nutrient dense and biocompatible food in existence. In fact raw egg yolks are among the first foods a baby can eat without shitting it straight out again like the majority of (((formula))).

> Then why don't we eat insects? It would be like infinitely more efficient.

I wouldn't mind but they're nutritionally far inferior. They are an ok protein supply but not much apart from that.

> They also rape each other in nature. Should we legalize rape, Anon? Ever heard of an appeal to nature fallacy?

What a pissy pseudointellectual you are. That anon was clearly talking about evolutionary adaptation of our digestion when he talked about it being "natural".

> Correct! Newborns should be fed a vegan diet, which includes their mother's breast milk. Get this through your head, BREAST MILK GIVEN TO INFANTS IS PART OF A VEGAN DIET.

No lmao. There are plenty of vegans who end up in jail because they feed their infants nothing but fruit smoothies and then wonder why they died. Take it up with them not with us. Meat eater's children aren't dying from malnutrition.

(2/3)


 No.242

File: dbb568429e97aca⋯.jpg (211.72 KB, 1210x907, 1210:907, 21FKrv7.jpg)

>>68

> That the vegan diet is optimal.

It's the worst possible diet on the planet for optimal health.

> The hormones and nutrients from mother's milk are actually utilized by growing infants, whereas in adults they fuck up your endocrine system.

There are no bioavailable hormones in mother's milk you full retard. There's enzymes and bacteria. Some "student" you are. You're pulling all this shit out of your ass.

> Cholesterol is an issue long term, plus infants actually utilize the cholesterol from mother's milk.

Unoxidized cholesterol is a ROS scavenger, an anti oxidant, a myelin-sheath builder and THE most important precursor molecule in our body. To claim it is in any way bad in its natural form is two digit IQ tier. Cholesterol only has negative consequences for us if it's oxidized or fractioned such as through homogenization (shooting fat molecules onto a steel plate at high pressure to shatter the structure).

>>71

> After infancy mammals do not possess the proper enzymes to digest dairy.

The majority of European whites do. Furthermore raw milk contains digestive enzymes for lactose and galactose procession - part of the reason why it goes sour after a while.

t. master race lactose aryan

> Should probably be completely phased out after about a year.

"should"

> If you take growth hormones for extended periods of time, and aren't a rapidly growing infant, you get fucking cancer and die, which is bad news for being alive and reproducing.

I've taken growth hormone for several years and I have neither cancer nor am I dead. Stop making up shit. You're the exact kind of pseudointellectual that has a barely above average mind and thinks he now knows everything without doing any actual research. There is no growth hormone in breast milk and even if there was it wouldn't be bioavailable. Growth hormone needs to be injected to be bioactive or alternatively an oral ghrelin mimetic has to be used like Ibutamoren Mesylate.

>>75

> Do I look like google you fucking autist? Google the enzyme, and it disappears because YOUR FUCKING ORGANS STOP PRODUCING IT. Do you want me to lecture you on how your fucking organs and cells work? Am I getting a salary?

Maybe if you weren't chronically lacking dietary animal fats you wouldn't get pissy at someone asking you to prove your idiotic claims.

>>143

> Not contributing to atherosclerosis or levels of IGF1 in your blood seems to be of pretty high nutritional value. Everything we need that can be found in a liver can also be found through a vegan alternative, that doesn't cause these health issues.

Atherosclerosis is caused by the inflammatory damage created by carbohydrates. IGF-1 is a necessary hormone for optimal health. It's involved from anything from bone density, muscle mass, hair growth (loss if too little) to even fertility. aka everything vegans are lacking.

>>171

> People ate majority starch-based diets during human history

It beats starving. Every culture valued animal products - especially meat - as the most sought after food. Read Dr. Weston Price's book about the dietary habbits of tribes.

> Meat was adopted as food as an extended source of calories

Completely wrong. There is one caveat though, our ancestors valued organ meats over muscle meat. Because they knew it was more nutritional.

> Doctors have verified in the thousands and in large organizations that a vegan diet is perfectly fine for all humans

Appeal to authority fallacy. Also wrong. You can stay alive as a vegan but you cannot live optimally.

> The diet did win history

If that were the case you wouldn't be here shilling your lies to people.

> you can also note that people who had the majority of food-related health problems in history were rich people who ate lots of meat, and the same is now except it's everyone as meat is artificially cheap and the poor can have as many animal products as they wish

The rich of old basically had a SAD diet. High in almost anything, also highly processed and of course coupled with close to zero physical activity due to their status. This does mirror the majority of modern western humans but it doesn't have anything to do with their meat consumption.

I'm not gonna address the rest of the posts because it looks like it's the above statements repeated again. If you think you have other arguments let me know so I can prove you wrong again. Pic related, me cutting up some veal liver last week.

(3/3)

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.245

>>1

>he doesn't support the slaughter of humans and animals

You're a plant-killing nigger and a weak anti-nature kike faggot. I bet you also support gommunism.


 No.248

>>1

How hard is it for you fags to understand the rules of nature? If I want to eat an animal, I don't give a shit that I have to kill to do it, I enjoy proving my fitness by it.

>This implies you would find these things acceptable:

>Advanced aliens farming humans

>Humans farming aliens

>Eating cows/chickens/pigs who's consciousness has been swapped with a humans

>This implies you would find interning severely mentally disabled people (who are less aware than cows/chickens/pigs etc) and breeding them into slaughter acceptable.

All of these are maybe unsavory at worst.

>Owning slaves, raping children, sacrificing innocents and more have all been cultural tradition that wasn't easily outgrown. Are things of this sort also acceptable, Anon?

<shiiiiet raycis whitey an he slaves is bad yo

And raping children isn't my tradition, so why would I stand for it? Sacrificing innocents neither. Keep your Jewish culture separate from my European culture and you might discover we goyim aren't steeped in blood like you are.

>We evolved to eat animals

>Here's some evidence why

>Please ignore that humans regularly eat meat and gain nutrition from it, crashing my point with no survivors

>For every health claim you make, I'll rebut it and make a stronger, counter claim. For every study you provide, I'll counter with 2.

