Veganism or omnivore?

Discussion in 'Self Improvement' started by LonerWolf, Jan 14, 2019.

  1. LOL

    This is your antithetical argument? This is terrible!

    Effects do not necessarily prove cause. Just because you can point out to me a "vegan bodybuilder" does not mean it completely disproves anyone's argument, not mine and not yours (your shell of an argument, anyway). If we understand how the human body works, then this should put some pretty reasonable doubt on the term "vegan bodybuilder", now doesn't it?

    "Cherrypick", my ass. That's just an excuse people like you use that can't reconcile what they're reading.

    Non-specific assertions that attempt to trivialize the issue. Moving on.

    The fallacy that your anecdotal evidence is just as good as my detailed analysis on the human body. Assuming you really do feel better, I'd wager that is the case because of the following reasons:

    It's because you're eating less (if not none of it at all) of processed carbohydrates. Biscuits, cakes, donuts, breakfast cereals, etc. And its these carbohydrates that are the cause of obesity. Bread, sandwiches, pasta, pizza, fries. These are all things you do want to limit in your diet since they cause too much insulin in the blood. Once you have too much insulin in your blood, your body will produce an uncontrolled amount of insulin and store the majority of what you eat away as fat. And since you're eating "healthier", you may be doing just that, you're breaking away from these processed carbohydrates.

    Sugar cannot leave your blood on its own. It has to be "escorted" by insulin. It is insulin that essentially takes the sugar's hand, tells it to come with it, and "opens the doors" for all the tissue in the body. Cells, muscles, brain, etc and pushes the sugar in. And then the cell can use that sugar for producing energy, which is why people like to carb up and consume sugar before a workout. It gives them energy to do so.

    HOWEVER, working out will burn that sugar and carb away, so instead of your body storing it, it uses it up for energy. When a person is dumping huge amounts of glucose for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, as well as in-between those meals all the time, the person ends up with too much insulin in their blood and thus, growing obese, and having to deal with that situation.

    Nevertheless, it still doesn't mean you're doing your body a favor. You're still going through a controlled malnutrition.

    So instead of giving me anything substantial, you basically say "pfft, that's stupid, biologists would disagree (which is an appeal to authority) and we can do well without meat because we can".



    Well done. Even if you actually give me something substantial after reading this, I shouldn't have to tell you to do so.
     
  2. First off, vegetarians suffer from the same issues vegans do, it just takes longer for the problems to manifest. Vegans tend to have to switch their diet about 7 or less years into it while vegetarians end up having to switch it about 15-20 years into that diet. It's just an even more controlled malnutrition than raw veganism.

    Secondly, no we don't. Americans consume too much carboyhydrates, not meat, which is why America has a major obesity problem. Anybody that lives here should be able to tell you that, the amount of McDonalds, Burger Kings, etc are staggering.

    Plants ARE a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are NOT good for you.

    This is irrelevant because animals may not get food as quickly as humans do, but their meals are much bigger than ours. A lion, for example, will eat an entire zebra (or bigger if it had help) and then it can go up to 2 weeks without eating anything, which allows it to consume up to 5,000 pounds of meat per year. One human only goes up to 270 pounds per year or less, especially if you're a vegan or a vegetarian.

    I'm sorry, humans don't eat to live? Why do we eat, then?

    Because unlike most Americans, animals fast all the time. Once they eat, they have to wait a while before they can eat again by getting hungry first, then finding something they can actually catch, so their body enters a state called "ketogenesis" which allows the body to start consuming its own fat while preserving the muscle so the animal can keep the muscle long enough to hunt something again. Then the animal eats a large meal, doesn't eat for a while, fasts, then eats something again.

    House pets aren't treated this way, they're fed a meal about 2-3 times a day, which is why fat cats and dogs occur, especially if they're fed dry food. Those that take care of large cats such as tigers and lions have to feed them like a housecat because if they don't, that animal will start to get really fit. And you don't want a fit tiger as a pet.

