Void Mantra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6GrZYE2il0

Convenience is indeed a fine moral justification for the mistreatement and slaughter of sentient beings.

The image is actually telling. Indeed, when I think of the horror show that is the factory farming, my spontaneous reaction is akin to the man on the left. Sadly, the average person reacts like the lady on the right. Granted, totally unacceptable behavior on my end.

@recursion loop "Vegetarians displayed elevated prevalence rates for depressive disorders, anxiety disorders and somatoform disorders ... the adoption of the vegetarian diet tends to follow the onset of mental disorders." Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, look it up. The study precicely stipulates that "Importantly, we found no evidence for a causal role of vegetarian diet in the etiology of mental disorders.". It can also be said of psychopath (APD) that they blatantly disregards safety of self and others, show a pattern of irresponsibility and lack of remorse for actions. You see, I could easily play that game in regard to psychopathy and meat eaters; believe me, you don't want to go there. Let's continue, the study also suggest that these disorders could be linked to a b12 and long-chain n-3 fatty acids (ALA) deficiency, both of which widely available in plants (soy and linseed oil, among others). Some people prefer animal slaughter over couple of b12 tablets a day; not me. It's also strange that this "survey" didn't make sure their vegetarian group (or all their participants really) had an adequate, balanced diet to begin with. I can eat potato chips all day long and be vegetarian. Not that I care much but here's a counter study: https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1475-2891-9-26. Look, I'm not a nutrionist and debating its specifics bores me to no end. Having the largest nutritionist organization in the world (among others) stating that an [appropriately planned vegan diet is healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases] is strong enough evidence for me. Anyway man, that's it for me. I'm done here.

I cited the world's largest organization on food and nutrition, which represents over 100,000 credentialed practitioners. When you claim that I simply cherry pick studies to support my bias, you are being intellectually dishonest. Pretigious, well renowned organization's final word doesn't equal those of Joe the butcher's. Expertise matter and not all studies are on the same spectrum in that regard. For many, taste pleasure can justify just about anything and frankly it's disgusting. In that sense yes, I am biased. I am biased toward the well-being of our fellow animals who endure an infinite cycle of hell. I am biased toward love and care instead of enslavement and profit. I am biased against seing animals as product and property. However, I won't deny hard evidence. I'm out. Take care people and please have a thought for the animals. That's all I'm asking.

So you're basically a science denier since the same statement can be said of virtually every scientic papers. I guess you should visit the academy of nutrition and dietetics, which represents over 100,000 credentialed practitioners, and tell them they don't know how to conduct a valid scientific study. But the bottomline is: why would anyone care what other people are eating? Because the unnecessary suffering and killing of sentient beings is involved. Just so you know, pigs are as intelligent, emotional and cognitively complex as a 3-year-old child. On every front (ethics, environment, nutrition), I really don't know how a sane, humane and well-informed person can be in support of the meat industry. I think I made my point. That's it for me guys.

Assumption based on evidence. Plants have no limbic or central nervous system that I'm aware of.

"Void Mantra, you wont convince anyone here about how much better vegan diet is when compared to meat eating diet." I presented conclusive evidence. Feel free to disregard facts all you want, I'm not your mom. "Extremes never worked well and if you have to stuff yourself full of supplements or order produce to be shipped from far-far away lands, then such diet is not sustainable for a human being to thrive on, end of story." Strange world when the ones who call for compassion and responsibily toward animals are called the "extremes" while the ones supporting the unnecessary slaughter of 60 billion animals are seen as balanced and normal. "Since you like to advocate for scientific research, do your own google-fu and find data that speaks in favour of meat eating diet as well, dont pretend that the data isnt there. Some thrive on vegan, some on vegetarian, others on balanced meat eating diet, I know it hurts, but thats hard facts." I can find just about anything on the internet; flat-earthers, pro-smoking institutes, you name it. Again, if the American Dietetic Association, the world's largest organization of food and nutrition, is no more credible to you than some random hack spewing non-sense on youtube, you are indeed living in crazytown. "My own experience might be anecdotal to you, but it what counts for me, not some new age wishful thinking about what works for me or should work for me, here, in this part of the world. As I said, been there, done that, was meat free for 8 years, naturally returned to eating meat one day and thats what MOST of vegans/vegetarians return to, go check facts, scientific data, statistics." Have fun with this idea. "We are not there yet to be able to turn 100% vegan/vegetarian, just because you think we should and some snake oil sellers tell you that we could, doesnt mean we can, there are other, much more serious things to be solved before we even can touch the sacred cow of vegans point of view considering meat eating." Again, more nonsense. I understand that 60 billion animal deaths per year is nothing too serious to you but it is to me; let's leave it at that.

