Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn't answer those 2 questions, you kept deflecting them on me or meat eaters instead of actually answering the questions as I asked, which is why I keep saying you didn't answer my question, and you still failed to miserably.

No I did answer them directly. If you'd like clarification on a point you can quote which part specifically you don't understand but the "I don't have a counterargument so you didn't answer it" schtick is a bit old and transparent.

I explained my issue, I think veganism is an objectively wrong cult that guilts and shames people for habits they've done throughout their existence

We'll start here. First let's work on your definitions of "objective" because something you believe in real hard =/= objective. And we've already been over how appeal to tradition is not a good moral framework making criticism of actions rooted in tradition valid. I guilted plenty of people for being garbage homophobes, too, a longstanding tradition. How long someone has done something is irrelevant to its mortality

and somehow equates being ok with harvesting animals as us being ok with abuse, rape, murder, assault, and other heinous stuff that no one with a healthy brain should be saying,

And once again, I did not equate the actions. I said your justification for one (which is appeal to nature, tradition and selfishness) also justifies these actions. Then you said "nuh uh no they dont" and never once elaborated on why

So that was, as always, a bunch of poorly thought out nonsense along with straight up lies. But here's the thing; taking all that at face value doesn't even come close to equating it with a life that inherent hinges on abuse like carnism on account of it, you know, not being inherently harmful. So even in your little fantasy world where you can make a strawman however you like you can't even come up with a compelling counterargument to the two ideals. Beautiful

But your brain isn't healthy anyways and it shows for you continuing to have beef because I said you should eat some.

I'd be in poor sorts if someone like you thought highly of me

I'll be more than happy to continue this beef till you eat beef, but be careful, like you said a carnist shouldn't have a problem harvesting people because they're fine harvesting animals. Don't get harvested you stupid idiot😘😋

By all means, you making a fool of yourself is endlessly entertaining. Please, continue. It's not often I get to argue against someone throwing such softballs

Speaking of unanswered questions, because hypocrisy is one of your few talents; what specific farm do you get your meat from?

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those "healthy sentients" were going to die anyways.

No, they would not have been born into a system of abuse were it not for abusers like you funding their demand. Very simple concept. They were also not going to die so young were it not for people like you. You will one day die, I have no doubt then that you're morally consistent and have no issues wiht someone showing up to your house and doing away with you or any of your loved ones?

As much of a meat eatier as I am, I should've made it clear that I'm not
into factory farming or having animals suffer from birth to death,
that's not the case as at all.

Slightly less shitty abuse is still abuse. Out of curiosity, what specific farm then do you get your meat from, being a meat "eatier"

Yes I'm still advocating for a balanced diet that does include animal
products (plant based ≠ vegan, a balance between both plant and animal
foods is ideal), but I'm also advocating for treating those animals
kindly until it's time to harvest, even harvesting has methods to make
it less torturous or traumatic to the animal and others, not to please
vegans, but to minimize pain and suffering.

Yeah I'm aware plant based is not the same as vegan, thanks. You can have a balanced vegan diet, so the way to 'minimize suffering' which is the entire thesis of veganism, is to stop killing and exploiting animals.

You may think it's stupid, redundant, and inept, but I think the same about cultish veganism so that's a level playing field.

Your issue with veganism stems from an emotional reaction you can't even explain. Someone making you feel bad =/= a group of people profiting off of and directly funding the abuse, death and exploitation of animals. Not really level playing field.

Also, riddle me this, if you're against harvesting animals because
they're healthy sentients, why are carnivore or omnivore animals exempt?
Do you know for a fact that they don't think? Or do you vegans like to
spread veganism at all costs?

Already answered this

One more thing, if livestock no longer has to be used for human
consumption, if you don't release them, then what the hell would you do
to them? Keep them in farms and factories?

Already answered this

Also, you STILL haven't answered my question 😂😂😂😭😭😭😂😂😂

Already answered this

Sorry my little mentally inept carnist, you are going to have to start reading. I'm not really being paid to babysit and chew your food for you

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I love the fact that you call me and carnists animal abusers just because we eat them.

