Forum

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

The Pro-Vegan Agenda

This is now somewhat political now, with New York trying to turn themselves green, and meat tax being under consideration. After all, this is my strong point since I've spent the past year watching videos on nutrition that contradicts mainstream/official guidelines, yet cured me of all sorts of afflictions from the previous decade.

The point: Meat is a perfectly fine category of food and discouraging its consumption is to blame for Americans' lack of health. What ruins meat is its combination with the standard American diet, rich in carbs with refined carbs abundantly available, and the use of cheap vegetable oils, which is also abundantly available that it becomes the prime choice for almost all restaurants and pre-packaged food producers to fit the budget.

I find very little merit on the basis of better nutrition. Environment-based motive, perhaps?

Here's a timeline of notable points throughout history:

  • Before 20th century: Animal products and animal fats were plentifully listed in recipe books. Nobody really was dropping dead from heart attacks, so it was all good.
  • 1870s: Cereal companies, still existing today as giants, were founded. They were a solution for a quick-prep meal in the morning to feed workers of Industrial America.
  • Early to mid 20th century: Industrial innovation introduced refined and processed vegetable oils. People started dropping dead, concerns were raised, and dietary fats as a whole began taking blame. Somehow, vegetable oils had their blame lightened eventually.
  • 1945: Minnesota Starvation Experiment. It is basically a minimal fat, minimal protein, high carbohydrate diet with a reduction in daily caloric intake (1560 kcal/day). Effects: fatigue, irritable, bored, cold, craving and stealing food, wrecked metabolism. This sounds really familiar with today's advice for losing weight/treating diabetes, but they'll blame you for not complying if it doesn't work.
  • 1970s: Seven Countries Study, where there's a correlation between consumption of saturated fats and heart disease. But there was actually data available for 20 countries. If those are included, there is no correlation between saturated fats and heart disease.
  • 1977: As scuffed as that study is, US Senate accepts this study and built its dietary guidelines on it. Flood gates have opened for cash to flow in to these cereal companies. Everyone's scared shitless away from a high fat diet. To make food tasty so that it sells, sugar is the new flavoring.
  • 1980s-ish: Obesity rate begins its climb for decades to come. Overweights reduced as they probably migrated over to the obese category.
  • 1992: USDA borrows Sweden's food pyramid that they made in the 1970s as an answer to food scarcity. According to a USDA nutritionist at that time, lobbyists bought a few modifications to the earliest USDA food pyramid. 5-9 servings of fresh fruits/vegetables became 2-3 servings. 3-4 servings of whole-grain breads became 6-11 servings as the base of the pyramid. Refined flour and sugar that sat at the peak of the pyramid merged into the base. Dairy bought their own section too.

I'm not sure where to put these on the timeline, so I'll just list them:

Relating to cereal companies and their control over nutrition and medical:

  • Cereal, being a source of fiber, was enjoying fiber being convention knowledge that it prevents colon cancer and constipation. A brushed-under-the-rug 2007 study shows no connection to colon cancer. An also brushed under the rug 2012 study took people with constipation issues, divided them into groups who would increase fiber, lower fiber, eliminate fiber. More fiber = worse symptoms. Lower fiber = less symptoms. No fiber = completely cured.
  • Cereal company-funded studies also want you to know that skipping breakfast is bad for you and you will die early if you don't have breakfast.
  • Several attempted assassination attempts on the nutritional reputation of eggs. No trials, just proven by questionnaires. Cereal companies were among those that funded this. Eggs are actually nature's multivitamin (except for C). Egg whites with the most protein if you're looking for that, and egg yolks dense with all the other nutritional goodness.
  • Questionnaire-based studies also pointed that meats were bad. To point out how scuffed these studies are, there is no differentiation between a perfectly normal omnivore and those who doesn't look out for their own health. Vegans typically are more health conscious, even if their attempts are sometimes not successful.
  • Bacon is also bad, according to studies that media loves to cite. Its preservative causes cancer. Its preservative is also found in various plants like celery, and is also produced as part of your saliva. Assuming those studies are correct, a young healthy adult needs to eat 4 full 500-gram packs of bacon in order to achieve a 50% probability of bacon causing cancer in the latter half of their lifetime. Even being on keto, I would at most not even a fifth of that amount.
  • So don't skip breakfast, and listen to their clearly very credible advice - no bacon, no eggs, just cereal.

