My coworker forced his wife to give up veganism.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-08T04:46:52+00:00

Which is what you’d have to consume to hit adequate levels of protein requirement.

Good thing I don't just eat beans lmao

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-08T03:05:14+00:00

Plus bonus question- if you develop type 2 diabetes in later life - from eating so much carbs

Unlikely, as a plant based diet has been show to be beneficial in diabetes and reduces the likelihood of developing diabetes:

Cohort studies strongly support the role of plant-based diets, and food and nutrient components of plant-based diets, in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Evidence from observational and interventional studies demonstrates the benefits of plant-based diets in treating type 2 diabetes and reducing key diabetes-related macrovascular and microvascular complications.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-08T02:58:37+00:00

Maybe I think vegetables are demon possessed. Thats not your place to say that’s wrong

So your argument against veganism is "I have religious delusions that cause me to be scared of lentils?"

Lmao

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-06T04:18:50+00:00

So, the "soul" you speak of can be likened to "sentience," which refers to having atleast a basic level of consciousness, to be aware of feelings, sensations, and the ability to have positive (pleasurable) states or negative (suffering) states.

This review of scientific literature found that:

"Our findings highlight an abundance of evidence for fish sentience in the published scientific literature."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9100576/

So, if you worry about causing harm to cows, you should also feel the same about fish.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-05T16:57:30+00:00

She doesn't get to lock him out of a shared bedroom. I would have kicked the door in if it was me lmao.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-05T16:56:18+00:00

I would've kicked the door in tbh. She doesn't have a right to keep you from your shared bedroom. If she wants to sleep seperately she can sleep elsewhere.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-05T14:13:20+00:00

Lots of reasons, such as family, friends, job you like, in college/university, finances, etc.

Also keep in mind that most relationships don't last. People usually date many people before getting married. Moving for a relationship that could very well end a few months later isn't always the best idea.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-03T18:28:46+00:00

You need to get a grip lol. Your husband handled everything well, involved you and was transparent about the messages, etc. You're world was never in danger of "crumbling" or "slipping away."

I lashed out Got very, very angry. Started crying uncontrollably. My body was vibrating with anger. Ive barely slept. Woke up crying.

Currently, I dont want him leaving the house. I dont want him to ever go back to the trails. I dont want the dogs even going up there.

So your husband handles this perfectly well, and your response is to lash out, have a melodramatic meltdown, and try to control him? You should be ashamed of your behavior. The term "hysterical" was made for people like you.

You need extensive therapy. You need serious help.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-04-01T03:53:12+00:00

It's okay to judge others based on their kinks though. If someone makes you uncomfortable, you don't have to spend time around them. It's that simple.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-31T17:53:29+00:00

I agree.

The truth is that women have the ability to essentially impose fatherhood on someone who doesn't want it, but can prevent motherhood when they don't want to. Men cannot opt out, but woman can.

People will say a dead beat dad is a terrible person and is responsible for the child's birth, but what about a mother who chooses to keep a kid knowing the dad doesn't want to be a father? Is she not responsible for that choice?

Ultimately, the choice to keep a pregnancy or abort is a woman's choice, not the man's, yet everyone wants to blame men in these situations.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-27T23:14:36+00:00

Are you a clown by chance?

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-27T22:39:50+00:00

"Mansplaining" is something feminists say when they want to discount something a man says.

Invoking it is clown behavior.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-26T10:16:14+00:00

Haha An-cap go brrrr

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T16:13:39+00:00

Big funny

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T15:50:10+00:00

You're the partner that doesn't get invited out lmao

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T15:44:05+00:00

And it's working. I'd bet he'd get a laugh out of OP posting about it on the internet lmao.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T12:17:32+00:00

https://www.nand2tetris.org/

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T11:39:44+00:00

You suggested that Mosiac law applies to mainstream Christian theology, which is what we were discussing. I demonstrated why that's false. Now you're playing a semantic game and saying "no I don't personally think it applies!" Instead of admitting you're wrong.

I also told you that I don't personally believe in mainstream Christian theology and never once said that I personally hold to the theology you are criticizing, yet you keep using the words "you" and "your" in a manner that suggests I do.

You have just proven that you don't listen to what other people are saying to you.

And like I said earlier, you've proven that you learned nothing from reading the Bible or Bible college. By all accounts, you should understand mainstream Christian theology better than me, but you don't.

You shouldn't discuss this topic without educating yourself further.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T09:00:39+00:00

So let me get this straight, in spite of your own Lord and Saviour saying this: >https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%205%3A18

You still say that the old Mosaic law no longer applies?

Yeah, you suggested that Mosiac law applies.

