Create account

Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2808d
You are terribly misguided. “Paired with an inevitable lack of self control” has nothing to do with being LGBTQ.
Plenty of straight people are perverts & lack self control.
replied 2808d
What is so interesting about others having sex? Dont we have enough real issues to talk about & pay attention to? Sex topics are being used to preoccupy the population with nonsense.
replied 2808d
Exactly right, and not only is it used to distract people from real issues (sport also), it is also used to destroy morality to make money out of it also at the same time.
replied 2808d
Sex is never immoral if it happens with consent it is a positive behaviour. Eating animals is immoral because it involves pain, suffering and death. Lets talk about #veganism.
replied 2808d
We have to eat animals, other animals eat us when we die, this is a natural cycle. Problem is with over consumption, problem is when people torture animals, when they have shit life.
replied 2807d
We don't have to eat animals. Whether it's natural or not is irrelevant (argument from nature fallacy). Check out Dr. Michael Greger's work:
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2807d
But their sooooo yummy! 🤤
replied 2806d
want to read his book.
replied 2806d
More stuff here: https://nutritionfacts.org/
replied 2806d
I will read it when time permits.
replied 2808d
I do not eat animals since 5 years, my health has improved incredibly. I believe it gives me peace & freedom. Animals eat animals but I am human. I see no reason to eat animals at all.
replied 2802d
I stopped eating meat and my health became terrible. But that was just because I became ill, not because I stopped eating animals, did not become better after eating animals again:P
replied 2806d
do you live in an area where there are a lot of vegans? I've traveled to places like that & it's easier to not eat meat (esp at great vegan restaurants).
replied 2805d
I always find a way to eat something #vegan in any restaurant. Salads, potatoes, rice. But i mostly eat from supermarkets as I mostly eat raw cereals/seeds/nuts & raw fruits/veggies.
replied 2805d
I like salads for a while but some of the more 'vegan hipster' foods are interesting & great tasting. love cereals/seeds/nuts & raw fruits/veggies.
replied 2804d
It is interesting how diet advice is not universal. My health would deteriorate on a vegan diet. I need a lot of meat to stop from losing weight.
replied 2802d
There are no magic nutrients in meat. Everything can be found in plants except some things that are really bad for you like cholesterol.
replied 2802d
It is far harder to get all the proper amino acids for a full protein from vegetables. It is easiest with beef. Also cholesterol is not always bad. I need lots of protein and fat.
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2802d
Balance is the most important thing for a diet. If you eat too clean your body has nothing to filter out; if you eat like shit then your body has more to filter out than it is capable
replied 2802d
"It's far harder" doesn't mean anything. Everything is hard before you've figured it out. Then it's easy. Cholesterol is always bad.
replied 2802d
It actually does mean something. When eating proteins you only actually get as much as whichever amino acid you get the least of. There is nothing wrong with eating meat.
replied 2802d
There are dozens of things wrong with it. We only do it because we are used to it. The only negative aspect of a vegan diet is the learning curve of a few months. Then it's all win.
replied 2801d
It is pompous to say we only eat meat because we are use to it. It is a very new thing for food to be shipped across the world fast enough to not spoil.
replied 2801d
Pompous or not, it's true. Shipping isn't that new, but it's here now. Going forward agric. will move indoors w 24h artificial light and blow today's technology away re efficiency.
replied 2801d
Saying the world should suddenly abandoned everything about its past because of very recent changes is plain wrong. Progress, yes. Abandoning the past, no.
replied 2801d
If customs are found to be bad they should stop. It's not going to happen all at once of course. Demand for animals will start falling. I predict +50% vegans in the West in 2050.
replied 2801d
Top soil erosion is s problem you likely have not heard of. Grassland for meatgeazing is environmentally friendly.
replied 2801d
I'm sure it's a problem, in some sense, but problems can be solved. Technology will advance agriculture to the point where soil is not needed. Decimating primeval rainforest =not cool.
replied 2801d
That that up with the government of those nations. It means absolutely nothing to the subject of how people elsewhere should eat. Cattle grazing is very efficient in some places.
replied 2801d
Consumers are responsible for the demand they create in the market. I don't trust government to fix this problem. Capitalism will fix it.
replied 2801d
It is fixing it. They mostly grow sugar cane, and with selling that internationally make enough to import other goods. They also grow some produce and let cattle graze.
replied 2802d
@Pham, what is your agenda for promoting this diet?
replied 2802d
In no particular order: Health, animal welfare, economic efficiency, environment, technological progress, non-aggression, reason, science, humanism, civilization.
replied 2802d
Those are not real reasons. Most are myths.
replied 2802d
Seriously? For example, you don't think economic efficiency is important? Do you prefer paying more for food or less? You know animals are just a detour for plant protein, right?
replied 2801d
It is actually more efficient to have cows graze grassland so that we don't need to use more of the world dwindling topsoil supply. A vegan diet for the world would ensure starvation.
replied 2801d
Rainforests all over the world is being cut to create grazing areas. Livestock consume prodigious amounts of farmed plants very little of which ends up in your steak. Not efficient.
replied 2801d
That is a way to misinterpret that issue. The reality is very different, and far more complex then you make it seem. They have very little farmland in South America.
replied 2801d
That doesn't address anything I argued.
replied 2801d
While it is easy to say it is bad the convert rainforest for agriculture,which it is,there are a lot of people and very little farm land, and it is expensive to import food.
replied 2801d
Plants require less land than animals. Shipping is quite cheap. Not to mention that lots of meat is shipped from developing countries to the West.