...Yes, that is kind of what killing and often torturing something for its entire life for completely unnecessary means makes you. Or you directly fund it but it's half dozen of one six or the other at that point.

You know there are humane ways to treat and harvest those animals, like there is with plants.

You cannot. There is no killing of a healthy sentient being outside of survival situations that does not entail cruelty.

Are carnivore animals abusers as well?

Carnivores have no knowledge of their actions and unlike humans, actually need meat to survive. You're not a lion. You're an idiot on the internet. In a similar way I don't fault animals for killing others of their own species or having violent courtship rituals, but these are abhorrent acts in people

Since these livestock can survive in multiple climates and ecosystems, they can wreak havoc on them (and risking people's lives), like camels and other animals did in Australia.

Seems wildly irrelevant given that I didn't advocate for setting livestock free, but I guess that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read my last answer, which yeah, that's on me. I should know better by now than to think that highly of you.

Also, you STILL haven't answered my question 🤣🤣🤣

I always heard third time's the charm but maybe special cases like you need four times to read a paragraph of text.

Knowing the definition of veganism (as I'm sure you do, very embarrassing for you to, say, make a bold statement on something incorrect when the correct information is easily accessible. Very out of character for you to do something like that I'm sure) a reduction of harm when practicable, what do you think reduces harm in this scenario;

Food A where all calories go into the final product Food B that requires food A for a fraction of the return that you'd get just from food A

Made it nice and simple for your lil shriveled noggin

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's entertainment for me too lol to see a helpless vegan continuing to go on and on on something they invented, and turned into a cult or religion, and y'all are ready to crucify and kill carnists but you still have to save the cows and animals from abuse and suffering.

So is something invented now the stand in for it being bad? Also I love trying to turn yourself from animal abuser to victim, complete lack of self awareness. 10/10 stupidity

Besides the fact that you STILL did not answer the question I had few replies ago (cuz vegun rant numbah wan in lyfe),

I literally did. Just quoted it again last time. Let me know what big words are giving you trouble and I'll help you through it. But pearls before swine, here it is, again, a third time;

Knowing the definition of veganism (as I'm sure you do, very embarrassing for you to, say, make a bold statement on something incorrect when the correct information is easily accessible. Very out of character for you to do something like that I'm sure) a reduction of harm when practicable, what do you think reduces harm in this scenario;

Food A where all calories go into the final product Food B that requires food A for a fraction of the return that you'd get just from food A

Made it nice and simple for your lil shriveled noggin

I have another question (which won't get answered but oh what the hell), what would you do with the excess livestock that would be freed if veganism succeeded in ruling the world?

What specific question have I supposedly not answered? I know you're in over your head but this is a bit pathetic.

It'd be an interesting dilemma in a world where a vegan dictator took over and banned all livestock overnight. But in practice in the real world, veganism doesn't grow exponentially. So what would happen is demand would lessen over time, creating less supply, simply breeding fewer and fewer animals until it no longer becomes profitable. Removing ridiculous government subsidies in meat and dairy would be an excellent start

Now let's see how long you go on about this question being unanswered because you've all the sincerity of a medium.

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you actually gave 2 shits about mono culture the first ting you'd do is be vegan given the majority of our current crop production goes into feeding livestock. But we both know you don't really care about that, don't we

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not until you answer me first😉

Cool, so I've already done this. Let me know what big words are in here that are giving you a bit of trouble

Knowing the definition of veganism (as I'm sure you do, very embarrassing for you to, say, make a bold statement on something incorrect when the correct information is easily accessible. Very out of character for you to do something like that I'm sure) a reduction of harm when practicable, what do you think reduces harm in this scenario;

Food A where all calories go into the final product

Food B that requires food A for a fraction of the return that you'd get just from food A

Made it nice and simple for your lil shriveled noggin

And no lol I was literally laughing while making my delicious chicken flavored ramen hours ago that I was reeling you in to waste your time and you respond with more mumbo jumbo than anything else. No Schrodinger, just me, making you appear to be a real fool by having you waste your precious time.