I never see fags like you providing good claims, just whining about the animal holocaust more than the Jews. And the strongest claim is that veganfags are universally annoying niggers who don't take up a diet because it's healthier, but because they are cucks who bought the six gorillion farmed animals propaganda. In your own post, the merits of the diet don't come first but muh internment and slaughter does. Health is given a few lines at the last, as flawed as the rest of the argument. How to be a vegan, good guides for vegan foods, are featured nowhere. You didn't make a board intending to preach veganism as a good thing, but to shame meat eating as a bad thing, just like SJW leftykikes do. Hell, even /leftypol/ has an existence outside of FASHISOM BAD. /veganism/ has nothing, just empty-headed opposition to the natural law.


 No.264

SEMEN IS PURE VEGAN!


 No.266

File: 889f1568f129b15⋯.jpg (42.6 KB, 720x405, 16:9, default-1504281632-by-somr….jpg)

File: bf416d260332f8c⋯.png (1.72 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, spinning-planet-earth-isol….png)

File: d3e92df5d2f582a⋯.jpg (128.43 KB, 835x626, 835:626, GettyImages-691120979.jpg)

>>238

>>239

You deny its causal role in our species #1 cause of death. Read the studies before you posting trash about health or I might ban you

>>240

>>241

>>242

>It's the high fat in bone marrow, brain and fatty meat cuts that caused our brain to evolve you retard, not the bare calorie surplus.

Oh, so you know? That's great, you should get in touch with all the people researching this branch of ideas and tell them you got this one sorted out for them. Surely you've got evidence.

>Animals aren't humans. Their dietary nutrients are needed for *optimal* health. You can survive on a vegan diet for a few years - then your teeth fall out, your bone density decreases, your muscle mass becomes non-existent, your mental performances degrades, you age rapidly from the oxidative damage, etc. Veganism is an active starvation diet. Not calorie wise, but nutritional starvation.

Read the thread before posting nonsense or I may ban you

Check

>>54

>>233

Read the studies. If you don't, and continue posting about health, you'll be banned. If you're not an expert, forget what you know about nutrition and just accept that plants are perfectly sufficient, as such is stated by every by every major health organization.

>Also we can't eat humans due to prions and tons of pollutants being bound up in human fat.

We can absolutely avoid and reduce prion risk through only eating certain parts of the body and using breeding/genetic techniques. This is what we do for animals, why wouldn't we also do it for humans, if we were going to farm them. There are plenty of pollutants in farm animal's fat.. Also is your argument for why we don't eat people "because we'd get sick" lmao?

>Appeal to authority fallacy.

Well either accept what EVERY MAJOR HEALTH ORGINIZATION SAYS, DESPITE living in a world where animals are common dietary commodities, OR you can read the fucking studies to educate yourself (first your dumbass will have to learn to read properly). Your third option is getting banned.

>Veganism is dysgenics and the ones in power are gleefully looking forward to eradicating the lower classes.

Just imagine believing this trash for one second

>Also nearly all studies are comparative, questionaires or other rubbish with zero actual science behind it. Often they're also bankrolled by the adventist church who has a religious bias

Actually, I am timing you out. Your (lack of) understanding of the accumulation of medical data, while simultaneously saying that you require meat and all health organizations are shills is not worth anymore of my time.

>Animals have no will nor do they have agency.

Quite a claim considering the massive pool of data we have on how animals react to basically any stimulus we can think of.

How do you rationalize a pig running away from a knife differently than a child running from one? Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

What do you make of this? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10071-015-0872-2

There is no reason to believe animals are operating on distinctively different mechanisms than our own, when considering we've shared a nervous system/brain configuration and the very same chemicals in our endocrine system for longer than humans have even existed.

>You kill someone or something humanely by doing it with the least amount of pain and trauma possible. Look up EXIT. Would I rather get a bolt to the head like most European slaughter or be bled out in a Kosher/Halal slaughter over hours dangling alive from the ceiling? I'll take the former.

Well if you have no need to take the life, then there's no humane way to take it. To take it would be inhumane, because it would be causing suffering and death intentionally, without an important reason.

>Hey retard, phytoestrogens do actually end up in the bloodstream, they do bind to estrogen receptors and they do exhibit estrogenic activity.

Sounds like a pretty hard medical claim. Definitely warrants a study, since for one I know I can find studies for the contrary (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5188409/ "Concerns that the estrogen-like properties of isoflavones produce untoward effects in some subpopulations, such as postmenopausal women, are not supported by the clinical and epidemiologic research."), and also I've been drinking and eating soy almost daily for years and my hormones are exactly what they should be.

>And no, "mammalian hormones" cannot do the same. They have no hormonal activity when eaten because they're not methylated so they have no bioactive properties. t. someone who actually knows shit about biochemistry

This is hilarious for me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524299/ "The collected data from other researchers and our own data are indicating that the presence of steroid hormones in dairy products could be counted as an important risk factor for various cancers in humans."

>Ok. Why don't they?

Dodge #2 Impressive mental gymnastics! I literally answered this by saying I annoy anyone of any color about animal rights.

>Nah nigger we both know why. Because you know only whites eat up your guilt propaganda.

That's racist, not that I'm surprised at this point. I've had great conversations with people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds.

>Appeal to authority fallacy yet again.

Failure of reading comprehension once again.

Check

>>45

>Prove it. I'll wait. While you're at it let's see where you get all your B vitamins from. Inb4 supplements.

Check

>>161

>>197

>>158

Also, what is wrong with supplements lmfao? Also, MOST PEOPLE are deficient in B complex vitamins and B12 in particular, despite NOT BEING VEGAN. Are you saying that methylcobalamin and algae pills are bad for you? This isn't an argument, dude.

> have no problem with vegans taking their ethics over their own personal health. It's eugenics for the rest of us since your women become infertile and your men's sperm count plummets.

Prove it, I'll wait.

>On top of most vegans getting vasectomies and tubes tied. Veganism is largely a self solving problem apart from the propaganda.

