Hey there Pol, I have just finished writing an essay against veganism...

Hey there Pol, I have just finished writing an essay against veganism, still needs some proofreading but before I figure out where I can post it I thought about posting it here to you guys to shit on it.

Other urls found in this thread:

beefmagazine.com/blog/are-vegetable-proteins-equal-protein-beef
youtube.com/watch?v=Yxs_mTRjLAU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The text is very "vaseline" as I wanted to reach a broader audience, so be warned of some nasty SJW appeals in the middle of it:

[b]Feeling bad about eating meat yourself is commendable, judging other people for doing so is pitiful.[/b]

First of all, this article is not aimed towards any Vegans (or Vegetarians) that don't eat meat because they particularly feel bad about eating animals and that don't judge other people for doing so. (My grandmother is such a vegetariam, yet she still cooks meals with meat). Of course there are nice vegan people that aren't actually activists trying to convince everyone to stop eating meat and don't actually believe they are better than everyone else. The problem lies with all the vegans that actively militates in favor of their movement out there and actually claim that they are ethically superior. There has been a boom of those activists vegans lately, and the internet is particularly full of them.

Veganism resembles a Cult, it is based on a central Dogma.

Let's get one thing straight: We should get the difference between ethics and morals clear. We can't apply a closed set of ethical values defined in a group outside of it and call ourselves "ethically superior". When you try to enforce your values into a different group of people, you are dealing with morals. There are different values constantly being fought over in all societies, people believe that different things are more right than others all the time, but not necessary this mean you should think you are superior than someone that disagrees with your set of rights and wrongs.

Vegans shouldn't act so entitled, part of such arrogance comes from the fact that there is indeed few people actually actively making a case against veganism seriously, and thus most of you have never heard proper arguments against your ideology, thus you guys have grown arrogant, thinking you are intellectually and morally superior since you are not accustomed to be proper debated. I'm here now to offer several serious reasons why veganism, as an extremist movement, is flawed. After all, it is based solely on a single weak illogical moral dogma: That sentient beings other than humans, no matter how low complexity, should not be "exploited" no matter what. This is a dogma because it is not based on logic, or science, be it exact or even social science, this makes veganism even fit inside the definition of a "cult". If you dismantle this dogma, then veganism cease to make sense as an ideology: Even if we agree that not eating (most type of) meat is better for both the health and environment, this doesn't mean that we should abolish all the meat consumption completely, we could just severe reduce our intake of meat by 70~80% and only restrict it to special occasions.

I'm in favor of severely reducing the consumption of chicken and bovines for environmental reasons, but there is no reason to completely stop eating all types of meat completely from an environmentalist point of view, just a big reduction is enough.

Let me tackle first and foremost the core dogma of the ideology in a simplified way: Through a common dialogue I've had with many vegans before:

- Why eating animals is bad?
V: Because animals feel pain like us.
- But humans are not like other animals.
V: Humans are not better than other animals.
- Why?
V: Because we are similar
- But we are not that similar, this is subjective, humans are unique.
V: But we are similar in key aspects, pain and suffering are bad, and life is in a constant struggle to be free from pain, and thus if we can avoid actively causing pain to others animals, then we absolutely must do it.
- But pain and suffering are part of life, even if we try to avoid it, a life without any pain would not work, and there is no reason why we should extend our efforts to other species. Rights must be earned.
V: We can fight for the rights of the defenseless, even if pain is part of life, there is no reason for cause unnecessary pain and death.

And them comes the principal argument: That the similarities we see in animals are mostly projection.

That is an extremist position, we don't understand how different animals think and feel, but we know for a fact, that most animals like fish and even insects have a very underdevelopment nervous system, even super computers have more complex structures and calculation than a fish. In fact, pain is nothing more than a stimuli that causes a reaction to try to avoid such stimuli, that basic principle of pain is researched and exists in robots and even some plants, even tough they don't have nervous system, should we stop exploiting robots and plants? Or should we stop projecting our human characteristics at similar behavior in other animals? This is cheap sentimentalism, it is not logical nor Scientific.

Don't you have to eat a fuck ton more broccoli to equal 100 calories of steak

The line of similarity shouldn't be draw so low as to simply having a primitive nervous system. Making a case for not killing a high mammal such as cow or a pig makes much more sense than defending "the rights of a bee".

