[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1620114918312.png (495.58 KB, 2130x2131, 3a3d4053a6ec198e8231d7c46c….png)

 No.219911[Last 50 Posts]

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

In a nutshell the main points:
>Actually, the amount of ressources animals consume is inflated
>Animals eat mostly stuff (like for example plant husks from agricultural production, grass etc.) which are uneatable to humans and turn those into natural fertilizer and nutritious meat
>The meat climate change argument is a smoke screen against the much bigger emissions from fossil fuels and certain industries like cement production
>Food waste (a third of current production goes to waste) is a much worse problem

But please actually watch the video, since this is only my memory from watching it once.
>>

 No.219918

Boy o boy
I'm feeling hungry
Are you feeling hungry?
>>

 No.219923

>>219911
I was already spamming links to actual eco-scientists challenging this fucking dogma of muh methane, etc. back on 8ch. Also, one of my former comrades turned into anprim and became super interested in "sustainable agriculture" over the years, while I was researching more on the nutritional side of the supposed benefits of the vegan diet. We met after our falling out a year ago and found it kekky that we arrived at the same conclusions (namely, that eating meat is actually good for people and the environment) from these two different interest points.

Muh contemporary "Malthusianism" is definitely detectable in current pseudo-scientific veganism pushed by Bill Gates & co. I'm by no means against consuming bugs or anything (one of the fixations of /pol/ as a supposed proof of a conspiracy going on), but the data actually says that animal husbrandry is a net benefit to agriculture.
>>

 No.219931

>>219911
On Kurzgesagt: this is the most "low IQ" uncritical opinion shit currently available on Youtube. Their very operation (the way by which they convince the masses) is suspect.

<nice animated pictures + randomly sourced data on Youtube = facts

I fucking hate this world, honestly.
>>

 No.219941

>>219931
>I fucking hate this world, honestly.
What did you expect? Information and education are commodities too.
>>

 No.219942

>>219941
you are completely right
>>

 No.219946

>>219931
Yeah, whenever someone unironically cites Kurzgesagt, I discard their opinion.
>>

 No.219956

Vegans mostly stay away from animal products because they despise their suffering and the whole industry around it, they don't do it "to save the planet". Anyway, this whole problem will go away in the next decade, as soon as profitable synthetic meat industry comes online.
>>

 No.219966

>>

 No.219975

File: 1620117113542.gif (1.79 MB, 200x200, 1466147067998.gif)

>>219966
>"debunked" by Mic the Vegan™
>>

 No.219978

File: 1620117154856.png (189.15 KB, 354x430, healthy human specimen.png)

>>

 No.220014

File: 1620118322945-0.png (103.33 KB, 450x380, full_1288024467nosuchthing….png)

File: 1620118322946-1.jpg (116.48 KB, 720x480, everything-but-the-oink.jpg)

>>219966
>Debunking some of their points
>IF you live in the US you don't need to worry…
The point wasn't about meat consumers in the US but in general, lol. First argument is already a goalpost moving shit.

>it disencourages people from """"""saving the planet"""""" …

(lol, because consumer choices will do that)

>… like why quit driving, why stop using plastic, why travel with airplanes less

None of which were even touched upon in OP's vid, meaning these are basic COPE points trying to establish that (supposedly superior) vegan consumer choices will trump all of these.

Eternal cope, my friend. If red lights don't get immediately buzzing in your head while watching this supposed reply vid, you are already lost and a member of a death cult (veganism) which color all of your takes.

>this is an appeal to utility fallacy

lol, wut? debunking the vegan claim that it takes so much water to grow cows while disregarding the fact that they piss out like 60% of that water in hours is now… a fallacy?! Veganism is becoming a pure cope at this point, if not worse, a fedora-tier cult.

>he [meaning the vid maker in OP] claims to be neutral but we'll see about that!

I mean you have to understand that p. much 95+% of humanity eats animal products every day and to challenge his supposed neutrality on the basis that he shits on your vegan propaganda doesn't actually make him an "anti-vegan," just a pro-95% humanity-fag.

>the fact that they made it illegal in Colorado to collect rain water abolishes the point raised by OP vid that fucking cows consume rain water by just eating water dew from grass

Is this for real? Are you mentally challenged?

We are done with the first points of your vegan influencer's "counter arguments" and they were found to be either completely idiotic if not outright demagogic.

>he assumes that ALL the water consumed by the cow is peed out

LOL where THE FUCK is this assumed?! Which serious "pro-carnist" biologist would say this?

Pure derangement syndrome right here.

I'm in 03:10 in your vid and already your faggot lied to or manipulated his audience 7 times. No shit I'm closing your vid.

Get a fucking reality check, you cultist! Lmao.
>>

 No.220018

File: 1620118457695.png (61.61 KB, 256x206, Untitled.png)

>>

 No.220021

>>220018 (you)
>>

 No.220038

File: 1620119141621.webm (666.69 KB, 648x494, guilt.webm)

>>219966
>muh GUILT
is veganism a Christian cult now?