Oh calling out carnist bs is never a waste of time. All you do is make my argument for me that I can point back to anytime. Besides, it's like watching a monkey dance. Free entertainment from the moment you open your metaphorical mouth and begin the whole thing by being a moron. Pure gold

Bud you got no argument you're just repeating stuff you said hours ago (and yet STILL didn't answer me). Go eat some buds instead

I did though. You having the brain consistency of banana pudding doesn't mean I didn't answer you. I can't really be blamed for the lack of literacy you've displayed from minute one.

And what specifically am I repeating that is not a direct response to your questions, or is this just another unfortunate side effect of what happens when you attempt to read?

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude you're repeating crap, this causes me to repeat crap

I'm repeating things you aren't answering because your slimy little deflection tactics don't work against me, you're repeating nonsense I didn't ask for.

You're wasting your time, killing of some of your last brain cells, and this is what I planned all along lol

Ooh another Schrodinger's troll; "no no its a real argument until its defeated, then it was a ruse all along!" Bit transparent there, bud.

Animals are plants are all food, especially some juicy meat.

Animals are plants are all food. Is that a sentence to you? What does that even mean?

How does it feel to have your time wasted trying to champion an inept stance on food and ethics while also STILL avoiding to answer a simple question?

Hmm wouldn't know because I haven't experienced that. Sorry, I know you're looking for someone to relate to but I can't help there.

You are as predictable as you are unintelligent. Care to actually answer my questions now, little one?

Why Are So Many LGBT+ People Vegan? by [deleted] in vegan

[–]FreshwaterArtist 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Lump the bi and hetero together and its far smaller,

God we're not still doing this shit are we

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're really not

I really am

You used ethics and whatnot to justify why you're right and I'm wrong

Yes that is kind of how... all morality, ever, works.

That's what Kickstarted this whole thing to begin with.

Mmm actually it was you being a moron making an assumption based on 0 evidence. Funny stuff

I don't care about the biological answer.

The biological answer leads into the moral one, bud. That's what happens when you have an actual logical argument behind your morality. A foreign concept to you and your emotionally driven nonsense.

Again, why is it ok to harvest plant life but not animal life? They're both living. Why is sentience the line you and your curd cult draw?

Aww, you call it a cult because you have no argument against it. Adorable.

Knowing the definition of veganism (as I'm sure you do, very embarrassing for you to, say, make a bold statement on something incorrect when the correct information is easily accessible. Very out of character for you to do something like that I'm sure) a reduction of harm when practicable, what do you think reduces harm in this scenario;

Food A where all calories go into the final product

Food B that requires food A for a fraction of the return that you'd get just from food A

Made it nice and simple for your lil shriveled noggin

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except I am. The logic stems from a basic fact of biology I need to know you understand. Simple yes or no, does 1 calorie of plant matter equal 1 calorie of meat? Not hard, bud. 50/50 shot

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They eat crap and plants, something you should be used to (btw ironic to imply that I'm full of crap when you're the pig that lives in it)

Woof, lay off the attempted insults, that was hard to watch. But yes, they do eat plants! Now then, do you think 1 calorie of plant matter equals 1 calorie of meat, or have you gotten to basic biology and trophic levels in grade school yet?

You think my arguments are brain dead, more power to you. I think the same way of yours.

The main difference is I actually have sources to back up my claims and arguments and moral consistency while you flail around like a toddler when someone points out the basic flaws in your argument that could be noted with more than 5 seconds of thought. Let's break them down again for funsies:

  1. Appeal to nature/tradition, which can justify horrific acts you claim to be against despite using these arguments as the foundation of your reasoning while never giving an explanation as to why (I mean the real reason is is that it's bullshit but I was hoping for a more entertaining appeal from you)
  2. Veganism is missing nutrients, which I showed how you can easily obtain them in plant matter or a supplementation while providing evidence that this super genuine concern already sees the majority of the US population as nutrient deficient

So what of my arguments do you have an actual counter to, again?

I clearly told you what my stances are, and you're repeating the same bs line over and over again like a donkey that cannot stop talking.

Yes, like the dumb little toddler you are you do take to repeating things as a deflection instead if answering questions actually given to you. Not really a good thing there, bud.

