Vegans BTFO

Vegan parents have been copy-striking videos left and right, which highlight and demonstrate what you said. This has happened to Frank Tufano and Sverige, and a small channel named bad goy. (or he took the video down for other reasons)

These children have instincts and they know vegetables are harming them, this is why they scream and cry when parents shove the vegetables down their throats against their will.

>All about my vegan infants' disability...

youtube.com/watch?v=SLXLhvmsdC0

Attached: Healthy Robust Vegan Teeth2.jpg (807x509, 52K)

Here's a great video by 'meat of the matter'
youtube.com/watch?v=uqknvVdYlIc

Attached: Vegan Activist Appears near Death.png (800x1280, 506K)

Attached: Go Vegan and Die.jpg (863x833, 289K)

>"animal rights" does not constitute a rational argument.
I agree. It's an argument for dismantling the current food industry, not an argument for having a shitty diet and pushing it on everyone else.

Coconut oil is 90% saturated fat retard.

Worry about your vegan teeth bro, I'm sure they're perfect from all that coconut oil.

Attached: Sacrifice your teeth for the animals.png (1128x645, 482K)

>Voluntarily joining a starvation cult?
are you talking about fasting right?

Its mostly a medium chain fatty acids, meaning it has negligible to almost no amount of omega 3. Like 0.02 g per 100g of coconut oil...a normal egg from a mass production farm is around .58g per 100g, 1.8g per 100g if the chicken is properly fed. Tuna in comparison has 8.6g per 100g, Atlantic salmon being the highest is around 18.4g per 100g.

Plants are devoid of omega 3s, coconut oil barely even registers. So you do need to supplement omega 3s as a plant dieter/vegan.

I suspect Veganism is crypto Eugenics. Especially when cereals where purposefully created to destroy people's reproductive systems. They also do a pretty good job in making children fat, including destroying their teeth.

Attached: soylent hands.png (632x950, 265K)

>no bro, not me.
>those vegans just don't understand how to eat right
>no I won't tell people what I eat so they can inevitably laugh when I mention I eat a jug of pea """protein""" powder a day
>I'll buy this processed shit for "ethical" reasons but I won't consider just paying more for grass fed beef and raw milk

>Cringe tattoo
Into the trash the whore goes

>healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants
OK I'll bite.

>Vitamin B12
Supplement or eat bivalves.

>Creatine
Lol who the fuck lifts and DOESN'T supplement fucking creatine??

>Carnosine
Non-essential. Also boosted by beta-alanine, a.k.a. "the thing that's in literally every PWO and that you take anyway".

>Vitamin D3
Supplement. Or just fucking go outside, nigger.

>DHA
Supplement or eat oyters like a boss and avoid all ethicals problems AND all deficinies.

>b-but that's not vegan!
Not according to the literal, cultish definition, but fuck that. If you want to follow the spirit and not the letter of veganism AND avoid deficiencies AND make your dick work better? Eat oysters and mussels. Meatcucks BTFO'd. Cultish vegans BTFO'd. Maximum triggering: check.

>Heme-iron
Just eat more non-heme iron. Spinach, motherfucker. Beets. That's good shit.

>Taurine
*pftiiiish*
*siiips*
Also, non-essential.

>b-but you have to take supplements... i-it's not NATURAL
Oy vey, I have to take three supplements more than you, I'm fucking done for, not like all of us are obsessed with this shit and take like 10 supplements anyway.

Attached: 1560200763102.jpg (750x700, 90K)

Those supplements are coming from animals brainlet

There's vegan versions of all of them.

Eating oysters and muscles and mollusks isn't vegan, its non-dairy pescatarian

>dismantling the current food industry
lmfao
>grass fed beef and raw milk
wanna know how I know you have no clue what the fuck youre talking about and your "knowledge" consists of memes?

>my diet is so shit that I need to pop pills all day to make up for it
you still didn't get the nutrients from your diet, you fucking brainlet

>I won't eat animals because it is cruel and I'll save the planet by eating veggies
>I'll abort my unborn child because they'll just be damaging to the planet
These people have very selective moral compasses

Oh shit they made a gold liftwaffe shirt? I should start listening to them boys at work again

Ostro-veganism is a thing and compatible with a non-dogmatic interpretation of veganism. The jist of the argument is that bivalves have no brain/central nervous system and can't suffer.

>cover exactly how to get nutrients from supplements or even adapt to a more liberal interpretation of veganism in order to avoid supplements
>"it doesn't count for [reasons]!"
Insults aren't arguments, user.