Low fat, high carb, no meat? If this vegan agenda continues to spread, America is a herd of sheep led on a path to anything but good health, or perhaps a human foie gras farm. Sure, nobody is going to cannibalize the liver of those ginormous snorlaxes that dropped dead, but it was a profitable journey leading them to their graves. The beneficiaries are pharmaceutical giants and food giants. Drugs can continue pumping out for profit and for symptoms only, especially with America's notorious reputation of extortionately priced drugs. There really is no motive to find a cure for diseases. Cures that are found - those are suppressed as much as possible. Keto and intermittent fasting has worked out to be an effective remedy that tackles the cause of diabetes and obesity, of which the latter I can personally attest to. Yet, officials will dismiss it as dangerous and discourage it. Food giants will continue to produce whatever they make. It may be low quality food, but it certainly keeps the costs down. To further drive up profits, both of these categorical giants have infiltrated the research community. Whether your doctor is a pharma shill, or genuinely trying to help, their textbooks are based on the research funded by these assholes.

Meat isn't inherently bad. It's a matter of what you did to it. Did a fast food joint fry it in cheap vegetable oil, putting it between two burger buns with caramelized onions and ketchup with a large Coca Cola on the side? Or is it a part of your salad? Omnivores contain both subsets: health-conscious and careless people. Vegan diet? It's not by definition more or less healthy than eating as an omnivore. It just takes a lot more planning to make sure you get all you need, and avoid all that harms. By eliminating meat because of where the current-day agenda is headed, it's a sure-fire way to degrade the health of more and more people.

The push for veganism is a pathetic effort. Nutrition merit? Scuffed. It's only good for those who don't want to be mean by eating the flesh of a perfectly friendly animal that used to be alive. The environment is another subject, but it does supposedly cut down on CO2 emissions, which may or may not have an impact on climate change.

Peppermint Swirl has reacted to this post.
Peppermint Swirl

Vegans are seeing an opportunity to expand their tyrannical ideology in the wake of the climate crisis. In fact, this is the whole issue with the climate crisis to begin with. You take some data that is predictive of (not solidly foretelling of) disaster and you can justify anything you need to because "it's an emergency". No serious scientist is seriously arguing that the world will end in 8 years. Also pretty suspicious how that lines up perfectly with a two-term Trump presidency.

Maybe Brazil should actually enforce its existing deforestation laws. But nah, to hear a vegan tell it, they think you need to completely outlaw ranching. These are sick, dangerous people who get off on self-flaggelation by eating terrible food three meals a day. They hate themselves and they want you to hate yourself too. Indulge and eat meat.

 

I found this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA

I'm not an atomic playboy!
Quote from depressed_snowman on February 16, 2020, 3:42 am

I found this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA

Comments as I watch the video (tl;dr at the bottom):

