To say it quickly : "when we weren't homo sapiens". Which doesn't change much in my book.

And to Heyt : I don't mind people eating meat and all as long as they don't claim to care about the environment or/and are not aware of the situation. You can just say that you don't give a shit about it and I will respect you. I don't respect hypocrites, high horse ? I just think I am a more integral person, not necessarily a better one, whatever that means.

So you mean to tell me that this is not shoving opinions down peoples throat :

The teeth part is obvious bullock and did you not understand the difference between having to and being meant to do something ? Yes we have been omnivores since we have been homo sapiens, but that still doesn't mean that is natural to us : get you concepts straight.

only to those who are easily manipulated or draw invalid conclusions from the article you shared for example. Use your own reason. All this bullshit is forced down our troat since we were young. Truth is we all have a choice nowadays concerning what we eat and having this choice no human will naturaly lean towards/chose to eat meat instead of fruits/vegetables/etc. We are culturally brainwashed into thinking this is the natural way for us, but truth is this is just a remnant of old habits that were extremely usefull to our survival at a critical point in our evolution, but that is it.

Use you rhetoric all you want and put labels on me, but go research the physiology of humans and compare it to that of a carnivore, an omnivore and that of an herbivore and comme back and tell me which one it most ressembles.

I also wonder if you still think your last assertions hold ? If you fail to understand I can do no more..

Stop it.

I do care about the environment and I don't need you acting high and mighty about it. You're on a computer right now. How do you think it gets power - sunshine and happiness? You tell me to do research but won't provide any evidence for your claims. As OrionFyre pointed out, you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy, among many others. What's your problem, man?

A more integral person? Give me a break.

lets keep it civil folks

Yes, let's.

Woah! thanks for that!

Yes ^


Food is a touchy but important subject and we should respect other people enough to have a civil conversation about it

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

This is pretty handy thing to keep in mind when discussing emotionally charged subjects.

If you can't back up your claim, be sure to state that it is simply your opinion, otherwise people are going to accuse you of pushing your opinion down their throats.

Good advice. Good to remember that whoever you disagree with probably believes as strongly about their position as you do about yours. We all see the world through different filters.

And as soon as you attack someone, a common reaction is for them to put up a wall. Walls make it hard to have real discussion. Arguing with reason and understanding has a much better chance at honest open minded communication.

Cherry picking

The meat industry is the largest producer of greenhouse gases, among many other things. Thus, all the little cherries aside, the best thing one can do to help the environment is to not eat meat. If one cares about the environment, one will not eat meat, being aware of the situation.

No logical fallacies here. I'm only saying that I respect people who hold their claims. I'm aware that this is a personal matter : respect. Nevertheless, I know that people not being aware of the situation need evidence to open up and I did not provide that before hand. My presumption on this matter is that we are to beging with in a friendly environment and that everyone here is smart enought to do their own research.

Want to keep on living a lie ? Don't research. Want to be aware ? Do some. I don't give a shit about being civil with people who aren't even open to the idea to beging with, especially when I can tell you are not aware of the situation even though you would like to think you are. I never wanted to enter a discussion on this because I know it most often leads to bullshit, do you own research I don't want this to become a useless interaction. You said something, I countered it with logic (not facts, but I showed the absurdity of what you were saying) but you still don't understand and are reorienting the matter to some idiotic bullshit. Civil is being a hypocrite the way I see it.

Yes.

On the other hand, can you convince low conciseness with anger? Or would you just let them be? In the end, it's animals eating animals. It's Homo sapiens eating Bos primigenius taurus. Not very different than a lion eating a gazelle.

Wouldn't it be much smarter to write some vegan cookbooks and get rich, like this guy (Attila Hildmann):



I mean you could just laugh your ass off all day, driving expensive cars and smiling at low life meateaters. Your bank, greenhouse and karma account will speak for themselves. No need to be angry because of a single bonehead, when you can change the mind of thousands by example.

To name a few other important aspects : Raising livestock consumes 1/3 of all the planets fresh water, occupies up to 45% of earth's land, causes 91% of amazon destruction, leading cause of species extinction, leading cause of ocean "dead zones", leading cause of habitat destruction. And we are here talking about our computer's consuming electricty and caring about the environment while putting our fucking face's in meat !?

Yes it would, I agree. I don't know how I always end up in these types of discussion even if I don't care about convincing people anymore at all (of that kind). Probably the frustration that commes from seeing all the bullshit arguments beings puked out and them saying we are wrong after and I am frustrated because I care about people, not because I just want to win a debate or some shit like most. I don't want to laugh at people thought, I would like them to understand but I know it is impossible in a lot of cases. In person, whenever I spot someone who I know will be receptive, I give them the arguments/facts/etc.

I know I cannot convince low consciousness with anger, I am not angry even if I am swearing a little just saying. I can be a little to "raw" sometimes, but I think this kind of way to be puts an impression on people that will grow on them with time and encourages more people to do so. I adapt my language with whom I am talking with.

In my humble opinion...
Diet is consciousness, just as drugs are keys to consciousness, or mirrors of mind. I read a book recently that denied the statement "you are what you eat" by saying rather "you are what you absorb from what you eat." And I am suspicious that we absorb the consciousness and all it's baggage (a resonance of joy to terror) of whatever it is we consume. This is why I've chosen a plant based diet. I cannot bear the thought of consuming meat, anymore than I can bring myself to kill anything, especially when we human beings are in a position, by virtue of our supposedly high intelligence, to change ourselves, even if it means inconvenience. What's the cost of the meat industry on a planetary scale? I think Pixar already raved about that - and he's right. It's not that eating meat is bad - it's just it's no longer necessary. If we continue business as usual, well, then we're doomed.