You could still insist at this point that high mammals are very similar to humans, but the undeniable fact is that the whole basis of veganism is based on a universal prevention of pain. If you were to make a more reasonable and rational pillar for veganism and not draw the line so low as that any animal with a nervous system, no matter how primitive and simple it is, then veganism could be more easily defended and taken more serious as a movement. There are some cases to make in favor of high mammals, like how cows remembers the face of other close cows, and how they can exhibit behaviors of stress to traumatic events, but even so, the discussion of why we should not exploit the nature and other animals solely because they "suffer" still is difficult to defend. One thing for certain, is that the line draw where we should not eat other animals should definitely not be traced so low as "no nervous system, since all animals with nervous since exhibit a (subjective) pattern of pain-avoiding". A more reasonable line, creating a classification of what a more evolved animal such as cow should be considered, such as having self-awareness and a distinguish cerebral cortex.

tldr but that pic is hilarious

"per 100 calories" like you wont explode before consuming that much broccoli

Vegetarianism is a more valid option if we actively search for humanely dairy products.

Even if we agree at some point that cows shouldn't be slaughter for food, there is no need to be vegan, Vegetarianism is a more reasonable option. There are many farms that produce dairy with cows that are raised freely and that don't actually kill the male bulls thanks to separation of female sperms. I personally have a couple of friends that lives in the country who have farms with female inseminated cows, raised freely and they sure as hell don't look unhappy about their long life. In fact, if you don't milk them, they few pain by their swollen mamas. This friend's farm actually sells milks both for a large dairy company as well as a smaller specialized and certified vegetarian-friendly brand. It is possible to produce milk from cows humanely, even tough the definition of "humanely" is pretty vague and could be widely debatable. Of course if everyone started to demand an "humane" production of milk, the prices would skyrocket and cheese would become a expensive luxury, still better than completely extinguishing the product like some militant vegans defends.

With all these points already made, there is no reason why vegans shouldn't start eating honey, fish or dairy products home made by small farms with humane seals. The close-minded dogma of the veganism ideology should already be clearly dismantled. But if you still think that you are making a difference by not exploiting fishes and bees, then it is time tackle the narcissism of more self-righteous vegans directly.

yeah, but I guess the point of the picture is to defend how it is actually easy to get protein from vegetables and that red meat is not very nutritious.

I have an easier way.


Islamophobe.

The World is full of problems, but veganism is just the easiest Self-Righteous movement that people can join to feel good about themselves.

Nature is cruel, even veganism admits that. A coyote hunts a deer twice its size by slowly, during up to 8 hours, chasing it around and biting small pieces of its ankle away until it can no longer run, then it is slowly devoured alive. By projecting human standards into them, that is extremely cruel and horrible, but then again, that is how the coyote evolved, even tough canines are omnivorous and can live by eating berries, the deer still is an easier option.

Humans have explored and killed each other for mundane reasons for as long as it existed as species as long as 150 thousand years. Only much more recently modern religions tried to implement the concept that every humans are equals and shouldn't cause suffering to others as they wouldn't want such suffering causing to them. Even so, it took another half a dozen of thousands of years till a more organized globalized society took this golden principle seriously and established the universal human rights. (nevermind the fact that those were burgouis liberal ideals with a colonialist agenda in mind). Yet many people and societies don't actually respects those principles. People keep killing and hurting each other. It is in our nature. Kids are particularly sadistic, as they bully, hit and make fun of other kids as early as they can walk. Many conservative people still don't believe in some progressive society values, claiming that "it is only crime if I'm not busted" and that life is basically a Social Darwinism. The high level of corruption in many countries is a proof of that. And you know what? You can't objectively convince that they are wrong, of course you can try to enforce our artificially empathetic moral into all the society, but people will still act selflessly when they can.

Do you even realize how much broccoli you'd have to eat to hit 100 calories?