I can tell you I love vegetables AND meat and I feel no guilt eating either. Moreover, even if I bought Nike shoes made by African sweatshop child labor I would feel ZERO """"""GUILT""""""" you fucking cultist.
>>

 No.220053

>>220014
>forced to nitpick to quit the video asap before their shitty meat video is BTFO by actual studies
I'm closing your thread now. Stay ignorant
>>

 No.220055

>>220053
>"nitpicking" is when you detect 7 demagogic arguments in under 3 minutes of a youtube vid
>>

 No.220059

Maybe y'all should consult the encyclopedia instead of rotting your brain with youtube videos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
>>

 No.220063

People are always ready to listen to somebody telling them they don't have to change
>>

 No.220064

>>220059
Yes, because it's not like wiki articles are made by same kind of ignorant retards who make youtube videos.
>>

 No.220067

>>220059
wikipedia is a definitely reliable resource when it comes to topics that are currently hotly debated, lol

>>220063
<MUH MEANINGFUL CHANGE IN CONSUMER PATTERNS
very radical, indeed
>>

 No.220069

>>220064
yeah but those ignorant retards actually have to clearly reference everything they write, on OP's video you have to go to his fucking patreon to get the sources, this is a joke.
>>

 No.220071

File: 1620120602606.mp4 (6.03 MB, 640x360, vegan.mp4)

>>

 No.220073

>>220069
>yeah but those ignorant retards actually have to clearly reference everything they write
Which makes a lick of difference because they don't understand what the sources they reference mean, nor do they conduct any metaanalysis. So, cherry picking and misinterpreting sources with the pretense of being an expert. Not that different from youtube videos.
>>

 No.220074

>>220067
>wikipedia is a definitely reliable resource when it comes to topics that are currently hotly debated, lol

Actually yes if you're not braindead and consult the reference section as well as the talk page
>>

 No.220075

File: 1620120698060-0.webm (4.88 MB, 640x360, vegan_activist.webm)

File: 1620120698060-1.webm (5.05 MB, 600x336, #DisruptSpeciesism - Kell….webm)

File: 1620120698060-2.webm (5.27 MB, 384x216, Animal_rights_and_hot_dog….webm)

File: 1620120698060-3.webm (7.43 MB, 960x540, environmentalist star war….webm)

>>

 No.220079

>>220074
Link to a pubmed article does not really equate with a scientific consensus.

With articles on history they do reference sources too, but if you are not well versed in history, you wouldn't pick up that reference to Solzhenitsin or Conquest is a red flag. If you are not a specialist in the field, you wouldn't be able to understand what constitutes a good source and what isn't.
>>

 No.220080

>>220074
for sure Wikipedia is reliable when it comes to hotly debated topics. For example: the case of Holodomor. While the cutting edge historian researchers of this topic firmly deny that it had anything to do with a "state enforced genocide" (Davies, Wheatcroft) the wiki page stays uneditable to people who would suggest that it can not qualify for "genocide".

As for nutrition? Well sure, not that there was a long detectable series of "scientists" being bought by multinational companies to publish desirable results by them.

Wikipedia = facts.

Everybody who even asserts its otherwise is a schizo!
>>

 No.220084

File: 1620121258313.webm (7.64 MB, 480x250, Based Finkelstein.webm)

>>220075
>2nd webm about le epic vegan activist is same person as in this webm
>>

 No.220085

>>220080
IIRC even Conquest had to back up from his claim about state enforced genocide. Not that it affected anything, really.

> Well sure, not that there was a long detectable series of "scientists" being bought by multinational companies to publish desirable results by them.

Or the really obvious push in the all kinds of media about how climate change is because of cows.
>>

 No.220088

>>220073
>>220079
>>220080
Everybody sane knows the limits of wikipedia. Btw there is litteraly an article on the holomodor genocide debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question

Anyway to get back to the matter at hands the meat industry is clearly really bad for the environment and the health of a lot of people, it's just what we don't clearly know how bad it is.
>>

 No.220091

>>220088
>Anyway to get back to the matter at hands the meat industry is clearly really bad for the environment and the health of a lot of people
No, not more than any other food industry under capitalism. Monoculture for example is downright destructive.
>>

 No.220093

File: 1620121750237.png (60.43 KB, 1399x205, Screenshot_20210504_164820.png)

>>220088
>Btw there is litteraly an article on the holomodor genocide debate
And it is just as shitty
>>

 No.220095

>>220088
>Btw there is litteraly an article on the holomodor genocide debate
Fair and all, but when it comes to randos searching on google for the first time about "holodomor" guess which wiki article pops up first and which gets buried?

>the meat industry is clearly really bad for the environment

Central heating is clearly really bad for the environment. Abolish central heating!

