Ido talking about not training with vegans

Never understood the hate against Vegans.

The meat industry is one of the most damaging sources of climate change on this planet

I don't think I could go vegan, but if I did it wouldn't be to "feel good" or whatever.

It would be for the environment

Veganism is good for the environment, the only problem is that vegans tend to be of the preachy time and also tend to be SJW creampuffs, both of which are super annoying.

This is why by association, many people can't suffer vegans.
 
There's no scientific data that proves of a God, there are things to consider like all matter comes from existent matter and there are no examples of something being created from nothing. We could discuss this all day long, but essentially neither of us know the answers. I don't necessarily believe our limited senses and perception are the be all and end all of what exists and what doesn't.. What is "nothing" lol? There is no "nothing"..
What is your point? Are we debating God vs Atheism here or whether killing innocent things is cool? lol.
If God existed he would be an entity how is that so hard to comprehend? You literally chose the worst hill to die on because your claim is literally contradictory to the very definition of ethics, and you still can't admit that you were wrong.
You have zero consistency in your arguments, you keep going back and forward with your contradictory claims.
Now you're back at using "innocence", and again plants are innocent. Then you're gonna say "but they don't have brains and nervous system which measures pain" then don't use "innocence" as an argument but "brains and nervous system which measures pain". Which reminds me that you still haven't explained your contradiction:
If the brain and the nervous system matter because they're measures of pain, than what ultimately matters is pain, if you can avoid pain in animal, what's wrong with killing him?
 


Even a shaolin monk dont like the ldea of being vegan.
 
If God existed he would be an entity how is that so hard to comprehend? You literally chose the worst hill to die on because your claim is literally contradictory to the very definition of ethics, and you still can't admit that you were wrong.
You have zero consistency in your arguments, you keep going back and forward with your contradictory claims.
Now you're back at using "innocence", and again plants are innocent. Then you're gonna say "but they don't have brains and nervous system which measures pain" then don't use "innocence" as an argument but "brains and nervous system which measures pain". Which reminds me that you still haven't explained your contradiction:
If the brain and the nervous system matter because they're measures of pain, than what ultimately matters is pain, if you can avoid pain in animal, what's wrong with killing him?
So it's okay to kill any living being, as long as the death is painless?

Is that what you want to say?
 
How so? Do B12 supplements not exist?

Or are you trying to imply that things that are made by humans are worse than things that occur naturally?
Because if that's the case, i assume you also don't take any medicine, as it's not growing on trees, right?
Your diet literally doesn't have an essential vitamin so you have to take supplements to compensate because it's incomplete.
It's like eating only carbs and saying your diet is complete because you're drinking protein shakes kek
You gave literally the worst example haha we take medicine when there's something bad happening with our body, and yes there's something wrong with your (edit)body(edit), it's your diet that's why you have to take supplements.
 
So it's okay to kill any living being, as long as the death is painless?

Is that what you want to say?
I never said that, "pain" was his standard not mine. If his standard is "pain" he has to be consistent with it.
 
does he go into why he drank own piss an fasted for 35 days
Fasting is one of the best things people can do baw. 35 days is on the very extreme end of it, but the science tells us that fasting for 24 or so hours can increase male human growth hormone by 24 times and up to 16 times in women. Humans have evolved from having large periods of time without any food, so to think we need 3 meals a day or 6 meals a day is dated. When your body is full of food, it takes a lot of energy to digest the food, and if you are eating food all day throughout the day, your body is in a state of constant digestion. Now if you eat say one massive meal (all your daily caloric needs in one meal, buffet style) a day, you aren't going to be in a constant state of digestion during your waking hours, which will in turn give you more energy.

Also fasting causes your body to start burning fat for fuel instead of using carbs, which is the superior fuel for the body. Carbs provide 4 calories per gram while fat is more than double that with 9 calories. Another outdated way of thinking is that fats are bad for you, when in fact sugars are the real enemy.
 