>Ostro-veganism is a thing and compatible with a non-dogmatic interpretation of veganism. The jist of the argument is that bivalves have no brain/central nervous system and can't suffer.
Neither can chickens they're too retarded

[citation needed]
Why does everyone on Jow Forums think that just making up obvious lies that they KNOW are lies and also throwing around insults are valid forms of argument?

I mean at least the paranoid anti-vegans BELIEVE in their own bullshit. But look at you. "lmao chicken's don't feel pain hehe". You fucking KNOW that isn't true so why say it. Fucking embarrasing.

1. So what if they do? I don't give a shit
2. You've never been around a chicken otherwise you'd know they are in fact retarded and have no personality

if you're going to discuss something then why be a complete moron in doing so?

1. If you engage in debate, you should uphold the standards of debate. Imagine if this entire post just read "COCKSUCKER". Not very constructive, right? Would kinda just make you not want to have a discussion at all.

2. As Bentham argued, it is neither their intelligence nor personality that matters, but their capacity to suffer, to feel pain. I know plenty of dumb people with no personality; I don't like them but I wouldn't kill and eat them.

Have chickens. they def behave differently from breed to breed/individually

>1. If you engage in debate, you should uphold the standards of debate. Imagine if this entire post just read "COCKSUCKER". Not very constructive, right? Would kinda just make you not want to have a discussion at all.
I don't accept that your premise is correct. Being concerned about the pain of animals isn't on my moral axis.
>2. As Bentham argued, it is neither their intelligence nor personality that matters, but their capacity to suffer, to feel pain. I know plenty of dumb people with no personality; I don't like them but I wouldn't kill and eat them.
Logically we should put lions in jail for eating zebras if that's the moral standard.

Post your body you leaf eating motherfucker

>Logically we should put lions in jail for eating zebras if that's the moral standard.
Lions are incapable of conscious choice whereas humans are

>Lions are incapable of conscious choice whereas humans are
So why should we respect their rights if they cannot engage in social obligation or convention?

>premise
The vegan argument is that this makes you logically inconsistent for one or more reasons:
For example, you likely DO concern yourself with the pain of animals, should those animals be family pets, especially if they were to be put through excruciating pain for no reason (say a psycho tortures the family dog for no reason). You just make a different, and inconsistent, judgement about animals designated as "food". This is culturally learned behaviour and not based on logic.

If the above is incorrect, then the classical vegan argument "name the trait" applies. I.e. name the trait that humans have and animals lack that makes it OK to eat animals but not OK to eat humans, such that IF an animal were to have said trait it would be wrong to eat it and IF a human were to lack said trait it would be OK to eat them.

A more detailed description: philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait_2.0

>lions
They have no moral agency, they are not able to make choices and judgements like people do. Are you comparing yourself to an animal? Are you saying that you're not capable of rational judgement or ethical thinking and should not be held accountable for your actions?

Empathy. Why commit unnecessary pain?

Because rights do not follow from capacity to engage in social obligation. If they did, young children, very elderly people, the mentally handicapped, etc. would have no rights and it would be OK to murder and eat them.

>For example, you likely DO concern yourself with the pain of animals, should those animals be family pets, especially if they were to be put through excruciating pain for no reason (say a psycho tortures the family dog for no reason). You just make a different, and inconsistent, judgement about animals designated as "food". This is culturally learned behaviour and not based on logic.
My family had a cat, he was there for our amusement. I didn't want him and won't give a shit when he dies. The learned behavior is thinking animals are precious beings that humans are corrupting by using them for our own ends.
>If the above is incorrect, then the classical vegan argument "name the trait" applies. I.e. name the trait that humans have and animals lack that makes it OK to eat animals but not OK to eat humans, such that IF an animal were to have said trait it would be wrong to eat it and IF a human were to lack said trait it would be OK to eat them.
The ability to respect your rights, same as any other human in society. For example, a person has the right not to be harmed unless they harm another person at which point they lose their rights and can be incapacitated until they are no longer a threat and then imprisoned/enslaved or killed. The animals we eat on a regular basis cannot make this distinction and therefore do not deserve rights.
>They have no moral agency, they are not able to make choices and judgements like people do. Are you comparing yourself to an animal? Are you saying that you're not capable of rational judgement or ethical thinking and should not be held accountable for your actions?
If they are not moral agents then the concept of morality does not apply to them. If a human was similarly incapable then it shouldn't either.

