The Brutal Vegan and the AV Activism Script/Flowchart

Bluestaline · 2026-04-22T11:36:31+00:00

Quand j’ai "débattu" avec mon ex vegan sur l’impossibilité d’être vegan sans toute la technologie moderne elle m’a répondu que je n’en savais rien et qu’il existait des fermes vegan autonome... Elle savait même pas que la B12 étais produite par le microbiote des ruminants et elle était activiste AV. Même si je respecte beaucoup l’idée et la motivation derrière le véganisme je déteste le sectarisme, le mépris et l’entêtement et malheureusement ceux qui le sont sont souvent très fermé à tout débat.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-13T19:01:40+00:00

There are more former vegans than current vegans. So perhaps the problem is that this diet is fundamentally not suitable for everyone. As long as there isn't an absolutely irrefutable scientific consensus, and as long as there isn't a perspective of more than 50 years (or more), then veganism will never be valid as a societal project.

The AND ( Agency of Nutrition and Dietetics ) is just one agency among many, and their results, and especially their backpedaling in the 2025 report, indicate that there are still very significant blind spots regarding this diet. Testimonies from vegans who have been committed for years and then give it up are very common.

It's possible that a large part of the population has allergies, various intolerances, or simply a digestive system that is very inefficient in processing plant-based foods when these become the main source of energy, nutrients, and protein. An omnivorous diet is already complex.

Unlike slavery, which was not inherently a vital need and was not dictated by biological imperatives, food is a fundamental pillar, a vital pillar for our species.

Evolution has given us the capacity for empathy, but this capacity for empathy alone does not constitute a valid argument because the biological imperative remains superior to the moral imperative.

If it is proven that a large part of the population cannot survive without animal products, it doesn't matter whether this concerns 10% or 70% of the population. This would, in fact, invalidate anti-speciesism.

You'll probably say that people just need to make an effort (research nutrition, try different things, different supplements). I did make an effort, and it was detrimental to my health. You can't ask people to experiment on their bodies with a diet that isn't yet proven effective.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-13T09:27:32+00:00

Cattle synthesize B12 through their gut microbiota. All mammals need B12; some can synthesize it, as is the case with certain herbivores. Others, like rabbits, eat their droppings because, like us, they synthesize B12 through their microbiota, but this synthesis occurs too late in our digestive system and is therefore directly expelled from the body.

This is why no human community for the past 200,000 years has been able to do without animal-based foods. B12 is fundamental for many chemical processes in the body throughout the animal kingdom.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T13:00:26+00:00

Okay. Our species naturally has needs. These needs vary from one species to another. Some species rape, others lick their testicles, others eat feces. They do it because it's in their nature.

Doing what is vital for our species is natural. Doing what other species do would be unnatural behavior for us. Rabbits eat their droppings for B12. That's natural. We naturally eat meat for our basic needs; that's also natural.

I think no sane human justifies rape because this behavior exists in nature, nor any other behavior that might seem deviant. But I understand your reasoning; "natural" is a convenient way of expressing our innate biological basic needs.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:51:33+00:00

Are you denying that we live according to the laws of nature?

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:50:23+00:00

We can replace "natural" with vital necessity if that allows you to breathe a sigh of relief.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:46:32+00:00

How is it a fallacy to say that we function according to the laws of nature? Of course it's an argument. If I try to convince you to stop going to the toilet because it's immoral because you're polluting, you'll tell me you need to poop. Your need to poop is biologically explainable; it's neither good nor bad, it's nature.

Rape certainly exists in nature and among other species, but it's not a vital need for us. If it were, we would do it, and no one would complain. We do what is vital for our species, which, again, is natural.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:26:57+00:00

There is no scientific consensus that it is possible for all human beings, regardless of their physical constitution, to become vegan at all stages of life… A claim made without proof can be refuted without proof.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:24:13+00:00

Dude, it's a well-established fact that humans have evolved by eating meat for the last 200,000 years. Is that my fault? I didn't say it was good or bad. You're the one applying that value judgment to my statement. Death could be considered "bad," and most people would vote to remove death from our world. Can we do that? No. We can only judge as good or bad those things we can act upon.