...

beefmagazine.com/blog/are-vegetable-proteins-equal-protein-beef

this desu senpai

100 calories is like 300g broccoli (~10oz) vs like 60g (~2oz) of lean beef

so roughly five times as much - imagine trying to eat a decent 500 calorie meal that way

WARNING! INCOMING LIBERAL SJW BULLSHIT I DON'T EVEN FULLY BELIEVE MYSELF!
But it is interesting to exercise in rhetorical

At this point you would argue: "But this doesn't mean we should t stop fighting for a better peaceful world and that we can't extend our values outside of the human species!" Yes, of course, that is very noble of you, but then again, I can only keep on dreaming of the day when there won't be a need to money or cops like in the classic left anarchism utopia. You can keep on pointless fighting for distant utopias, or you can fight good realistic fights more imminent to the real problems of our society today.

Have you checked if you have any clothes made by slave labour in third countries lately?

Many cheap clothes we use today, come from semi-slave labor from underdevelopment countries, I love to make this question to vegans: "Did you check if this cloth you are wearing came from a slave-free company?" 90% of the time, even when they try to dodge the question, they eventually admit to "No". (Again, of course there are many vegans that actually actively engage in other social causes for a better world, but let's contiune) So I ask you: Is the life of animals more important than the life of humans being treated inhumanly by greedy multinationals that exploit cheap labor outside of the labor protectionism of their home country? The only acceptable answer is no. Some vegans may than make the cause, that different people fight for different causes even if they are not as important, "you can't ask me to stop fighting for my cause just because there is something more important to fight for". That may sound quite a rational and reasonable argument, but if after I brought to you the reality about the slave-labor cloth industry, and how there are ONG's that keep tracks of all the brands that inflicts such rights, than your only acceptable moral conduct is to immediately stop buying slave-labor clothes from now on.

Jesus dude why are you so mad? Let them be, you're as annoying as a rambling vegan

First of all you're saying you can't impose your morals over others and next thing you do is call them a cult.

If you don't give importance to what I said, or don't think it is worth the hassle, than you will be as hypocritical and imoral as the people you criticize for not being vegan.
At this point I think many people would agree with me with that last example, but now is time to bring the delusion back in our hearts:

Do you know the computer or smartphone where you are reading this? It is full of blood from miners of iridium from Africa. The complex process of producing microprocessors demands some rare metals that can only be obtained in countries with exploited workers. There is nothing you can do about it unless you stop buying smartphones, or personally go to Africa and fight against the exploitation of such people by their local tribal struggles while being exploited by opportunistic multinationals. That is the price of progress in our capitalistic world.
Now this last reality-reminder was much more gruesome and difficult to deal than the previous example of slave labor in cloths, wasn't it? I sure think it is much more serious than the case for not eating dairy products. But we can't possible live without our computers and smartphones, can we? Are we really insignificant in our fight for a better world?

...

Yes I can kuffar

You can always eat rice or bread. It has more calories that meat.

i watch a documentary showing how a vegitarian woman had to eat to get all her nurtients and it was like 2 or 3 bags of romaine and other shit 3 times a day. she would have a huge distended belly on her skeleton frame after a meal.

Not saying you can or can't, just saying that was OP's main argument against them and he's doing exactly that.

The difference is I would have to eat more brocolli that was possible to get 200g of protein, where as a few steaks a day will give me that.

Because they are the new booming trend in the circles I've been frequenting and have been escalating as annoying as fuck. They often engage in Ad Nausem argumentation, and I have never actually found any serious fully argumentative text against veganism anywhere, so I decided to give it a try myself.


I don't think we are completely insignificant in a fight for a better world, but I definitely think that putting our efforts towards veganism is low priority cause on a flawed ideology.

With this uneasy feeling in our stomachs you may feel an unsettling urge to try and disagree with me by creating some sort of rationalization of why you are not a bad person if you still keep using computers. Before you try to debunk me and make a point for continuing militating in favor of veganism as morally superior let me say: STOP. (Just reminding that the problem is not in not eating meat, but actually harassing other people by saying they are "unethical"). I'm not saying you and me are bad people, is just that vegans wanted to do something good for the world and found one of the easiest ways possible and settled with that. The big criticism here is towards those that arrogantly believe that they are moral superior than other people that don't eat meat, pardon me for say it, but such self-righteousness arrogance is adolescent at best. Anyway, while we can all try and fight and contribute for a better world, the ones that sell us products full of blood and tears of other people (or animals) are the ones to blame first and foremost. The system that allows multinational to exploit cheap labor is the one to blame: It is called Capitalism. Aggressive Capitalism is the real boogeyman here, not meat or dairy eaters. Cheap massive production of meat is a consequence of our social-economical world. Slaughterhouses and cows that lived they whole lives in some 3 square meter pens are victims of the desire for cheap pleasures.

that sounds more like one of the weirder fringe 'vegetarians' who only eat leaves or something

could just eat lentils otherwise

Vegetables aren't that tasty. But if food it's a way to feel above the rest it's up to them.