>meat is [bad for the] health of a lot of people

LOL. Pure pseudo-science.
>>

 No.220096

File: 1620121859704-0.png (38.91 KB, 1200x643, производство мяса.png)

File: 1620121859704-1.png (123.8 KB, 283x267, porky.png)

>>219911
Nah, can't have the proles eat nice food like beef. Better feed them something cheap like chicken. Or better yet, bugs and soy. Just make a convincing cover up story about the environment or something, and they'll buy it.
>>

 No.220103

>>220096
Everything to keep that rate of profit up, innit?
>>

 No.220105

>>220095
1.There's a whole section on the main article that redirects to thie one
2. Meat production is responsible for 15%-ish of human CO2 emissions, kind of a big deal given we could do mostly without
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health

>>220093
It wouldn't be a debate if it was one sided
>>

 No.220111

>>220105
>It wouldn't be a debate if it was one sided
Are you pretending to be a retard or are you actually one? If there would be anything resembling a honest debate the section on Conquest would be several pages long with all cases about how he intentionally misinterprets his sources or straight our lies about them. Instead it is a little paragraph where it looks like Conquest can even properly respond to criticism.

It's like making a "debate" between flat earthers and scientists to show that "everybody had good points to make". manufacturing consent at it's finest.
>>

 No.220112

>>220080
>Wikipedia = fact because it furthers a Nazi conspiracy theory and actively blocks evidence, which debunks it
I can't be reading this right.
>>

 No.220114

>>220112
>I can't be reading this right.
I believe this anon is being sarcastic.
>>

 No.220118

>>220114
You can never be sure with non-flag posters. Some people can truly be this unself-aware in their stupidity.
>>

 No.220124

>>220111
He is an official historian who did college work on the subject, for wikipedia it doesn't matter how flawed it is. If some college teachers do papers on the flat earth it's for other teachers to debunk so the scientific community can come to a consensus, and it can be painful and long. Meanwhile wikipedia writers just put the different views on the website. It can be shitty and flawed but I don't make the rules it's just how it is.
>>

 No.220129

>>220105
>Meat production is responsible for 15%-ish of human CO2 emissions
Means literally NOTHING when we take into account that cows are part and parcel of the biosphere, meaning animals pissing on the field, animals shitting (i.e. fertilizing) on the field, and so on. Muh "we die cuz Cows" meme was completely scientifically bunk 15 years ago, friend.

>3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health

<Wikipedia is actually known to carefully follow scientific research instead of lobbying to big multinational company paid "findings" or big gov. "findings"
Again: if you ever link wiki on issues like this you are perfectly lost.

>>220112
>I can't be reading this right.
true, you are physically unable to critically assess information
>>

 No.220134

>>220124
>for wikipedia it doesn't matter how flawed it is.
Which is why wikipedia doesn't matter to anyone who wants to actually understand how the world works.
>It can be shitty and flawed but I don't make the rules it's just how it is.
But you are not against using it to support your own asinine views. Got it.
>>

 No.220144

File: 1620123386673.jpg (64.15 KB, 720x735, 565vle2cgsa61.jpg)

>>

 No.220157

>>220144
vegan cope: the post
>>

 No.220171

>>220091
What the fuck do you think the vast majority of soy grown is used for? Fucking vegan milk? Sustenance of the absurd amount of meat consumption in the Western world depends on monoculture. Corn, soy, obscene amounts of fertilizer, antibiotics, these are all used in vast amounts by the meat and dairy industry.
>>

 No.220182

>>220171
The fact that meat is made out of soy is another argument against it.
>>

 No.220208

File: 1620125424950-0.jpg (91.35 KB, 600x400, хрущёв.jpg)

>>220171
What do you have against corn, fuckwit?
>>

 No.220241

>>220171
Except they are fed mostly a byproducts of agriculture. Stop trying to pretend you know shit.
>>

 No.220265

File: 1620126938784.png (148.4 KB, 1083x519, 1.png)

>>220171
let them graze free, you humongous faggot
>>

 No.220351

82% of the world’s starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals that are then killed and eaten by more well off individuals in developed countries like the US, UK, and in Europe.
http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/the-world-hunger-food-choice-connection-a-summary/
>>

 No.220374

>>220351
Isn't EU quite protectionist about its food with their common agricultural policy? And the US can certainly more than feed itself with all its vast land and immense corn production. They literally have so much crops, they make fuel out of excess. I call bullshit. Besides, the article is old, in the last decade famine has become much less of a problem with many countries beating agricultural production records year after year.
>>

 No.220380

>>220374
Yeah it's old, but in other news the amazon rainforest is currently being burned into a savanna to make way for cattle farms so Brazil can export more meat.
>>

 No.220389

>>220380
True, but Brazil is not known for its starving children.
>>

 No.220397

>>220351
>82% of the world’s starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals
literally has nothing to do with the nutritional value or sustainability of animal meat, lmao
>>

 No.220402

File: 1620130871824.jpg (57.17 KB, 960x516, retard_pepe_silica_balls.jpg)

>>

 No.220419

>>220351
And they would STILL starve even we stop eating meat on the whole planet. It's not because the choice of food, it is because of capitalism. We are already producing more than enough food to feed everybody on earth and more, it's not the problem of production, it is the problem of distribution.
>>