Pain is not a legitimate basis to decide

Yes they do, the idea of a right is that its a privilege that gets revoked as soon as you break your obligations. Children, elderly and mentally deficient people are wards of people with the ability to make these decisions and have no effective say in anything.

>Pain is not a legitimate basis to decide
Why not?

to decide how to organize society because its an internal subjective experience with a nebulous definition and presumes that the experience of pain is always a negative or always a certain way

>he was there for our amusement. I didn't want him and won't give a shit when he dies.
Inability to form empathic bonds or care for the wellbeing even of pets, and see living creatures as merely things there for 'your amusement' indicated a risk of sociopathy. Would you mind terribly, for my curiosity, taking a quick 'sociopathy/psychopath test' online and telling me the results? Most are very brief and take less time than writing a post would.

>the ability to respect your rights
OK cool. Firstly: Babies, young children, very elderly people, disabled people, very sick or incapacitated people, mentally retarded people, etc. now have no rights. Secondly: adult humans who do not respect the rights of others, say convicted criminals, can now have no rights and can be killed and eaten like one would a chicken.

lmfao this noodle armed faggot has to pop a candy store of pills every day just to do warmups

>to decide how to organize society because its an internal subjective experience with a nebulous definition and presumes that the experience of pain is always a negative or always a certain way
My reading comprehension isn't quite up to snuff here so bear with me.

Are you saying society has no moral obligation to mitigate suffering because pain is subjective/is positive?

If I'm understanding properly I have doubts you would say the same had your leg just been broken & someone repeated that t you

>OK cool. Firstly: Babies, young children, very elderly people, disabled people, very sick or incapacitated people, mentally retarded people, etc. now have no rights.
That's already the case, they are wards of their guardians
>Secondly: adult humans who do not respect the rights of others, say convicted criminals, can now have no rights and can be killed and eaten like one would a chicken.
They could be if that's what we wanted to do with them. However there are health problems associated with cannibalism and prison sentences that are finite in length are impermanent removals of these rights. Life in prison should be replaced with the death penalty everywhere because its a collective waste of society's resources to care for them for life.

Because he says so and needs to believe it to justify his actions. A carnist always begins with the conclusion and works his way back to the excuse.

>Yes they do
That's an assertion, not an argument.
>wards
So an orphaned street-urching can be killed and eaten then? Assume they're too young to have a capacity for social obligation and have no wards with such a capacity.

>have no effective say
No, but they still have rights even though they may not be able to formulate and express them.

Pain is not an objective experience that implies something good or bad occurred. You can be in pain giving birth to your child and yet that's not a negative thing, its a part of life.

>So an orphaned street-urching can be killed and eaten then? Assume they're too young to have a capacity for social obligation and have no wards with such a capacity.
If nobody cares about them enough to take responsibility for them then nobody cares enough what happens to them by definition.
>No, but they still have rights even though they may not be able to formulate and express them.
Legally they are held in trust and executed by the guardian who has power of attorney. A cow at no point had or will have the capacity to express any kind of moral agency/

>lmao I take 12 different supplements I don't need and this guy eats oysters so I'm going to assume how much he curls!
Faggot.

So, morally speaking, there is no problem with murdering and eating a person in prison for life, or an incapable person who lacks a ward?

Also, you're shifting the goal-post. You said rights follow from the ability to follow social obligation, and that lack of such an ability negates right. Now suddenly people who lack that ability still have rights IF their sentence is finite (i.e. not life)? By that logic a cow, who has done no wrong at all, should have rights as well.

So killing and eating children is fine under certain circumstances? Right, that is the point of the vegan argument: you either concede to being logically inconsistent or you reveal yourself as a sociopath. You chose the latter. Nice talking to you.

Please do take a brief online test, if it's not too much trouble. There are short ones that take like 1 minute at the most, I'm very curious.

1. even under the circumstance you have mentioned pain is never a positive and the vast majority of women get an epidural/equivalent

2. giving birth is not the same as killing animals no matter how you arrive at that conclusion

>So, morally speaking, there is no problem with murdering and eating a person in prison for life, or an incapable person who lacks a ward?
Yes if nobody cares enough to act as a guardian for them then by definition nobody gave enough of a shit about him for anyone to be bothered by this.
>Also, you're shifting the goal-post. You said rights follow from the ability to follow social obligation, and that lack of such an ability negates right. Now suddenly people who lack that ability still have rights IF their sentence is finite (i.e. not life)? By that logic a cow, who has done no wrong at all, should have rights as well.
The fixed-term imprisonment is a kind of suspension and separation from society for victimizing someone. There's no analogy between this and using a cow for food.