Prove it, I'll wait. (after your timeout of course)

>Sounds like that guy hit you in your weakspot. Which is it, are you fat or a skelly?

Sounds like he was beginning to annoy me much like yourself. I don't have much tolerance for bad-faith conversationalists. I was obese for years, then I went vegan now I'm in the best shape of my life and stronger than ever.

>It's the gear you muppet. Look up what the autopsy report of Andreas Münzer showed.

I know steroids are a factor, but beyond people who use gear, they tend to suffer artery disease at a higher frequency. I'm fine dropping this since it's not a relevant point one way or the other to veganism or heart disease really.

>The most anabolic proteins are whey isolate and from that down there's the meat derived ones and loooong afterwards come the plant proteins.

So eat a variety of plants? Fucking idiot? Can you show literally any hard evidence that plant based athletes tend to compete at a lower level?

>Fitbro is right in that a natty will not gain shit on vegan proteins

Actually this is may be true, because the average brain size on /fit/ wont allow them to process the data required to learn something new and admit their diet is trash.

>Tell that to your other vegan lunatics. They say the exact opposite.

No, they don't. You can find a loud minority in any group saying dumb shit or doing dumb shit. I guess this sort of fallacy is right down your aisle, at this point. I'm going to enjoy banning you after this.

>What's there not to get? Whites the absolute #1 target group of vegans. I don't see you shits attacking the Japanese or the Nigerians - or even better the fucking kikes who bleed out cattle willfully and while at full conscious.

Show me someone who believes they can justify treating animals as lifeless commodities and I'll show you someone who I'm willing to talk to about animals. Their fucking skin doesn't matter, and what REALLY doesn't matter is what someone as biased as you "sees" vegans doing, you fucking moron.

>Prove it. Unprocessed animal foods from high quality sources are the least inflammatory, most bioavailable, most nutrient dense and biocompatible food in existence.

Set up some appointments with your Doc. Tell them to monitor inflammation. Eat a hamburger, or a steak, or an egg. Watch as you and your doctor notice your arteries become more inflamed before your eyes.

Next appointment, do the same thing, but this time eat rice and beans, or oatmeal, or a salad, or potatoes, and watch as nothing happens.

t. someone who's actually studied inflammation

>What a pissy pseudointellectual you are. That anon was clearly talking about evolutionary adaptation of our digestion when he talked about it being "natural".

Which I've already dismissed as false multiple times in this very thread. The fact is, regardless of our evolution, that we can thrive on plant foods. Just like how rape had evolutionary value, but is no longer acceptable.

>No lmao. There are plenty of vegans who end up in jail because they feed their infants nothing but fruit smoothies and then wonder why they died.

Plenty? Name 5 people that have done this. Also, who THE FUCK CARES what some retard did to their child? You blame veganism, not the parents, schools, etc? Who's the pissy psuedo intellectual?

>It's the worst possible diet on the planet for optimal health.

Just so you know, one reason that you're getting banned because you've said something to this effect like 6x to me all in one reply, without ever substantiating it, all while I have already dismissed these claims in this very thread, and in the thread talking more about nutrition, all of which you failed to read before replying in this manner.

>There are no bioavailable hormones in mother's milk you full retard.

Whether or not the hormone is bioavailable isn't exactly relevant to a child utilizing it. The mother is producing some of these hormones expressly for the child as well.

>There's enzymes and bacteria.

Yes as well as hormones, and other shit besides "just enzymes and bacteria".

This is so satisfying

>Unoxidized cholesterol is a ROS scavenger, an anti oxidant, a myelin-sheath builder and THE most important precursor molecule in our body. To claim it is in any way bad in its natural form is two digit IQ tier. Cholesterol only has negative consequences for us if it's oxidized or fractioned such as through homogenization (shooting fat molecules onto a steel plate at high pressure to shatter the structure).

Hey look at that you read something somewhere about some mechanisms of cholesterol, congratulations I guess you're a super doc who can disregard any study. Cholesterol is subject to oxidation in your blood, for one. It's actually really complicated and I'm not getting into it here because what's important to remember is

This is a vegan board, not a disease board

You can thrive on plants, and I've provided PLENTY of evidence for this on the board

Since you can thrive on plants (which I will begin to assume outright and simply link to medical and nutritional resources instead of having conversations as useless as this one) you must justify animal cruelty on something other than your health. That's what the conversation is supposed to be about.

>The majority of European whites do. Furthermore raw milk contains digestive enzymes for lactose and galactose procession - part of the reason why it goes sour after a while.

Neat? I'm starting to think I might have an enzyme for fucking your mom.

>I've taken growth hormone for several years and I have neither cancer nor am I dead. Stop making up shit.

Guess that means you'll never get cancer or die, and that growth hormones are completely safe. Damn you sure got me with your unpenetrable deductive reasoning.

>You're the exact kind of pseudointellectual that has a barely above average mind

Wow I'm reeling

>thinks he now knows everything without doing any actual research.

Fucking hilarious. Didn't you just say that research was bunk because it's all questionnaires and has biased funding?

>There is no growth hormone in breast milk and even if there was it wouldn't be bioavailable. Growth hormone needs to be injected to be bioactive or alternatively an oral ghrelin mimetic has to be used like Ibutamoren Mesylate.

There are studies that I've linked you to that show how rates of IGF1 go up as you consume animal protein. I don't even know why we're talking about mother's milk unless you're still appealing to a couple of retarded vegans as an argument.

>Maybe if you weren't chronically lacking dietary animal fats you wouldn't get pissy at someone asking you to prove your idiotic claims.

Imagine thinking eating plants is idiotic

>Atherosclerosis is caused by the inflammatory damage created by carbohydrates.

And yet, no study. When I've linked like 5-7 studies that all say the exact opposite. You probably take that chiropractor for his word, too.

>It beats starving. Every culture valued animal products - especially meat - as the most sought after food. Read Dr. Weston Price's book about the dietary habbits of tribes.

Are you about to appeal to nature like that guy you tried defending?

>Completely wrong.