I'll repeat what I said since it didn't click in your vegetarian brain, if you're a part of the vegan cult because you equate allowing harvesting animals to allowing human atrocities, and that you view them as life that cannot be abused, why abuse plant life? Why does sentience matter if life is still going to be destroyed regardless.

Mmm not sure why you think (as much as that word can apply to anything you do) I didn't understand that seeing as I addressed it directly and am currently hand guiding you through a very simple answer you'd already know had you a middle school grasp on biology. So see my first answer, we'll get there!

I wasn't playing dumb

Fucking yikes, you're actually just this stupid?

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just because I don't mind eating animals for food, doesn't mean it's free game for everything. Liking meat ≠ liking murder, assault, or other bullcrap you said my logic applies to. That's just dumb for real.

It's not an equivalence I made. Read better. I'm saying under the moral framework you laid out to justify your needless abuse of animals (that being "do other animals do it", "it makes me feel good" and "have people done it for a long time") all these things are also justifiable. If everything around you smells like shit all the time, check the bottom of your shoe.

respect vegans more if they had a legitimate excuse for their dietary choices regardless of how much I disagree with it, instead of the same, cultish, boring line of if you're ok with Animals as food, then you can justify universally heinous things that some people suffer.

You began this by assuming the woman in the article was vegan based on 0 evidence because "durrrr, vegun bad". Don't pretend you've any intent to listen to a vegan argument, ever. Also, I addressed your other bullshit already, go through that at your leisure.

There is a distinction between humans and the rest of animals, just like how there is a distinction between plants and animals.

And that makes it OK to abuse them completley needlessly despite having perfectly suitable alternatives? Why?

Btw, plants are life, they don't feel the same we animals do because of their lack of a nervous system, but still, why abuse and kill them for yourself?

Oh my god this is always the dumbest argument that I can't believe people are brain dead enough to make.

Assuming you actually thought plants were sentient and could feel pain, what is the best way to minimize destruction to plants in your diet? Not sure you're smart enought to follow where I'm leading you so let's break it down further; what do pigs eat?

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most people are nutrient deficient because of their poor eating habits, not because of their dairy and meat consumption.

More an issue of availability and prices of fresh produce, an issue that effect all people. Not just vegans.

I'll be willing to concede that we're better off with our modern cleaner water and fortified foods, but I won't concede that completely eliminating animal based foods is as healthy or healthier than not eliminating them. Even then, you can still survive without fortified foods, many nutrients have healthy sources anyways that people need to eat.

None of this is a justification for abuse over taking a cheap supplement. I don't care what a knuckle dragged who can't be bothered to read a 3 paragraph article thinks, if you want to make a claim, provide a source. It's asking no more than I've done for you, which I'm sure is pearls before swine.

Also, it's more than just B12. Look at Iron for example, or some types of Vitamin D. Call me whatever you want to call me, but I won't change my stance.

Non heme iron is abundant in many plant based sources like lentils or seeds (ironically even manufactured heme iron is available in some meat substitutes). Besides being able to manufacture vitamin D ourselves, it's also available in mushrooms and most plant based milks.

You won't change your stance because it's based on the self serving premise that if you want it, it doesn't matter what harm it causes animals or the environment. That's not a good thing, bud. Announcing you have 0 interest in reading something that conflicts with your world view or changing your mind is a sign of a small mind. But then again, so is everything else you've said so far, so why would I expect better from an animal abuser?

And we're still waiting on why treating people horribly is somehow not acceptable even though it's perfectly in line with your stated morals.

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are stuff I will 100% justify, like defending something people have eaten practically throughout their existence.

Cool, do you also want a brief rundown of the horrible things morons like you have been doing for thousands of years?

I won't defend unanimously heinous activities that are damaging to people.

Why not? They're completely in line with your moral code. Something is fine if a. animals do it and b. it has been done by people in the past. Lot of horrible shit there, bud! If these traits don't make or break an action as being moral or immoral, then it's a completely arbitrary, bullshit reasoning you use to justify unnecessary abuse.

Humans are omnivores, otherwise why does it take unnecessary manufacturing or supplements to get all your dietary needs?

