As a semi-vegan?

[Red]

I've understand your definition of freegan ,but you didn't gave me why I'm being rude and why being vegan absolute solution to animal cruelty.

It seems you still don't have an understanding of freegan yet chief.

You gave a pointless and long examples of freegan including my friends and families which indicates to me that you despise meat-eater as if I should go freegan.

Wait, what..

Do you think changing your or my dietary going to stop animal cruelty in reality? Understand my original question and arguments first please.

Veganism can help save about 33 animals per year, if I'm not mistaken. More vegans mean less animal deaths. And even if it doesn't help, you're not supporting the suffering if animals. Unless of course you're the aforementioned freegan, in which case you're excused.

I actually don't care if people go freegan or not. That's their own way to stop animal cruelty however that is still not the best way to stop animal cruelty or prove your justification of organic meat is bad.

too.. many.. non-sequiturs..

That's why I want to suggest people a portion control than not eating meat. Which is more reasonable and healthy. Can you imagine how much we can save if people stop overeating?

From what I can understand, you're trying to say that you should eat meat in specific portions.. right?

I'm not freegan. Can't you tell?

brimstone's not saying you are, jackass.

Then it's grocery stores fault for overproducing and wasting a perfectly good meat, we should criticize that not meat-eaters. There's nothing you can do about people throwing foods ,but we can promote people to stop wasting the foods with reasoning.

....The point of brimstone's claim was that sometimes, people order meat, then just throw them out after only touching them, and you can get your freegan on. Where the hell are you getting the assertion that we should put the blame on the store or whoever is selling the product? Is it the store's fault as to how their consumers wish to use their products?

I've never insulted freegans, but I criticize your flaw about going vegans and organic meats. You've insulted me(not freegan) for that pointless and long assumption of "if your a freegan" as if I eat meat I should go freegan. which is totally absurd solutions of yours.

no comment..

"It is a moral alternative to veganism."

not an absolute solution for people's hunger and people's overeating. Again morals for whom?

That wasn't even the reasoning for the argument..

First of all. IF I couldn't understand you're stand or questions in the beginning I would've asked you and I did. You made a false accusation . If you want me to organize all the question I can but you have to agree that you ignored all my questions and contradiction to your answer. Second is that you didn't address on what quotes have you assumed I'm being rude. Third what's this "wild claims" and "True meaning" of yours? How self-righteous do you have to be to typed those? Stop play victim card and criticize my "Wild claims" if you've understand. If you did not understand my "wild claim" then ask me politely rather accusing me of being rude.

Look, we understand if you can't english very goodly. But, like I said, don't make assertions that brimstone is attacking you.

What insult? Vegan is not an absolute solution to world problem?

Not sure if troll, or can't understand claim.

Do I have to up bring your pointless and your rude assumption of my friends and families would intentionally throw meat in trash in order for me to eat? I criticize your attitude toward meat-eater not freegan.

I ca- I can- I can't- WHAT!? What is your major malfunction brudda? Brimstone didn't make any accusations against your family for Jebus' sakes.

I'm pretty sure you contradicted to yourself right there. You know freegan are a way to stop wasting food so they look for a meats in the rubbish bin in the first place ,but freegan would refuse meat from friend's offers which could've been a leftover? Are you seriously suggesting me that freegan would refuse all meat which could've been thrown in the trash?

Oh god not this shit again..
To clarify, brimstone was claiming that friends and families may purposefully throw out meat because they know you're gonna go to the wastebin and eat the tossed meat. I have no clue what in Gaben's name you're trying to argue.

im gonna skip some cuz i cant take much more of this

How would I make a arguments without understanding you're quotes. I literally put a quotes next to my argument in order for you to understand my criticism to your contradiction.

this hurts my brain.

Original question: "Is being vegan absolute way to detest the animal production(animal cruelty)?

Answer: Yes, but there are meat diet alternatives.

and you brought freegan over which is still not an absolute way to detest the animal production(animal cruelty). It was about vegan. I didn't ask if I have any solution to detest the animal cruelty. The key word was "Absolute".

The chap is trying to help you. Consider all of brimstone's statements before dismissing them, ass.

Now this is a irrational thoughts. How come you concluded that buying meat is evil? Don't you have to criticize how grocery store sell them and criticize their method of handling? Don't we have to criticize the people's diet to stop over demanding the meat rather saying meat is bad? You going vegan or promoting vegan won't save the environment, stop animal cruelty and promote people's healthy dietary(not fully vegan). Plus you won't able convince the meat-eater for their healthy diet. You can't criticize meat-eaters because they purchase meat, we should criticize the unhealthy way of meat factories promoting the meat. Stop targeting the meat, target the people's health dietary(balanced), meat companies unnatural way to farm, meat companies overproduction and people over demanding a meat.

I'll just leave this here:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

[brimstoneSalad]

I've understand your definition of freegan ,but you didn't gave me why I'm being rude and why being vegan absolute solution to animal cruelty.

I said vegan is NOT the only absolute solution to animal cruelty.

You have three options:

1. vegan
2. Freegan
3. Ostrovegan (can also eat oysters)

Each option is fine. You can choose which one you prefer.

You gave a pointless and long examples of freegan including my friends and families which indicates to me that you despise meat-eater as if I should go freegan.

I respect freegans. Not all people who eat meat are bad; people who buy meat are bad. Freegans, or meagans, can also eat meat, but I respect them.

Do you think changing your or my dietary going to stop animal cruelty in reality? Understand my original question and arguments first please.

Do you think your or my not raping women will stop all rape in reality?
Obviously not.

The point is not to control what other people do. Just take responsibility for yourself.

If YOU rape women, YOU will cause the women harm.
If YOU buy meat, YOU will cause the animals and environment harm.

Be an adult and take responsibility for your own actions. You don't have to change the whole world to be a good person: Just change what you do, and don't do bad things.

There will always be evil people who rape women and buy meat. But you can choose to be a good person who doesn't rape or purchase meat.
It's your choice to be a good or bad person -- it's defined by your choices, and how they harm or help others. That's what morality is.

I actually don't care if people go freegan or not. That's their own way to stop animal cruelty

Yes, it's a way to stop animal cruelty which is different from veganism. So, veganism is not the only way, as I said.

You have three options today to stop animal cruelty. In the future, we will have a fourth option: Bioreacted meat (it's meat grown from culture, with no animal death or high environmental harm).

however that is still not the best way to stop animal cruelty or prove your justification of organic meat is bad.

If it is "organic" oysters, then it's fine. But "organic" has no meaning. The point is that oysters are probably not sentient, so they likely have no will to live.
Cows and chickens and pigs are sentient beings; they want to live. Killing them for your enjoyment is wrong.
If you think killing them "painlessly" is OK, then is it OK for me to kill you painlessly and eat you?

Oysters also filter feed from the ocean; it's free food. There is no waste.
Cows and pigs and chickens are fed corn and soy, which humans could have eaten; it's a waste of food and resources. Wasting food by feeding it to cows to make meat is wrong. This is basic thermodynamics; you can never get as much nutrition from the meat as was in the wasted feed. You will often lose 90% of the nutrients when the vegetables are turned into meat through the animal's biology.

Rope grown oysters clean the oceans, and improve the environment.
Cows, and to an extent other farmed animals, produce large amounts of waste and methane which harms the environment. ALL cows make methane, including "organic" cows, because it comes from their digestion.

Do some basic reading on these topics instead of making bald assertions.

The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why "organic" meat would be better than conventional meat. You have not done so. The default assumption is that it is the same unless evidenced otherwise.

That's why I want to suggest people a portion control than not eating meat. Which is more reasonable and healthy. Can you imagine how much we can save if people stop overeating?

There are many great ways to help the world. Portion control is one way to improve things, but it still causes significant animal cruelty.

Reducing meat is better than eating much meat, but eliminating meat is the best we can do.

It's better to have less animal cruelty than more. It's better to have less methane than more. It's better to have less waste than more.

I'm not freegan. Can't you tell?

You claimed that talking about freeganism was an insult, as if you think freegans are LOWER than you.
But freeganism is something I respect; if you were freegan, then I would respect you totally.

You should respect them for working hard to reduce suffering and waste, instead of insulting them by speaking badly of taking meat from the trash.

Then it's grocery stores fault for overproducing and wasting a perfectly good meat, we should criticize that not meat-eaters.