  • How does it taste? I've had one of those burgers before. It didn't fool me into thinking it's meat, but it does have its own appeal in taste that I can appreciate.
  • Is it good for me? Probably not.
  • Is it good for the planet? It's less resource intensive for sure. Whether that translates to good or bad for the planet, I don't have the answer for.
  • Factory farms aren't great - I can agree on that. On the topic of nutrition, the kinds and quantities of nutrients available in meat does depend on what that animal ate. Different diets fed to livestock also makes a difference in things like marbling if you're into culinary arts
  • There is an alternative option - non-factory farmed meats. Livestock that are allowed to freely roam grass pastures not only live a quality life that doesn't garner this much controversy, but also makes profound effects on nutrition, like the ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6, availability of vitamins like K2 (the one that helps unclog your arteries)
  • The ingredients: Sunflower oil isn't all that great, unless it's the high-oleic sunflower oil. Sure, I might be picky on the kind of oil used coming from a keto diet background, in the way that since I'm heavily invested into dietary fats, I want to make damn sure I get the good kinds. Pea protein is actually good, so that's a plus.
  • The common misconception continues to perpetuate here when he raised cholesterol and saturated fats as concerns. Dietary cholesterol has no effect on your own cholesterol levels. If you don't eat in enough cholesterol, your liver will top up the remainder. Saturated fats are not a real concern. They've only been made evil because some asshole took data from 22 countries that showed saturated fats as beneficial for one's health, and cherry-picked data from 6 countries to flip that conclusion. For some reason, the US Senate in the 70s accepted this as fact, despite it being so heavily criticized for blatant manipulation. Ghost has said towards the end of TCR in one of his rants that this was basically Crisco buying their share of fake news to circulate. Not to mention, saturated fats are also essential (defined as something you need and the body cannot manufacture it from other components). It's half the composition of your cell membranes, required to create cells and sustain life. About or over a quarter of your brain is saturated fat. Saturated fat forms the protective layer around your nerves in order to facilitate a healthy nervous system. Lauric acid, primarily known for its abundance in coconut oil, keeps your immune system working. It's also the building blocks of numerous hormones. Unlike the majority of studies paid for by food and pharmaceuticals that are basically questionnaires, a 1968 double blind randomized controlled trial found heart attacks to nearly double by switching focus from saturated fats to vegetable oils. Theories attempting to make sense of this fake news attack on saturated fats claim it clogs your arteries. In reality, your arteries clog up with plaque in response to damage done to your arteries as a result of carb-rich diets in the fear of dietary fats. Holy shit, let me resume the video.
  • So there he is taste testing in a lab, saying he couldn't tell it wasn't meat. To be honest, the more you garnish, the more attention you divert away from just simply the "meat."
  • Soy protein? Yeah, that's bad.
  • Heme? As in iron? Don't need animal-based foods for it? False - there is no known substitute that gets the job done as well as meats or animal-sources. This is especially important for pregnancy. Source: The second-last sentence in the Abstract here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237230/
  • Decreasing inflammation by switching from an omnivore diet to plant-based is just not a statement you can find consistency in. There is nothing in the definition of a plant-based diet that would guarantee decreased inflammation. There's plenty of plant-based alternatives that can cause as much inflammation as something a careless omnivore would eat. For example, soybean oil is ridiculously inflammatory, but so is overcooked and/or overly-processed meat. If you're looking for a plant-based diet to reduce inflammation, you're gonna need to be more specific than just avoiding meat.
  • Adding to the above point on inflammation, everyone's body runs differently. Plants, like animals, generally don't like to be eaten. Their defensive measures would be to internally produce their own pesticides. A small insect would not survive eating certain crops. For humans, it would usually provide a mild stress that ultimately benefits us. But for some with food sensitivities, certain plants could cause serious reactions. This is the reason why Mikhaila Peterson has benefited so much from the carnivore diet, alleviating her of so many debilitating conditions that plagued the majority of her past.
  • Actually, what Bill Gates kinda reminded me that I'm not bashing plant-based foods for being plant-based. They're just not a perfect substitute. Looks like they've nailed the taste, but nutrition-wise, there's still ways to go. The question is will they ever reach that point? A big obstacle with this push is the amount of financial conflict of interests plaguing medical and nutrition research.
  • Going on the topic of the environment, climate change is something that has always happened. The temperatures right now are estimated to be similar to those from around 1100 B.C., but back then, they didn't have all this industrial behemoths pumping emissions into the atmosphere. Climate change has always happened as a result of changes in solar and volcanic activities. What's relatively new is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is unknown (at least to me) whether those gases are making an impact. Does a science fair test tube full of CO2 proven to retain heat act the same way in the atmosphere, in the context of every other thing and event going on up there? Given how divisive this topic is, I have no idea how verify someone's answer on whether or not it is correct.
  • So Mark illustrates that animals are an inefficient middleman when it comes to getting our energy. The problem is a calorie is not just a calorie - the kind of calorie matters. We don't have four stomachs like a cow. We don't even have a large cecum in our digestive systems like a rabbit has to process the amounts of plants they eat. I have no issue acknowledging how resource-intensive it is to produce meat, but nutrition is not as simple as counting calories. Sure, it could cut down on resources, but it'll leave people withered.
  • Actually, I'm glad he ended it with the suggestion to try out 1 day of the week for plants. Because I've been doing something similar. I just don't eat for 3 consecutive days each month, only allowing water and salt. Some of you may remember that I fasted for 7 days earlier this month, but that was experimental, and there really is no benefit for me in pushing past 2-3 days due to diminishing returns. That's a total reduction of 10%.

 

tl;dr: it is less resource-intensive for sure (which may or may not have a positive outcome on the environment), but you'll probably not improve your health from switching to this.

Quote from boat on February 9, 2020, 10:36 am

This is now somewhat political now, with New York trying to turn themselves green, and meat tax being under consideration. After all, this is my strong point since I've spent the past year watching videos on nutrition that contradicts mainstream/official guidelines, yet cured me of all sorts of afflictions from the previous decade.