replied 2801d
They require different land. Also it would be bad to add that much extra topsoil for produce considering we already use it faster than it is produced. It is efficient to have cattle.
replied 2801d
Plant-based meat replacements are already cheaper than meat.
replied 2801d
You seem like a very communist, or at least central authoritised for an AnCap. I eat beef because it is one of the greatest foods. It doesn't lack amino acids, and taste better.
replied 2801d
How on Earth could you possibly interpret anything I've said as being communist? Please give some examples of what you mean.
replied 2801d
You want to decide what people eat, and what to grow, instead of letting the market, and individuals decide.
replied 2801d
No, I have never expressed such desires. I'm making *arguments* as to why eating some things is bad and eating other things is good. I don't support government bans on meat.
replied 2801d
You cant eat the rainforest. Poor nations cant easily import all their food needs. Their population is booming. You are wrong to think k they only graze with cattle.
replied 2801d
So eat plants, save the rainforest.
replied 2801d
They burn the rainforest to grow plants already. They don't use it mostly for cattle. It is mostly used for sugar cane. Other crops as well, and obviously some grazing land.
replied 2802d
I don't know what all of those mean but I will be sure to look into it.
replied 2802d
Eckhart Tolle a spiritual teacher has publicly stated that eventually the body and mind will die.
replied 2802d
Obviously. But why speed up the process?
replied 2802d
Good point.
replied 2802d
On a long enough timeframe the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. https://www.zerohedge.com/
replied 2802d
I agree.
replied 2802d
hmm. oh yeah, I'm not trying to gain weight. would be tough on vegetables. & meat makes me feel too full. Nice to have every now and then or in small portions though.
replied 2805d
Hare Krishna cook awesome veggie food. They used to run a restaurant in my town. Good stuff. Vegan hipster can just fuck off.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2805d
Best vegetarian food is Indian food. There's a place in Indianapolis called Spice Nation that's all you can eat. I go whenever I'm in town.
replied 2805d
We don't have "all you can eat" places. At least I have never seen one. I have seen those in US. Food quality is shit, so I avoid. Quality over quantity keeps you healthy.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2805d
There's varying quality. I've found that restaurant quality/price ratio heavily depends on taxes and regulatory pressure. Also in bigger cities like Chicago there's restaurant cartels.
replied 2805d
vegan hipsters or their food? as people they can be a little pompous but the food they make is really good
replied 2808d
Yes we eat animals, problem with that is how we feed/grow and ultimately kill those animals. That is where immorality takes place, but consumers are not exposed to those immoralities.
replied 2807d
You will never be able to sanitize the killing of animals for food. All you can hope for is to keep the practice obscured for as long as possible. Eventually, people will find out.
replied 2808d
In fact, with LGBTQ making up only about 5% of the general American population you could argue there's far more perverts and people without control amongst heterosexuals than LGBTQ.
replied 2808d
its 2-3% population but 40% of child molesters, 55% HIV cases, 82% syphilis, 37% of anal cancer and only 20% of LGBTQ adults are STD free.
92% of adopted children are abused by LGBTQ
replied 2808d
That's a lot of stats, got anything to back any of it all up?
replied 2807d
Too many numbers is enough for you to say "I won't believe it"? LOL. Those are all gov collected stats. Go look them up, and while you are at it, check out #LGBTQ "family" violence
replied 2806d
Um no. I wasn't challenging you, I'm genuinely asking.
replied 2802d
replied 2802d
I appreciate this. I was more curious about 40% child molesters, 92% of adopted children abused by LGBTQ and 82% syphillus as those numbers seem outrageous, others not so much.
replied 2802d
The disease rate stats are accurate (actually a bit to low), transgender men/women have even higher disease stats: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.html
replied 2801d
Cheers, thank you for the info! Very interesting!
replied 2802d
A side not to the child abuse in Lesbian/Homosexual adoptive households - it was often that the guardians gave access to the children to child molesters it counts the total abuse.
replied 2802d
The newest number I could find was 83% of Syphilis cases Bi/Homosexual men, https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
replied 2802d
The Child Molester stat depends on what you count as children, molestation and homosexual/bisexual, and if you consider sexual abuse of a boy as homosexual or not, also what number ->
replied 2802d
-> and criteria you use to select for what counts as Homosexual/Bi in in adults. Counting sexual relations with men or being exclusive with men, having had sex with women or not ect ->
replied 2802d
-> so if you count abuse of boys as bi/homosexual then you get high numbers as a fact that people that sexually abuse children may have gender preferences but their interest are not ->
replied 2802d
-> in adults, so men coupling up with other adult men (or women) to use as a way to get access to abusing children skews the stats. But the overall trend is that people that are ->
replied 2802d
-> sexually and/or romantically interested and functional with adults do not abuse children, gay, bi or straight.
replied 2802d
I do not have the relevant study comparing hetero married couples with adoptive lesbian/gay couples on hand, the numbers seemed pretty bad BUT compared to the abuse in institutions ->
replied 2802d
-> it was comparatively not bad, and the takeaway was that abuse of children not with their biological parents is very high and that while there may be some difference between ->
replied 2802d
-> on average hetero/lesbian/homosexual parents, the numbers are pretty high across the board and preferable compared to having the children in institutions instead of adoptive partent
replied 2802d
So it is not a lesbian/homosexual/Hetero thing, it is more "Not your biological children" thing. Marriage with biological children best case scenario on average statistically.
replied 2802d
The child abuse numbers are pretty high in general for institutions, lower for adoptive parents in general but still pretty high. Step parents about 100x more likely to abuse the child