That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

That's like saying it's a drug dealer's fault for producing roofies, so we should criticize that instead of criticizing the rapist who uses the roofies to rape women.

Both may be problems, but the grocery store is only fulfilling demand, and they are required by law to throw out old meat. It's the fault of the meat eaters for buying the meat which is so perishable, which requires the grocery store to overstock so it has enough for all of them to buy it.

It's all YOUR fault for buying it. The seller is innocent.
If one grocery store didn't sell meat, you would just go to another store to buy it, and that first store would lose business.
Stores are forced to sell meat in order to stay in business because of YOU and people like YOU who require them to sell meat, or else they won't shop there and the store will close.

And if one day the store didn't have enough meat, the next time you wouldn't go back there. YOU are forcing all of that waste by buying meat.

There's nothing you can do about people throwing foods ,but we can promote people to stop wasting the foods with reasoning.

Bullshit. You can choose to stop wasting so much by not eating meat. You are responsible for your waste. Stop worrying about others so much until you fix your own bad habits.

Even just producing meat will waste something like 90% of the food. You clearly don't understand thermodynamics. The animal needs to eat much more food in order to grow, and when you kill the animal and cruelly end his or her life, you only get back about 10% of the food nutrients. The rest of the food is converted into shit, and bones, and things we can not eat -- and methane, which ruins our environment.

Beyond that, meat is extremely perishable. By buying it, you force the grocery store to always carry it, and there will always be waste because of that. You are forcing the store to waste, because if they don't you won't shop there. It's your consumer habits that dictate their actions.

Finally, if you really care about stopping waste: Go Freegan. That's the only way to have negative waste, and really help the most.
Or if you can't go freegan (or you are worried about your health, since all meat is unhealthy), you can go vegan, which will have a little bit of waste, but much less than eating meat.

as if I eat meat I should go freegan. which is totally absurd solutions of yours.

If you want to continue eating meat, you have three choices:

1. Admit you choose to be an evil person, and not care about the world; just continue harming others for your enjoyment because you like meat.

2. Go freegan. Freegans are good people who can eat meat which has been wasted, and they can reduce the waste of society by doing that.

3. Switch your meat to rope grown oysters, since oysters are probably not sentient, and the cultivation of rope grown oysters is good for the environment. (Rope grown oysters doesn't involve bycatch or damage to the environment, since they're grown on ropes. Look it up.)

Those are three options. Or you can go vegan too. It's your choice.

not an absolute solution for people's hunger and people's overeating. Again morals for whom?

If you decide to not rape women, that is not an "absolute" solution to rape all over the world. It's just an absolute solution for you (the most absolute you can do). You only have the responsibility for your own actions.

Morals for you: You doing less harm to others.
Don't worry about what others do so much, you can only try to convince them, but it won't always work. You only have an absolute obligation to reduce your own harm to the world.

First of all. IF I couldn't understand you're stand or questions in the beginning I would've asked you and I did. You maked a false accusation .

You very clearly did not.

What insult? Vegan is not an absolute solution to world problem?

Insult by not understanding a post, and then making assumptions.

Do I have to up bring your pointless and your rude assumption of my friends and families would intentionally throw meat in trash in order for me to eat?

Apparently I have to spell it out for you.


You: "Hi mom, I'm hungry, do you have any food?"

Your mom: "Yes, I have some chicken, do you want some?"

You: "No, sorry, I'm Freegan now. I can only eat meat which has been wasted, such as from the trash, or rescued from a dumpster."

Your mom: "That's no problem, I'll set this plate on the trash bin, now you can eat."

You: "Thanks Mom, now I can eat it!"


I gave this as an example of something that is not acceptable Freegan practice. I also said it's not OK to mooch, or eat food just because it's free to you (a gift).

You know freegan are a way to stop wasting food so they look for a meats in the rubbish bin in the first place ,but freegan would refuse meat from friend's offers which could've been a leftover?

Yes. Leftovers are not the same as trash. Your friend may choose to eat the leftovers the next day. But instead, if you ate his food, he will buy more food. Therefore, if you eat your friend's left overs, you will cause your friend to buy more food later, and thus buy more meat, and cause more animal cruelty and waste.

This is not a difficult concept.

Are you seriously suggesting me that freegan would refuse all meat which could've been thrown in the trash?

A Freegan must refuse meat which somebody else may eat -- for example, leftovers -- because it is not sure it would be wasted.
A Freegan must also refuse "gifts" of meat from friends and family, either direct or indirect, because they may purchase additional meat knowing that you will eat all of the "extra".

Take these examples of a dinner:

A. You have five family members. As a fake freegan, you eat all of the leftover meat. Your mother knows this, so if she is smart, she will buy enough meat for six people -- so there will be enough meat left over for you. This is not freegan, because your action of eating the leftover meat has caused your wise mother to buy extra meat for you.

B. You have five family members. As a real freegan, you can not eat leftover meat they have given you, because you are wise and you know that if you do this that they will buy extra meat to give you as "leftovers". Your mother knows this, and because she is frugal and knows you will not eat the extra, she only buys enough meat for five people -- so there will be few to no leftovers. This is how a real freegan acts, because he or she understands that there are consequences to his or her actions and they affect the spending behavior of friends and family.

You asked humble but in another way you are asking for my submissive to your false claim and I did ask you a lot of questions and contradiction to your claims.

I'm not asking you to be submissive to anything, but to be humble regarding your comprehension until you understand my argument. After you understand my argument, then you can attempt to argue against it.

Didn't I put your quotes next to my arguments? And you still think I didn't understand you?

Yes, and correct, you misunderstood what I was saying.

See above about the Freegan thing, and what I was saying about getting meat from family and friends.

How would I make a arguments without understanding you're quotes. I literally put a quotes next to my argument in order for you to understand my criticism to your contradiction.

You attempted to make an argument, but your argument didn't make any sense next to my quotes because you didn't understand what I said.
I'm sure you thought you were making an argument against mine, but alas, it was not one.

Original question: "Is being vegan absolute way to detest the animal production(animal cruelty)?

and you brought freegan over which is still not an absolute way to detest the animal production(animal cruelty). It was about vegan. I didn't ask if I have any solution to detest the animal cruelty. The key word was "Absolute".

What do you think "absolute" means? What do you think "detest" means?
Your question itself barely made sense.

How come you concluded that buying meat is evil?

When you buy meat from the grocery store, you support their practice of stocking meat; otherwise there would be no meat for you to buy (you'd have to order it and wait several days). And when you buy meat, they will increase their stocks.
When you buy meat, the grocery store will order more from the processing plant, which will order more meat from the slaughter house, which will kill more cows and order more live cows from the farmer to kill, who will send more cows to slaughter and inject more semen into the breeding cows to make more calves to raise for your meat.

Your action of buying meat triggers a long chain of events (in reverse), from the rape and impregnation of a cow, to the birth, to the fattening up, to the transport and slaughter, to the processing, to the store to wait for you (with some of it going bad as it does).

Not only does buying meat kill animals (which is evil if you don't have a need -- which you don't. Only if you are starving and have no other food is that acceptable), it produces pollution (methane from cow farts and burps, look it up) that is destroying our environment, and it wastes food in production because cows eat more food and convert it into feces, and only produce a little bit of meat from all of the vegetable they eat.

All of these things are profoundly evil.

However, if you find meat in the dumpster, then none of these things happen. You just save that meat from waste.

Don't you have to criticize how grocery store sell them and criticize their method of handling?

No. This grocery store behavior is a natural economic consequences of your purchasing patterns.
If you stop buying meat from grocery stores, you can reduce the waste by 10% or so, but you still have another 90% of waste caused by the meat production, and you still have the animals being killed, and the greenhouse gas pollution, among other problems.

We can talk about the other problems which I've left off, but those alone should be enough to convince any sensible person that buying meat is bad.

Don't we have to criticize the people's diet to stop over demanding the meat rather saying meat is bad?

We should do both.

Demanding a lot of meat is the worst thing.
Demanding a little meat is the "lesser of two evils"; still bad, but less bad than the other.
Demanding no meat is the best we can do.

There is nothing good about buying meat today.

If I see people overeat meat I suggest them to minimize meat for health issue.

If you see people raping too many women, do you suggest to them to just rape a few women? Just rape in moderation?

Or do you suggest to them to rape no women at all?

