Cogito ergo Deus est
Vegan Insincerity

In my friendly dealings with veg(etari)ans lately, I’ve seen post after post telling me how much better it is to get my protein from plants instead of meat.

And all of them have been dishonest and misleading trash. Case in point:

image

First of all, who the hell measures protein per calorie? No one. If you want a sense of nutritional value, you measure protein per 100 grams, not per 100 calories.

So, after converting into useful units, it turns out that beef has between 25-30 grams of protein per 100 grams, whereas broccoli has a measly 2.5-2.6 grams of protein per 100 grams. 

Extending this further, for me to get the daily serving of protein that I could get from a single 200g steak, I would have to eat roughly 2.5kg of broccoli. That’s 5.5 pounds of broccoli for my American followers.

Mmm, sounds scrumptious.

Another typical argument that veg(etari)ans spout is something like this: "You could grow 40,000 pounds of potato or 50,000 pounds of tomatoes on the land it takes to produce 250 pounds of beef."

Once again, to get the same amount of protein from these vegetables as I can get from a single 200g steak, I would have to eat over 6kg of tomato (about 60 tomatoes) or 3kg of potato (6-7 whole potatoes). Meanwhile, after eating my 6-7 whole potatoes to get my protein, I would have exceeded my daily carb/energy intake by 50-60%.

Not to mention that steak contains better ‘whole’ protein. Wow, it’s almost like meat is an integral part of a healthy, well-balanced diet.

So let me get this straight. You can own bees and chickens, but if you take or eat the honey/eggs of the bees/chickens that you own... it's stealing?

getmad-govegan:

1. you cant ‘own’ an animal

2. yeah it is

3. dont think i forgot that hate mail/threat you sent me the other day, you gotta lot of nerve coming back into my askbox punk

First of all, if you consider me saying I’m going to eat more meat a ‘threat’, then consider my threat 100% carried out. I literally had 5 servings of chicken last night. Please feel free to contact the relevant authorities, and make sure to list KFC as an accomplice.

Secondly, if you can’t ‘own’ an animal, then how is it that you have that dog of yours? I suppose since you don’t own it, if your dog was hypothetically lured into my car by the smell of bacon and lived with me from now on, it couldn’t be stealing - because you never owned it in the first place, right?

Finally, consuming a chicken’s unfertilised eggs is stealing in the same sense as throwing your dogs poop in the trash. I don’t think you understand how ownership works.

I was still on such a self-righteous high from earlier that I just had 2 chicken breasts instead of 1 for dinner. Literally - I ate twice as much chicken as I was going to. I'm considering eating twice as much meat for every meal from now on, unless you shut down this blog. Just to see if you *really* care about the animals.

rawr0609:

getmad-govegan:

Is this a fucking threat??? Are you kidding me?? How fucking dare you, you sadistic jerk

Bruh I see that get mad’s blog has upset you so to cheer yourself up have you considered:
*getting a life
*getting a girlfriend
*petting some dogs

Bruh.

You think I’m upset? I’m not the one who cried because they saw someone drinking a god damn milkshake.

Get a girlfriend? Bruh, I have a wife, and she made me bacon slice for dinner. I’ll be okay.

Also, if getmad-govegan is upset that I would emotionally blackmail someone into changing their diet, then maybe they should have good hard look in the mirror. And a milkshake.

rkidd:

Say you were a railway controller, and you knew there was a train heading towards a bridge that was out. The rail has a point where it diverges off to a different path at a switch, before the bridge.
You have a choice: leave the switch as is, dooming the 50 people on the train, or switch the…

I’m not really good at ethics/philosophy either, but here’s my interpretation.

I’d treat it the same way I treat gambling. Is that a fair thing to do in an ethical dilemma? Probably not, but this is a silly hypothetical question anyway.

Rather than make a one off decision, I’d picture it as though I had to make this decision every day for 50 years. If I chose option A every time, I’d lose exactly 913,125 lives after those 50 years. If I chose option B every time, I’d instead expect to lose 3,314,643.75 lives (after 50 years.)