You have to supplement those meals to get complete protein.

I'm not going to turn this into a political post and make a case here for communism or anything like that, but the point is that the real fight should be against the big corporations that want to have profit no matter the cause while hiding and tangentially avoiding the responsibility of the direct and indirect damage they cause behind marketing and beautiful packages. You can still stop eating cow to reduce the amount of cows that dies, but the difference you are making is small and not efficient, let's be realistic: Veganism would need to have near 50% of the global population adhering to their cause and actively being against the other 50% to effectively change the way how the food production of the world works. That will never happens precisely because veganism is not a solid enough ideology. An interesting analogy to prove that is the War Against drugs:

The real ones to blame for all the deaths caused by the drug-traffic are, well, the users, aren't they? If no one bought and consumed drugs, then the traffic wouldn't be so profitable. Never mind the discussion about drugging yourself being bad for your health or for the social dynamics of the society, the biggest problem of drug users (before small personal greenhouses in the particular case of marijuana became a thing), was simply the fact that the money of drug users was financing traffic. And that was blatantly a bad thing and there was no way to easy to convince people to stop buying drugs just because of that.

I personally wouldn't use this writing style in an essay but you seem like you put a lot of time and effort into this so good job.

That's just a bad diet. It's the equivalent of living on fast food, ie. an absolutely retarded diet.

You can definitely get your nutrients on a vegan diet, lots of vegetables are rich in fats and very calorie dense.

Having said that nobody on this thread has addressed the main problem, which is that vegetable proteins have a lower quality aminoacid profile than animal protein.

Yes

100 calories of steak is like two or three bites, 100 calories of broccoli is like most of a 1lb bag of broccoli florets

This, holy fuck I'm triggered

I know, i'm no vegan retard.

We all now know that the war on drugs has failed and educating the users that the money they use to buy drugs kills people didn't work. We will have to completely legalize all drugs to effectively end the traffic. The analogy here is similar: We won't be able to stop people from buying products that harm the environment, animals or even other humans, no matter how shocking the evidence we bring is, people is egotistical and greedy and the search for profit will continue to make people explore each other. I could write a whole new article extending this discussion about politics but I think by this point I have made my case pretty clear of where the problem really is, but how to fight it, this is we will still need to figure out as there is no clear answer.

[b]Conclusion:[/b]

I would have also wanted to make a point about how vegan diet in particular is not really any more healthy than a simply diet without red meat, and there are even researches elucidating problems in the long run with vegan diet. As well as making a case how many poor people can't afford a vegan diet and are economically dependent of livestock production but I think I don't have to extend my case with marginal issues of veganism. I have already concluded my case, the conclusion is that Veganism tries to do good, but it's too weak in its foundation as an ideology to be fight for. Of course many vegans are noble people with a reduced environmental footprint that wants to make the world a better place, but attacking other people by claiming you are morally superior is simply bigotry and in the particular case of the cult of veganism, false. It's another way for childish feed your own ego mor than make the world a better place. Let's grow up and go to the ugly real world where the real problems are and where we have no easy formulas in how to effectively fight them.

That's it. I am open to suggestion in changes assuming anyone would be willing to read even half of it.

>Veganism resembles a Cult
This is true, but so many things resemble a cult these days. Feminism is a cult, LGBTwhatever is a cult, veganism is a cult, fitness is a borderline cult. If people weren't so eager to be atheists and abandon the religions, perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to create their own little cults everywhere. Pic very much related. Trying to deny it is foolish.

That's the dumbest fucking metric I've seen. You'd have to eat about a pound of broccoli to get those 11 grams of protein. I'm a 225 pound man and lift heavy, how much broccoli do you want me to eat?