You're right, we've always eaten meat for as long as we've been survivalist eaters. We didn't farm, though. No real reason to do either anymore.

>Appeal to authority fallacy. Also wrong. You can stay alive as a vegan but you cannot live optimally.

Appealing to seperate world health orginizations all saying the same thing, despite it being contradictory with the status quo, and appealing to medical studies, makes us fallacious.

But you get to throw out the opinions of professionals and throw out any study without reading it and countering with one of your own, or any claims of substance.

You sir are very confused on the nature of fallacies. I'm actually kind of sad for you.

>If that were the case you wouldn't be here shilling your lies to people.

It is true because the amount of people being vegan is raising, and there's only 2 futures for humans, a vegan one or a non-existent one.

>I'm not gonna address the rest of the posts because it looks like it's the above statements repeated again. If you think you have other arguments let me know so I can prove you wrong again. Pic related, me cutting up some veal liver last week.

No I think you actually do need to not only address the contents of the comments above, but also re-read them during your ban. Look at the studies. Educate yourself on the pools of medical and nutritional data, since that was your only argument (and remains unsubstantiated) for 3 whole pages of replies.

Post last edited at

 No.272

>>1

>Advanced aliens farming humans

Oh the irony


 No.273

File: 8d7d6d4a8ff28ce⋯.jpeg (38.27 KB, 474x474, 1:1, 56DE2802-6FAE-48CD-BE84-4….jpeg)

>>266

Read the studies. If you don't, and continue posting about health, you'll be banned. If you're not an expert, forget what you know about nutrition and just accept that plants are perfectly sufficient

This is your brain on vegophilia

>inb4 b&


 No.276

this timeout

Post last edited at

 No.277

> There is no reason to believe animals are operating on distinctively different mechanisms than our own, when considering we've shared a nervous system/brain configuration and the very same chemicals in our endocrine system for longer than humans have even existed.

Human brains are far different to animal brains. We not only have more brain mass we also have more brain density and we even have more brain dimensions: https://www.sciencealert.com/science-discovers-human-brain-works-up-to-11-dimensions

This leads to an exponential increase in cognitive abilities. There are very few animal who can even recognize themselves in the mirror and even less animals who have demonstrated to have a concept of future thinking. But this argument is moot since it can be reduce back to "might is right" and I'm not here to discuss ethics but nutrition.

> Well if you have no need to take the life, then there's no humane way to take it. To take it would be inhumane, because it would be causing suffering and death intentionally, without an important reason.

I do have a need for it. I want to operate at my maximum potential and for that I need meat, fish, organs, eggs, etc. Only a minority of those nutrients can be supplemented and even then they're usually not in the same form or would have to be eaten with co-factors to be bioavilable which is not the case when ingested in their natural dietary form.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5188409/

You didn't read your study correctly. It helps women with breastcancer exactly because it gets absorbed and binds to the estrogen receptors just like I said - only it enacts a weaker estrogen reponse than pure estradiol. While this may help women with breast cancer it's not something that men or even healthy women should want. Furthermore the study mentions flavone metabolism creating Equol which is a potent anti androgen (binds to DHT and makes it inert).

> I've been drinking and eating soy almost daily for years and my hormones are exactly what they should be.

Flavones and other xenoestrogens do not show up in hormonal blood tests. They simply bind to your receptors and mimick estrogen.

> "The collected data from other researchers and our own data are indicating that the presence of steroid hormones in dairy products could be counted as an important risk factor for various cancers in humans."

"Data about the bioavailability of milk IGF-1 in animals and humans is lacking and it is not clear yet, how percentage of IGF-1 in consumed dairy products could be reached through the gastrointestinal tract into central compartment since it is structurally more similar to the insulin, which is rapidly degraded in gut. However, obvious beneficial effects of the milk- and more importantly colostrums IGF-1 in neonates indicates a higher absorption and less degradation of milk IGF-1 in milk-consumer neonates in comparison to the neonates, which are received milk replacer with lack of IGF-1 (28). "

The only thing it shows is that infants absorb IGF-1 while adults do not. Likely due to gut permeability. So this study too is disproving your claims and reinforcing mine.

> Dodge #2 Impressive mental gymnastics! I literally answered this by saying I annoy anyone of any color about animal rights.

I'm not even the same guy. Activate poster ID's.

So if you meet a rainforest tribe that subsists on hunting you will tell them not to?

> That's racist, not that I'm surprised at this point. I've had great conversations with people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds.

I'm not surprised. You're about as intelligent as non-whites so it's a good fit.

(2/3)


 No.278

> Also, what is wrong with supplements lmfao? Also, MOST PEOPLE are deficient in B complex vitamins and B12 in particular, despite NOT BEING VEGAN. Are you saying that methylcobalamin and algae pills are bad for you? This isn't an argument, dude.

My diet doesn't need supplements. You claim yours is superior so you shouldn't need them either. Yes "most people". I am here as a carnivore not as an omnivore. My diet is loaded with B vitamins.

> Prove it, I'll wait.

How do you explain all the vegan women who lose their periods? Hint: No period, no fertility.

> Prove it, I'll wait. (after your timeout of course)

What timeout? :^) See Durianrider, Vegan Gains, etc all getting their balls snipped. Antinatalism is very popular among vegans and I'm glad they're not procreating.

> I was obese for years, then I went vegan now I'm in the best shape of my life and stronger than ever.

Care to prove that with a photo + identifying piece of paper with date + "/veganism/ mod" written on it?

> So eat a variety of plants? Fucking idiot? Can you show literally any hard evidence that plant based athletes tend to compete at a lower level?

Athletes can dope, foods can't:

https://i.imgur.com/OWiEgsj.png

https://www.ergo-log.com/plantprotein.html

And that's just the protein alone. Meat, milk and eggs contain anabolic nutrients and ergogenics which I've already went into above.

> Also, what is wrong with supplements lmfao? Also, MOST PEOPLE are deficient in B complex vitamins and B12 in particular, despite NOT BEING VEGAN. Are you saying that methylcobalamin and algae pills are bad for you? This isn't an argument, dude.