You not raping or promoting not raping won't save women from rape, or end STDs. Plus you won't able convince the rapists for their healthy lifestyle. You can't criticize rapists because they purchase roofies and rape women, we should criticize the unhealthy way of roofie factories promoting the roofies. Stop targeting the rape, target the people's health lifestyle(balanced - just a little bit of rape), roofie companies unnatural way to manufacture roofies, roofie companies overproduction and people over demanding roofies and rape.

So, surely you agree with that. We should not promote people not to rape, right? We should promote people to rape a little bit, but not too much?

I don't agree with that. If something is evil, we should try not to do it at all, not just do it a little bit.

If I see people overeat sugar I suggest them to minimize sugar for health issue.

Sugar is a good example; there is no reason to eat it for health. Zero added sugar is the best thing for health, just like zero meat. (Meat is worse than added sugar, but it's a good comparison still).
If you want something sweet, you can eat some berries or other fruit, which is much healthier than added sugar, or use non-caloric sweeteners, artificial or natural like Stevia.

If I see people overeat sodium I suggest them to minimize sodium for health issue.

Salt is completely different from meat or added sugar. Salt is required for health; we need to eat some of it, and in moderation (unlike meat or sugar) it has no negative health consequences.

In the case of salt, only too much is bad, a little is good.

In the case of sugar or meat, a little is bad, more is worse.

If I see people overeat carbohydrate I suggest them to minimize carbohydrate for health issue.

This is the same case as salt. Complex carbohydrates in the whole food form are healthy, and an important source of energy along with healthy unsaturated fats.

Only if you eat so many carbohydrates, or highly processed carbohydrates, is it bad.

Your grasp on nutrition is terrible. You have a lot to learn, if you're humble enough to do it.

People have different cases depended on their diet. You can't just blindly say "Meat is overall bad". Which is not true.

Meat IS overall bad. I do not say this blindly, as you rudely assert, but with mountains of evidence on the harm of saturated fat, cholesterol, and other harmful substances in meat which are supported by mainstream health authorities.

Meat has many vitamins in it, but it also comes with harmful substances which are more damaging than the vitamins are good compared to other sources of vitamins. Meat is only better than starving or dying of malnourishment, which is worse.

The only 'meat' which may be more neutral is fish (this is not called meat in many places), because it is lower in saturated fat, and contains special substances like DHA and EPA.
However, we can also get these from algae in supplements, and get all of the nutrition which fish has from vegetable sources -- and with fewer heavy metals and neurotoxins. So even then, it's probably better to eat the vegan sources.

Compared to a balanced vegan diet with supplements for B-12 and D (and sometimes DHA/EPA) for which the resources are available in most countries, meat is not beneficial in any amount.

[seand123]

I said vegan is NOT the only absolute solution to animal cruelty.

You have three options:

1. vegan
2. Freegan
3. Ostrovegan (can also eat oysters)

Each option is fine. You can choose which one you prefer.

I don't understand why you giving me only 3 options or why you giving me an option to begin with to stop animal cruelty.

I respect freegans. Not all people who eat meat are bad; people who buy meat are bad. Freegans, or meagans, can also eat meat, but I respect them.

No, people who make meats into a bad condition and promoting unhealthy foods are bad people. Not the meats or person who purchase the meats.

Do you think your or my not raping women will stop all rape in reality?
Obviously not.

The point is not to control what other people do. Just take responsibility for yourself.

If YOU rape women, YOU will cause the women harm.
If YOU buy meat, YOU will cause the animals and environment harm.

What the hell is this comparison? literally. How am I buying meat is like a raping a women? Who say buying meat will cause harm to the animals and environment? Only thing that can harm the nature are over-catching and disposing environment for animals. How the hell it's related to the farmed animals.

Be an adult and take responsibility for your own actions. You don't have to change the whole world to be a good person: Just change what you do, and don't do bad things.

That's very ignorant and lazy words you've just said there. You should be an adult and think more rationally and solve the problems. Stop blaming meat and promote vegan as if it's only solution in the world. I can't accept that "meat is overall bad" when it's not true.

There will always be evil people who rape women and buy meat. But you can choose to be a good person who doesn't rape or purchase meat.
It's your choice to be a good or bad person -- it's defined by your choices, and how they harm or help others. That's what morality is.

Are you that narrow-minded? There could be a "evil" people who rape women and don't purchase meat(Vegan) and the "good" people who doesn't rape and purchase meat. Why the hell would you package them together as if same crime? You can't choose bad or good person just because they eat meat or not. Don't define the your morality as truth. That's exactly like christian defending their ignorant "Gay hate".

Yes, it's a way to stop animal cruelty which is different from veganism. So, veganism is not the only way, as I said.

Or you can go for yourself and stop the animal cruelty and expose the truth of factories. If you don't have evidence then find it. "Meat is overall bad" and you being vegan or freegan won't change or solve the real issue.

You have three options today to stop animal cruelty. In the future, we will have a fourth option: Bioreacted meat (it's meat grown from culture, with no animal death or high environmental harm).

Again why would you give 3 or 4 option to stop animal cruelty? You can stop animal cruelty by stop promoting meats and unhealthy foods and promoting more vegetable and better nutrition. Being vegan or freegan aren't a solution for everyone. You saying "All meat are bad" won't help convincing people to more healthier and stop animal cruelty.

If it is "organic" oysters, then it's fine. But "organic" has no meaning. The point is that oysters are probably not sentient, so they likely have no will to live.

You just don't understand organic means don't you. Organic mean it's a naturally full grown foods so organic meat is a fully grown animal which it's a same meat as natural predator would've ate.

Just because you think oyster and plants don't have cute posture(enjoyment) doesn't mean that they don't have a will to live. If you let them live in their environment they will live and try to survive just like any others animals would've done including you. Just because they don't squeal or make a sound doesn't mean they live or not.
so they likely have no will to live. what a impressive moral standard.

Cows and chickens and pigs are sentient beings; they want to live. Killing them for your enjoyment is wrong.
If you think killing them "painlessly" is OK, then is it OK for me to kill you painlessly and eat you?

Again all living being that breath oxygen or move has a will to live. Just because you think cows and chickens and pigs are sentient doesn't mean all living plants or oyster aren't sentient. I'm pretty sure you are enjoying killing bugs or plants because they aren't sentient in your eyes when they might screaming for help. Oh by the way we're omnivore not cannibal.

Oysters also filter feed from the ocean; it's free food. There is no waste.
Cows and pigs and chickens are fed corn and soy, which humans could have eaten; it's a waste of food and resources. Wasting food by feeding it to cows to make meat is wrong. This is basic thermodynamics; you can never get as much nutrition from the meat as was in the wasted feed. You will often lose 90% of the nutrients when the vegetables are turned into meat through the animal's biology.

We can stop over feeding pig and grow them in natural way! Oh wait, we have organic meat which is pointless to you because you don't understand "Organic" meat is. Don't you think that farmers are overfeeding the pigs for what they need just to get them fat? Isn't a farmer fault for overfeeding them? Now is it pig itself fault to get overweight? Now is it people's fault for eating the meat without knowing farmer overfeeding the pig and wasting their own resource?Oh by the oysters can be over catch too and get extinct. It's not a free food in the ground.

Rope grown oysters clean the oceans, and improve the environment.
Cows, and to an extent other farmed animals, produce large amounts of waste and methane which harms the environment. ALL cows make methane, including "organic" cows, because it comes from their digestion.

Than we should kill all of the cows just to get rid of methane and give more land to the rope grown oysters. Because I think oysters clean the oceans and improve the environment while cow's methane are threat to the ecosystem. Oh by the do you know "Cow dung" I heard it's useful ,but I think it's bullshit.

Do some basic reading on these topics instead of making bald assertions.

Do some basic research before lying or proving your ignorance.

The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why "organic" meat would be better than conventional meat. You have not done so. The default assumption is that it is the same unless evidenced otherwise.

What kind of proof did you gave me that "Organic" meat is bad? Your ignorance of "Organic" doesn't mean you know everything. I can give you a definition. organic : of, relating to, or derived from living matter.

There are many great ways to help the world. Portion control is one way to improve things, but it still causes significant animal cruelty.

Reducing meat is better than eating much meat, but eliminating meat is the best we can do.

So you think people eating less of a meat and vegetable won't help a world hunger? It is a much better approach than overeating vegetable. Meat is a great protein and energy for those people who needs and you just ask them to cut their dietary? In that case shouldn't we just eliminate all the bad stuff like sugar, sodium and carbohydrate just because it's bad?