Many things here; "We, as a species, whether you like it or not, are omnivores." And? Saying that we can do something doesn't mean we have to. We can eat meat but we don't have to. We can smack our child but we don't have to. "So a balanced diet is better that any other type." A vegan who eats chips all day long probably won't do well for sure. The thing is, you seem to imply the we need meat to thrive. What empirical evidence do you have to back this up? As a counter argument, I gave two sources: one from the Harvard Medical School, the other from the American Dietetic Association (see above). "That they are free of "nasty" things? Do you, we, have any idea the damage we cause to the soil to grow all the vegetables we need?" I do. One more reason to go vegan. 70% of US grain goes to livestock. Do I live in this magic bubble where I think there's no collateral damage done whatsoever? Of course not. It's all about minimizing the amount of suffering of sentient beings. Also, the intention must be taken into account when it comes to ethics, in this case the intention of killing. "We have to stop over consuming. We need to find a way to coexist, or at least to be able to return back to earth "more" that what we use. That is our next evolution step." Yes. Not gonna happen if we keep treating animals as property and products. "The "natural" way to go is to have a balanced diet, that includes everything we need to eat and no supplements. Being a vegan and having to take supplements? Doesn't sound right to me." Again, it has already been established that you don't need meat to be healthy. Quite the opposite, a balanced plant-based diet even helps reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and some cancers. When it comes to supplements, vegans are indeed at risk of having a vitamin b12 deficiency. This can easily be addressed by eating soymilk, tofu, various nuts etc. Also, 90% of the B12 supplements we produce are fed to livestock. If you're truly anti-supplement, you should be vegan. BTW, why do I personally have to kill the animals I eat? Do all vegetarians grow their own vegetables? Did I say that? Keep in mind, there's no evidence that plants are sentient, let alone capable to feeling pain and well-being. If they do, it is safe to assume that it's on a much lesser degree than animals. The argument that killing plants is the moral equivalent of killing animals is just silly.

Ridiculous statement. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that a well-balanced plant-based diet is appropriate at all stages of human developpement: "Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses." - Harvard Medical School " [...] 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." - The American Dietetic Association When it comes to facts, I'll favour serious scientific meta analysis over some anecdotal claims, thank you very much.

Everyone except the animals, of course: Couldn't watch the whole thing. If one truly believe that the so called "smart" farming can alleviate animal suffering in this money-driven society, he's living on Disney planet. How far can we go for taste pleasure? How numb and cruel have we become for a bacon sandwich? There is no doubt to me that this "smart" agriculture is humanity at its lowest.

One problem with the meat industry is that the majority of its agriculture goes to livestock. As of today, 50% of the US land is used for agriculture. Moving to an entirely grass-fed industry is not possible, due to land menagement. This lack of space is the reason why the amazonian rainforest was chopped by 20% (and growing); NOT good for our gobal carbon footprint. Don't even get me started on methane, which is 10 times more potent than carbon. Bottom line is, no matter how you spin it, eating meat is no longer sustainable. Fun fact: All the grain which is used in the US for livestock animals could feed 800 000 000 people, which is 2x its entire population.

1) A cow is continually fisted/inseminated against her will. (In human term, we call that "rape"). 2) Her baby cows are quickly and repeadetly taken away from her (usually 36 hours after birth, so the milk goes to the humans, not the calves). Thereafter, the mother cow calls for her babies for days. 3) A good portion of the male calves go the slaughterhouses. 4) When the mother cow is about 5 years old and no longer productive (mostly due to stress, exhaustion and diseases), she's slaughtered for meat. Keep in mind that the cow's natural lifespan is 20 years on average. 5) In the slaughterhouse, she's usually shocked with a bolt gun, hanged by the legs to finally have her throat cut open. That's the true face of the dairy industry my friend. When you buy milk/dairy at the supermarket, you support all of the above.

Should I report the psynews cannibals to interpol?? Tempting... In case of Proxeeus that's a no...still want him to produce badass Goa trance.

Conducting a little survey. Your vote would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to elaborate further below...