My diet doesn't need supplements. You claim yours is superior so you shouldn't need them either. Yes "most people". I am here as a carnivore not as an omnivore. My diet is loaded with B vitamins.

> Prove it, I'll wait.

How do you explain all the vegan women who lose their periods? Hint: No period, no fertility.

> Prove it, I'll wait. (after your timeout of course)

What timeout? :^) See Durianrider, Vegan Gains, etc all getting their balls snipped. Antinatalism is very popular among vegans and I'm glad they're not procreating.

> I was obese for years, then I went vegan now I'm in the best shape of my life and stronger than ever.

Care to prove that with a photo + identifying piece of paper with date + "/veganism/ mod" written on it?

> So eat a variety of plants? Fucking idiot? Can you show literally any hard evidence that plant based athletes tend to compete at a lower level?

Athletes can dope, foods can't:

https://i.imgur.com/OWiEgsj.png

https://www.ergo-log.com/plantprotein.html

And that's just the protein alone. Meat, milk and eggs contain anabolic nutrients and ergogenics which I've already went into above.

> Set up some appointments with your Doc. Tell them to monitor inflammation. Eat a hamburger, or a steak, or an egg. Watch as you and your doctor notice your arteries become more inflamed before your eyes.

Wrong that's what glucose does:

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/3/489

> we can thrive on plant foods. Just like how rape had evolutionary value, but is no longer acceptable.

Strawman

> one reason that you're getting banned

you_have_no_power_here.gif

> I have already dismissed these claims in this very thread

You haven't. You've shown that it's possible to survive as a vegan which I never disagreed with. I have shown you that there's near essential nutrients which vegans cannot get. Still waiting for an anwer on every single one of those.

> Whether or not the hormone is bioavailable isn't exactly relevant to a child utilizing it.

If it's not bioavailable then it doesn't matter because it's inert. logic/10

> Cholesterol is subject to oxidation in your blood, for one.

Correct, driven by the inflammation through carbohydrate consumption.

> You can thrive on plants, and I've provided PLENTY of evidence for this on the board

Mabye if you keep repeating it often enough it'll become real.

(3/3)

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.279

File: 1d666cc3c99f51f⋯.jpg (43.99 KB, 600x603, 200:201, he_does_it_for_free.jpg)

File: 99e0671c4caa2bc⋯.jpg (272 KB, 2822x2117, 2822:2117, wS8ZIg3.jpg)

File: fee37985f6ef4f1⋯.jpg (267.17 KB, 1814x2419, 1814:2419, JQ87RGh.jpg)

literally the same arguments for 3 pages.

actually even less substance

Post last edited at

 No.282

>>279

lol you rekt that vegan so thoroughly and calmly they had to ban you.


 No.285

File: 8c4cbcbd76dc4fd⋯.jpg (66.98 KB, 575x820, 115:164, 76377.jpg)

File: 7908f6740d0ba0e⋯.jpg (49.35 KB, 550x627, 50:57, 76378.jpg)


 No.289

File: 70d2146e9d4c49d⋯.jpg (8.61 KB, 275x183, 275:183, download.jpg)

File: 96229e621555e12⋯.jpg (290.49 KB, 1360x910, 136:91, 2018_11_28_59557_154339747….jpg)

File: 5f3522187931e26⋯.jpg (96.29 KB, 800x600, 4:3, bbjet3.jpg)

>>277

>>278

This will be my last response to this retard as well as the last time I get into conversations around the justification being "we need it for our health".

You're literally the most educated person taking this as their argument, and your education ends at one mechanism of cholesterol that doesn't prove anything about atherosclerosis.

Autism begins here

>Human brains are far different to animal brains. We not only have more brain mass we also have more brain density and we even have more brain dimensions: https://www.sciencealert.com/science-discovers-human-brain-works-up-to-11-dimensions

1. Cow brains are different than the brains of other animals. It turns out no animals have the same exact brains.

2. The ARTICLE that you linked talks about a mathematical theory and its relation to brains. They don't do similar research on the brains of other animals as far as I could tell, and regardless this doesn't support any of your arguments unless you're saying that only brains designed the same way as intelligent humans have a right to not be intentionally and needlessly harmed.

>This leads to an exponential increase in cognitive abilities. There are very few animal who can even recognize themselves in the mirror and even less animals who have demonstrated to have a concept of future thinking. But this argument is moot since it can be reduce back to "might is right" and I'm not here to discuss ethics but nutrition.

I don't see why you needed to bring in a math theory to get to "some animals can't recognize themselves in a mirror". Are you trying to sound smart? I can't tell if you're trolling and these are all red hearings, or if you're actually just a full blown sophist.

Furthermore, nutrition is a non-starter justification. Appealing to swaths of medical studies and un-biased, unconnected health organizations all saying the same thing is not an appeal to authority. The fact is nobody knows the optimal diet, not you and not me. These organizations are simply groups of experts producing data. We're appealing to properly collected data, not authority. But there are a few things we do know

1. We don't need animal products in our diet to thrive (plenty of evidence for this on the board, much more than the couple of articles you've provided, which I'll get to)

2. High levels of blood-serum cholesterol is the causal risk factor for atherosclerosis, causing our species #1 cause of death

You choose nutrition as your hill to die on because you know that you can't justify the shit that you pay for, so you lie to yourself that we need them. I'm done talking about nutrition.

I've been proving you wrong for years, so have all the vegan athletes and the longest living populations of humans. Just fucking google "1 year vegan blood-test" and watch some videos if you don't think we get proper nutrition. Quit being a pussy and go vegan for a couple months while you work out to actually see the gains for yourself. I'm sure you'll want to say something disregarding all of this in an attempt to dodge, like "going vegan for a couple of months would cause me to get heart disease and permanently damage my body" while once again providing no source that proves a plant based diet inadequate.

>I do have a need for it.

If humans needed animal products to thrive, plant based whole food diets wouldn't grant such massive health benefits and lead to better health outcomes. If you want harder evidence, feel free to check out the resources page or the plethora of studies I've posted around the board.