It's better to have less animal cruelty than more. It's better to have less methane than more. It's better to have less waste than more.

Who support animal cruelties and methane and wasting foods just because they've ate meat? There's a better solution ,but you rather think irrational solution.

You claimed that talking about freeganism was an insult, as if you think freegans are LOWER than you.
But freeganism is something I respect; if you were freegan, then I would respect you totally.

You should respect them for working hard to reduce suffering and waste, instead of insulting them by speaking badly of taking meat from the trash.

First of all I quoted your freegans paragraph because you called me I'm being rude, when yourself were more rude to say that my friends and family would offer a meat to me through a rubbish bin. I didn't understand why would you pointlessly explain freegans that much if you've respected that much. You misrepresented freegan as if they find meat in trash bin in order to eat the meat at home and they've would refuse leftover because they weren't in the trash bin. You literally could've just explain freegan without lying but you've just lied.

freegan: a person who rejects consumerism and seeks to help the environment by reducing waste, especially by retrieving and using discarded food and other goods.

That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

That's like saying it's a drug dealer's fault for producing roofies, so we should criticize that instead of criticizing the rapist who uses the roofies to rape women.

Read your own sentence and say "Rapist are innocent for using roofies". What is this stupid comparison? Do I have to explain law or something?

Both may be problems, but the grocery store is only fulfilling demand, and they are required by law to throw out old meat. It's the fault of the meat eaters for buying the meat which is so perishable, which requires the grocery store to overstock so it has enough for all of them to buy it.

It's all YOUR fault for buying it. The seller is innocent.
If one grocery store didn't sell meat, you would just go to another store to buy it, and that first store would lose business.
Stores are forced to sell meat in order to stay in business because of YOU and people like YOU who require them to sell meat, or else they won't shop there and the store will close.

And if one day the store didn't have enough meat, the next time you wouldn't go back there. YOU are forcing all of that waste by buying meat

Are you trying to indicate that the government and Meat Corporation(Mcdonald ,etc) and Farmer are innocent for full filling the demand? People wasting meat despise the demanding is too high? Is it consumer's fault for seller overproducing their meats? It's consumer's fault for seller wasting a resource onto pig when you can grow naturally like any other animals? Oh by the way grocery store weren't forced to sell meat, it's their choice to sell it or not.

Bullshit. You can choose to stop wasting so much by not eating meat. You are responsible for your waste. Stop worrying about others so much until you fix your own bad habits.

Bullshit, You can waste anything not only meats. Plastic, Leathers, Vegetables or pretty much anything. Worry about environment than worrying about eating meats or vegetables.

Even just producing meat will waste something like 90% of the food. You clearly don't understand thermodynamics. The animal needs to eat much more food in order to grow, and when you kill the animal and cruelly end his or her life, you only get back about 10% of the food nutrients. The rest of the food is converted into shit, and bones, and things we can not eat -- and methane, which ruins our environment.

No shit. Then we should stop over feeding and over producing the living stocks. You clearly don't understand organic meats.

Beyond that, meat is extremely perishable. By buying it, you force the grocery store to always carry it, and there will always be waste because of that. You are forcing the store to waste, because if they don't you won't shop there. It's your consumer habits that dictate their actions.

Or we as a consumer stop demanding meat and have limited amount. Stop overfeeding, overproducing the meat and let them grow naturally. Stop blaming consumer who don't know the facts and meat itself. Blame the Meat Corporation and government. It's just a part of monopoly.

Finally, if you really care about stopping waste: Go Freegan. That's the only way to have negative waste, and really help the most.
Or if you can't go freegan (or you are worried about your health, since all meat is unhealthy), you can go vegan, which will have a little bit of waste, but much less than eating meat.

Stop saying meat is unhealthy. It's very dependable on people's dietary and how meat were produced. Study more about organic meat and think about other people's perspective(poor or uneducated).

If you want to continue eating meat, you have three choices:

1. Admit you choose to be an evil person, and not care about the world; just continue harming others for your enjoyment because you like meat.

2. Go freegan. Freegans are good people who can eat meat which has been wasted, and they can reduce the waste of society by doing that.

3. Switch your meat to rope grown oysters, since oysters are probably not sentient, and the cultivation of rope grown oysters is good for the environment. (Rope grown oysters doesn't involve bycatch or damage to the environment, since they're grown on ropes. Look it up.)

Those are three options. Or you can go vegan too. It's your choice.

Oh! another choices Yea! now I got kill the living plants and oyster for nutrition and totally not harming because they can't scream or show a sign of pain Yea! Calling meat eater an evil person because they don't know how their pig got overfed and overproduced Yea! Organic meat is totally unnaturally and it's a murder according to my own moral Yea! Meat Corporation and government are innocent! Yea! I'm not self-righteous and not an omnivore Yea!

If you decide to not rape women, that is not an "absolute" solution to rape all over the world. It's just an absolute solution for you (the most absolute you can do). You only have the responsibility for your own actions.

No shit, you being vegan aren't helping reducing meats , promote people to get healthier and convincing meat-eater to eat more vegetables .

Morals for you: You doing less harm to others.
Don't worry about what others do so much, you can only try to convince them, but it won't always work. You only have an absolute obligation to reduce your own harm to the world.

And I can't accept your lying.

You very clearly did not.

want me to go over my response over your first statements?

Insult by not understanding a post, and then making assumptions.

So I insulted you for not understanding your post and make a wild assumptions? Which one? which quotes?

Apparently I have to spell it out for you.


You: "Hi mom, I'm hungry, do you have any food?"

Your mom: "Yes, I have some chicken, do you want some?"

You: "No, sorry, I'm Freegan now. I can only eat meat which has been wasted, such as from the trash, or rescued from a dumpster."

Your mom: "That's no problem, I'll set this plate on the trash bin, now you can eat."

You: "Thanks Mom, now I can eat it!"


I gave this as an example of something that is not acceptable Freegan practice. I also said it's not OK to mooch, or eat food just because it's free to you (a gift).

Ok ,but what was the point of being freegan? "Eating everything in the trash can" or "Stop wasting the food" ?

Yes. Leftovers are not the same as trash. Your friend may choose to eat the leftovers the next day. But instead, if you ate his food, he will buy more food. Therefore, if you eat your friend's left overs, you will cause your friend to buy more food later, and thus buy more meat, and cause more animal cruelty and waste.

This is not a difficult concept.

Oh! that's why I have to eat it through the trash bin in order to get a permission to eat. What a easy concept! Leftovers are not meant to be in the trash!

You can NOT eat meat wasted by friends or family members, because they may throw the meat away intentionally in order for you to have it (this would cause more animals to die for you).

?

A Freegan must refuse meat which somebody else may eat -- for example, leftovers -- because it is not sure it would be wasted.
A Freegan must also refuse "gifts" of meat from friends and family, either direct or indirect, because they may purchase additional meat knowing that you will eat all of the "extra".

Take these examples of a dinner:

A. You have five family members. As a fake freegan, you eat all of the leftover meat. Your mother knows this, so if she is smart, she will buy enough meat for six people -- so there will be enough meat left over for you. This is not freegan, because your action of eating the leftover meat has caused your wise mother to buy extra meat for you.

B. You have five family members. As a real freegan, you can not eat leftover meat they have given you, because you are wise and you know that if you do this that they will buy extra meat to give you as "leftovers". Your mother knows this, and because she is frugal and knows you will not eat the extra, she only buys enough meat for five people -- so there will be few to no leftovers. This is how a real freegan acts, because he or she understands that there are consequences to his or her actions and they affect the spending behavior of friends and family.

So the mother A is smarter that she would purchase more even though she knows your freegan however mother B are frugal therefore she try not to give a leftover to you and leave no leftovers. Somehow family house of A are unaware of you being freegan and B are aware of you being freegan. Wouldn't a real freegan stop eating with family and promote not to waste any food in the house? Wouldn't a "smart" mother put a foods in a trash bin in order for me to eat if that's the case? What about friend's leftover?

I'm not asking you to be submissive to anything, but to be humble regarding your comprehension until you understand my argument. After you understand my argument, then you can attempt to argue against it.

I could literally say same thing for you. After you understand my argument, then you can attempt to argue against it. Now where's my arguments? Read my response and you shall find it.

Yes, and correct, you misunderstood what I was saying.

See above about the Freegan thing, and what I was saying about getting meat from family and friends.