 No.220423

File: 1620131763286-0.png (45.51 KB, 758x532, calories.PNG)

>>220402
I don't eat silica gel, you silly frogposter. I eat steaks.
>>220419
Way more on certain continents…
>>

 No.220444

vegans are closeted hitlerists
>>

 No.220599

big if true
>>

 No.220602

>>220444
We're not the ones running a permanent holocaust for animals
>>

 No.220696

>>220602
thats right, youd love to holocaust the people ruining your environment and killing the animals you love instead and thats why you need to be put down before your misanthropic hatred kills the rest of us
>>

 No.220714

>>220696
Calm down with the strawmen, no one here is proposing to cull omnivores. Western standards of meat consumption will need to be altered, doesn't mean that you can't eat any animal products at all. You are the only one proposing to kill people based on the diet they choose.
>>

 No.220721

>>220714
i dont care. kill all vegans
>>

 No.220745

>>219956

Tbh I dislike the moral argument more. I can understand not wanting to see animals suffering, but that is specifically just a preference regarding suffering. It doesn’t really have any necessary moral implication, anymore than disliking seeing couples break up means you think it is immoral for couples to break up. But morality is an ideal of behavior that is flexible in practice and binds humans socially. It’s that projected other than you hold in you judging your self, which seems pretty common and natural in the cognition of humans. Moral ideals shift, even if some big ones relating to just about any social configuration remains pretty similar across time. It might be in the future it is widely considered immoral to eat meat or farmed meat because there are high quality artificial alternatives, so it is considered kind of frivolous. But right now it is a common moral value to diminish suffering, as in people just want to know that their farmed meat isn’t abused or killed in a savage way. Obviously farmed meat is abused and often killed sloppily, and people feel uncomfortable with that. But that doesn’t translate to “farming animals bad” because the moral principle is to diminish animal suffering, not eliminate it. Animals serve human self-fulfillment, and animal agriculture (or keeping pets or zoos) is a part of present human culture. It has a function as the content for some of our social belonging. If it is ever going to go away it’ll be because of real changes in the limits or possibilities of social reproduction, like the ability to make cheap artificial meat substitutes (more sophisticated than we have now for things like steak, though the vegan burgers like Impossible and Beyond Meat are flooding my local grocery stores so that is an example of it happening in one area). It won’t be because people were shamed into it by unmoored abstract principles.
>>

 No.220747

>>220444
No it's just another idpol, if you stick to the special diet you get to declare yourself as superior to the rest of society, and condemn others for their protein sins. Veganpol has no effect on capitalist production, it's actively blaming the consumers, instead of the people who actually control the means of production. It might actually make change less likely because it prevents even mild liberal levels of political pressure on capitalists.
>>

 No.220781

ITT: people so weak and insecure that they shit on vegans and justify their addiction to meat.
Are you people really that adverse to introducing kale and tofu into your diet?

Veganism isn't going to save the world, but anybody who is vaguely aware of the respective horrors of the meat and fish industries should at least recognize that they're contributing to the problem via generating consumer demand. Plus, vegetarian diets are healthier if you can get your macros right.

I'm not a full vegan–I eat meat on occasion and use dairy products & eggs–but I try to eat vegetarian as much as possible for health reasons. My suggestion to anons is to treat meat as an addiction; don't go cold turkey and quit. Taper off it.
>>

 No.220840

>>220781
The capitalists control production, they are responsible. People that just eat the food have absolutely no responsibility.
You however are complicit in the:
>the respective horrors of the meat and fish industries
because you protect the capitalists from political pressure, and ensure that nothing will change.
>>

 No.220846

>>219911
Eating meat is one thing but how the animals are farmed and their welfare is another
>>

 No.220851

>>220840
>protect the capitalists from political pressure, and ensure that nothing will change

oh yes, buying tofu instead of chicken at the supermarket really protects those capitalists, huh? Again, I'm not an individualist that think the world will be saved if everyone went vegan. I'm just saying that if you are cognizant of the states of the meat & fish industries AND have the means of eating vegetarian/vegan (i.e., I don't look down on poorer proletariats whom depend on meat to survive), then I don't see how you can gobble down cartloads of meat and fish without feeling a tinge of remorse or guilt.
>>

 No.220860

>>220851
To add, I'm not against eating meat at all; it's natural for humans. I agree with >>220846, the problem lays in the animal's welfare. I have no qualms of eating venison from cull deer that I hunt at my ranch for population control.
>>

 No.220878

>>220851
And if you are cognizant of the states of the crop industry i don't see how you can gobble dowsn cartloads of sugar, chocolate or even wheat without feeling a ringe os remorse or guilt.

I am all for reducing animals suffering, but there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, mate, don't lie to yourself.
>>

 No.220906

>>220878
>states of the crop industry
link? Genuinely curious to read about it.

>sugar, chocolate

I don't really consume those. I use honey for sugar. I do eat wheat; who can avoid wheat lol.