>I want to operate at my maximum potential and for that I need meat, fish, organs, eggs, etc. Only a minority of those nutrients can be supplemented and even then they're usually not in the same form or would have to be eaten with co-factors to be bioavilable which is not the case when ingested in their natural dietary form.

What nutrients do humans require who's "natural dietary forms" are exclusive to animal flesh, dairy (post infancy from another species), or eggs?

What do you mean by optimal? Strength and conditioning? There's no evidence that proves diets including animal lead to better strength and conditioning outcomes. If not that then, health and longevity? Well, we know animal products don't lead to the best outcomes in this regard.

Nutrition is a bad fight to pick, because while you'll always be able to find supporters and research that enables your bias, you'll slowly experience the effects for yourself and it will cause permanent damage somewhere in your body. This is why it's best to die on the hill of ethics. Either you concede your own double standards and go vegan, or you throw out consistency or human life, gladly accepting heart disease and enjoying your steak guilt-free.

Either way you get looked back on as an idiot at best, evil at worst. Might as well choose the argument that 1. doesn't have science that contradicts it and 2. maximizes your hedonistic freedoms.

>You didn't read your study correctly. It helps women with breastcancer exactly because it gets absorbed and binds to the estrogen receptors just like I said - only it enacts a weaker estrogen reponse than pure estradiol. While this may help women with breast cancer it's not something that men or even healthy women should want.

ffs "Evidence indicates soyfoods can be safely consumed by all individuals except those who are allergic to soy protein, which is relatively uncommon in comparison to the number of individuals allergic to many other commonly-consumed foods [436,437,438]."

>They simply bind to your receptors and mimick estrogen.

Then why does my endocrine system seem to be operating according to plan for my age and gender? Remember when I said it's harmless? You have to consume massive amounts of soy for weeks straight to begin having an effect.

>The only thing it shows is that infants absorb IGF-1 while adults do not. Likely due to gut permeability. So this study too is disproving your claims and reinforcing mine.

This is why you were banned. Sheer sophistry. Nowhere in that study does it say that adults don't absorb IGF-1. It dives completely into how and why IGF-1 is harmful. The concluding state is literally

"In summary, it seems that steroid hormones are very potent compounds in dairy foods, which exerting profound biological effects in animals and humans. Most of the previous knowledge about the steroids is according on their physiologic and sometimes supra-physiologic concentrations of steroids but recently it is found that these compounds even at very low doses may have significant biological effects. Special concern should be paid to the effects, which may occur during certain and sensitive time points including perinatal and pubertal periods. To this end and with respect to the considerable progress in developing of analytical methods and bioassays, it is critically needed to clarify the possible and potential impact of the present hormones especially estrogens in dairy foods on consumers health situation because it is already pointed out that possible unwanted effects on human health by consumption of meat from oestrogen-treated animals cannot be excluded."

You will stay banned, troll.

>I'm not even the same guy. Activate poster ID's.

I was aware of that, but you were the second person to dodge the same point and avoid answering the point blank question that is the elephant in the room that is this thread.

>So if you meet a rainforest tribe that subsists on hunting you will tell them not to?

No. This is more along the proper line of questioning. Lets steel-man this question and assume the tribe has been offered a perfectly healthy plant based diet by civilized people in their country. Lets also assume that the tribe refuses these offerings violently. Thus to survive, they must hunt. It would not be vegan to murder the tribe, start a war with the tribe, or tell them they should starve to death. In this context, the best thing to do is let them hunt and attempt to further the level of contact between the estranged tribe and civilization.

See how much more fun these are?

>You're about as intelligent as non-whites so it's a good fit.

The irony is painful

>My diet doesn't need supplements.

Neither does mine, they're simply convenient. I've educated myself on what I do and don't need, and how to acquire what I do need optimally.

>You claim yours is superior so you shouldn't need them either. Yes "most people". I am here as a carnivore not as an omnivore. My diet is loaded with B vitamins.

So by this definition of "superior diet", you're saying that supplements are either not apart of a good diet, useless in a good diet, and or supplements are not good.

So if I create a super nutrition pill that releases the perfect amount of calories and nutrients at the perfect times it would be inferior to a meat based diet even though on a meat based diet you can never know if you're getting the perfect amount of the optimal nutrients for optimal health (which you haven't defined)? All by virtue of it being a dietary supplement?

Just fucking accept it dude, "supplements tho" isn't an argument.

>See Durianrider, Vegan Gains, etc all getting their balls snipped. Antinatalism is very popular among vegans and I'm glad they're not procreating.

Why you're getting banned from now on example #2. I asked for evidence for your retarded claim, and you literally cited a couple of youtube personalities that got their tubes tied.

Apparently I'm appealing to authority by citing the endless pool of data suggesting animal products aren't great for health

But you saying "vegans are into antinatalism becus i seen some vegan youtubers do it" isn't a fallacy.

Watch the non-vegans squirm under the weight of their own lies and intellectual dishonesty.

>Care to prove that with a photo + identifying piece of paper with date + "/veganism/ mod" written on it?

No? I wouldn't be the first anyway so what is your point? If this is the kind of thing that you take as evidence (which wouldn't surprise me) then go find the hundreds of OTHER PEOPLE who've done that. I didn't document my progress.

>https://www.ergo-log.com/plantprotein.html

1. 40 person sample size. You're really this retarded

2. Uses vegetarians, not vegans

3. Does not monitor diets closely (making sure people eating veg were getting complete protein ratios etc)

4. Poor attempt at controlling for variables (they accounted for age, sex, and physical activity)

See, I fucking knew you were illiterate as far as research goes. You don't understand that I've basically read all these studies before. The best studies have the most thorough parameters and execution.

> Meat, milk and eggs contain anabolic nutrients and ergogenics which I've already went into above.

No, you did not "go into" them. IGF-1 is literally an anabolic nutrient. Vegans can achieve a perfectly anabolic diet.