The point: Meat is a perfectly fine category of food and discouraging its consumption is to blame for Americans' lack of health. What ruins meat is its combination with the standard American diet, rich in carbs with refined carbs abundantly available, and the use of cheap vegetable oils, which is also abundantly available that it becomes the prime choice for almost all restaurants and pre-packaged food producers to fit the budget.

I find very little merit on the basis of better nutrition. Environment-based motive, perhaps?

Here's a timeline of notable points throughout history:

  • Before 20th century: Animal products and animal fats were plentifully listed in recipe books. Nobody really was dropping dead from heart attacks, so it was all good.
  • 1870s: Cereal companies, still existing today as giants, were founded. They were a solution for a quick-prep meal in the morning to feed workers of Industrial America.
  • Early to mid 20th century: Industrial innovation introduced refined and processed vegetable oils. People started dropping dead, concerns were raised, and dietary fats as a whole began taking blame. Somehow, vegetable oils had their blame lightened eventually.
  • 1945: Minnesota Starvation Experiment. It is basically a minimal fat, minimal protein, high carbohydrate diet with a reduction in daily caloric intake (1560 kcal/day). Effects: fatigue, irritable, bored, cold, craving and stealing food, wrecked metabolism. This sounds really familiar with today's advice for losing weight/treating diabetes, but they'll blame you for not complying if it doesn't work.
  • 1970s: Seven Countries Study, where there's a correlation between consumption of saturated fats and heart disease. But there was actually data available for 20 countries. If those are included, there is no correlation between saturated fats and heart disease.
  • 1977: As scuffed as that study is, US Senate accepts this study and built its dietary guidelines on it. Flood gates have opened for cash to flow in to these cereal companies. Everyone's scared shitless away from a high fat diet. To make food tasty so that it sells, sugar is the new flavoring.
  • 1980s-ish: Obesity rate begins its climb for decades to come. Overweights reduced as they probably migrated over to the obese category.
  • 1992: USDA borrows Sweden's food pyramid that they made in the 1970s as an answer to food scarcity. According to a USDA nutritionist at that time, lobbyists bought a few modifications to the earliest USDA food pyramid. 5-9 servings of fresh fruits/vegetables became 2-3 servings. 3-4 servings of whole-grain breads became 6-11 servings as the base of the pyramid. Refined flour and sugar that sat at the peak of the pyramid merged into the base. Dairy bought their own section too.

I'm not sure where to put these on the timeline, so I'll just list them:

Relating to cereal companies and their control over nutrition and medical:

  • Cereal, being a source of fiber, was enjoying fiber being convention knowledge that it prevents colon cancer and constipation. A brushed-under-the-rug 2007 study shows no connection to colon cancer. An also brushed under the rug 2012 study took people with constipation issues, divided them into groups who would increase fiber, lower fiber, eliminate fiber. More fiber = worse symptoms. Lower fiber = less symptoms. No fiber = completely cured.
  • Cereal company-funded studies also want you to know that skipping breakfast is bad for you and you will die early if you don't have breakfast.
  • Several attempted assassination attempts on the nutritional reputation of eggs. No trials, just proven by questionnaires. Cereal companies were among those that funded this. Eggs are actually nature's multivitamin (except for C). Egg whites with the most protein if you're looking for that, and egg yolks dense with all the other nutritional goodness.
  • Questionnaire-based studies also pointed that meats were bad. To point out how scuffed these studies are, there is no differentiation between a perfectly normal omnivore and those who doesn't look out for their own health. Vegans typically are more health conscious, even if their attempts are sometimes not successful.
  • Bacon is also bad, according to studies that media loves to cite. Its preservative causes cancer. Its preservative is also found in various plants like celery, and is also produced as part of your saliva. Assuming those studies are correct, a young healthy adult needs to eat 4 full 500-gram packs of bacon in order to achieve a 50% probability of bacon causing cancer in the latter half of their lifetime. Even being on keto, I would at most not even a fifth of that amount.
  • So don't skip breakfast, and listen to their clearly very credible advice - no bacon, no eggs, just cereal.