>Yes if nobody cares enough to act as a guardian for them then by definition nobody gave enough of a shit about him for anyone to be bothered by this.

you're being silly now. If this is really what you're thinking there's no point continuing this

>no analogy
A prisoner is imprisoned because they stole something. Despite their inability to respect the rights of others, which they have demonstrated through commiting theft, their rights are NOT permanently taken away, but merely suspended temporarily and in a limited fashion. They still retain rights.
A cow is imprisoned for no reason at all, it has done nothing. It is assumed that cow can't respect the rights of others, despite scientific studies showing some emotional capacity and capacity for intelligence. Because it's a cow. They cow is then killed and eaten. It never had any rights.

The point is that, as you kind of admit, the cow NEVER had any rights, not even in the abstract. Not by virtue of being "incapable of respecting the rights of others", but by virtue of being a cow. Therefore, arguably the requirement of the 'name a trait' argument has not been met: clearly, capacity to respect others is not on its own the sole trait.

Its also fine to kill people under certain circumstances; shocking I know your simple moral compass doesn't account for the extremities of the human condition.
Intellectually separating pain from the action doesn't make those actions negative is the point. A cow could feel pain getting an air blast to the skull but their meat provides nutrition.

You're designing a hypothetical which assumes a number of things. What I'm telling you is that using your own assumptions to construct this world, you can deduce your way back to them. If there was a world in which nobody cared about children, in that would would people care about children? The obvious answer is no.

>fine to kill people under certain circumstances
If you don't understand the difference between e.g. killing in self-defence and murdering an innocent child and eating its corpse because "nobody gave enough of a shit about him lol", then you are insane.

What's more, you're one of those somewhat intelligence insane people, who decieves themselves into thinking that their lack of empathy is merely them being more logical and rational than others. You learn about philsophy in order to justify your beliefs because you can't face the fact that you just lack empathy.

Take the goddamn psycho test and post results. Are you scared of what it will say?

>A prisoner is imprisoned because they stole something. Despite their inability to respect the rights of others, which they have demonstrated through commiting theft, their rights are NOT permanently taken away, but merely suspended temporarily and in a limited fashion. They still retain rights.
This is decided by convention but thievery could be punished by death and often is although not formally.
>A cow is imprisoned for no reason at all, it has done nothing. It is assumed that cow can't respect the rights of others, despite scientific studies showing some emotional capacity and capacity for intelligence. Because it's a cow. They cow is then killed and eaten. It never had any rights.
The cow is being farmed for its capacity to provide nutrition not because it didn't steal something.
>The point is that, as you kind of admit, the cow NEVER had any rights, not even in the abstract. Not by virtue of being "incapable of respecting the rights of others", but by virtue of being a cow. Therefore, arguably the requirement of the 'name a trait' argument has not been met: clearly, capacity to respect others is not on its own the sole trait.
A cow is a category of being that cannot have that attribute so cows do not ever get the rights associated with it.

I found some traits.
conscious choice
whatever this faggot is on about, human will help human, animal will leave broken legged animal to save themselves

and I think these are both vegan posters lmao

The idea that nobody cared enough about the child was your invention.

There's no point. He doesn't have the capacity to argue his point without twisting the logic

Exactly, you have then NOT yet named the trait that, should an animal hypothetically possess it, if would be unethical to eat the animal - and, should a human lack it, it would be ethical to kill and eat the human.

Basically, you're argument has been a long-winded way of saying "you can kill and eat cows because they're cows and that's what they're for", which is a circular argument.

>I found some traits.
Name them?

Yes, but it's still an innocent child. There are plenty of urchins in the real world that lack a legal guardian, who have nobody who cares for them. It is not an "invention", it is the life of many unfortunate children. Whom you argue can be murdered and eated without this being ethically wrong.

I disagree, rarely do you have a carnist who will follow the logic (and not just scream insults) and be honest enough to admit to sociopathic bullshit. I find this amusing.

>healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants
The only one you need there is b12 .

I did, no cow, chicken, pig, deer or animal we eat as a part of a balanced diet possesses it

>Yes, but it's still an innocent child. There are plenty of urchins in the real world that lack a legal guardian, who have nobody who cares for them. It is not an "invention", it is the life of many unfortunate children. Whom you argue can be murdered and eated without this being ethically wrong.
Under my ethical framework I think its acceptable for anyone to volunteer to be responsible for them but if nobody is willing then you really didn't care about them. If you're not willing to be responsible for a lion who kills a person then why should I take your commitment to animal rights seriously? The owner of a dog is held responsible for what it destroys.