    Doing this keeps their fat stores pretty low and their muscles healthy and strong. Any fat person can do the same by just refusing themselves food for about a week or so.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2019
  3. LonerWolf

    LonerWolf Fapstronaut

    93
    141
    43
    Thats a personal joke/fact of mine, the only meat I’ll ever eat is my future-girlfriends vagina.
     
    Coolyorky likes this.
  4. Dblst

    Dblst Fapstronaut

    21
    20
    3
    DeservedCriticism there are so many logical fallacies in your posts. I would take the time to debunk them, but I know that you won't change your mind. I'm done arguing with fools.

    For other people who are reading, if you are contemplating on veganism, I encourage you to try it for yourself before you make any conclusions. There are millions of vegans in the world who are healthy. Many athletes are vegan as well. Research has shown that vegans have lower rates of chronic disease and longer lifespans.

    Because of this fact that we do not need to eat animals for our health, it follows that eating and killing animals is unjustifiable. The mass production of livestock and crops to feed them contributes to much of the environmental damage.

    Global warming and climate change is a real thing, just look at the polar ice caps. The amount of rainforest cleared and loss of biodiversity WILL affect the ecosystem, anybody who says otherwise is ignorant of the facts or intentionally evil.
     
    KarmaWeaver and ClaritySeeker like this.
  5. Coolyorky

    Coolyorky Fapstronaut

    672
    1,437
    123
    Good lad

    I’m proud of you
     
  6. So instead of actually arguing, you hide behind assertions and an ad-hominem. And I'm the fool here.



    Well done. Your eloquent use of the English language and your knowledge of the subject of veganism has most definitely taught me a lesson. Wow. Incredible. And anybody who disagrees with you is either ignorant or evil. Absolutely incredible.
     
  7. Red Eagle

    Red Eagle Fapstronaut

    444
    439
    63
    Nice posts, You wrote a lot and didn't say anything.

    Man made climate change is real. The majority of scientists agree on this. You have the burden of proof when it comes to climate change, not me.

    Do you have any proof for the damage vegan diets are supposed to cause? I've been living on a vegan diet for almost 7 years and am perfectly healthy. The medical science doesn't support your statement at all.

    Meat is inherently unhealthy. Vegans have the lowest rates of Diabetes, Heart Disease, multiple types of Cancer, stroke etc. The Adventist Health Study clearly shows this.

    The greens we eat are not made of cellulose. How come so many people cannot differentiate between gras and vegetables? The vegetables we eat don't contain cellulose.

    You obviously don't know what Vegan means.

    Humans do not have a digestive system similar to a carnivore. Our stomach is way too long. That is why we have to cook our meat. The reason we should act differently than predators is simple. We have other options and are capable of moral agency. A alligator or lion is forced to eat meat to survive since it's whole body is designed to hunt, kill and eat meat. Humans are so diverse that they can eat both plants and animals. Since plants don't feel pain and are much more easily produced with less damage to the environment, eating plants is clearly the superior option. Eating meat is both morally and environmentally speaking wrong. You are a human, not a animal living in the wild which has to do everything to survive. Start acting like a human pls.

    No red meat is not the best source. Many plants have more protein per gram than meat. Lentils for example. Protein in potatoes is of higher quality. Also, the protein needs of humans are so low that protein deficiency doesn't occur until a human is close to death of starvation (that's the big gut the starving children in Africa have). That's why you've never seen someone who is protein deficient.

    So, if you want to debate about diet, we can do it. But pls, back up your claims with some scientific evidence. If you can't this won#t make a lot of sense.
     
  8. You're talking about yourself, right?

    You're appealing to the authority of the scientists agreeing that "man made climate change is real" (which is a logical fallacy) and you're adovcating the idea that because a group of people agree on something, that something must be right. Which is a deeply anti-rational thing to say.

    The Scientific Method was developed to rid the world of myths, consensus, votes, majority, and opinions, all things relating to the subjective. Which means anything that is subjective has no place in academia.

    Let's quote a man:

    “If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.” - Leonardo da Vinci

    Nobody cares (or should care) what these scientists say because if you argue from their position of authority, you move from the realm of academia to the realm of dogma and religion. You're still showing me, and everyone else reading, that you think in the exact same way as a religious person does. Taking the words of an authority (for you, scientists and for a religous person, a god figure) and believing them to be right without understanding why. As the rest of your post denotes.