Oh! I only misunderstood freegan! but where's the counter arguement for rest of my quotes?

You attempted to make an argument, but your argument didn't make any sense next to my quotes because you didn't understand what I said.
I'm sure you thought you were making an argument against mine, but alas, it was not one.

You kept saying that my argument didn't make any sense ,but which argument? I kept asking you for which argument didn't make any sense to you?

Original question: "Is being vegan absolute way to detest the animal production(animal cruelty)?

and you brought freegan over which is still not an absolute way to detest the animal production(animal cruelty). It was about vegan. I didn't ask if I have any solution to detest the animal cruelty. The key word was "Absolute".

What do you think "absolute" means? What do you think "detest" means?
Your question itself barely made sense.

detest: dislike intensely

absolute: not qualified or diminished in any way; total. or viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.

"Is being vegan total. way to dislike intensely the animal production(animal cruelty)?"

When you buy meat from the grocery store, you support their practice of stocking meat; otherwise there would be no meat for you to buy (you'd have to order it and wait several days). And when you buy meat, they will increase their stocks.
When you buy meat, the grocery store will order more from the processing plant, which will order more meat from the slaughter house, which will kill more cows and order more live cows from the farmer to kill, who will send more cows to slaughter and inject more semen into the breeding cows to make more calves to raise for your meat.

Your action of buying meat triggers a long chain of events (in reverse), from the rape and impregnation of a cow, to the birth, to the fattening up, to the transport and slaughter, to the processing, to the store to wait for you (with some of it going bad as it does).

Not only does buying meat kill animals (which is evil if you don't have a need -- which you don't. Only if you are starving and have no other food is that acceptable), it produces pollution (methane from cow farts and burps, look it up) that is destroying our environment, and it wastes food in production because cows eat more food and convert it into feces, and only produce a little bit of meat from all of the vegetable they eat.

Did consumer say "I support the way of the cow are producing , how they overeating, or whatever happens to the meats"? Is there some kind of contract to write before you buy meat? You clearly know that how unnaturally meat producing and yet you blaming the meat-eater and meat will solve the problems. Hell yea that would convince them to get healthy dietary and stop overproducing bad meat. .

No. This grocery store behavior is a natural economic consequences of your purchasing patterns.
If you stop buying meat from grocery stores, you can reduce the waste by 10% or so, but you still have another 90% of waste caused by the meat production, and you still have the animals being killed, and the greenhouse gas pollution, among other problems.

We can talk about the other problems which I've left off, but those alone should be enough to convince any sensible person that buying meat is bad.

Oh! so you still think meat-eater and meat is the problem despise meat production are wasting their resources. Have you heard of organic meat? Go research for yourself and think again if all meat are same or not.

We should do both.

Demanding a lot of meat is the worst thing.
Demanding a little meat is the "lesser of two evils"; still bad, but less bad than the other.
Demanding no meat is the best we can do.

There is nothing good about buying meat today.

Well, I'm different. Stop animal cruelty, stop overproducing meat and overfeed live stocks. and promote healthy choice. Again meat itself are healthy unless it's contagious, unnatural or overeaten.

If you see people raping too many women, do you suggest to them to just rape a few women? Just rape in moderation?

Or do you suggest to them to rape no women at all?

Women=pigs? what the hell your suggesting here?

You not raping or promoting not raping won't save women from rape, or end STDs. Plus you won't able convince the rapists for their healthy lifestyle. You can't criticize rapists because they purchase roofies and rape women, we should criticize the unhealthy way of roofie factories promoting the roofies. Stop targeting the rape, target the people's health lifestyle(balanced - just a little bit of rape), roofie companies unnatural way to manufacture roofies, roofie companies overproduction and people over demanding roofies and rape.

So, surely you agree with that. We should not promote people not to rape, right? We should promote people to rape a little bit, but not too much?

I don't agree with that. If something is evil, we should try not to do it at all, not just do it a little bit.

I don't know why you compare rapist with meat-eater ,but I'll give an answer. Well the thing is rape is not a material ,it's an action. You know women is a human not other type of species so it's invalid. Roofie are hypnotic drug. I mean you could ask those lion or any predator to stop raping women in the wild. You know it's evil.

Salt is completely different from meat or added sugar. Salt is required for health; we need to eat some of it, and in moderation (unlike meat or sugar) it has no negative health consequences.

In the case of salt, only too much is bad, a little is good.

In the case of sugar or meat, a little is bad, more is worse.

So if I eat small amount of meat and sugar is bad? Where did that assumption came from?

This is the same case as salt. Complex carbohydrates in the whole food form are healthy, and an important source of energy along with healthy unsaturated fats.

Only if you eat so many carbohydrates, or highly processed carbohydrates, is it bad.

Your grasp on nutrition is terrible. You have a lot to learn, if you're humble enough to do it.

You're absolutely not humble to the meat-eater and you asking for humble? Really?
Just because you've explained nutrition doesn't mean you know better than me. Overall overeating is bad not the food itself.

Meat IS overall bad. I do not say this blindly, as you rudely assert, but with mountains of evidence on the harm of saturated fat, cholesterol, and other harmful substances in meat which are supported by mainstream health authorities.

Meat has many vitamins in it, but it also comes with harmful substances which are more damaging than the vitamins are good compared to other sources of vitamins. Meat is only better than starving or dying of malnourishment, which is worse.

The only 'meat' which may be more neutral is fish (this is not called meat in many places), because it is lower in saturated fat, and contains special substances like DHA and EPA.
However, we can also get these from algae in supplements, and get all of the nutrition which fish has from vegetable sources -- and with fewer heavy metals and neurotoxins. So even then, it's probably better to eat the vegan sources.

Compared to a balanced vegan diet with supplements for B-12 and D (and sometimes DHA/EPA) for which the resources are available in most countries, meat is not beneficial in any amount.

Like I've said OVERALL it's not bad. If you able to portion control meat just like sugar(fructose), sodium or carbohydrates. It's not bad. It's very dependable on how much you exercise or supplement of water or how body functions to the foods. Only reason why mainstream health authorities say those because people overeating meat when they shouldn't. Meat has beneficial nutrients just like any other foods. Protein(amino acid), Fats(not saturated), Iron ,but you shouldn't ignore those and say "Meat is overall bad" when it's not. There is substitute for those nutrients ,but you don't have rights or know what people needed for their bodies. Meat is just an luxuries in dietary not poisonous.

[seand123]

I'm done with this forum.

Forum is biased toward vegan and uncivilized.

It's just like a christian site where they claim moral as their own , lie about meat and being self-righteous.

It's exactly same.

[Jebus]

I'm done with this forum.

Forum is biased toward vegan and uncivilized.

It's just like a christian site where they claim moral as their own , lie about meat and being self-righteous.

It's exactly same.

Are you thatNerdySciencegirl's future husband? If so, congratulations. You two seem well matched intellectually.

[Red]

@seand123 Oh c'mon, he's GOT to be trollin'!

[brimstoneSalad]

@seand123 Oh c'mon, he's GOT to be trollin'!

I don't think he's trolling, I just think his English is very poor and in addition he's extremely arrogant about his beliefs like the average fundamentalist Christian.

[Red]

I don't think he's trolling, I just think his English is very poor and in addition he's extremely arrogant about his beliefs like the average fundamentalist Christian.

I know that, but he's been repeatably told to be humble and to not misinterpret any claims, yet he still makes statements that are so mind-numblingly dumb.

[Red]

Are you thatNerdySciencegirl's future husband? If so, congratulations. You two seem well matched intellectually.

Damn Jebus that was savage..

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh! I only misunderstood freegan! but where's the counter arguement for rest of my quotes?

At last, you admit you misunderstood something.

Now: Can you admit it's possible you misunderstood other things as well?
Because you did.

Do you see how long it took for you to finally understand my point about the freegan thing?
And even so, you still don't fully understand it -- you're still making some mistakes in interpreting what I said.

So the mother A is smarter that she would purchase more even though she knows your freegan however mother B are frugal therefore she try not to give a leftover to you and leave no leftovers. Somehow family house of A are unaware of you being freegan and B are aware of you being freegan.

No, Mother A and Mother B are the same mother -- both are smart and frugal -- in a different situation. The only difference is you.