Low fat, high carb, no meat? If this vegan agenda continues to spread, America is a herd of sheep led on a path to anything but good health, or perhaps a human foie gras farm. Sure, nobody is going to cannibalize the liver of those ginormous snorlaxes that dropped dead, but it was a profitable journey leading them to their graves. The beneficiaries are pharmaceutical giants and food giants. Drugs can continue pumping out for profit and for symptoms only, especially with America's notorious reputation of extortionately priced drugs. There really is no motive to find a cure for diseases. Cures that are found - those are suppressed as much as possible. Keto and intermittent fasting has worked out to be an effective remedy that tackles the cause of diabetes and obesity, of which the latter I can personally attest to. Yet, officials will dismiss it as dangerous and discourage it. Food giants will continue to produce whatever they make. It may be low quality food, but it certainly keeps the costs down. To further drive up profits, both of these categorical giants have infiltrated the research community. Whether your doctor is a pharma shill, or genuinely trying to help, their textbooks are based on the research funded by these assholes.

Meat isn't inherently bad. It's a matter of what you did to it. Did a fast food joint fry it in cheap vegetable oil, putting it between two burger buns with caramelized onions and ketchup with a large Coca Cola on the side? Or is it a part of your salad? Omnivores contain both subsets: health-conscious and careless people. Vegan diet? It's not by definition more or less healthy than eating as an omnivore. It just takes a lot more planning to make sure you get all you need, and avoid all that harms. By eliminating meat because of where the current-day agenda is headed, it's a sure-fire way to degrade the health of more and more people.

The push for veganism is a pathetic effort. Nutrition merit? Scuffed. It's only good for those who don't want to be mean by eating the flesh of a perfectly friendly animal that used to be alive. The environment is another subject, but it does supposedly cut down on CO2 emissions, which may or may not have an impact on climate change.

Would rather listen to Ram Ranch on repeat than hear a vegan's argument on why not to eat meat.

Brb, cooking pork. Fuck vegans and their wittle hurt feelings.

Rajeev Kapoor has reacted to this post.
Rajeev Kapoor
📡⚙️ Are we having fun yet? 🔧🔩
Quote from Captain_Kace on February 18, 2020, 9:50 pm
Quote from boat on February 9, 2020, 10:36 am

This is now somewhat political now, with New York trying to turn themselves green, and meat tax being under consideration. After all, this is my strong point since I've spent the past year watching videos on nutrition that contradicts mainstream/official guidelines, yet cured me of all sorts of afflictions from the previous decade.

The point: Meat is a perfectly fine category of food and discouraging its consumption is to blame for Americans' lack of health. What ruins meat is its combination with the standard American diet, rich in carbs with refined carbs abundantly available, and the use of cheap vegetable oils, which is also abundantly available that it becomes the prime choice for almost all restaurants and pre-packaged food producers to fit the budget.

I find very little merit on the basis of better nutrition. Environment-based motive, perhaps?

Here's a timeline of notable points throughout history:

  • Before 20th century: Animal products and animal fats were plentifully listed in recipe books. Nobody really was dropping dead from heart attacks, so it was all good.
  • 1870s: Cereal companies, still existing today as giants, were founded. They were a solution for a quick-prep meal in the morning to feed workers of Industrial America.
  • Early to mid 20th century: Industrial innovation introduced refined and processed vegetable oils. People started dropping dead, concerns were raised, and dietary fats as a whole began taking blame. Somehow, vegetable oils had their blame lightened eventually.
  • 1945: Minnesota Starvation Experiment. It is basically a minimal fat, minimal protein, high carbohydrate diet with a reduction in daily caloric intake (1560 kcal/day). Effects: fatigue, irritable, bored, cold, craving and stealing food, wrecked metabolism. This sounds really familiar with today's advice for losing weight/treating diabetes, but they'll blame you for not complying if it doesn't work.
  • 1970s: Seven Countries Study, where there's a correlation between consumption of saturated fats and heart disease. But there was actually data available for 20 countries. If those are included, there is no correlation between saturated fats and heart disease.
  • 1977: As scuffed as that study is, US Senate accepts this study and built its dietary guidelines on it. Flood gates have opened for cash to flow in to these cereal companies. Everyone's scared shitless away from a high fat diet. To make food tasty so that it sells, sugar is the new flavoring.
  • 1980s-ish: Obesity rate begins its climb for decades to come. Overweights reduced as they probably migrated over to the obese category.
  • 1992: USDA borrows Sweden's food pyramid that they made in the 1970s as an answer to food scarcity. According to a USDA nutritionist at that time, lobbyists bought a few modifications to the earliest USDA food pyramid. 5-9 servings of fresh fruits/vegetables became 2-3 servings. 3-4 servings of whole-grain breads became 6-11 servings as the base of the pyramid. Refined flour and sugar that sat at the peak of the pyramid merged into the base. Dairy bought their own section too.