    Finally, I don't think you know what "burden of proof" means. The burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. You're making the claim that "man made climate change" exists and I'm saying it does not. I can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. Since you're the one with the positive, the burden of proof lies with you, not me.

    You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?

    This is just an assertion followed by an appeal to authority. You're telling me that meat is unhealthy without explaining why. It's like you don't even know how to argue. You can say vegans have the lowest rates of diabetes, heart disease, etc and I can shoot back by stating the following:

    Vegans suffer from malnutrition, chronic muscle fatigue, loss of teeth, depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, inability to impregnate and get pregnant, etc.

    You're going to have to give me way more than just giving me the "what" without the "why".

    LOL WHAT?

    Then what the fuck is the following:

    • Brussel Sprouts
    • Cabbage
    • Kale
    • Potatoes
    • Carrots
    • Yams
    • Pumpkin
    • Zucchini
    • Sunflower
    • Cauliflower
    • Alfalfa
    • Squash
    • Collard Greens
    • Whole Grains
    • Broccoli
    • Sweet potatoes
    • Chick Peas
    • Coconuts
    • Walnuts
    • Almonds
    • Oats
    • Chia Seeds
    • Quinoa
    • Flax Seeds
    • Raspberries
    • Apples
    • Blackberries
    • Prunes
    • Navy Beans
    • Green Peas
    • Split Peas
    • Artichoke
    • Lentils
    • Lima Beans
    • Moong Beans
    • Avocado
    You're telling me these don't contain cellulose? o_O

    A person who does not eat animal products. I fail to see what's so confusing about that.


    That's it? This is your only explanation on how our stomachs are not similar? Stop giving me half-assed arguments and teach me! Man, I shouldn't even have to tell you to do that! What the fuck does our stomach being "way too long" have to do with cooking our meat?

    This is the only thing you're correct on. It's true that human beings are capable of recognizing moral and immoral actions. But this is completely irrelevant to the discussion as recognizing what's immoral and moral can differ between human beings and gives a risk into having them believe delusional worldviews. Like your own. Meat is immoral to consume. That's a delusion.

    And the body of human beings isn't designed that way? You're assuming that sharp teeth and claws are made for hunting. If that were true, then human beings in the past wouldn't be able to hunt at all. Claws and sharp teeth are made for fighting and that's it.

    It's not the body you should be concerned with, it's the mind. All three animals, the alligator, the lion, and the human have the intellect to stalk, pursue, and kill an animal.

    "Since poison doesn't feel pain and is much more easily produced with less damage to the environment, eating poison is clearly the superior option."

    I hate to break it to ya, but humans ARE animals. We're the most intelligent animal alive, but we're still animals. The fuck's your point?

    You're telling me that the heavy and dense organs within our bodies can be maintained more easily with these:

    [​IMG]

    As opposed to this?

    [​IMG]

    You don't even seem to be aware of the amino-acids within either of these foods. Protein that comes from meat, fish, eggs, and dairy has an amino-acid structure that is very similar to the flesh within the human body while plant matter (like your little lentils) has an extremely different amino-acid structure. What we're made from is very similar to what the steak above is made from. Because our amino-acid structure is almost identical to theirs, we must use the amino-acids within their flesh to maintain our own physical composition.

    But here, you know what, I'll throw you a bone. Explain to me how the flesh of the human body can be maintained with something that isn't even flesh.

    And explain to me how pepsin (which can only break down PROTEIN, as in flesh) and hydrochloric acid can break down and allow the body to absorb the proper nutrients from plant matter (when said nutrients are not found in plants/vegetables and instead, estrogen-like chemicals are) so the body can use said plant to maintain your physical structure and the health of the flesh with plant matter instead of flesh, despite the plant being a carbohydrate in which there are NO essential carbohydrates in existence AS WELL AS lacking the microorganisisms that are supposed to be at the beginning of your digestive system that can properly break down vegetables themselves.