>no ethical consumption under capitalism

I never said there was. Don't put words into my mouth.
>>

 No.220938

>>220851
> I don't see how you can gobble down cartloads of meat and fish without feeling a tinge of remorse or guilt.
I don't control food production, i have no responsibility for it. There is no reason for me to feel guilty for actions that are not mine. Now apologize for your toxic behavior towards me.
>huh? Again, I'm not an individualist that think the world will be saved if everyone went vegan.
Every-time you suggest that somebody else than capitalists is responsible for capitalist production standards you are shielding them from political pressure and you are enforcing the status quo. I know this is hard for you, if you can't make yourself feel as a better person by down-preaching on others. But here is the rub: people like you are actively propagating capitalist meat production. Somebody who eats meat 3 times a day while pressuring capitalists to improve on production or working towards overthrowing capitalism for socialist production, is altogether a more effective agent against animal cruelty than you.
>>

 No.220951

>>220906
>link? Genuinely curious to read about it.
tl;dr the way we do our farming right now is destroying fertility of the earth (due to monoculture), kills almost everything around it (due to herbicides and pesticides) and depletes ground water supplies. All around it does way mor damage to the environment and in the end to animal suffering than even meat industry. Not to mention stuff like child and slave labor, that is just cherry on top.

>I don't really consume those.

You do, just no directly. Sugar definitely.

>I never said there was.

The only logical implication of your posts is that the way you consume is more ethical that the way meat eaters consume. Don't try to wiggle out of that.

I am not even gonna touch antiscientific claims about this diet being more healthier. It isn't.
>>

 No.220996

>>220938
>I don't control food production, i have no responsibility for it.
I never said I did. But, you do have control over what you eat.
>Every-time you suggest that somebody else than capitalists is responsible for capitalist production standards you are shielding them from political pressure and you are enforcing the status quo.
How am I doing this? Explain. I never suggested that the core of the problem lies in the individual and not the producers. I am only arguing that–if you have the means–you have no excuse to at least try to eat more vegetarian. If not for moral's sake, do it for health's sake. You have provided no argument against this.
>Somebody who eats meat 3 times a day while pressuring capitalists to improve on production or working towards overthrowing capitalism for socialist production, is altogether a more effective agent against animal cruelty than you
Your original argument on which this statement is based on is moot since you were arguing against a strawman. Therefore, this statement is moot as well as you have no argument against my original positions. That said, for the sake of argument I'll say this: convincing yourself that eating a bunch of meat is somehow "better" for the world than not eating meat is some impressive mental gymanistics. I'm sure the meat industry is very happy you think this way.

>>220951
>All around it does way mor damage to the environment and in the end to animal suffering than even meat industry
Provide support for this claim, or I'll assume you're talking out of your ass.

>sugar

By sugar, I meant that I actively try to avoid consuming foods & drinks with processed corn syrup and refined sugars. Of course, I'm sure some material gets past the cracks, but I avoid consuming these ingredients for health reasons.

>only logical implication of your posts is that the way you consume is more ethical that the way meat eaters consume

I disagree. I literally said that I don't judge anybody (e.g., poor proletariats) who depend on consuming meat to survive. I recognize that trying to incorporate a vegetarian lifestyle is really only possible for people higher up in the labor aritocracy. That said, most of here most likely fit in the category of having the ability to at least eat more plant-based foods in lieu of overconsumption of meat. You are mischaracterizing what I said.

As for health, I did a cursory internet search. I found: https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/is-it-better-to-be-a-vegetarian. Quote:
<In terms of nutritional requirements, being a lacto-ovo vegetarian isn’t all that different from being a meat-eater, according to Katherine Tallmadge, RD, LD, past media spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics … following a vegetarian diet “can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating,” says Tallmadge. “It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health.”

Do you have any scientific evidence that refutes this?
>>

 No.221030

>>220996
>Provide support for this claim, or I'll assume you're talking out of your ass.
Not really interested in proving anything. If you really are interested in truth you can do some research on your own by just googling keywords i provided.

>You are mischaracterizing what I said.

Maybe you are not the self-aware type then. Ask other anons what did they thought about your posts maybe.

>I did a cursory internet search.

Good for you.

>Do you have any scientific evidence that refutes this?

Refute what, that adding veggies to your diet can be beneficial? Not really what i was arguing about. It's like you lot think that diet with meat is like diet with ONLY meat or something. The only way vegan diet can be healthier than diet with meat and other animal product is if they are damaging to your health for some reason. Otherwise adding additional source of nutrients (often easier digestable) and proteins to you diet is not gonna be less healthy than removing it.
>>

 No.221053

>>221030
>not really interested in proving anything
Then what is the point in your discourse? Just to shitpost mindlessly? If you have claims, back them up with evidence or don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.
>Ask other anons what did they thought about your posts
An ad populum argument that depends on one other person. Pretty lame, Milhouse.
>adding veggies to your diet can be beneficial
Another strawman. From what I quoted: "following a vegetarian diet 'can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating….'" See id. Again, you have failed to refute this.