>vegan
>check flag
Not surprised.
Opinion discarded

quer achar caixa 2? então procura naquela merda de prédio do grupo iguatemi de porto alegre que você vai achar até banco pra caixa 2. principalmente parente daquela merda do silvio santos e um exército de pedófilos em 5 cidades diferentes.

Yup, and broccoli will give you absolutely terrible diarrhea if you eat that much of it.

>I personally wouldn't use this writing style in an essay but you seem like you put a lot of time and effort into this so good job.

Yeah, it's more the style of a blog post than a serious essay, the fact is that I tried to start in formal format in the beginning but realized my English is not that good enough, but I plan in eventually translating this to my own language and making it more formal.

Wat?

shit writing.

Of all the asinine things that I read about nutrition—and let me tell you, I read a lot of them—this one has got to be the asininniest: Broccoli has more protein than steak.

I’ve seen this idiotic meme repeated many times, but the primary source of this stupid—see also: delusional, ludicrous, and absurd—notion seems to be Dr. Joel Furhman. My mom—bless her little osteoporotic soul—keeps his books down at the beach cottage. I don’t think she does it to taunt me, but you never know. I was a bad kid, and payback may be in order. My family has forbidden me to read Dr. Furhman’s books, to pick them up, or to even glance at the covers because the resulting full-on nutrition-rant kills everybody’s beach buzz.

However, as of last week, I have officially maxed out my tolerance for just ignoring this nonsense. So, note to my family: Read no further, it will kill your beach buzz.

According the Dr. Furhman’s book, Eat to Live, a 100-calorie portion of sirloin steak has 5.4 grams of protein, and a 100-calorie portion of broccoli has 11.2 grams of protein. This is rubbish. According to the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Nutrient Data Laboratory database, 100 calories of broiled beef, top sirloin steak has exactly 11.08 grams of protein and 100 calories of chopped, raw broccoli has exactly 8.29. I’m not sure what universe Dr. Furhman lives in, but in my universe, 8.29 is less than 11.08.

Animal protein consumption has the highest correlation of anything with human growth hormone
Veganism breeds manlets

>what are essential amino acids?

>I'm lactose intolerant and I can't eat dairy
>That's cool senpai, just don't eat it

>I don't like licorice
>To each his own, bro

>Seafood makes me sick
>That's okay man you don't have to eat it.

>I don't eat meat.
>HOW DARE YOU ARE YOU SOME KIND OF FUCKING PUSSY LET ME TELL YOU ALL THE REASONS YOU'RE WRONG!!

There is no argument against vegetarianism. If people don't like eating meat, they don't fucking have to eat it. Why is this such a controversy?

What kind of misleading bullshit is this. People don't know how few calories broccoli contains.

Broccoli has 2,8 grams of protein, OP is talking bullshit as always
Dum nigger

/thread

Soy has all the 9 types of essential amino-acids and is a high index protein source, unfortunately they have that going in favor for them.

Cause just like everything else faggot liberals get into, they force it onto the rest of the public

>There is no argument against vegetarianism.
Lacking what your body needs to survive is a problem. Not that it would be a big loss if vegetarians died.

>There is no argument against vegetarianism. If people don't like eating meat, they don't fucking have to eat it. Why is this such a controversy?

Because many vegetarians and most vegans turn it into some kind of moral crusade, and are trying to stamp out meat production and consumption entirely.

Right in the beginning of the article I defend how vegetarianism makes much more sense than veganism. My central criticism of veganism is against those activists that want the world to become vegan because of the poor cows.

youtube.com/watch?v=Yxs_mTRjLAU

Here,
have a good laugh for all your hard work

False equivalency you fucking kike.

You don't see people protesting candy stores for selling licorice.

Except that a vegan diet has all essential macro and micro nutrients. You're not a lion bruv, you're an omnivore. Humans can thrive on many different diets.

Someone don't know how to read

doesn't*

broccoli kills your thyroid, meat doesn't

Kinda of cringe and funny but what with the stupid hoarse voice?

wtf i love broccoli now

Killing plants is violence

enjoy your nogains

try to watch his other videos and read the channel description
he is also making "lore" videos which are tense if you watched him from the start

>documentary
It was a fucking vlog you faggot

Only soy is a common effectively high quality protein index food, yet processed industrialized soy often lose its nutritious qualities with time, also, many vegetable fat is full of trans fat and even worse than animal saturated fat and there is no real good source of Omega 3 and 6 which are essential for brain development in vegetables. So not entirely truth.