Mother A knows you are a FAKE freegan, who will eat the leftovers which she created deliberately and set them on the bin so you can have some.
Mother B knows you are a REAL freegan, who won't eat those leftovers created deliberately to give to you, even if she set them on the bin, so she won't buy extra food.

Same situation, the only difference is between a real and fake freegan.

Wouldn't a real freegan stop eating with family and promote not to waste any food in the house?

A freegan/meagan can still eat with the family (just choose to eat the vegetable foods, not the meat), but just can't eat the leftovers (even if they set them on the bin), because:
1. Somebody else might eat the leftovers later (it's not proved to be real waste)
2. If he or she eats the leftover meat, even on the bin, the mother will buy extra meat to make more leftovers next time.

Of course you can still eat with your family, just choose the vegetable foods instead of the meat when you fill your plate.

If there are some leftovers, and the family says it will go to waste, I suggest you take those leftovers to give to a homeless person outside. It need not be wasted, but you couldn't eat them personally.
This is what a real freegan would do.

Wouldn't a "smart" mother put a foods in a trash bin in order for me to eat if that's the case?

If you are a fake freegan, she will do that. That's what I was saying before.
Because your mother is smart, if you are a fake freegan, she may set the food on the bin to give to you.

But a real freegan will not eat these leftovers even if she set them on the bin, and because your mother is smart, she will know you won't eat them, so she won't try to do that -- instead, she will buy less meat next time.

What about friend's leftover?

The same situation of the family. A real freegan/meagan can only trust leftovers from a stranger, since a friend or family member may deliberately create extra "leftovers" to give you meat. The act of setting it on the bin is like a "loophole" for fake freegans. It's not legitimate waste, it was intentional.

The issue is about economics and human psychology.

Ok ,but what was the point of being freegan? "Eating everything in the trash can" or "Stop wasting the food" ?

The point is not buying the food (particularly the meat), but also other items if it can be avoided. Freegans/meagans will buy some grain or vegetable if they need to, but won't buy meat (since meat is the most wasteful if you buy it).

Freegans don't just stop wasting food, they make negative waste. They don't waste food personally, but they also rescue food which others have wasted.

A normal person is bad due to wasting food.
A Freegan is the opposite of waste, and rescues food wasted by others -- Negative waste.

I hope you can understand Freegan now.
Anyway:

This is a serious problem with your English level. Everybody else understood what I was saying.
You have misunderstood MUCH more than the freegan thing.

You misrepresented freegan as if they find meat in trash bin in order to eat the meat at home and they've would refuse leftover because they weren't in the trash bin. You literally could've just explain freegan without lying but you've just lied.

I misrepresented nothing. You misunderstood due to poor English level. Try to read it again. I didn't lie about anything, I gave examples to try to help you understand the difference between real and fake freeganism.

And I can't accept your lying.

I'm not lying about anything. You are misunderstanding what I am saying, or even the fundamental subject matter. Just like the freegan point.

This is a perfect example of your rude and arrogant claim. You misunderstand me, so instead of thinking you might misunderstand my English, or didn't get some point, you make assumptions and call me a liar.

This kind of insult is unacceptable.

How about we talk in Korean, and then I can call you a liar because my Korean is very poor and I didn't understand what you said?
Can you understand how rude that is?

YOUR English is poor. That's OK. I can be patient, and help you understand. But if you call me a liar because you misunderstood, that is VERY RUDE.

Here are some other things you have failed to understand:

Supply and Demand Economics:

No, people who make meats into a bad condition and promoting unhealthy foods are bad people. Not the meats or person who purchase the meats.

This is completely wrong; ask an economics professor if you don't believe me, or better yet pick up a book.
If somebody demands something (pays money for it -- this is ALL about BUYING meat, not eating it) then another person will come to supply it to reach equilibrium as the price rises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

For an example of moral culpability:

Take the case of a "Mob boss". The Mob boss pays for assassination service, and Assassin A takes the money and kills the person the mob boss told him to kill.

Who is responsible for killing? The Mob boss, or Assassin A?

Answer: The Mob Boss. The Assassin is mostly innocent.

If Assassin A refuses to do this job, then Assassin B will do it instead. The person will still die. So Assassin A causes no more harm by taking the job -- it's just a job, and the Assassin has to make a living.

The Mob boss is at the root of the problem -- the demand.
If the Mob boss does not pay to kill somebody, then neither Assassin A nor Assassin B will kill anybody. Nobody will be assassinated unless there is MONEY, to BUY the service of assassination.

The Mob boss is morally responsible for the death, because he paid for it.
The Assassin is just doing his job -- more innocent, even though he did the physical act of killing, it was the Mob boss who ordered it.

In the supplier consumer relationships, the people who BUY the meat are responsible, not the people who MAKE the meat.
The farmer is innocent. The Farmer is like the Assassin, he is only doing his job to make money for his family. The BUYER of the meat is the one who caused the animal to be killed, by DEMANDING the meat.

If you demand, somebody will supply. It is DEMAND and PURCHASE that is morally responsible.
This is why Freeganism is OK; they do not buy meat, so they are innocent.

As long as you do not buy it, or let anybody buy it for you, then you will be innocent. Even the farmer is innocent -- stop trying to blame him, he is only doing his job based on the demand of the people.
It's very rude to criticize the innocent farmer. If he doesn't raise the animals and kill them for meat, then another farmer will do this, and he will lose his job and have no money. It is very cruel for you to criticize them for this.

It's the consumer who is responsible for production. If you consume tofu instead, then the meat farmers can switch to growing soybeans and making tofu instead -- just change the production job. When one industry closes, another industry will often open and make new jobs. Whatever you consume will be what is produced.

Who support animal cruelties and methane and wasting foods just because they've ate meat?

Not because they eat meat, because they BUY it -- because they demand it, and pay money -- and support the system of supply that produces it.

As long as you demand, there will be supply to fit it. It's a law of economics.
Even if you make something illegal -- like drugs -- people continue to demand, and now the supply is in the black market. The only absolute way to stop it is to stop demand.
If nobody demands meat, nobody will supply, and the farmers will stop breeding the cows, and change jobs to growing more vegetables.


Environment, Global Warming

Only thing that can harm the nature are over-catching and disposing environment for animals. How the hell it's related to the farmed animals.

The practice of farming animals -- including organic farming -- produces large amounts of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.

This is well known and documented by world government and non-governmental organizations. This is basic science, which you are ignorant of or deny.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgem ... s/ch4.html

Agriculture. Domestic livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels produce large amounts of CH4 as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH4 is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food, the emissions are considered human-related. Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH4 emissions. For more information, see the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Agriculture chapter.

Do some basic research about global warming, and you will learn that meat production is a major cause.
Global warming threatens human life on Earth due to shifting climate patterns that damage all agriculture and food security, and rising sea levels which threaten coastal cities, along with higher energy hurricanes that can devastate coastal populations.

You are contributing to this if you buy meat.
Animal agriculture produces about as much greenhouse gas as all of transportation. Every car, bus, airplane, boat, etc.
It is imperative that we stop human activity caused methane emissions.

Trophic levels

We can stop over feeding pig and grow them in natural way!

Waste is not caused by overfeeding, it's just caused by feeding and growing at all.

Tell me, how much do you weigh now?
If I killed you, how much meat could I get?
From your birth until now, how much food did you eat?

Is the food you already ate the same amount as the meat I could get from your body by killing you?

NO. It is not.

Here's some math for you:

A child aged 2-3 years old needs about 1,000 calories a day.
4-8 = 1200
9-13 = 1600
14-18 = 1800

(2 * 1,000 * 365) +
(5 * 1,200 * 365) +
(5 * 1,600 * 365) +
(5 * 1,800 * 365) =

9,125,000 calories

Not considering the first year, a girl will eat about 9,125,000 calories by the time she turns 18.
That's old enough to kill her for meat, because she's full grown.

9,125,000 calories of FOOD consumed

How much meat can you get from her?

Average 18 year old female will weigh 124 to 140 lbs if not overweight.

140 lbs of meat (not considering all of the bones and inedible parts)
= 210,840 calories

DO YOU SEE THAT?

You feed a person 9,125,000 calories, and you only get at best 210,840 calories of meat when you kill her.

That's 97% waste!

THINK ABOUT IT.

How many years does a cow or pig live before killed?
How much hay and grain and soy feed does the cow eat?
It doesn't matter if it's organic or not. It's still food.