Furthermore, you contended that "The only way vegan diet can be healthier than diet with meat and other animal product is if they are damaging to your health for some reason." This is incorrect. Another anon quoted this link and I refer you to it as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health. You just have to read the first few sentences:
<There is concern and debate regarding the potential association of meat, in particular red and processed meat, with a variety of health risks. A study of 400,000 subjects conducted by the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition and published in 2013 showed "a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also to cancer." This clearly shows that meat–especially processed meats–can have negative health effects. Do you have any evidence to refute this, or will you continue shitposting with baseless conjecture?
>>

 No.221058

>>220996
>I never said I did. But, you do have control over what you eat.
What i eat is irrelevant. I'm not mistreating any animals, you need to stop hinting that i do that and apologize.
>How am I doing this? Explain.
Unless you stop blaming people for the food they eat, and start putting pressure on capitalists and nobody but capitalists, you are part of the problem.
>I'll say this: convincing yourself that eating a bunch of meat is somehow "better" for the world than not eating meat is
That is a strawman argument, i said that what you eat doesn't matter, because what matters is who decides over production. Your political position is fundamentally aligned with capitalism because you blame consumers, which have no control. It doesn't matter what you eat, it doesn't make a difference to the system.
>>

 No.221098

>>221053
>Then what is the point in your discourse?
To see what i can learn from other people. I have done shitload of discussions with vegans already and you are not the most impressive in terms of knowledge, so i don't want to go at it again. I have nothing to gain from it and if you really want to educate on the subject i provided you with enough starter info to go on from. Though, seeing that you didn't even research vegan diet before going for it, i have my doubts about wherever you actually gonna do it. Webmd article? Seriously?

>An ad populum argument that depends on one other person.

I mean, if you want to know how you arguments are percieved, you need to ask other people, no?

>From what I quoted: "following a vegetarian diet 'can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating….'" See id. Again, you have failed to refute this.

It is not a proof, it is a claim. I explained what you need to actually prove for this claim.

>cancer studies

Misinterpretation. Red meat was assigned 2A category, meaning that effect is possbile but not yet proved. Processed meat was assigned category 1, meaning there is a cancerogenic effect, but the thing is the effect in itself is pretty small. Categorization is done by the strength of the evidence to cancerogenic effect, not by the strength of the effect itself. And if you would look at the full list you would find at least half of your diet in the categories 1 and 2.

Have i told you that i have done these debates to death?
>>

 No.221142

>>221058
>stop hinting that i do that and apologize.
No, get a grip. I didn't know meat addicts were this sensitive.
>start putting pressure on the capitalists
Making people aware of the downfalls of over-production of meat and to stop buying products from the capitalists IS putting pressure on the capitalists. What are you doing instead?
>That is a strawman argument
No it isn't, you literally said, quote, "Somebody who eats meat 3 times a day while pressuring capitalists to improve on production or working towards overthrowing capitalism for socialist production, is altogether a more effective agent against animal cruelty than you." As it stands, you have provided no argument against this.

>>221098
>To see what i can learn from other people.
So when others want to learn from you, your response is to "google it"? Quite the hypocrite you are. All you've done is throw about insults and baseless conjecture.
>know how you arguments are percieved, you need to ask other people, no?
just because one other person is mischaracterizing my arguments in a similar manner does not mean you are in any way correct.
>It is not a proof, it is a claim.
It's a quote from a scientifically renowned website from a literal scientist who knows much more about this topic than you do. The onus of proof is on you to show that the scientist is wrong.
>misinterpretation
The one misnterpretating is you. I'm going to ignore your "categories" as (a) you've provided 0 proof for the existence of these categories and (b) they have nothing to do with the study at hand.

Direct quotes from the study:
<We estimated that 3.3% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.0%) of deaths could be prevented if all participants had a processed meat consumption of less than 20 g/day. Significant associations with processed meat intake were observed for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and 'other causes of death'.
<The results of our analysis support a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also to cancer.

Again, do you have any proof to refute this scientific study?

>Have i told you that i have done these debates to death?

Then it's quite embarassing that your arguments are so weak.
>>

 No.221203

>>221142
>Quite the hypocrite you are.
Educating people against their will is a pointless enterprise. And you don't want to be educated, you want another internet "debate" where we sling "proofs" at each other without even trying to do some research or without having any qualification to actually understand what those "proofs" mean.

Exhibit A
>you've provided 0 proof for the existence of these categories
Google "IARC classification". The fact that you don't know what the hell it is proves that you are a layman with zero qualifications to make any conclusion from a scientific article about cancerogenic effect of some food. You can look it up and see what categories does food from your diet belong to.

>All you've done is throw about insults and baseless conjecture.

The claim is "without product A the diet is healthier than with product A", so the only conclusion is that the product A is somehow harmful.

>Again, do you have any proof to refute this scientific study?