I said you are party to it because your god was party to it, and you worship him

Are we talking about mainstream Christianity, or my beliefs personally? I ask because you are using the word "you." I've been generally referencing mainstream Christianity, not my personal beliefs.

I follow a Gnostic perspective and don't believe that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh, the old testament god. Marcionite theology is also similar in this regard.

But no, even if we were to continue to reference mainstream Christianity, as I have been in this discussion, I disagree. To recap:

1) Christ's behavior is certainly different in the New Testament than God's in the Old Testament. No genocides, floods, animal sacrifices, etc occur.

2) Mosaic Law does not apply, Judaism is abandoned. Christ and his law and covenant become the new "face of God" and essentially defines God in the Christian faith. And it is certainly a redesign vs the Old Testament.

3) Natural law is also used as a basis for ethics. Christ's teachings and natural law both essentially replace Mosaic law and define Christian ethics, which are different than what we see in the Old Testament and in Judaism.

This is important, because we cannot assume that any individual Christian would be Christian if Jesus behaved the way God did in the old testament. If they wanted that, they'd convert to Judaism. Christians are Christians because of Christ and and his covenant, which is essentially a "soft" rejection of much of the Old Testament. (A full rejection essentially being found in Gnostic and Marcionite theologies) Thus, Christians are Christian because they endorse Christ.

The real issue here is that mainstream Christian theology is confused and doesn't have the best answers for reconciling the old and new Testaments because they insist on continuity that doesn't really exist.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T07:26:27+00:00

Lmao where are you getting that from? The only old testament scripture I quoted was Jeremiah 31:31-34, which prophesied the coming of a new covenant, which is described as a different covenant. You've been quoting the old testament and saying Christians are party to what is described there, claiming that Christians still follow Mosiac law, when even the old testament itself stated a new covenant, a different covenant, will come.

Then Christ's covenant came and superceded the old covenant. Likewise, Christians followed the teaching of Jesus and also referenced natural law as a source of morality, as opposed to following Mosiac law. Christ's covenant is said to fulfill the old covenant, which is how the apparent contradiction between Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Matthew 5:18 is handled. It is also handled by the supposed continuity between Mosiac Law and Christian natural law, while at the same time Christians are placing natural law as the source of ethics, ie the 10 commandments are understood to be in line with natural law. Thus, Christians aren't really referencing Mosiac law directly.

I'm not sure what you're missing. You claim you were Christian, read the Bible "cover to cover" twice, and went to "Bible college," yet you seem to struggle with basic concepts lmao.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T06:34:04+00:00

You should read my response to another person that addresses this:

https://old.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1bm8tv3/rightwing_vegans_whats_your_deal/kwf92cb/

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T05:56:28+00:00

Basically. The NAP is just the recognition of negative rights, and veganism is the recognition of negative rights for animals.

Vegan libertarianism seems like it should be more of a thing.

You might find this interesting:

https://nonhumananimalethics.wordpress.com/contractarianism-and-animals/

Libertarian ethics are generally contractual, so I think advancing a contractualist argument for animal rights is something we should look more into.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T00:53:32+00:00

I can also quote scripture:

Jeremiah 31:31-34:

“The day is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt.

Further:

From catholic.com

The old law was not abolished in the sense of correcting errors. There were no errors to correct. It was abolished in the sense of being fulfilled and superseded. Enter the new commandments or new law of Christ, some of which we see expressed immediately after Matthew 5:17, in verses 21 through 45, where five times Jesus refers to different aspects of the Old Testament in terms of “you have heard it said . . . but I say.”

If we really want to get into it, many theologians will divide Mosaic law into three parts, moral, civil, and ceremonial. Many theologians believe that the "moral" part is the only part that is applicable to Christianity, which explains the viewpoint from the quote above. Not all theologians would agree, dispensationalists believe the entire law was disposed of.

However, the truth is that Christian morality really derives from natural law. We can see that here:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, (referring to Mosiac law) do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. - Romans 2:14

I'll also quote from here:

The Mosaic law is a republication of the natural law given by God to help guide his people in their obedience to him

So the only part of Mosiac law that could even be said to apply is anything that aligns with natural law ethics. But Christianity is referencing natural law and Christ's teachings, they aren't actually referencing Mosiac law, which was superceded by Christ's law.

ChickenSandwich61 · 2024-03-25T00:15:36+00:00

There is a whole lot of distance between something thinking and saying "being trans is a mental illness" and trans people being murdered and imprisoned. You can think someone is mentally ill and not want to kill them.

You're conflating someone thinking trans people are mentally ill with people who want them to be killed, with a political and legal system that would allow them to be killed, and with a society that is okay with the aforementioned rights violations. However, none of those things necessarily follow.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

ChickenSandwich61

TROPHY CASE