What is the trait? Conscious thought?

You don't seem to comprehend the meaning of the word "hypothetical". It's a thought experiment, you see. You're supposed to imagine - hypothetically - that an animal DID have that trait, and that a human DID NOT.

In this hypothetical scenario: is it still OK to eat the animal? Is it OK to eat the human? And which is the trait?

You want to make an antivegan post, and you use a tranny to do it?

I outlined it already, the ability to fully participate in society including respecting the rights of others and their other obligations.

So let me get this straight: it's OK to eat the child if it lacks a ward. BUT, anyone - literally anyone - can claim wardship and take responsbility for the child? And then that immunized the child and gives them rights?

OK, what does such a wardship entail? And could vegans declare it for animals? Is there a limit? Like if I just said, right now, "I claim wardship over all cows in the state of Arizona" would that make it not OK to eat those cows?

I would say no in that case. It would also depend on the state of the human and the purpose. Eating is one thing, using them is another. We currently, right now, using aborted fetuses for a source of stem cells and energy when they are incinerated at hospitals when they burn their garbage.

Except you contradicted yourself. Criminals still have rights, apparently, as long as their crime does not warrant the death-penalty. Animals can NEVER have rights, regardless of the situation. "Wardship" can give rights to those that don't have them. It's a strange moral philsophy that doesn't make sense. It's kinda obvious that you start with the conclusion and work your way back to a half-assed explanation.

And a human who LACKED the trait would be OK to eat?

Cool. You're logically consistent. And a sociopath. Take the fucking test, coward. It'll only tell you what you already know in your heart of hearts.

>So let me get this straight: it's OK to eat the child if it lacks a ward. BUT, anyone - literally anyone - can claim wardship and take responsbility for the child? And then that immunized the child and gives them rights?
Yes if there's nobody who wants to adopt the child then go ahead
>OK, what does such a wardship entail? And could vegans declare it for animals? Is there a limit? Like if I just said, right now, "I claim wardship over all cows in the state of Arizona" would that make it not OK to eat those cows?
First cows cannot be wards because they are categorically incapable of what I've outlined before. Second, you can claim whatever you want but the legitimacy of the claim (the owner of the property or the legal guardian) is dependent on how strong that claim is vis a vis rival claims. You could claim a farmer's dairy cow but that doesn't mean its yours. If you wanted to buy a dairy cow or adopt a wild deer then feel free. All currently farmed cattle are property of their owners so claiming them is obviously a ridiculous exercise.

Let me guess, you're an anarcho-capitalist, right?

>Except you contradicted yourself. Criminals still have rights, apparently, as long as their crime does not warrant the death-penalty. Animals can NEVER have rights, regardless of the situation. "Wardship" can give rights to those that don't have them. It's a strange moral philsophy that doesn't make sense. It's kinda obvious that you start with the conclusion and work your way back to a half-assed explanation.
That's what the concept of imprisonment is, I don't personally agree with it, I was explaining it to you. Physical punishment has been shown to be more effective in preventing crime and assuaging the emotions of victims and according to many people like Foucaut is preferable to inprisonment.
>And a human who LACKED the trait would be OK to eat?
There's a legal framework for dealing with categories of being that are capable of what I've expressed. The logic isn't the same because the two situations are categorically different.

The label isn't useful because there's two categories of political theory. What are an individuals obligations to the state? And what is the best way to run a state?

The only logical conclusions to the first question is that you are property of the state or you have no obligations to the state. The second question is an open question.

So it isn't really about respecting rights, as much as the *capacity* to respect rights? Which humans have, even if they don't excercise it, and animals lack?

>categorically different.
Well that's the issue. You claim they are, and then you argue that categorization is based on 'respecting rights of others', but don't define rights and also make arguments that clearly show there's more to it than just respecting rights. So what PRECISELY makes the two things different categories?

So yes?

The physiology of cattle and the physiology of humans are such that cattle do not have the capacity for moral agency as I've described above and humans do. In the case where the capacity exists but in practice doesn't then there are ways of dealing with that that are complex and I have already explained.