Which is not even about meat in general, but about processed meat, meaning it is not some fresh meat that you roasted, boiled or cooked in some other way, it is referring to meat that was made to be long lasting by smoking, fermenting, adding certain type of preservatives etc. And consumed above certain quantities. Understanding context for those kind of studies is important to understand what conclusions can you make from it. I can also mention that those kind of studies about potential statistical health detrimental effect exist for many, many kind of products. If it is not cancer, it is alzheimer or heart diseases or whatever.

>just because one other person

Ask more than one then. I am not even sure where did you get "one person" from, since i used the word "anons". Plural.

>Then it's quite embarassing that your arguments are so weak.

It's just you being ignorant.
>>

 No.221290

>>221203
>Educating people against their will is a pointless enterprise.
I asked you before that I was interested in learning more about a topic and I asked you for reading material. You told me to just "google it" as if what you claimed was common sense. The only one here that wants to pointlessly argue–with no basis in material reality–is you.
>muh "IARC classifications"
this is irrelevant to the topic at hand and a shift of the goalposts. For the sake of argument, I will point out that you admitted yourself that meat is carcinogenic.
>about processed meat
I.e., most meat that people consume. Again, I was never arguing against eating meat completely. Either you have poor reading skills or are intentionally constructing strawman after strawman because you have no argument with a factual basis.

Once again, you post zero substance and argue against a strawman. Truly a worthless poster.

Since you are incapable of reading, here is my position in clear terms for everyone to see:

The meat and fishing industries are responsible for a litany of problems ranging from biodiversity collapse to global warming. Furthermore, the products of these industries are deleterious to human health. As I have shown, meat–especially processed ones–can be carcinogenic if overconsumed. Additionally, fish can be harmful as well (e.g., microplastics, mercury, etc.), though not to the extent of meat. People who have the means to do so should at least attempt to not overconsume meat and fish for at least health reasons if not anti-capitalist reasons. Furthemore, "dunking" on vegetarianans and vegans is counterproductive at best and reactionary at worst, as such arguments are not only unscientific but they promote positions that aid the industrial capitalists. Accordingly, leftists should not defend overconsumption of meat and fish.

If you disagree with these positions, then provide an argument and factual basis against them. Any further "arguments" from you should be directed towards these statements and not towards strawmen.
>>

 No.221324

>>221142
>No, get a grip. I didn't know meat addicts were this sensitive.
Yup it's a bad faith argument, your motives aren't about the environment or animal cruelty, you just get a dopamine rush when you get to shit on people.
>Making people aware of the downfalls of over-production of meat and to stop buying products from the capitalists IS putting pressure on the capitalists.
The vote with your wallet meme. If you stop eating meat the mega corporations that makes it will advertise to another consumer demographic. Vegan advocates like you make that very easy for them because you are aggressive preachy assholes that try to bully and dehumanize with guilt trips. Everybody hates to be treated like that. Just talking to a vegan like you makes me want to eat a sausage. You treat people like shit.
>No it isn't, you literally said, quote, "Somebody who eats meat 3 times a day while pressuring capitalists to improve on production or working towards overthrowing capitalism for socialist production, is altogether a more effective agent against animal cruelty than you." As it stands, you have provided no argument against this.
The only thing that matters is changing production, because that is where the animal abuse and the environmental damage happens. Eating comes after, once all the damage has already happened. If you think eating meat retroactively causes the destruction you are a crazy ideologue.
>>

 No.221330

>>220781
>anybody who is vaguely aware of the respective horrors of the meat and fish industries should at least recognize that they're contributing to the problem via generating consumer demand.
Are you really implying we should vote with our wallets to address factory farming? Are you implying there is ethical consumption under capitalism?

>meat is an addiction

Then all of my ancestors, and their ancestors, and their ancestors before them were addicts. This is stupid. Humans naturally eat meat. So too do cats and dogs. Are those animals addicts, too?

Veganism is a cult, my friends.
>>

 No.221342

>>221290
>I.e., most meat that people consume.
No. You should've read what i wrote about it.

>Furthemore, "dunking" on vegetarianans … reactionary at worst

At least i got a good laugh.
>>

 No.221346

>>221330
>Are you implying there is ethical consumption under capitalism?
He will backpedal on this question when asked directly, but then will try to argue for it again and again.
>>

 No.221365

>>220906
honey isn't vegan, my man
anyways i'm with you on this whole thing. the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" shtick is a cheap excuse for armchair revolutionaries to not move a single finger because once the [s]messiah[/s] revolution comes (any second now) all the world's problems will solve themselves on their own, but until then there's nothing anyone can do.
>>

 No.221402

>>220906
>>I never said there was. Don't put words into my mouth.
>>220781
>> anybody who is vaguely aware of the respective horrors of the meat and fish industries should at least recognize that they're contributing to the problem via generating consumer demand.