Consciousness pervades the phenomenal world of being and matter. (let's say.)
I strongly believe one's consciousness is related to one's dietary habits,
just in the same way that our actions are related to our thinking habits.
The buddha put it : "all that we are is the result of what we have thought."
Well, in the same way, all that we think is the result of our bodily and neural bio-electric-chemical composition.
That material composition that is the body, like a car that runs longer when its fuel is optimized for its engine, is a result of what we have consumed, and a result of Nothing Else.

(Let's not bring in to this the whole thing about chakras and energy manipulation and redirection and all that. Keeping it simple.)

All of that seems perfectly reasonable to see. But here's the next thing - (and this is just my opinion),
I think our state of consciousness/mind/perception depends entirely on what we eat (or smoke ha).
And when one considers the state of consciousness of an animal, amidst millions crowded, ignored, abused, deprived, distraught, diseased that are ruthlessly farmed, polluting the earth in the process, tortured and terrified their whole lives through to be mercilessly and inhumanely (what the fuck does that even mean) slaughtered without painkillers or compassion, I think a person that can ignore this plain and evident truth is an abominable kind of person, a person that prefers ignor-ance over knowledge which will inconvenience one's dietary lifestyle (that is called manifest arrogance).

There is no rationale for animal suffering,
anymore than there is a rationale for preferring not to "meet your meat" - killing it yourself.
There is nothing morally wrong with eating meat, please don't get me wrong.
But if you think the meat you eat is not connected with the state of consciousness of the animal it was in when it died - in utter terror - a hopeless empty sorrow and despair fraught with unspeakable pain, then I cannot foresee any more "reasonable" or "logical" position that would dissuade you from changing your life than that.

So, diet is consciousness.

Easy to solve - only buy locally raised meat or wild caught meat (I get all my meat from a local farm and it only cost a tiny fraction more - no reason the Amazon needs to be hurt to farm meat - that is done for profits). Besides grass land doesnt offer us much food, but is great for cattle. Or raise chickens and pigs which need way less food then cattle (they both love compost too and their poop feeds plants which is also helpful for farming). Not everyone eating meat participates in factory farmed meat. Fish is great too - I like to catch my own.

And are CO2 emissions really that bad for the environment, or is that just a belief created by politicians? I know to most people this idea seems crazy, but temperature stats and honest ice level stats dont lie. Some interesting info out there, and even the man responsible for alerting the world to climate change claims he was wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deNbnxaJYOU


As for meat having bad consciousness.... What about those poor veggies that you killed and tore up to feed yourself? Plants have consciousness too! Besides, you cant even breathe without killing tons of microbes and every time you poop you kill tons more - truth is we are walking death machines.

Vegans live longuer by the way


I have to disagree, in the current state of things it is morally wrong to eat meat.

We know the meat industry is the most poluting and destructive of all industries. Eating meat is encouraging this. If we are aware and still chose to eat meat this is morally wrong. If it is not wrong to encorage the most destructive force of the human world knowingly than I don't know what is. What if we made the conditions of animals better like "free range", "organic", etc ? Don't fool yourself, this won't change much at all from their actual living conditions the way things are being done right now.

Now you'll say : where is the data, the facts, the evidence? If you truly cared about this subject more than just seeming to be right or winning an argument you would do your own research, it's out there and it's very easy to access. There is nothing better than finding out for yourself, when someone tells you our prejudices often get in the way.

We have the choice to change our habits and save 90+ lives lived in suffering per year or to keep on living a lifestyle that is currently completely obsolete, that's no longer necessary, just because we don't like change. If it is not morally wrong to live killing and enslaving countless animals when we can live without them then I don't know what is.

When you know, when you are aware, but still chose to eat meat knowing all that is implied by your habits/lifestyle that is morally wrong. At least if morality means causing the less sufforence possible and not killing for no good reasons.

More than 10 billions farm animals are killed each year to sustain our demand for meat. How many plants do you think they eat and water they consume ? And how much of the energy contained in those plants will actually be converted to energy our bodies can actually use ?

This is no laughty/silly everyone has there own opinion matter.

That's a blatant lie. You accuse other of using rhetoric, but you yourself are utilizing it just as effectively as everyone else in this thread. You're using emotionally charged language. You make claims that "No true environmentalist" would be a meat eater. That is a logical fallacy and is only being used to hedge your superiority in an argument. Don't worry. You're not alone.

I suggest if you want your arguments to be more effective you stop attacking people's morals or politics by accusing them of "not really caring about the environment.


And that's why you won't change anyone's mind because you're far too emotionally invested to engage in a discourse without rhetoric.

To be perfectly clear If you're a vegan I admire you. I don't have the time or willingness to put into planning my meals as require to get nutrients. I like the taste of meat also.

What I DO CARE about is when someone comes into an argument accusing someone of using rhetoric as an attack against the man, and then proceed to perpetrate the very same offense in the same breath. THAT is what I was pointing out. DO NOT sit in condemnation of one's use of rhetoric when you're just as guilty.

TO be perfectly clear on this: I am pointedly holding you to task on your use of rhetoric while rebuking someone for the same. Not for your use of rhetoric, but your hypocrisy. It's a nasty dirty trick used in emotionally charged arguments. I am NOT holding you to task for your views or position. If you feel the need to respond to this post then I would ask you to respond to exactly what I am holding you to task for, and to not attempt to move the goal post away from your fallacy as you attempted to do in your first response to me.