I'm not sure where to put these on the timeline, so I'll just list them:

Relating to cereal companies and their control over nutrition and medical:

  • Cereal, being a source of fiber, was enjoying fiber being convention knowledge that it prevents colon cancer and constipation. A brushed-under-the-rug 2007 study shows no connection to colon cancer. An also brushed under the rug 2012 study took people with constipation issues, divided them into groups who would increase fiber, lower fiber, eliminate fiber. More fiber = worse symptoms. Lower fiber = less symptoms. No fiber = completely cured.
  • Cereal company-funded studies also want you to know that skipping breakfast is bad for you and you will die early if you don't have breakfast.
  • Several attempted assassination attempts on the nutritional reputation of eggs. No trials, just proven by questionnaires. Cereal companies were among those that funded this. Eggs are actually nature's multivitamin (except for C). Egg whites with the most protein if you're looking for that, and egg yolks dense with all the other nutritional goodness.
  • Questionnaire-based studies also pointed that meats were bad. To point out how scuffed these studies are, there is no differentiation between a perfectly normal omnivore and those who doesn't look out for their own health. Vegans typically are more health conscious, even if their attempts are sometimes not successful.
  • Bacon is also bad, according to studies that media loves to cite. Its preservative causes cancer. Its preservative is also found in various plants like celery, and is also produced as part of your saliva. Assuming those studies are correct, a young healthy adult needs to eat 4 full 500-gram packs of bacon in order to achieve a 50% probability of bacon causing cancer in the latter half of their lifetime. Even being on keto, I would at most not even a fifth of that amount.
  • So don't skip breakfast, and listen to their clearly very credible advice - no bacon, no eggs, just cereal.

Low fat, high carb, no meat? If this vegan agenda continues to spread, America is a herd of sheep led on a path to anything but good health, or perhaps a human foie gras farm. Sure, nobody is going to cannibalize the liver of those ginormous snorlaxes that dropped dead, but it was a profitable journey leading them to their graves. The beneficiaries are pharmaceutical giants and food giants. Drugs can continue pumping out for profit and for symptoms only, especially with America's notorious reputation of extortionately priced drugs. There really is no motive to find a cure for diseases. Cures that are found - those are suppressed as much as possible. Keto and intermittent fasting has worked out to be an effective remedy that tackles the cause of diabetes and obesity, of which the latter I can personally attest to. Yet, officials will dismiss it as dangerous and discourage it. Food giants will continue to produce whatever they make. It may be low quality food, but it certainly keeps the costs down. To further drive up profits, both of these categorical giants have infiltrated the research community. Whether your doctor is a pharma shill, or genuinely trying to help, their textbooks are based on the research funded by these assholes.

Meat isn't inherently bad. It's a matter of what you did to it. Did a fast food joint fry it in cheap vegetable oil, putting it between two burger buns with caramelized onions and ketchup with a large Coca Cola on the side? Or is it a part of your salad? Omnivores contain both subsets: health-conscious and careless people. Vegan diet? It's not by definition more or less healthy than eating as an omnivore. It just takes a lot more planning to make sure you get all you need, and avoid all that harms. By eliminating meat because of where the current-day agenda is headed, it's a sure-fire way to degrade the health of more and more people.

The push for veganism is a pathetic effort. Nutrition merit? Scuffed. It's only good for those who don't want to be mean by eating the flesh of a perfectly friendly animal that used to be alive. The environment is another subject, but it does supposedly cut down on CO2 emissions, which may or may not have an impact on climate change.

Would rather listen to Ram Ranch on repeat than hear a vegan's argument on why not to eat meat.

Brb, cooking pork. Fuck vegans and their wittle hurt feelings.

Pork is quite good. I started curing my homemade bacon a week and a half ago. It's quite good, although I had to drown out some of the excessive salt.

okay, i take it back. fuck your meatless mondays 100%.

so one of the channels i subscribe to recently released a vid debunking this claim. i can now safely eat meat knowing the whole environmental thing is another massive lie, probably a deflection of blame by the actual major contributors of GHG.

and here's the cliffnotes of it.

Claim: It takes 1800 gallons or approx 6800 L of water per pound of beef.

The problem: Data manipulation, omits comparison with crops.

The real number: It takes approx 490L of non-rain or fresh water per pound of beef. Compare this to other plant-based foods in liters of fresh water per pound: Rice 360, Bread 220, Almonds 4400 (not a typo). 

