Meat eaters listen up

]##

Well looks like this one is abit slow,its ok you were probably to stupid to grasp any of my points anyway,
All I can say is enjoy wilfully contributing to the suffering of animals and the increase chance of acquiring various cancers and other health problems.

No no its has not. Plants of not conscious beings you fool

Nah, if the whole world was vegan, it would destroy so many ecosystems in our search for useable agricultural land that it would harm more animals than if we eat meat. A lot of animal feed can be produced on land not suitable for human crops. It's actually more unethical to ask the whole world to become vegan.

yes it has, you can't pick and choose what suits your agenda if you are going to rely on science.

You are so retarded it hurts. Where do you think the animals we rear get their food? There are over 60 billion farmed animals on this planet rn. How much land do you think that takes up?

I’m a committed vegan, and have been for over 20 years now. I’m also an atheist, and have been for even longer. Over the years, I’ve often had to defend my position on veganism, so I’ve got quite good at arguing my case. However, I have previously often used “belief” as an argument. I’ve often been told that veganism is akin to a religion, which I generally haven’t tried to refute, mainly due to the advantage of the “false reverence” that religions get favoured with. However, I’m re-thinking this position, after recently reading TGD. I want to discard the belief argument and replace it with some better, more scientific reasoning.
I’m specifically NOT looking for arguments against veganism – so please don’t clog up the discussion with arguments in that direction.
My reasoning so far:
1. The human body is not well equipped to deal with eating or digesting meat – our teeth are the wrong type, our gut is too long and our metabolism is too alkaline. I’m not denying that we have survived the ice-ages, and at least to an extent been shaped by our habit of eating meat, and that in particular, it is possible that our brains might not have developed to their current size and capacity without a meat-based diet, but I also hold the view that this has been relatively speaking so recent in our line of descent that in evolutionary terms, we have not yet made most of the required adaptations to be considered proper omnivores, let alone carnivores. Furthermore, we lack the natural tools for killing and eating prey – we lack the requisite speed, agility, claws and teeth for taking down any prey of sufficient size to be useful – Ozzy Osbourne’s famous Hamster eating habit doesn’t really qualify.
2. Even disregarding all the physiological evidence, we evidently DO NOT NEED meat or animal products in our diets to be healthy. Although I’m only one example (there are many more however) I’m still here today after 20+ years of veganism, and I am healthy, apart from some excess fat! (I’m working on that). I’ve recently had my “health test for old geezers”, and my blood glucose, cholesterol and blood pressure all came out fine. I’m sure there are many counter-points where vegans who have not paid the right amount of attention to their diets have suffered as a result, but that’s different from a vegan diet per se being deficient. In fact there is mounting empirical medical evidence that a plant-based diet is far more healthy than anything containing animal products.
3. Even disregarding the first two points, a vegan diet is more sustainable and less demanding on the environment than a meat-and/or-dairy based diet, with a vegan diet taking about a 10th of the resources – land, water, fuel etc. – to maintain. So from an ecological stand-point, veganism is the best option for the future – our world resources can sustain a much larger population as vegans than omnivores. People often point out that this or that “essential vegan foodstuff” is environmentally unfriendly – for example deforestation of the rainforests to grow soya beans – but they ignore the fact that the majority of soya produced is used for animal feed.
4. Capacity for suffering – any creature with a nervous system is capable of perceiving pain, and thus suffering; it is also evident (and science is now proving) that many animals also share the capacity for conciousness and sentience, even if they don’t share the SAME levels as humans do, so where should you draw the line? If animals are not biological automata; if they feel complex emotions such as pleasure, anger, fear, sadness, anxiety; if they show complex social behaviours such as altruism, co-operation, self-sacrifice, leadership and following, friendship, pairing, loyalty and even “morals”, as we do; if they exhibit responses to pleasure and pain – aren’t they entitled to respect on that basis?
5. Because of our huge and capricious brains, and our “refined sense of morality”, we can CHOOSE not to knowlingly and intentionally exploit other species, just because their flesh tastes good or they produce secretions that we like.

"Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." ~Genesis 9:3-4

Looks like someone is trying to argue with God

Not as much as it takes to feed 7 billion humans 3 meals a day. The feed vs food debate has been around a long time and constantly comes down on the side of food. And like I said there is much more useable animal crop land than there is useable for humans. But of course you resort to insults because you have no actual arguement.

No no its has not. Plants of not conscious beings you fool

👏🏻

Seems like another newbie incapable of actually discussion or debate. Come back with a proper argument them maybe I'll rise to your obvious bait.

Honestly all your 'points' are so ****ing retarded. Did you stick crayons up your nose when you were a child? Is that why you are mentally broken? Go choke on your boyfriends sausage you baby eating b itch.

1. The human body is not well equipped to deal with eating or digesting meat – our teeth are the wrong type,

Furthermore, we lack the natural tools for killing and eating prey – we lack the requisite speed, agility, claws and teeth for taking down any prey of sufficient size to be useful

2. Even disregarding all the physiological evidence, we evidently DO NOT NEED

3. Even disregarding the first two points, a vegan diet is more sustainable and less demanding on the environment than a meat-and/or-dairy based diet,

4. Capacity for suffering –

5. Because of our huge and capricious brains, and our “refined sense of morality”, we can CHOOSE

In fact there is mounting empirical medical evidence that a plant-based diet is far more healthy than anything containing animal products.