HOW MUCH DOES A COW EAT PER YEAR?
HOW LONG DOES A COW LIVE BEFORE KILLED?
HOW MUCH MEAT COMES FROM ONE COW?

Cows grow a little faster than humans.
So, in the situation of a cow or pig, it's a little better than the example of the girl. It's still about 90% waste, depending on the details.

In the situation of ORGANIC cows, the cow will grow slower since there are no hormones added.
If you add hormones, the cow will grow faster, and there's less waste.

Do the research by yourself. Do the math. You will find there is ALWAYS waste.

This is basic thermodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

Energy in will always be more than energy out.
Food eaten will always be more than food produced.
This is basic physics. SCIENCE.
If you reject this, you are not talking about science, you are talking about magic/religion.

Eating vegan food like whole grains and tofu will waste much less than eating meat. You can feed more like ten people instead of just one.

Here is the concept in Biology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_l ... efficiency

It's called trophic levels. The population supported on vegetable matter will always be higher than the population that can be supported on meat.
If we try to eat meat, we will starve. There are too many people in the world to eat meat; we must eat vegan (or rope grown oysters) to save resources.

Don't you think that farmers are overfeeding the pigs for what they need just to get them fat?

No, not really. That's a misunderstanding of farming practices.

Most of the food is already wasted before the "fattening" part, which is called "finishing".
I know a lot about farming practices. FCR, or feed conversion ratio, is pretty high during finishing and the production of body fat. It is a small additional waste if you consider protein output, but this is not the root of the problem and only creates the type of meat demanded.
The problem comes from the huge amount of land and food resources the animal consumes while growing for two or so years.

Isn't a farmer fault for overfeeding them?

No, because for the most part farmers are just feeding, and rarely "over feeding" (farmers don't want to spend extra money on feed that's not necessary to make the meat) -- feeding itself is waste. Stop trying to blame the farmer for everything. As I explained above, they're just producing the meat which people demand.

Now is it people's fault for eating the meat without knowing farmer overfeeding the pig and wasting their own resource?

Ignorance is a big problem, but it's not an issue of "overfeeding". Feeding is waste, because all feeding animals is overfeeding. We need to feed people directly, instead of wasting some 90% of the food by feeding to animals first and then eating animals.

So you think people eating less of a meat and vegetable won't help a world hunger? It is a much better approach than overeating vegetable.

As I explained in detail, vegetables are more efficient than meat.
If you eat meat, the animals already ate some ten times more nutrition in terms of vegetables, so you wasted 90% of the vegetables to produce the meat.

Grains and beans are the most efficient food to eat, and involve the least waste. We should eat about 2000 - 3000 calories of those (depending on our height and gender), so we can save resources. We should totally avoid meat (except oysters or freegan rescued meat), because it is wasteful (and harmful to animals and the environment) to buy meat.

Don't overeat. And when you do eat, eat vegetable matter such as grain and beans, which are the least wasteful.

Sentience

Just because you think oyster and plants don't have cute posture(enjoyment) doesn't mean that they don't have a will to live.

You totally misunderstand me again, because this is not the argument I made: I made a scientific claim.

It's not because I don't think they're cute, it's because they don't have brains.
Are you an atheist, or do you believe in magical souls that make plants and rocks intelligent and 'conscious'?

If you study actual science, you will learn that all known examples of intelligence/sentience come from brains or simulated neural networks. If an animal has no brain, then it can not have a will to live because will comes from intelligence and sentience.

For oysters, they do not move around their environments, and their nervous systems are so simple that their behavior is more easily explained by reflex than intelligence. They also fail to respond with behavior to tissue damage as pain. They are probably not sentient in any meaningful way.

Plants are not intelligent. This is a myth propagated by yellow journalism.
Read this: http://skepdic.com/plants.html

Plant behavior is complex and intricate, but this is not true intelligence in the animal sense; it's like the behavior of a machine, or network of simple reflexes.
Plants do not think, and they do not fear death or have a will to live.

Do you believe every false thing you read on the internet when it supports your biases? If so, you are not a skeptic.
If you believe plants are intelligent, you are ignorant of neuroscience. There's simply no evidence for true intelligence or even basic operant conditioning in plants.

That said, as I explained above in detail, don't forget that if you eat meat, in order to feed the animal MANY more plants must be killed. If you want to save the most plants, you should eat plants directly instead of feeding ten times more to animals, then killing the animals and eating them (wasting 90% of the plants).

If you let them live in their environment they will live and try to survive just like any others animals would've done including you.

'If you let a rock drop, it will fall and try to reach the ground!'
So is a rock intelligent, and willfully trying to fall? No.

This is meaningless. Life is a chemical process, it does not require or indicate intelligence or will.

Plants do not "TRY" to live, they are just alive as a chemical process, and they have reflexive and mindless behaviors that are useful to that which are formed through Evolution, not intelligence.

There is no god, there are no souls, and only beings with functional brains are proved to have anything meaningfully like intelligence.

This is all about your ignorance of science. You have a lot to learn, if you're not too arrogant to consider scientific facts.


Rope Grown Oyster Cultivation

Oh by the oysters can be over catch too and get extinct. It's not a free food in the ground.

I said ROPE GROWN oysters, not oysters harvested from reefs.

You again totally ignore what I say, or misunderstand.
And you make more assertions without any research at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_fa ... tal_impact

Don't be so lazy, and just read a little bit about it first.

Rope grown oysters are grown on ropes which are put in the water, and they don't do damage to the environment. In fact, they clean the water.
And you can never 'catch' too many, because they are not caught from the natural environment: You just add more ropes, and let more oysters grow.

Than we should kill all of the cows just to get rid of methane and give more land to the rope grown oysters.

Oysters don't use ANY land at all. They grow on ropes in the water. So, we can return the land to forest instead, or we can use that land to grow more vegetables, which can feed around ten times more people per acre compared to the cows.

If we all eat vegetable matter like beans and grains, and don't eat meat or only eat oyster meat, then we can quickly save the environment from destruction.

Because I think oysters clean the oceans and improve the environment while cow's methane are threat to the ecosystem.

I'm not sure if you are being honest here, or sarcastic, but that's right.
Oysters help the environment, so if you buy them, farmers will grow more oysters and help the environment more. Cows harm the environment, so if you buy cow meat then farmers will raise more cows and it will hurt the environment more.

Nature / Appeal to Nature Fallacy
You assume that because something is natural, it is good. And you also make assumptions about what is natural.

Oh by the way we're omnivore not cannibal.

Humans are natural cannibals too.

http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2013/03/ ... nk-in.html

You can see, there's a natural history of humans eating other humans. We can digest human meat easily.

Do you think because we naturally ate humans in the past, we should eat humans now?
It's totally natural to eat human.

You are making what's called the "Appeal to nature fallacy"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

In nature, humans always had wars with each other, and killed and ate each other. That doesn't mean it's good.

It's bad to eat other humans, and it's also bad to eat other animals (except oysters, or freegan rescued meat).
Both meat eating and cannibalism are natural, but it's harmful to the world around us, and to our health.

You just don't understand organic means don't you. Organic mean it's a naturally full grown foods so organic meat is a fully grown animal which it's a same meat as natural predator would've ate.

I know, and I understand exactly what it is.

They didn't use hormones to make the animal grow faster... so, the animal will eat more food for a longer time, and there will be more food waste.

They didn't use antibiotics to save the animal's life if there's an infection... so more animals will be thrown away because they got sick, and there will be more waste and animal suffering.

They didn't use fungicides on the feed, so the feed is more moldy and contains more aflatoxin (look it up), which bioaccumulates and makes the meat more carcinogenic.

There are some differences with Organic meat. But it's still full of saturated fat, cholesterol, excess Methionine, excess choline, Creatine which becomes carcinogenic during high temperature cooking, and bioaccumulated toxins (including natural toxins as I mentioned, such as aflatoxin made by mold on feed which is one of the most poisonous things on Earth).

Organic meat is MORE wasteful than conventional meat. Organic meat may be MORE unhealthy too.

Just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's better.
As an atheist, you should have more respect for science, and the scientific improvements in agriculture.

What kind of proof did you gave me that "Organic" meat is bad?

Meat is bad, and there is no evidence that Organic meat is better in any meaningful way.
Just because it's more "natural" doesn't mean it's better.

You're just making an appeal to nature fallacy. You're not making a legitimate argument.
You're also making a Burden of proof fallacy, like a typical Christian:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You think because I haven't proved you wrong, then you're right. Like a Christian who says 'you can't prove God doesn't exist, so he does!'