The difference: They really fluffed up that claim by including rain water. So let's count freshwater only instead.

The problem with the real number: It’s also not even a good comparison as well. A pound of bread just isn’t as nourishing as a pound of beef. Meat in general is more nutrient-dense than plants. So no, it's not a big deal that beef is a little bit higher than crops on freshwater usage.

 

Claim: It takes 25kg of grain to make 1kg of beef.

The problem: Faulty comparison, fails to distinguish inedible and edible parts of a harvested plant.

The real number: It requires an average of 2.8kg of grain that we consider as also edible for us to produce 1kg of boneless beef.

The difference: Cows have an incredibly powerful digestive system that the majority of their feed, approx 98%, are things we can’t or won’t eat, like corn husks, soybean skins, oat hulls, etc. In fact, about 27% of harvested crops are things that we don’t eat anyway. Cows also make use of industrial byproducts like bakery scraps, and the leftover grains from beer production.

 

Claim: Cows (or animals in general) use up 2/3 of USA agricultural land.

The problem: Faulty comparison. Not all agricultural land is equal.

The real statement: Cows use up 2/3 of USA agricultural land because that land isn’t suitable for growing crops. 

The difference: You can’t grow anything you want at any place you want due to factors like terrain, soil quality, and climate. If the meat industry disappeared, we would just simply lose 2/3 of land that could be used for producing food. Their poop also helps grow crops in places that can grow crops.

 

Claim: 15% of GHG are from the meat industry.

The problem: Data manipulation, omits comparison with crops.

The real number: The meat industry makes up 3.9% of USA’s GHGs. Cows specifically make up 2%. Crops are at 4.7%.

The difference: They used a global average for maximum shock value. In America, it's a small percentage, even smaller than plants themselves.

 

Claim: Cow make methane. Methane bad.

The problem: Half-truth.

The real statement: Cows make a small percentage of the greenhouse gases (2.7%), but unlike industrial activity or transportation, their emissions are part of a natural cycle so that they’re not introducing more carbon into the air.

Here’s the cycle: CO2 in air, plant absorbs CO2 so plant can grow, cow eats plant, cow burp methane out, methane breaks down into CO2 and water, repeat cycle. Remember that this is a continuous cycle, so as long as their population remains stable, and in the past 20 years, it has, no, having the cows around will not pile up GHGs as long as they’re around.

 

Problem: Food Waste

What also makes methane is wasted food rotting away. One third of all food produced in the world is wasted. In the US, meat and dairy only makes up 14% of that. 

So what the fuck. With a period, not a question mark. With all the lies shot down, really just looks like meat is just being scapegoated. If these activists really want to help so badly, then go at some EV battery manufacturer, recycling facilities (if they exist) or disposals for end-of-life windfarms and solar panels or some shit, or even start spamming trees in worrisome regions. So fuck you, I'm going to eat a steak.

Rajeev Kapoor has reacted to this post.
Rajeev Kapoor

You've done a good job researching, Fuck these vegans and their shitty feelings.

I never fully understood how someone has the drive to go vegan.

I recently switched from being vegetarian for the past six years back to eating meat-- instant increase in energy and strength. I can't imagine how worse it is being a vegan.

Pure, unfiltered Capitalism is the truest and most natural state of humanity. Vote Libertarian
Quote from Peppermint Swirl on May 1, 2021, 8:36 pm

I recently switched from being vegetarian for the past six years back to eating meat-- instant increase in energy and strength. I can't imagine how worse it is being a vegan.

Some people have found their own ways to sustain that lifestyle. The word vegan itself isn't descriptive enough on how the nutrition is. In general, it's not as nutrient dense as meat, so the act of simply omitting animal products doesn't really describe how well that'll turn out. In fact, it's more likely to go wrong if people don't plan beyond just "animal product bad, any plant good." That being said, the carefree are more likely to be omnivores, which technically, by comparison, the average vegan would at least be the person trying to improve their health, although how well that works out would vary.

Not gonna shit on the vegan lifestyle entirely. Some of the remaining valid reasons would be if they just like animals to the point they don't want to eat it (aka preference), or for religious reasons, or if they tried and found their nutritionally sustainable way to maintaining that, then go for it. But those who are pushing this on everyone can go fuck themselves.

Bob Tom and Peppermint Swirl have reacted to this post.
Bob TomPeppermint Swirl