Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are animals and we are meant to eat animals. It’s nature.

Beef or Fish are two of the healthiest things you can eat.

Chicken is a little more iffy because of all the hormones pumped into chicken. Red meat is better.

Whatever they tell you is bad for you, do the complete opposite

Are you suggesting that there are no hormones pumped into red meat? LOL.

Yes the chicken industry is less regulated than beef. The cattle ranchers are a huge lobby . That’s why most of the beef isnt 100% or has other meats added in the mixture. cattle cannot be incubated from birth to death in a steroid chamber like a chicken can.

Anonymous wrote:Does "someone" include the mouse in your kitchen, the fruit flies when you let the bananas and peaches go bad? Is it ok to kill them?

Plants have been found to have a form of memory and communicate with each other as well as with other organisms through chemical signals. How do you know they do not have some form of consciousness? Is it more unethical to eat a pig than a chicken (considering a chicken has been known to survive well over a year with its head cut off, and even then didn't die from having its head cut off)? How about octopus (which has neurons in its arms)? Where do chocolate covered ants come into this picture?

Plants and legumes are also alive after ingestion and can excrete toxins and anti-nutrients like oxalates, tannins, and leptin as a defense mechanism.

That’s why beans are soaked overnight to get rid of their skins because it’s an anti nutrient . A diet high in plants will eventually cause a decrease in calcium, iron, Vitamin D

Anonymous wrote:Because during the years I ate vegetarian, I had anemia throughout and felt unenergetic.

I get the environmental benefits of why vegetarianism is good. But I can't do it healthily.

I think the environmental benefits are overstated, when you consider the amount of land like the Great Plains with cold hard winters.

Yes, if you compare a vegetarian diet near the equator to something like the Great Plains, you'll come to the conclusion that it requires much more land to produce meat. However, the problem is the land around places like the Great Plains is not all that great at producing anything else a few staples, meat and dairy. That is the thing. Northern climates take much more space, much less sun hits the surface. Long cold months. Some of those areas are borderline deserts. Yes, it takes considerable space to raise livestock, but you aren't going to start growing coconuts, avocados or anything else really in those areas.

Sure, they can grow hydroponic tomatoes in Canada, but I'm pretty sure that is an environmental disaster on a large scale.

So yeah, Maybe if you're are a Californitarian it makes sense to be vegetarian, so long as you can get the water to your avocado trees and you don't have to pave over them to get to your next poetry slam, but really you should be eating acorns for your claim to have any substance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Is the taste and nutrition of it justified when it ends someone else’s life? There are plenty of other options for delicious and nutritious food.

Someone else? Anthropomorphic much? And there's nothing as delicious as meat. To prove my point, there's no artificial artichoke or carrots made from meat. Yet there's artificial meat made from soybeans and peas. Why would a vegetarian want to eat fake meat if it weren't inherently more delicious?

Is an animal more of a someone or a something? It’s not a thing. It’s a living being. We’re all animals at the end of the day.

I’m not denying that meat tastes good. I’m asking if you think it’s ethically justified to kill an animal because you think its flesh tastes good?

Everything depends on your ethics standards. As Christian, we were told by God to eat meat. "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you". With some limitations outlined in the Bible. But if you have different ethics standards then Christians, obviously you should follow your ethics.

If one believes that there was once an ark where exactly 2 of every animal on earth were permitted on board, what happened if one died along the way?

How did anyone maintain an adequate supply of correct food for every animal?

Were the cats not permitted to hunt rats and mice on the ark?

Was there only 1 hen and one rooster? Was the hen allowed to hatch her eggs? What if the hen died from being the only one that the rooster had to have sex with all day long? (Because that’s what they do)

I have never seen horses or dinosaurs or dogs depicted on the ark. What kind of dogs? Was it only one breed? Are all dogs today descended from … what were the dogs on the ark again?

Why weren’t there dinosaurs on the ark?