>not mentioning you need to eat 40 lb of broccoli to get 100 calories out of it

The problems is that your average vegan is a retard that doesn't know shit and ends up in the hospital. I have seen it happen.
Not to mention that you will practically spend your whole life on a diet watching that you get all the nutrients you need.

All the fun and luxury of life is slowly being eradicated.

50 vs 300 grams, actually.

But we can fuck dogs now. Look at Canada.

broccoli doesnt have the same quality protein that meat does.

Soy has all 9 types of amino acids and is a better quality protein source than red meat.

But the best source of protein is Whey, which comes from milk,

>Mfw reading this thread while eating meat

Sure but it's their life. How's it any different from being a fat fuck?

Actually it is
10.3 grams per 100 cal of beef
8.4 grams per 100 cal of broccoli.

You need 2 kg of broccoli to fulfill daily serving of protein or 200 grams of beef.

...

I eat meat all the fucking time. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

depending on how much you want to arbitrarily draw a line in the sand over dietary habits based on how much pain something suffers before you eat it, fish or insects or whatever are kind of the middleground of not being a dick and nutrition

but on the other hand theres so many toxic metals in the ocean we shouldnt raelly eat tuna anymore

Nastiest thumb I've ever seen in my life.

Lose weight you fatso.

>implying being a fat fuck as a "lifestyle choice" is respectable

Keep eating that soy.

Let me know when you grow a pussy in your stomach from all the estrogen

do you realize how much broccoli you need to eat to hit 100 calories?

Beef don't fulfill your need of proteins, friend.

>I only understand extremes.
Sure, it's their life. I don't give a shit if some retard dies because he values a cow's life above his.

Yeah fucking right.

fuck face, soy also has anti nutritional factors, basically destroying the essential amino acid once the right pH is reached.

>Having said that nobody on this thread has addressed the main problem, which is that vegetable proteins have a lower quality aminoacid profile than animal protein.

yeah that's pretty much the size of it

Exactly, why do you care so much? Let them be. Besides most vegans have decent diets anyway, you're the one talking in extremes acting like they will most likely end up at the hospital

Yes, exactly. Animal protein leads to more height during childhood and it's essential for athletes.

sauce? my work involves biochemistry so i'd love to hear your explanation for this

wat

>fish or insects or whatever are kind of the middleground of not being a dick and nutrition

I agree.

>but on the other hand theres so many toxic metals in the ocean we shouldnt raelly eat tuna anymore
I have had a discussion with a vegan in my pos-grad about how fish is the best compromisse of quality protein intake and he came with that bullshit argumentation so I've done my homework and found out that tuna is not really that toxic in therms of Mg, specially canned tuna. Mg is only a problem for cartilagenous predatory fishes.

The biggest real thread is the toxins of Norwegian Salmon, but Chile and Alaskan Salmon are extremely beneficial for your health as long as you don't consume more than 5 portions per week (for Chilean and 7 for canada) which exceeds the safe levels of PCP toxins contained in them.

And most fresh-water fish are much more healthy than any other source of protein at all apart from milk.

Fan fact: farms that appear instead of Brazilian rain forests mostly grow soybeans. Western vegans are greatest reason of Brazilian rain forests destruction. KILL VEGANS! SAVE LUNGS OF EARTH!

Yes, this is why soy is usually processed in the vegan diet. But indeed, is not a good effective alternative to dairy fish or chicken, I agree with that. I'm just presenting facts here.

This.

Comparing the two by calories is blantantly absurd. That could only fly over a liberal's head.

It should compare beef to legumes, not fucking brocolli of all things.

Beetles have more protiens, so go eat a bowl of that.

Please. Tell me where I can get this extra supplement of protein from.

Broccoli: 8.4g per 100 calories
Beef: 10.32g per 100 calories
Source: Google
Not to mention Broccoli isn't calorically dense so you can't really get your energy from it.
There is a reason Gorillas have to eat all day to get enough calories from vegetation.

I, the OP did, several times.

I actually did research on that shit in a work for my post-graduation. I only didn't put that in my article because it was excessively long and I thought it was too much tangential with the main moral issue I wanted to focus on.