>the problem with the meat and fish industry are contributed to by consumers consuming the wrong things!!

factory farming the consequence solely of capital, not of consumers. to suggest otherwise is literally arguing that there can be ethical consumption under capitalism, that we should vote with our wallets. The fact that you keep implying this exposes your cultish beliefs. You don't wish to establish scientific socialism, you wish to promote ascetic lifestyles to create hippie dippy utopia.
>>

 No.221409

>>221324
>acuses me of making a bad faith argument
>characterizes me as "aggressive preachy assholes that try to bully and dehumanize with guilt trips"
Really makes me think.
>only thing that matters is changing production
>willingly overconsumes meat to own the libs, thus incentivizing the meat industry to produce more
Where is the logic? Also, read >>221290, as you are also mischaracterizing my arguments.
Also,
>Just talking to a vegan like you makes me want to eat a sausage
You are a petulant child.

>>221330
>Are you really implying we should vote with our wallets? Are you implying there is ethical consumption under capitalism?
No. Learn to read. See >>221290

And yes, if you are overeating meat despite knowing that it's bad (for your health or for moral reasons), then you are addicted to it. That is the definition of addiction.

>>221342
>You should've read what i wrote about it.
I did, and I already argued against it. If you have proof that most people eat unprocessed and ethically killed meat, I'd love to see it.

>>221365
well yeah, I'm not vegan. Still, I agree with the rest of your post, comrade.
>>

 No.221413

>>221409
>Really makes me think.
I wish.
>>

 No.221423

>>221409
>>No. Learn to read. See
>you can fight capitalism by consuming in the RIGHT way and I happen to know the right way to consume so as to fight capitalism
You are so very deluded.
>>

 No.221428

File: 1620158414747.mp4 (135.91 KB, 640x640, mikuhatsune.mp4)

>>221409
Leave it to liberals to tell the rest of us how to carry ourselves, what products to buy, and what foods to eat that we may defeat the forces of bad vibes.
>>

 No.221465

>>221423
>>221428
Stop arguing strawmans and mischaracterizing my arguments. If you disagree with me, point to parts of my argument that you disagree with and provide reasons and preferably evidence for why my positions are wrong. If not, then stop shitting up this board with low-level discourse.
>>

 No.221471

>>221465
>If not, then stop shitting up this board with low-level discourse.
really interesting how you can say this while also maintaining that the state of the meat industry is the fault of consumers doing the consumption wrong. remain upset
>>

 No.221480

>>221465
>provide reasons and preferably evidence for why my positions are wrong.
We all did. You are just impervious to reason.
>stop shitting up this board with low-level discourse.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>>

 No.221561


Billionaire with 20 private jets and yachts: Yeah man you better stop eating that steak if you want to see dolphins in the future.
>>

 No.221590

The consequences of meat consumption have nothing to do with people consuming meat. It is all about capitalism. The fact that capitalism exists absolves you of all responsibility for any action that involves the exchange of money. Can't believe this has to be stated on a "leftist" forum, and Intbriganon doing the meat industry's bidding by suggesting that people eat less meat is a total disgrace.
>>

 No.221617

I found a Reddit comment from eight years ago that expresses the same viewpoint that I do. I recommend reading it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/18n2k5/what_do_folks_here_think_of_veganism_and_the/c8gari8/

A pertinent quote:
<However, I feel as though the topic of vegetarianism and veganism can drop off very quickly into some very bad materialism: if you're a petit bourgeois comrade with the means of living veggie or vegan, and instead of considering it you simply claim "the working class can't be vegetarian so I won't be vegetarian" then that's some pretty clear class essentialism/proletarian asceticism in my eyes.
>>

 No.221618

File: 1620161936464.jpg (531.21 KB, 800x727, Baudrillard if only you kn….jpg)

>>221590
I laughed, but then I remembered this is how a lot of people on here actually think.
>>

 No.223166

>>221365
I'm not trying to strawman you but the fact so many vegans are fine with capitalism but are against expropriating the surplus value of BEES is perhaps illustrative of the differences between communism and veganism
>>

 No.223177

>>221618
ok radlib
>>

 No.224569

>>223166
You have not provided any criticism of veganism, you are merely observing that not every vegan is a communist. In my experience none of the vegans who are passionate about the rightful place of the bees' surplus value are fine with capitalism.

There are some people who predicate their veganism on the notion of consent, and it is perhaps possible to reconcile this with capitalism because capitalist exploitation can transpire in the presence of consent. But this again would not be a critique of veganism in general.
>>

 No.224634

We're absolutely fucked
>>

 No.226357

Vegans are insufferable. They've ruined at least one online leftist space with their idiotic struggle sessions. Animals have jack shit to do with socialism.

I think the cringiest, most eye rolling moment of my life was when I was called a fucking 'carnist' and 'bloodmouth'
>>

 No.226479

cope murderer
animals are for sexual not food
>>

 No.226497

>>219931
They're literally paid by Bill and Melinda Gates foundation lol
>>

 No.226584

File: 1620310757120.png (135.69 KB, 1313x701, 1620132892043.png)

>>226479
help! I've been obliterated by the dogpill!
>>

 No.226633

>>226357
>Animals have jack shit to do with socialism.
They actually have a lot to do with it and their role is only going to become more prominent as climate change intensifies.

Unique IPs: 34

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]