That's not how rational argument works.
If you want to argue that organic meat is better, you need to provide some actual evidence, otherwise the only thing we have to go on is that it's meat and there's no reason to believe it's different from any other. You can't just make things up and assert they're better unless somebody proves you wrong -- organic is an arbitrary standard, not something based on evidence.

I could make up a special kind of meat now, it's called "brimstone meat". It's made by a special method: I take a bowl of brimstone, and I wave it over the cow's head.
It's healthier than regular meat! If you don't prove me wrong, that means I'm right!

Again, that's not how a reasonable argument works. You're acting just like a Christian in asserting things without evidence, or backing it up with nothing but a fallacy (appeal to nature), and then demanding I prove you wrong, or else you're right.

No, you are not right. There's no evidence that god exists, and there's no evidence that "organic" meat, or "brimstone" meat is better than any conventional meat. And there's mountains of real evidence that meat in general is bad for you, harms animals, and the environment.

Logical fallacies and bald assertions don't an argument make.

Morality

There could be a "evil" people who rape women and don't purchase meat(Vegan) and the "good" people who doesn't rape and purchase meat.

That was pretty clearly not what I was saying. Yes, there will be evil people who rape and purchase meat -- they are the most evil. Then there will be 'medium' evil people who only rape but don't purchase meat. Then there will be other 'medium' evil people who don't rape, but still purchase meat.

There are many evil things people can do. I'm not packaging them together as the same 'crime', they're just examples of evil things that people commonly do.

You can't choose bad or good person just because they eat meat or not.

I didn't. If somebody BUYS meat (aside form oysters), of course he or she is a bad person. But some good people may eat meat (for example, freegans rescuing meat, or people eating oysters).
And some people who didn't buy any meat may do other bad things, and also be evil people because of other reasons.

Buying meat is just one kind of evil thing that you can do. If you do any of those evil things, you will be an evil person.
You must avoid all evil things: Rape, buying meat, killing others, etc.
If you do your best to avoid doing harmful things, then you'll be a better person.

Don't define the your morality as truth. That's exactly like christian defending their ignorant "Gay hate".

No, a Christian makes stuff up, or reads it out of an old book and believes it.
Gay people are not harmful to the world for being gay. Christians are wrong.
We use science to find what is REALLY harmful or not. It's not just based on belief, but on evidence.

We can Prove buying meat causes harm to animals and the environment, and that consumption of meat harms human health.
This is all based on proof -- on the science.

Christians prove nothing, they just have faith, so their beliefs are wrong.

Personal resposibility

"Meat is overall bad" and you being vegan or freegan won't change or solve the real issue.

You are responsible for your own actions. If you want to be a good person, YOU don't rape people, and YOU don't buy meat.

If other people still rape or buy meat, you can try to convince them to change, but at first, YOU can stop these things for yourself. You have control over your own actions foremost.

After you are vegan, and don't rape people, and don't kill others, then you can try to help stop other people from doing these bad things, and show them a good example of how to live well.

If you are eating meat and/or raping women, and you tell people "don't eat meat, don't rape women", will they just call you a hypocrite? How can you change anybody's mind, if you can't even stop doing these bad things yourself?

Again why would you give 3 or 4 option to stop animal cruelty?

Because, as you said:

Being vegan or freegan aren't a solution for everyone.

So, we have many options. If you can't go vegan, or can't be freegan, then you can choose to eat oysters instead. It's another good option.
That's why I give many options. So all people can choose the options that are best for themselves.

For me, I will go vegan.

For you, maybe you will go vegan. Or maybe you can go freegan. Or maybe you will change your meat to oysters.
It's your choice.

You can stop animal cruelty by stop promoting meats and unhealthy foods and promoting more vegetable and better nutrition.

I do. But we must take responsibility for ourselves first.

You saying "All meat are bad" won't help convincing people to more healthier and stop animal cruelty.

It's true: All meats are bad for your health. Plant alternatives are better.

But not all meat is bad for the environment: Rope Grown Oyster meat can be good for the environment. Although it is not so good for your health either, it is better than land animal meat.

If I said "Organic meat is good for you", then that would be a LIE. It is not true. There is no evidence that organic meat is good for you.
I prefer people eat regular meat instead of organic meat, since organic meat is even worse for the environment.

Health

Meat is a great protein and energy for those people who needs and you just ask them to cut their dietary?

Beans are better for an economic protein source. I ask them to replace it with beans. Beans are healthier, and better for the environment, and less harmful to animals.

But I didn't tell people they can't eat any meat, if they must. Oysters are another option too.

In that case shouldn't we just eliminate all the bad stuff like sugar,

YES. We should eliminate added sugar. It is not useful to our health.

sodium and carbohydrate just because it's bad?

No, sodium and carbohydrates themselves are not bad.
This is based on your ignorance of health.

Sugar and meat are bad in any amount, and not helpful.
Sodium is good in a small amount, and only bad in a large amount.
I was very clear on this.
Carbohydrates, in whole food form, are an important and healthful energy source.

Some things are ALWAYS bad, even a little bit. Other things are ONLY bad if you have too much.
Meat and added sugar are those things that are always bad, and that there are better options.
Sodium and whole food based carbohydrate sources are not bad in themselves, just bad if you have too much.

So if I eat small amount of meat and sugar is bad? Where did that assumption came from?

From nutritional science. Sugar represents empty calories, which are always going to be inferior to micro-nutritive rich sources; it is bad because of the opportunity cost. Adding sugar is always worse than eating more wholesome foods.

Meat provides harmful substances. Yes, it has vitamins, but so do vegetables. It's always better to eat the vitamins from a source that will not provide such harmful substances together with the vitamins. Meat has good things and bad things in it, but the bad things outweigh the good things, so overall (in sum/net effect) it is bad. Maybe you don't know the meaning of "overall".
I have said this clearly, and probably multiple times in this thread.

As I said before, the only animal product in reasonable contention by authorities on human health is fish/seafood. Land animal meat is correctly regarded as unnecessary: relative to a balanced vegan diet it provides no benefits, only harm. And the debate around sea food usually revolves around epidemiological studies, not mechanistic ones -- that's another issue I'd be glad to discuss if you're open minded enough to want to learn some real science.

There is substitute for those nutrients ,but you don't have rights or know what people needed for their bodies.

Children think they need to eat huge amounts of candy for their bodies -- you think they know better?
Of course not. People are ignorant and foolish, and they will eat unhealthy things because they taste good.

Yes, I DO know what people need for their bodies. It's called nutritional science.

You seem like the kind of person, like a Christian, who will reject science any time if he doesn't like it, and then the next day if he likes something in science he will accept it.

If you are a rational person, you can't pick what you like and don't like. You must be reasonable and accept science. Nutrition IS a science. And we have learned what human beings need in terms of nutrition.

Nobody on Earth needs to eat meat from a nutritional perspective. This is a fact. There may be socioeconomic concerns that make it hard for them to find other food (some people even need to eat other humans if they are stranded), but those are another issue.
If available, a mix if plant and fungi kingdom based alternatives are suitable for superior nutrition for anybody, without the drawbacks of meat. And those alternatives are available to anybody not suffering in extreme poverty.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

THIS is the scientific consensus.
If you reject it, you might as well pick up a Bible and become a Christian, because you don't care about science.

If you accept it, welcome to reason.


English

detest: dislike intensely

absolute: not qualified or diminished in any way; total. or viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.

"Is being vegan total. way to dislike intensely the animal production(animal cruelty)?"

No, that still doesn't make sense. It's not proper English, and nobody would be able to reliably understand what you're asking; we have to guess at what you mean because your English isn't clear enough to convey meaning accurately.

Assertions vs. Evidence
Your bald assertions are not evidence.

I can't accept that "meat is overall bad" when it's not true.

A Christian will say:

I can't accept "god doesn't exist" when it's not true.

It's called cognitive dissonance, it's the same thing Christians do.

You think it's not true BECAUSE you don't want to accept it.
If you use your reasoning and open your mind, you will find it is true, and you should accept it if you want to be an honest and rational person.
You don't have to accept my word for it, if you don't believe it then do your own research. Study economics, physics, biology. Get some books, or ask some professors at your school or local university about economics and biology and thermodynamics.
If you do the research for yourself with an open mind, and learn about science, you'll find that what I'm saying is true.