So, by choosing option A every time, I’d expect (with extremely high certainty) to be saving at least 2.4 million lives over 50 years. On average, choosing option A is actually saving 131.5 lives every time you pick it. So I’d let those 50 sorry sons o’ bitches die.

Option B only becomes viable if there is a 9% or less chance of derailment, or the total number of possible deaths in option B is 151 people or less. Pretty much, so long as the (%-of-disaster) x (#-of-deaths-in-B) > (#-of-deaths-in-A), option B is a bad choice (there’s your formula).

Did that help or did I tell you something you already knew?

'Rapist' and 'Racist' are separated by only a single letter.

Coincidence?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yes.

I am 100% serious about changing Australia’s official currency to ‘Dollaridoos’.

turnyourworldupsidedown:

pleatedjeans:

via

Yep.

These divisions allow for at least 1024 kinds of people.

spedz:

rkidd:

spedz:

There is no valid moral or ethical argument that can be made for not eating an animal after it has died.

Moral arguments can only be made for how an animal is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed.

Yes there is: what if the act of eating…

The problem with playing the moral relativity card is that it throws the baby out with the bath water. If you really believed that morals were arbitrary and purely subjective then you would never have objected to my post, because you would have understood that it pertained to my moral compass.

Also, I never brought cannibalism into it, but since you did, I think the same argument applies. Once a person is dead, they’re dead, and eating them can’t cause them any harm. Really there are only two main options for any dead animal (including humans): 1. You can burn the corpse, or 2. It gets consumed, either by you or another animal or microorganisms. Both are ‘arguably’ immoral ways to treat an animal/human, but I stand by the position that if you really care about the welfare of a sentient animal, you’ll worry about how it’s treated while it’s alive, not about what happens to it after it’s dead.

Meat Fact

rkidd:

spedz:

There is no valid moral or ethical argument that can be made for not eating an animal after it has died.

Moral arguments can only be made for how an animal is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed.

Yes there is: what if the act of eating contributes to the determining factors of how it is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed? 

The act itself (eating the meat) does not contribute to these factors. Of course I understand that the more meat we buy, the higher the demand, the more cows/pigs/etc are produced, over-crowding, cages, yada yada. But the act of eating the meat does not affect this. All of that is a result of our society, capitalism, and a bunch of other stuff that came into existence long after 'meat-eating' existed. It's what we do to get that meat that contributes e.g. Who killed it? How? How much did we pay for it? Who did we buy it from?

It might seem like nitpicking, but it’s important in regard to the morality of the act itself. Once the meat is on your plate, everything that contributed to whether the meat is ‘moral’ - how the animal was treated, fed, killed and sold - has already happened. Putting it in the bin or in your mouth changes nothing.

Think about it logically: if we can agree that there is at least some morally permissible way for meat to end up in your stomach, then it follows that the act of eating it itself must not be the deciding factor in that morality. Therefore, the stance of ‘never-ever-eat-meat’ is not morally defensible.

As an example, say you’re a vegetarian and you order a salad that comes with a random piece of chicken on it. Refusing to eat that piece of chicken does not save the chicken; it has no effect whatsoever. At best it’s a waste. Eating it or not eating it has no effect on how chickens are being fed, treated, killed or sold.

The point is, it’s a reasonable and morally defensible position to be against the over-production of meat and against the inhumane treatment and slaughter of animals, and following that it’s reasonable to be selective in how much meat you eat and how you acquire it, but the position of ‘never-ever-eat-meat’ just does not logically follow from that.

Meat Fact

awkwardandvegan:

spedz:

There is no valid moral or ethical argument that can be made for not eating an animal after it has died.

Moral arguments can only be made for how an animal is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed.

If I hit your dog in the head with a brick until it dies will it make you feel better if I eat it afterwards?

Wh-…uh…n-no?

Why would you hit my dog in the head with a brick until it dies? Do vegans get off on abusing animals but not eating them? I could have sworn I just said the mistreating and method of killing animals were definitely moral issues.

But I can assure you that if you did do both of those things, the second would be the least of my worries.

What the hell kind of point are you trying to make?