    Finally, um, yes, I have seen protein-deficient people. They're called vegans/vegetarians.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2019
  9. LonerWolf

    LonerWolf Fapstronaut

    93
    141
    43
    BTW do you know what/how vaginas taste/smell like
     
  10. Red Eagle

    Red Eagle Fapstronaut

    444
    439
    63
    By that logic, there is no way to find out the truth since every group of people is fundamentaly untrustworthy.

    You know that Leonardo da Vinci didn't eat meat, right?

    The fundamental difference between scientists and religious people is that scientists have a objective way of measurement. Religious people don't. Now, one can, like you did, completely disregard this by saying that objective measurements are fundamentally untrustworthy because it's the majority who came up with the data to serve their own needs. But if we go along this route there is no way to have a discussion because everything is subjective and no objevtive truth exists. This is a way to disregard any statement one does not agree with and is frequently used by people who have no way of objectively defending their point of view. So if you disregard science (or any other objective form of measurement) than there is no point in this discussion because it won't lead anywhere. We have to agree on basic principles first.

    My proof is that the majority of scientists agree that climate change exists and in the last few years droughts have become more common and the temperature has risen by about 1°C since we started the industrial revolution. Also
    https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=3YMUAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=does+man+made+climate+change+exist&ots=MxDI9W08BH&sig=doHLuvezabP_JooWxsayOxq4k5k#v=onepage&q=does man made climate change exist&f=false
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/278/5343/1582
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/170/3964/1265
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1
    https://www.nature.com/articles/271321a0

    Do you want me to go on? I can keep sending you links for hours. Since the existence of man made climate change has been proven time and time again, you're the one who has the burden of proof.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836264
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939475311001700
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/200150
    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/97/12/906/2544064
    http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/9/2390.short
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091743584900173
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987706006244
    https://heart.bmj.com/content/78/5/450.short

    Now, where is the evidence for your claims?

    Yes they do contain cellulose. What I am saying is that these foods contain not just cellulose. Our body cannot digest it. But since cellulose is basically fiber it helps the body with digestion. Since you are of the opinion that fiber is not good for us, pls proof your point with evidence. Since you suggest the existence of unhealthy effects of fiber you have the burden of proof.

    Wrong. A Vegan is someone who does not consume anything that had to be produced requiring unnecessary cruelty towards an animal if they have other options available. Human breast milk is an animal product but doesn't require the exploitation of an animal which makes a baby drinking it vegan. Vegan simply means, if you have the option, always take the least cruel one.

    No it is not. Pls explain to me why that world view is delusional. Eating meat is unnecessary since we have other options. Since eating meat causes unnecessary damage to the animals, to the environment and also to other people, it is inherently immoral to eat meat IF you have other options available. Eating meat is totally fine if you're in the jungle and you have to survive. That's why it is fine for lions and wolves to do. But since we all have a grocery store not far away from us, we have other options than meat. So eating meat in the civilized world is immoral.

    The human body is capable of a lot of things. It is capable of killing another person. Should we do it, just because we can? No of course not. The same goes for meat eating. The ability to do something, doesn't make that action moral.

    I agree. My point is that, unlike a lion or another predator, you are living in a world where you have other, less cruel food options available. Thus taking the more cruel option is inherently immoral. You cannot compare yourself to a lion, period.

    This is no argument. We are only talking about nutritional value. Since poison has none, it doesn't qualify for this discussion.

    Yes, lentils have literally about the same amount or even more protein than meat depending on how fatty the meat is.
    Also they contain fiber, carbohydrates, fat and tons of vitamins and minerals. How is that not a high quality food?

    https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Lentils,_raw_nutritional_value.html

    True, but it doesn't matter because before entering the blood stream the body will break down proteins into the single amino acids. Also, our body doesn't just exist of muscle, but also organs, the brain etc. which all have their own amino profile. So just eating muscle meat won't give you any advantages. A single amino acid is also the same if it comes from an animal or a plant as soon as it is broken down. Cystin is just Cystin and Methionine is just Methionine. Also there are some plants like potatoes for example that have a better amino profile than any source of meat. Not that it does matter in any way, since amino acid profile is nutritionally absolutely obsolete unless you're just eating one food all the time.