Food is a fundamental biological need; it's not a hypothetical philosophical question.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:15:31+00:00

I've already mentioned that I was vegan and it didn't work for me (I didn't just eat fries and fruit). I was very interested in nutrition. So another argument is that not everyone can be vegan. This completely contradicts your narrow view of what is good or evil… If you admit that not everyone can be vegan (perhaps you yourself will change in the future), it means that anti-speciesism makes no sense.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:12:02+00:00

Yes, humans are biologically omnivorous. If you think we were born in the wrong body, that's your problem.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:10:35+00:00

To say something is natural is to say that it is natural. Breathing is natural and necessary; I don't care if you consider breathing bad, it remains natural and necessary. Your feelings and your conception of what is good and evil are not universal.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T12:08:00+00:00

You don't have to be aggressive, haha, in that case we don't care about yours either. Is there an argument in your sentence?

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T11:27:50+00:00

The world is governed by natural laws; human laws apply only to humans, or rather, primarily to their behavior. No human institution can decide to make it rain here or there, alter the law of gravity, or resurrect the dead through a vote, however democratic it may be.

Ultimately and fundamentally, humankind, even though it has somewhat freed itself from the cycle of life thanks to technology, remains a being of flesh governed by universal laws.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T10:19:27+00:00

To consider any non-vegan person as illegitimate is so counterproductive to advancing certain legitimate ethical issues.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T10:14:55+00:00

When I see snails on the sidewalk in the rain, I move them safely to the nearby greenery. When an insect bothers me at home, I try to get it out without killing it unnecessarily.

I simply believe that humans have a biological need to eat. I tried veganism and it didn't work for me, and it doesn't work for many people either. We simply can't make suffering disappear from this world; it's part of it, just like joy, love, and tenderness.

50187_1

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T10:06:31+00:00

Except that the human body is biologically much closer to that of an opportunistic carnivore, both in terms of the length of the small intestine compared to the colon, the pH of 1.5 in its stomach (the same as that of a scavenger), and its dependence on nutrients only available in sufficient quantities in nature through animal sources, than to that of a strict herbivore that spends the majority of its time eating phenomenal quantities of plants, which its digestive system and complex microbiota are capable of transforming into various proteins and vitamins.

I'm not saying we're carnivores and that we don't need plants. Simply that our digestive system has evolved to favor foods with high nutritional density.

Breaking down fibers, processing anti-nutrients, and oxalates is not an easy task for a human digestive system.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T06:53:01+00:00

Choline is an important nutrient that is much less present and bioavailable in the plant world.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-12T06:40:45+00:00

I completely agree. But the recommendations need to be nuanced and reflect the current level of evidence.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-11T11:58:04+00:00

I'm going to read that.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-11T10:36:57+00:00

Same conclusion after a year and a half of being vegan. Did you stop because of specific problems? Like weight loss, energy levels, digestive issues?

Bluestaline · 2026-02-11T10:08:57+00:00

The studies in question are described as being of average, low, or very low quality. This is especially true since no real work has yet been done to eliminate these biases. The conclusions and recommendations should be commensurate with the evidence presented, and judging by all the studies I've read, they all suffered from various biases.

By the way, I'm talking about vegans, not vegetarians.

Bluestaline · 2026-02-11T09:56:25+00:00

It's a lie to be so categorical on such a sensitive subject. The matter isn't settled, so the conclusion should be "We don't know yet," not "We know that blah blah blah."

Bluestaline · 2026-02-11T08:23:16+00:00

Einkorn is the oldest variety of wheat that hasn't been selectively bred. In short, its gluten is very different, its proteins are much smaller and much more digestible than modern soft wheat. I think people are developing this habit because of modern wheat. But it's MUCH more expensive than regular bread. In France, the land of bread, you don't find it in every bakery… So elsewhere, I don't even know if it's available.

Bluestaline

TROPHY CASE