Your diet literally doesn't have an essential vitamin so you have to take supplements to compensate because it's incomplete.
It's like eating only carbs and saying your diet is complete because you're drinking protein shakes kek
You gave literally the worst example haha we take medicine when there's something bad happening with our body, and yes there's something wrong with your diet that's why you have to take supplements.
A supplement can absolutely be part of the diet, what are you talking about?
<{outtahere}>
It's also very telling that this seems to be one of your arguments against veganism.
 
If God existed he would be an entity how is that so hard to comprehend? You literally chose the worst hill to die on because your claim is literally contradictory to the very definition of ethics, and you still can't admit that you were wrong.
You have zero consistency in your arguments, you keep going back and forward with your contradictory claims.
Now you're back at using "innocence", and again plants are innocent. Then you're gonna say "but they don't have brains and nervous system which measures pain" then don't use "innocence" as an argument but "brains and nervous system which measures pain". Which reminds me that you still haven't explained your contradiction:
If the brain and the nervous system matter because they're measures of pain, than what ultimately matters is pain, if you can avoid pain in animal, what's wrong with killing him?
Sure if you like the Human made word entity then.. Then entity it is. Like I said, I believe there are things outside of our sense perception.


Death/Murder can be justified by neccesity, if I was starving to death then i'd eat the animal if it were the only option.

Because you are pursuing a superior role to that life form and acting on it.. If I could kill another human painlessly should I? What if they are in a coma? What if they are a month old? What if they are disabled? It would help with the population issues. Like I said, using subjective morality can be used to excuse any action.
 
I never said that, "pain" was his standard not mine. If his standard is "pain" he has to be consistent with it.
I neve said "Pain" is my standard, just used it as to differentiate Animals from Plants.

You ask a lot of questions in bad faith and don't answer anything that challenges you.
 
Veganism is good for the environment, the only problem is that vegans tend to be of the preachy time and also tend to be SJW creampuffs, both of which are super annoying.

This is why by association, many people can't suffer vegans.
From my experience it's rather true that omnivorous people are insufferable.

For example the amount of people who will say something like "how do you know someone's vegan? Because they'll tell you!" greatly outweighs the amount of vegans who without anyone bringing the topic of diet up will tell you "btw, i am vegan!" like it's portrayed in the cliché.

Obviously not every omnivorous person is like that, but i think that's clear.
 
From my experience it's rather true that omnivorous people are insufferable.

For example the amount of people who will say something like "how do you know someone's vegan? Because they'll tell you!" greatly outweighs the amount of vegans who without anyone bringing the topic of diet up will tell you "btw, i am vegan!" like it's portrayed in the cliché.

Obviously not every omnivorous person is like that, but i think that's clear.
<PlusJuan>100

Out of likes, but so much this.

Go count the amount of threads made in favour of Veganism on this forum, and then go search the amount shitting on it.
 
A supplement can absolutely be part of the diet, what are you talking about?
<{outtahere}>
It's also very telling that this seems to be one of your arguments against veganism.
He s kind of right though. Some people, including myself, like to do things the natural way. Because natural in inherently good. A diet, which necessitates an unnaturally synthesised supplement on top of it, is by definition not complete.
So you do whatever floats your boat and if being vegan works for you then great. But you are misguided for not recognising the shortcomings of your diet.
 
<PlusJuan>100

Out of likes, but so much this.

Go count the amount of threads made in favour of Veganism on this forum, and then go search the amount shitting on it.
For real, even though i've seen way worse than what's on sherdog regarding veganism.

Now imagine if i'd go in here and said things to omnivorous people that are equivalent to what *some* people say about vegans on here - i'd be labeled the biggest diet nazi on this forum.
 
From my experience it's rather true that omnivorous people are insufferable.

For example the amount of people who will say something like "how do you know someone's vegan? Because they'll tell you!" greatly outweighs the amount of vegans who without anyone bringing the topic of diet up will tell you "btw, i am vegan!" like it's portrayed in the cliché.

Obviously not every omnivorous person is like that, but i think that's clear.

I disagree with that. People that preach an alternative way to anything have a higher burden than people who preach the status quo by design. Therefore you cannot imply that both sides should be playing on even grounds.
 
Back
Top