>Wrong that's what glucose does

This study does not perform the test that this reply was to, rendering your response moot. The study does however conclude with something I've been saying for years:

"one week of high-fat, low-carbohydrate feeding that leads to a relative impairment in glucose homeostasis in healthy young adults may predispose them to hyperglycemia-mediated endothelial damage as well as a reduction in endothelial function. The findings also suggest that a short-term HFD and acute glucose excursions may reduce FMD via separate and non-synergistic mechanisms. Increased susceptibility of the endothelium to hyperglycemia-induced damage provides evidence that the combination of a HFD with glucose ingestion could be detrimental to vascular health. These findings are especially relevant given the recent increase in popularity of low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. These new findings suggest that if young, healthy males are following such diets, a temporary lapse in adherence with consumption of a food causing a glucose spike might lead to acute endothelial damage."

In other words, high fat, low carb diets are terrible for vascular health.

Did you link the wrong study lmfao because this one basically supports what I've been saying.

>Strawman

No, it wasn't. He was saying that eating meat is natural because of our digestive tracts and that what is natural should be acceptable. Rape is also deeply natural. By appealing to the same thing that he's appealing to, I can show him the absurdity of his argument.

>you_have_no_power_here.gif

Ok :)

>I have shown you that there's near essential nutrients which vegans cannot get. Still waiting for an anwer on every single one of those.

Wrong. Check

>>197

This magic nutrient you're looking for doesn't exist, Anon.

>If it's not bioavailable then it doesn't matter because it's inert. logic/10

You literally said that IGF-1 is harmless because it's "not bioavailable". But regardless of YOUR DEFINITION of "bioavailable", IGF-1 is known to increase cancer risk. You're so confused that I don't even know how to address this.

>Correct, driven by the inflammation through carbohydrate consumption.

Well, whatever inflammation is caused by complex carbs is far less significant than the inflammation you'll experience after eating a steak full of trans and sat fats. I would say give your study another shot since you linked one that not only doesn't address this, but concludes with low carb diets being harmful. But, you're getting insta-banned from now on so there's no point.

>Mabye if you keep repeating it often enough it'll become real.

Well one thing is for sure, I can't repeat it enough to get you to read them or address them. Yet, you insist on arguing solely for nutrition. Sounds like willful ignorance, reason #3 you're getting banned.

Post last edited at

 No.298

File: 29e9d9bd3db3f97⋯.gif (1.18 MB, 209x180, 209:180, 8BA5A756-4492-4501-BFD4-B9….gif)

>>289

You are a fag and a pussy.


 No.349

>


 No.352

>Daily reminder that you're either a vegan, or you support the internment and slaughter of at least some subset of humans as well as animals.

Well, duh. I'd say I downright celebrate and encourage it. Humans are not equal.

>What's the difference between humans and animals that makes it acceptable to slaughter one for food when we could eat plants, but not the other?

Because I'm human. That's why humans are important, while animals are not

>Advanced aliens farming humans

Not really, I'm humancentric, fuck the aliens

>Humans farming aliens

Sure, why not

>Eating cows/chickens/pigs who's consciousness has been swapped with a humans

Not sure why that would happen, but sure, why not

>This implies you would find interning severely mentally disabled people (who are less aware than cows/chickens/pigs etc) and breeding them into slaughter acceptable.

Why breed them into slaughter? Why not just slaughter them as is? Mentally disabled people shouldn't exist.

>Owning slaves, raping children, sacrificing innocents and more have all been cultural tradition that wasn't easily outgrown. Are things of this sort also acceptable, Anon?

Of course. That's basically the foundation of society, from which we all benefit, especially vegans. Those vitamins and alternatives ain't gonna deliver themselves, and fuel has to come from somewhere. You depend on slavery yourself, and you have no basis refuting it.

>1. Things like rape also have evolutionary value. Is this acceptable behavior for moral agents such as humans, Anon?

Of course. If it's helpful to the species, do it.

>Humans, as well as other herbivores small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and have low levels of acidity

I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plant matter, or even that we shouldn't have majority of our diet being plant-based, but we should eat meat as well. That's what being an omnivore is.

>3. Look at all the herbivores that have canine teeth.

You mean those that use them for digging?


 No.353

>>1

Peak autist arguments.

>Advanced aliens farming humans

I am no misanthrope so no

>Humans farming ayylmaos

Sure, if they taste as good as beef and have the same nutritional value, why not?

>Eating cows/chickens/pigs who's consciousness has been swapped with a humans

Never seen that happen, so it's Autismal tier.

>This implies you would find interning severely mentally disabled people

Yes, kill all of the paste eaters. Breed and slaughter them? No, no point.

>Owning slaves

Should be done again

>raping children

Societies that engage in this aren't and never have been successful, so, no.

>sacrificing innocents

In what culture is this a tradition? Even niggers don't do this.

>Things like rape also have evolutionary value

Not for us as a group anymore, no.

>Humans, as well as other herbivores

Let me stop you right there fam. Humans aren't Herbivores. We're omnivores. That's why eating meat doesn't straight up kill us.

>For every health claim you make, I'll rebut it and make a stronger, counter claim.

Big big doubt.

10/10 Bait, would bite again.


 No.359

What a cute baby.

I want to cuddle it and raise it and give it a happy life and then kill it before it gets sick, let it rot in glass jars and use it as probiotic food.


 No.367

Holy fuck, is there actually a vegan board on 8chan now? This is based.


 No.396

File: 8f62f9c1b449ee6⋯.png (547.64 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 7998736595043a6e46e58d1a45….png)

What's up with anti-vegans and making retarded arguments?

<That's the way it is therefore that's the way it should be

<Plants have feelings because they respond to their environment

<Nature is good but only the parts I agree with

<Muh B12

We should compile a file rebutting all questions on the matter and point every anti-vegan to them. If they persist with what's basically name-calling at that point they get a ban.


