newtboy said:

Lol. Did I do that?

@HerbWatson said:
You've clearly got a lot to unload, I hope 2020 is a better year for you. You've got issues pal,

I'm sorry you feel my explanation is an attempt to argue. At least I didn't directly attribute those issues to you or otherwise personally insult you except for the fast and loose with facts bit, which I stand by....you can't say the same.

Maybe be correct instead of hyperbolic and exaggerating, and not disrespectfully snarky and passive aggressive when challenged and you'll have more pleasant discussions.

The miniscule amount of milk I drink means water use isn't my concern....but it is in a general big picture sense, especially if we all switch to non dairy milk as you suggested.

Have a Festive Festivus and a better 2020. Bye.

vil said:

Steak is definitely optional. I choose steak.

Killing only stops if there are no cows. If there are living cows they will die one day. In the wild pretty quickly if you apply your morals to wolves also.

A cow has no abstract concept of the fear of being eaten (only a general fear and instincts) so unless you purposefully go out of your way to hurt it there is nothing philosophically wrong with eating one, unless you get all emotional and make a complicated moral choice. Which is your choice to make.

Cavemen is a pretty wide term. I am probably smarter than most cavemen. But from the time they got organized and hunted large animals until now man has not really changed much - a couple of tens of thousands of years. We probably tend to remember less and be more depressed and weaker and use our senses less well. Can type faster though.

newtboy said:

You would prefer they get put out in an unusable field to starve, as long as they aren't eaten? If they serve no purpose, they won't be cared for, but they'll still exist.

If the dairy industry is gone, beef ranchers would just fill the veal gap, so different young cows still die under that plan.

Switching to non dairy isn't ecologically sound too....especially with almond milk for many reasons.

newtboy said:

Have I said any such things? I certainly don't recall saying any of that.
You must note, however, that the overreaction you get from some people likely stems from attempts to shame them using exaggeration, hyperbole, and even outright lies, which tend to make enemies to your cause rather than converts. I've never met a vegan that didn't operate that way to some degree. Perhaps those people are just giving back the same level of honest discussion and discourse they received. There's apparently something about veganism that makes it's practitioners think their movement is more important that fact and truth, like the "Dr." (and his followers) who claimed eating any amount of any red meat is just as carcinogenic as smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, citing WHO studies that said nothing of the sort. Many have said "If you agree with my goal, stopping animal suffering, why would you contradict my claims, even though I privately agree they're exaggeration and fantasy?". Ends don't justify means imo, and nothing justifies lying.

I don't need a degree in nutrition or to be a dietitian to understand the basics covered in multiple health classes I've passed and multiple scientific studies I've read. Is meat healthy? Yes....if it's raised and prepared properly and eaten in moderation. Is meat unhealthy? Yes...when eaten excessively or prepared unsafely.
Is veganism healthy? Yes....when practiced properly with a balanced diet that has all the nutrients humans need. Is veganism unhealthy? Yes...it is the way it's practiced by most vegans who don't have a grasp on what proper nutrition is. It's definitely harder to have a balanced healthy diet without any animal products, but isn't impossible.

Once again, I feel you are being fast and loose with fact by implying any of those statements have come from me. The only people I expect to die 6 times in a row are the ones in my dungeon that I'm keeping alive to prolong their torture....and they know what they did to deserve it. ;-)

vil said:

People will eat other people if they have nothing else to eat. Social eating rules are mostly that, a social construct, born of too many options. If a group of people or an influential individual decide bananas have feelings, so be it. The whole eggs are good, eggs are bad debate.

Read the bible for instance, like a quarter of it deals with social constructs that make no sense today, including rules about food. Pick and choose.

Just because of this fancy belief steaks have gotten no less tasty or nourishing. You have to kill a cow to get steak, no way around it. If this one is too cute, find another cow.

People are basically the same since hunting mammoths was a thing. Bread is OK. Meat is good.

I realllllly dont feel like working today TBH.

Payback said:

I've always found it funny that vegans never figured out that attacking people for their behaviour and/or beliefs will usually cause the victim to become more adamant. Like, I can almost agree with them, but being onside with arrogant, narcissistic blowhards makes me physically nauseous.

newtboy said:

Please don't be a stereotype and food shame non vegans, especially if you're going to be fast and loose with facts to do it.

Payback said:

Bovine equivalent of making milk bubbles...

I didn't straw man anything. His argument was that the animal is about to "go through hell" in "a few days".

My counter is that the animal is not going to go through hell (not abused) and will be living for more than a few days. I backed that assertion up with facts that I am familiar with for the subject matter. I didn't even mention other inaccuracies about the butchering process that really have nothing to do with the animal going "through hell" since it has been rendered unconscious before anything happens.

Does every fact in his description have to be 100% false for his overall analysis to be repudiated? Seems like a high bar for challenging an opinion.