    Simple: How does a cow maintain her flesh by just eating grains or gras? How does a gorilla maintain his flesh by eating almost only fruits and vegetables? How does an elephant maintain it's massive structure by just eating plants all day? It's easy. As soon as proteins enter our body, the body will break them down to their individual amino acids and use those amino acids to build muscle, hair, skin, maintain the brain and the organs etc. Like I said above, Amino Acids are Amino Acids. It doesn't matter if they come from an animal or a plant. Plants are the ones who actually synthesize those Amino Acids. All Animal protein was once plant protein.

    Because they just can? How can they break down meat? Explain it to me. Those acids break down food so we can absord the single macro- and micronutrients. I don't get what you don't understand.

    Which nutrients can not be found in plants? Pls tell me.

    Carbohydrates are not essential? That's right theoretically. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat them. They are the main source of energy for humans around the world. How would you reckon we produce enough food for people without carbohydrates? Just because the body can survive on meat and protein alone (and also that is kind of nonsensical because the body creates it's own sugar), doesn't mean it is healthy for the body. By cutting out all carbohydrates you cut out the most basic food groups. Vegetables, fruit, starch, nuts, legumes etc.

    And what are the symptons of protein deficiency in Vegans and Vegetarians? Could you pls explain this to me or at least show some scientific evidence?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
    HegHeu and KarmaWeaver like this.
  11. ClaritySeeker

    ClaritySeeker Fapstronaut

    @DeservedCriticism what do you think about the Blue Zones? These are places in the world that have the longest life spans, best quality of life in old age and most functional, and they are on a plant-based diet.

    Also, did you know meat causes insulin resistance? It's mostly due to the fat.

    Also, carbohydrates from whole plant-foods are not bad. Processed carbs are bad and so are processed fats.
     
    HegHeu and Red Eagle like this.
  12. KarmaWeaver

    KarmaWeaver Fapstronaut

    129
    176
    43
    I appreciate your patience!

    @DeservedCriticism , I highly recommend this documentary on the subject:
     
  13. Re:Born

    Re:Born Fapstronaut

    275
    4,808
    123
    "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy."
    - Paracelsus
    _______________________
    Anyway, there are a lot of animals who consume meat as natural part of their diet. I don't see why we should discredit human beings for doing so.
    However, I also believe that only people who would be able to hunt and kill their meat should consume it from a spiritual point of view.
    "Saying I love all animals and could never do anything even to a fly" while eating a nice juicy steak the second after is fundamentally dishonest.
    I also have a problem with greed-consume of meat. You shouldn't kill or consume life just for the sake of overeating.
    People have a hard time to understand that to live, is to kill, no matter what. May it be plant-based or animal-based life. Humans are no exclusion. Once we die we will be consumed by other life forms or make soil for them.
    For moral-based vegans and vegetarians they would probably argue, that it takes more resources to produce meat, than for the same amount of plant-based nutrition and that animals have more feelings and suffering than plants. Which could or could not be correct. I am no scholar on the topic.
    However, it is known that humans came to as known today exactly because of their meat consumption.
    We have no idea how long term abstaining from meat on a large scale will influence or intelligence, evolution and overall being. And just saying "It's better and the right thing to do" without any proper data to back it up (which most people do) just makes me shake my head.
    I also wonder if those vegeterians/vegans would eat meat or even kill/hunt it if their survival depended on it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  14. KarmaWeaver

    KarmaWeaver Fapstronaut

    129
    176
    43
    We can't feed everyone with meat. There's not enough space on Earth for so many cows/pigs/chickens/etc; even less space to plant food for those animals. As our number continues to grow, staying dependent on meat is just illogical.

    I'm not against eating meat, of course not, but we surely have to rethink the way we do it.
     
  15. Re:Born

    Re:Born Fapstronaut

    275
    4,808
    123
    Sure eating less and quality meat sounds good to me. But you got it around wrong. Unlimited, endless increase of human population on a planet with limited resources is the problem, not consumption of meat.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  16. KarmaWeaver

    KarmaWeaver Fapstronaut

    129
    176
    43
    A lot of problems arise with the rapid growth of human population, mainly because we still don't know how to sustainably manage our resources. Our diet is just one of them.