 No.402


 No.405

>>1

okay well to be fair I see your point, but like fr how many people do you think actually care some people have 0 empathy for animals heck if anything some people have 0 empathy towards other people what makes you think they'll care about animals? I ain't saying it's a good thing btw


 No.427

File: 0430c0e860babd9⋯.jpg (91.04 KB, 531x750, 177:250, 3d3bca687c29813fd9fc2ed4eb….jpg)

this is what carnivores want


 No.438

File: 8ea4e285ff50fbb⋯.jpg (126.2 KB, 1200x1800, 2:3, how-to-reverse-sear-a-stea….jpg)

>>427

Nice strawman, vegan. But that is a mess. No carnivore wants that. Carnivores want pic related.

Clean, ordered, and delicious.


 No.457

>>427

>anon uses veganism to make him not look like the pornsick sexual deviant he his.

Why do I have a sudden urge to eat a T-bone now?


 No.473

>when you can't fathom people favoring humans and not believing all life to be equal so you say some nonsense about aliens as if it shows hypocrisy or inconsistency

I guess everyone is a hypocrite when they like when one softball team scores and not the other.


 No.474

>>473

Meant that to be sportsball


 No.475

>>473

I don't regard all life to be equal, and value humans. This isn't mutually exclusive with not harming other beings with no necessity. In a situation with human vs animal, I would favor the human (burning building, stranded, etc). In a situation (most of life in a modern western context, even most other places) where the human has the opportunity to choose between harming animals or not, there is no reason to and you know it.


 No.494

>>1

>What's the difference between humans and animals that makes it acceptable to slaughter one for food when we could eat plants, but not the other?

>[Saying that animals] aren't human implies that you would find it acceptable if advanced aliens harvested human beings for food

Rules of nature, bitch. Why should we, as humans, afford some hostile and foreign intergalactic entity the benefit of our good graces, and consider them worthy of our moral consideration, when they'd not hesitate to slaughter us en masse, if they could successfully do so? Assuming that this alien life force is highly advanced and carnivorous, and only humans could sate their appetite, then the impetus is on us as a species to defend ourselves from mass annihilation. Morality would not come into it, because war would take precedent. Moreover, these aliens would not have an incentive to view us as equal beings, or worthy of the same moral consideration that we may afford them. It would be foolhardy to assume that we could reason and negotiate with a race of beings whose very existence and proliferation would depend upon our capture and slaughter. In short, this sort of scenario would not bode well for humankind. At the same time, we live in a dog eat dog world, so why would anyone assume that such a scenario would play out any differently? You're delusional if you think the imperialistic force of an advanced alien civilization would show us petty humans the mercy of the adjudication that is prescribed for their own kind. They would murder us, and such is life.

>You would find it acceptable if human beings harvested alien life forms for food

Rules of nature, bitch. Nobody tells the lion not to stalk and kill the gazelle. Yeah, yeah. I know what you're thinking; "Animals have limited intelligence and therefore do not have the capacity to reflect on their own thoughts, actions, and the morality thereof, and therefore are not subject to the same burden of moral consideration as us humans, because we're so big brained and smart." Well, there's one thing that separates man from beast, our capacity for thought. If you want to afford a lower being, such as a pig, the same rights and value as is afforded to human beings, then you must acknowledge that any sort of contract that could be built around their mutual understanding and cooperation would be null and void. If they cannot reciprocate the rights that are afforded to them onto other beings, then it's equally true that they cannot be reasonably expected to be productive and consensual members of our little society. At best, they would be yet another mindless mouth to feed, and at worst they would potentially introduce new problems such as overpopulation, the spread of disease, and other such maladies. In other words, their population would still have to be carefully controlled by humankind, at which point the human race would be introduced to even more moral considerations that would call the system into question.

>You would find it acceptable to eat an animal whose consciousness has been swapped with a human being's

How would I even know that such a thing could occur? Assuming that the physical functionality of the animal in question would remain intact, such that the "person" inside the animal's body would be virtually unable to communicate with me, I would have no realistic way of knowing whether or not the animal in question is any more or less intelligent than the garden variety specimen. However, even if I knew that the animal in question possessed the consciousness of a human mind, I would still deign to take it's life and consume it's flesh, as long as I needed sustenance. Why? It's simple, really. If your consciousness is magically transported into that of an animal, I would argue that your humanity is null and void at that point. How would you go about returning to your human body? Why should society afford you any special treatment, in the event that it seems incredibly unlikely or impossible that you'd be able to return and be a functioning member of society as a human?


 No.495

>>1

I'd also like to point out that morality is a very dubious basis for the argument in favor of the preservation of animal life. Human beings pride themselves on being intellectual and considerate and thoughtful and logical, but we would be remiss to mention that human beings are also very much in obligation to their basal urges and instincts. People will claim in principle that they uphold a certain morality, yet such morality will cave under the pressures of reality. It's not reasonable to expect someone to maintain the consistency of their moral framework under the stress that reality may bring. For example, if given the opportunity to save oneself in lieu of killing another being, most people would fold under the pressure of their own sense of self preservation, and take the life of another so they could continue existing. Does this suddenly mean that such a person is not invested in their conviction to preserve human life at all costs? No, and that's because the intellectual aspect of the mind cannot inform the visceral reactions that one may have in the heat of any given moment.


 No.551

File: 3bdf56191365598⋯.jpg (83.76 KB, 620x411, 620:411, c0d340c3fe609c0f8c9b7ce0a4….jpg)

File: 67db1c20d392a47⋯.jpg (94.09 KB, 640x426, 320:213, f8e1c88ec2ac8393831d2acecf….jpg)

File: 288f096fee11a25⋯.jpg (127.5 KB, 735x475, 147:95, 12dabc40a6debddc4f5debbd9d….jpg)

Cute kids


 No.552

File: 7586a842aff246f⋯.png (1.7 MB, 1758x986, 879:493, 1 n7FLtws7BKuzbD3rRdIj2Q.png)


 No.560

File: a1acce4b5e3310e⋯.jpeg (221.49 KB, 1280x581, 1280:581, future.jpeg)

>>552

The real way the anti-meat movement is going to get """us""" (i.e. the carnist untermenschen) killed is through systematic genocide of all non-vegans, which is necessary to bring in the heaven-on-earth that will follow immediately after.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / choroy / cyoa / dempart / freeb / vichan / vietnam ]