I have some Jesus Gun cousins who recently posted about having visited the Ark Encounter for vacation in MO? TN? I forget. One of those states. I saw a picture they took of themselves in front of a depiction of a caveman riding a dinosaur under SADDLE

Psst: Noah's Ark was a story to 99.99 percent of mainstream Christians, not literal historical fact (though undoubtledly there were devastating ancient floods that may have influenced the story). As to your cousin's vacation, there is also a Noah's Ark ride at Kennywood Park, much like the Hogwarts train in Orlando. Do you think everyone who rides those think its historical too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't add morality to eating meat. It's the arrogance of humanity. Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of time. The livestock species now literally wouldn't exist if humans hadn't cultivated them long ago. Next you're going to ask whether humans should have animals as pets.

Yes, but that was before the advent of modern agriculture. Most people have multiple grocery stores within 15 minutes of them, all with plenty of non-meat options. What’s the excuse now?

The longevity of an action doesn’t define its morality. People have been raping and stealing since the beginning of time. Doesn’t mean it’s morally justified.

Last comment from me on this because you're either trying to bait or you have a hw assignment. Modern industrial agriculture is not nutritious nor does it taste good. Maybe if the produce was as varied, delicious, and cheap in America as found in many other parts of the world, I'd consider a few more meals without meat. Who doesn't enjoy a Chinese hotpot or Korean stew? But those cost a few bucks over there with better quality, yet cost 3-5x here.

However, nothing is as simple and affordable for fitness and strength than meat. Throw in some dairy for good measure. Not everyone can afford to be Hollywood vegan.

Potatoes and bananas are extremely affordable. If you think humans are meant to be drinking milk, I don’t really know what to say. We’re the only mammal that drinks another mammals’ breast milk. It’s insanity, just pushed by big dairy propaganda.

I didn't realize there was dairy propaganda in the Neolothic Age.

Neolithic people invented cheese between 8,000 to 10,000 years ago (around 8000-6000 BCE) after they domesticated milk-producing animals.

Anonymous wrote:We are animals and we are meant to eat animals. It’s nature.

Beef or Fish are two of the healthiest things you can eat.

Chicken is a little more iffy because of all the hormones pumped into chicken. Red meat is better.

Whatever they tell you is bad for you, do the complete opposite

Are you suggesting that there are no hormones pumped into red meat? LOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't add morality to eating meat. It's the arrogance of humanity. Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of time. The livestock species now literally wouldn't exist if humans hadn't cultivated them long ago. Next you're going to ask whether humans should have animals as pets.

No but you CAN have ethics about raising livestock and that is a major problem in our culture. We treat animals very badly. That is wrong. Anything short of hunting wild animals is unethical using the natural right justification.

Yet hunters are villianized by the left.

I'm part of "the left" and I hunt and I'm far from the only one. Maybe you need to actually spend some time with "the left", lil buddy.

What percentage of the left hunts, vs what percentage is part of PETA?

I honestly don't know.

All the vegetarians I know are conservative Republicans and/or religously vegan. This is not a polical issue and should probably be moved to the Religion or Food forums.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

It's delicious and nutritious. What exactly is your question?

Is the taste and nutrition of it justified when it ends someone else’s life? There are plenty of other options for delicious and nutritious food.

Someone else? Anthropomorphic much? And there's nothing as delicious as meat. To prove my point, there's no artificial artichoke or carrots made from meat. Yet there's artificial meat made from soybeans and peas. Why would a vegetarian want to eat fake meat if it weren't inherently more delicious?

Is an animal more of a someone or a something? It’s not a thing. It’s a living being. We’re all animals at the end of the day.

I’m not denying that meat tastes good. I’m asking if you think it’s ethically justified to kill an animal because you think its flesh tastes good?

Are you suggesting the artichoke is not living?

Because during the years I ate vegetarian, I had anemia throughout and felt unenergetic.