    Well, we may have that knowledge already, but it surely isn't enough to suppress 'bigger interests'.
     
  17. Red Eagle

    Red Eagle Fapstronaut

    444
    439
    63
    But we can support a lot more people on vegan diets than on diets that contain meat. Yes the main problem is overpopulation, but meat production makes the problem a lot worse.
     
  18. Retentionman

    Retentionman Fapstronaut

    678
    1,969
    123
    Carnivore diet is the best, not joking. Meat, fat and organs is all you need. It has all the nutrients, protein and fat your body needs. Fat and cholesterol is not bad, is vital.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  19. Um, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. If you were to take any group of people on their word and believe what they say without ever looking into it yourself, you're no better than a Bible-thumper. The only way to truly find out whether or not something is the truth is to look into it yourself rather than falling behind and brown-nosing (as you are) scientists because they're "scientists".

    You're assuming most scientists use an objective way of measurement at all. You understand that authorities can still be wrong, right? It's like you can't wrap your head around the possibility that a consensus could be completely incorrect about something when it's happened in the past and it's happening now.

    You're also assuming religious people can't use that same objective way of measurement in their own religious. Many do. But a lot don't. It's no different in a "scientific" view of the world.

    Your proof is subjective consensus of people you believe understand more about the world than I or you do. If they were to say the opposite, you'd still agree with them because they are scientists. Which still shows your religious reverence for them. Opinion is not truth. Please stop asserting it is. If opinion is truth, then we could say my entire stance is an opinion and that I'm also right. Which would completely contradict your stance and not get us anywhere.

    You didn't read a single fucking thing I said, did you? The burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. It does not lie with me because YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. I can't prove man made climate change DOES NOT exist, I can only place seeds of doubt into its existence.

    Finally, sending me links is not proof of a goddamn thing as you're just attempting to have these websites do the arguing for you and it only tells me you don't understand your own stance enough to present information on it on your own and instead, send links to websites you quickly Googled that advocate veganism. I can do the same thing.

    Instead, you need to show me that without a doubt, veganism is a superior diet to follow. Which you can't.

    You didn't give me any for yours. Links are not evidence.

    Hey, look at that, you used the "burden of proof" thing correctly here. Only took you three fucking tries.

    So what happens to the vegetable bits in your stomach? The undigested bits feed the gut flora in the bowel, specifically the fiber and the bulk of the starch in the veggie. As stated earlier, we cannot break these down. So instead of being digested properly by the stomach, it goes through the system entirely, goes through the intestine, and lands in your bowel. Which is basically our version of a rumen. In our bowel, there's microorganisisms such as bacteria and it is there, in the bowel, that said micros will work on the fiber and the starch and partially break it down, partially digest it, etc. And this is very similar to what happens in, say, a cow. BUT the herbivore's rumen is at the beginning of the digestive process, in which they can properly digest and absorb plant matter. In the human body, it's at the end of the digestive process when it's too late to absorb anything substantial.

    So some things become absorbed from the veggie content in the bowel. Water, vitamins, short-chain fatty acids, etc, but NOT protein and fat to build and maintain your body. Not the building materials. The bulk of nutrition humans thrive on comes from animal foods, not vegetables.

    To start, no, fiber isn't good for you at all and is completely unnecessary to have in your diet. As I've already explained to you, human beings have a predatory-based digestive system which is the same system found in cats and dogs. Wild animals such as they DO NOT consume fiber and they have bowel movements all the time. Since we have the same digestive system, we don't need to consume it either and I can think of three scenarios in which this is true.

    Eskimos, for example, do not consume fiber and they're regular. If a person fasts for a prolonged period of time and drinks only water, they will still be regular. Breast milk does not contain fiber and babies poop all the time. If you're referring to fiber in the sense that we need it to ensure our body is getting rid of the waste it doesn't need, fiber is NOT necessary in order to achieve that.

    People often think that feces are food and that you require fiber in order to help you create feces. So the logic tends to go like this:

    "If fiber makes your poop proper and one begins to have difficulty creating feces, add more fiber!"