If you mean do I think insurance agencies should run everything and all services are private, then no I don't campaign for that or think it would be great. On the other hand their critique of the state is logically sound.

https:// di sc ord. gg/ P7wVZV

If 'capacity for moral agency' is the 'trait', that would imply the following:
-People who lack said capacity, and I no not mean a temporary failure to excercise it but a lack of capacity altogether, are OK to kill and eat. This could include people in a coma, severely mentally retarded people, and sociopaths/psychopaths who are neurologically incapable of this.

You have already confirmed that an young, orphaned urchin can be killed and eated because hey, nobody cares about them! This, btw, also implies that rights are not merely the outcome of capacity for moral agency, but are potentially bestowed upon us by the extension of empathy from others - and taken away by the lack of it. Killing someone is OK if nobody cares about it; they have no inherent rights as such, it is a collectivist judgement by society that decides wrong or right. Except, of, course, that you can't extend that empathy to animals apparently, because [reasons].

Secondly, it would imply that if an animal did have that capacity, it would not be OK to eat it. There is scientific research that shows that animals are capable of understanding the basics of things such as fairness. See: nature.com/articles/nature01963#a1
Of course, now follows the argument where that doesn't count as 'capacity for morals' becase [reasons]. But where is the line drawn? How is 'capacity' defined? How much capacity warrants how much rights? If the answer comes down to species and not individual, then it's circular reasoning: animals can be eaten because they are animals, i.e. the 'trait' is 'being an animal'.

The 'wardship' argument you presented is just a cop-out. When questioned on the details of this you start talking about property rights and law, which are logically independent from ethics.

>As a lifelong vegan, I am better than you
is this bait or is he mentally ill for real

But there is a vegan source of B12?

That user gave the trait. Read the thread again.

>you're argument

Ah fuck, I am reading posts by

Vegans are deficient in vitamin A:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19103647
m.jn.nutrition.org/content/137/11/2346.full
healthybabycode.com/why-you-cant-get-vitamin-a-from-eating-vegetables (studies linked in the article)
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118072051.htm
researchnews.osu.edu/archive/betacarotene.htm
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1545.full
fasebj.org/content/23/4/1041.full
thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/beta-carotene-vitamin-a-myth
empoweredsustenance.com/true-vitamin-a-foods
westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/vitamin-a-vagary
westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/vitamin-a-saga
philmaffetone.com/vitamin-a-and-the-beta-carotene-myth

Calcium in Rats
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3183773

Magnesium and Oxalates
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15035687

Vegans have a lower sperm count than non vegans:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35465
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257705/

Vegans have lower testosterone than non vegans:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435181
m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/42/1/127.abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/159772
m.jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49

Veganism causes loss of libido and erectile dysfunction:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353476
Children who are raised on strict vegan diets do not grow normally:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4067152
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8005079

Children develop rickets after prolonged periods of strict vegetarian diets:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874810/pdf/canmedaj01383-0052.pdf

Post body

well, would you eat dog? If not then your a hypocrite too.

Would you eat nettle? Would you eat grass? Would you eat tree leaves?
Of course not, they serve a different purpose, although they are edible.

People in modern society are totally disconnected with the reality of survival. Vegetarianism and veganism are probably the most outright example of this. It's delusion, plain and simple.

>nettle
To be fair, nettles are fucking awesome for you, you can just pick 'em and make a soup or dry them an make a powder to put in your smoothies. Dandelion leaves are pretty good too. Birch leaves can be used for tea or eaten, spruce shots can be chewed or used in cooking, wood sorrel is pretty tasty and wheat grass (does that count as grass?) is really good for you too. Lots of other stuff that's edable in the forrest too, you can get lots of protein and good fats from acorns if you know how to prepare them. Learn about nature and wilderness you fucking city-faggot.

"Ah, you almost had be questioning my beliefs there for a second, but look you made a spelling mistake! That's too bad man, gonna ignore your argument now lol!"
Fucking embarrasing.
And yes, he did name the trait and then we had a discussion that showed his position was a bit more complicated than that, so I wanted him to elaborate. Do you personally agree with the trait he names, despite the implication that certain humans can be killed and eaten with no ethical qualms, whilst certain animals should not be?

youtube.com/watch?v=4nkcrkpf5DI#t=5m5s

This nigga eats dandelions

Up until the modern society most people aren't eating meat everyday. A good example of this is Ireland where potato disease pretty much caused 1 million people to die.

This was due to people having a diet that was 80% potatoes.

Meat consumption is at a all time high. Obesity is also at a all time high.

Vegan have the lowest BMI. Maybe, it the lack of meat.

You can get B12 from yeast. Guess being a keto carnie cuck doesn’t facilitate thinking your arguments very far ahead though.