I get the environmental benefits of why vegetarianism is good. But I can't do it healthily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't add morality to eating meat. It's the arrogance of humanity. Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of time. The livestock species now literally wouldn't exist if humans hadn't cultivated them long ago. Next you're going to ask whether humans should have animals as pets.

No but you CAN have ethics about raising livestock and that is a major problem in our culture. We treat animals very badly. That is wrong. Anything short of hunting wild animals is unethical using the natural right justification.

Yet hunters are villianized by the left.

I'm part of "the left" and I hunt and I'm far from the only one. Maybe you need to actually spend some time with "the left", lil buddy.

What percentage of the left hunts, vs what percentage is part of PETA?

I honestly don't know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't add morality to eating meat. It's the arrogance of humanity. Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of time. The livestock species now literally wouldn't exist if humans hadn't cultivated them long ago. Next you're going to ask whether humans should have animals as pets.

Yes, but that was before the advent of modern agriculture. Most people have multiple grocery stores within 15 minutes of them, all with plenty of non-meat options. What’s the excuse now?

The longevity of an action doesn’t define its morality. People have been raping and stealing since the beginning of time. Doesn’t mean it’s morally justified.

Last comment from me on this because you're either trying to bait or you have a hw assignment. Modern industrial agriculture is not nutritious nor does it taste good. Maybe if the produce was as varied, delicious, and cheap in America as found in many other parts of the world, I'd consider a few more meals without meat. Who doesn't enjoy a Chinese hotpot or Korean stew? But those cost a few bucks over there with better quality, yet cost 3-5x here.

However, nothing is as simple and affordable for fitness and strength than meat. Throw in some dairy for good measure. Not everyone can afford to be Hollywood vegan.

Potatoes and bananas are extremely affordable. If you think humans are meant to be drinking milk, I don’t really know what to say. We’re the only mammal that drinks another mammals’ breast milk. It’s insanity, just pushed by big dairy propaganda.

Why is it ok to eat yogurt but not drink milk? Lots of cultures eat tons of cheese and yogurt. How is that different?

Because humans have always eaten meat. We’re animals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t. Because it not optimal and is inflammatory. Plant proteins are better sources. It’s a personal choice, though, I don’t care if others want to.

The volume of food you must eat to get 145g of protein (which is the amount recommended for someone my age, height, and weight) on a plant based diet is too much. I can’t eat that much. It’s easier to hit recommended protein goals with lean meats.

Americans are obsessed with protein. They’re not one with cholesterol or heart health, unfortunately.

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/is-plant-based-protein-for-you-heres-what-you-need-to-know

You weigh 362.5 pounds???

.36 g per pound of body weight, possibly more (but research is not conclusive) for people over 70

Easy to do with grain and beans. You do not have to eat 20 pounds of broccoli.

WTF are you talking about? No, I don’t weigh that much. No, I’m not obsessed with protein, per the article I get enough because I eat sufficient calories. I eat quinoa, and tofu, and beans, and peas, and prioritize greens. I care about cholesterol so if I eat meat it’s occasionally fish, and less occasionally chicken.

Anonymous wrote:A vegan diet isn't necessarily more ethical than a carnivore diet. Stop deceiving yourselves.

Please explain yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about it as a political issue. What do you think the proper justification is for it, if any?

I’m likely the most progressive, farthest-left person on this entire forum, and I eat meat and fish.

Because I understand biology. Humans are omnivores. That’s not subject to argument. We have molar teeth for crushing plant and vegetable material, and we have incisor and canine teeth for biting and tearing flesh. We are dependent on large intake of animal protein and fat when young to achieve proper brain development. This is one thing that distinguishes us from the other high order primates, where fat and protein intake in young comes only from milk and stops at weaning.


Remove emotion. Remove whatever morality you think you have to abide by. Only consider the science. And the science tells us we should be omnivores. And science is truth.

Shame on you! You sound like MAGA.

What sort of "You sound like MAGA" bot has been unleashed on this thread. A post saying "science is truth" is being called MAGA?

Bad bot.