    In reality, feces are primarily made up of bacteria, water, (which is why having too much diarrhea can dehydrate you) mineral salts, and a bit of fat. Needing fiber and bulk to produce feces is a myth. The only thing you need to achieve what people think fiber does is dietary fat. That's it. Dietary fat helps lubricate the contents of your body so your feces can exit the body more easily. That's all we need.

    This assumes eating animals is cruel at all. I'm getting tired of you asserting that as it assumes that because people eat meat, you're morally superior to them.

    It's delusional because you're believing we do have other options at all!

    What else animal foods do for us is provide right quality fats. The fat in the human body (as we need fat since it protects organs such as the kidneys and liver), you'll find it is very similar to the chemical composition to the fat in lamb, beef, chicken, etc. Remember, the human body is still contanstly undergoing cellular regeneration and thus requires similar components (like flesh and fat) to maintain our physical structure.

    Fat is a structural element. Your very heart is sitting in fat. It's an important part of the human body because your heart almost exclusively uses fat for energy. It doesn't use sugar for energy. It's got its own energy store and its sitting in that casing to use as energy to keep you alive. The same goes for your kidneys and they too use fat for energy. Your intestines are no different, they too sit in a casing of fat. Every single organ in your body is surrounded by a layer of fat and so we must use fat to maintain the fat that protects and energizes these organs. Like the fat found in meat.

    What else animal foods do is provide easily assimilated vitamins and minerals in the right bio-chemical shape. There's a lot of misinformation in the world (as you're presenting to me now) that your vitamins come from fruits and vegetables. Doctors are in particular misinformed. The majority of doctors believe that only your vitamins come from plants, which is actually completely false. The bulk of your vitamins, of everything the body requires, your minerals, your protein comes from animal foods.

    What else should be noted is that animal foods are the easiest to digest for the human gut because we have the gut of a predator. A single stomach sack with hydrochloric acid and pepsin which can be found in many other predators. The reason why we need to cook our food is because raw meat has plenty of bacteria in it that can make people sick, but animals have a much stronger immune system than we do. Because of this, an animal can eat raw meat with no harm done at all, but humans have to cook it to get rid of the bacteria within.

    Plus, cooked meat tastes good. :p

    And finally, meat is essential for cell regeneration and healing. Your body is one of the most efficient machines in existence (too bad you're wasting its potential with plant matter) and is contanstly repairing itself and trying to build itself. The amino-acid structure of your flesh is extremely similar to the same structure found in lamb, beef, dairy, chicken, etc and must use these similar components to repair its own body. But then you turn around and say the following:


    These two posts are some of the most logically irresponsible things I have ever read in my entire life and only tells me you didn't read the first post I made to you. A cow has 4 stomachs and uses a rumen to digest the plant matter with the help of microorganisms inside the rumen to assist the cow in breaking the plant matter down. A gorilla uses fermentation, have extremely large colons, and their intestine is also filled with microbes.

    Human beings do not have either. And yet you turned around and actually tried to fucking tell me that "humans can eat plants because cows, gorillas, and elephants can". Oh. My. God.

    Not only that, but you also tried to tell me that the difference of amino-acid structures DOES NOT MATTER. That's like saying the difference of the liquids a person consumes doesn't matter. Water? Bacteria-infested water? What does it matter?

    You know what? I just realized something. I'm arguing with a vegan. Because you tried to tell me those two very things, the fact that you are still hiding behind the claim that because everybody else says so; your stance must be right, and that you think eating meat is an immoral act, you have lost all credibility and only tells me I'm trying to break through a brick wall with my fist. You don't even seem to know what gluconeogenesis is!

    I know you posted other replies. But it's the one above that really caught my attention. Nothing else you say is worth considering. This conversation is over.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2019
  20. How do you know that? Did some article tell you that?

    Clearly, if they're on a plant-based diet, then they either do not have the longest life spans, or they're not eating a plant-based diet.

    Um, good. Great.


    ...And...? It's like you had something to say, but instead of building on it, you just decided to tell me something without actually going into detail on why you think that's true.
     

Share This Page