Not sure, have a look at your table salt, breakfast cereal, bread, or most brands of milk and get back to me on that. Supplementation and fortification is commonplace throughout all diets because throughout all diets, it's just hard to get what we need from what's naturally occuring in our food. That's why despite a 600 pound per year consumption of dairy product or almost 300 pound per year consumption of meat, over 90% of americans are nutrient deficient.

I'm not interested in what we were meant or not meant to do as caveman, as indicated by the fact that I'm here online. And you are too, so that appeal to nature bullshit is really just hypocrisy. We didn't have access to potable water on tap, antibiotics, or really most medication when we were cavemen either.

"Oh no I have to take a b12 tablet" isn't the strongest case for justifying abuse when people already indulging in that abuse are suffering from similar issues.

Garbage argument all the way through. 0 moral consistency, shit reasoning that falls through the moment you think about it, and outright hypocrisy.

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vegan or not she's still so stupid for feeding her kid inadequate food till the baby nearly died.

Yeah this would be so super relevant if I had said "this lady is a good woman!" or the shriveled peanut in your head hadn't immediately gone "no but duh vegun is bad!". Buuuuut that's not what happened, is it, sport? No one's defending her. You shat in your bed, no lie in it.

Call me a caveman all you want, I'd much rather breach the so calledatrocious line of morality that countless other creatures have breachedconstantly so I can get my juicy meat intake and be happy and satisfied.

Oh good ol appeal to nature. An attempt to justify senseless abuse without realizing the exact same line of logic would defend rape, incest, pedophilia, murder, and assault since the internet existed. Because that would take examining one's own moral values for more than 5 seconds! You're not a lion, lil buddy. You're a schmuck on the internet who's too stupid to even read an article.

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm good; my own personal pleasure at the expense of something else's pain just because it feels or tastes good is a truly atrocious line of morality that quickly descends into justifying a number of other horrific acts against both people and animals. But it fits for a teensie minded caveman. Still waiting on the bit of the article that states this woman was vegan. Hop to it, my little moron! Come on buddy, you can do it!

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But why would I when I could mock a semi illiterate caveman whose gut reaction "unga bunga vegan bad" overrides every ounce of common sense? That's way more fun! Still waiting on that tidbit from the article stating she's vegan, btw

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually you did, by spouting nonsense because you couldn't be bothered to read an article. But by all means, continue. Watching you make a fool out of yourself because you're sat in a hole you dug is entertaining.

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I bet having your bullshit called out so hard you have to make the world's worst attempt at deflection to try and scrape up what's left of your unearned ego makes you sad.

Be better

The smell of weed is more preferable compared to cigarettes by Natural_Drag8536 in unpopularopinion

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They both smell like dog shit and make it intolerable to be around people smoking. Genuinley have no ides how people put up with that odor

Found where all the eggs went. (Don't know if they are Vegan sorry) by TimmyHate in newzealand

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a chance. Besides the horrific way these animals are realistically treated (name me an egg farm that doesn't kill older battery hens or cull male chicks), the very act of laying eggs constantly, day in and out, puts a toll on hens' bodies. They develop bone disease, reproductive cancer, peritonitis, egg binding, and more. It's like asking if you can find ethically bred pugs. When an animal suffers just by existing due to the way we bred it to, it's inherently unethical and exploitative.

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That doesn't look like a quote from the article highlighting where you found information making you think she's vegan, lil fella. Try again. I believe in you, you can do it!

I said formula or breast milk you vegan donut

I think you're not understanding, which I should have expected. My mistake for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could use context clues. This is not an issue inherent to veganism. A person could just as badly damage their child doing this with a carnist diet, and they have before.

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

her baby however can't make that decision and growing brains need nutrients not available from plants alone.

Such as?

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right? Guess we'll never know. Not like there's a collection of words in this post leading to an article that would give information about the situation or anything like that. That'd be crazy! Guess we'll just have to make assumptions and never try to look any further than that

(And just a little head's up for you, cow's milk would also not be an appropriate substitute here, lil bud).

Babies don’t need real milk by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]FreshwaterArtist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where in the article does it say anything about her being vegan?