this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
1364 points (90.8% liked)
Memes
45894 readers
1273 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m not on either side of the argument, but would guess a good argument would be that fish need to eat other fish in order to survive as it’s their only source of food. We don’t. Provenly.
What's wrong with fish eating plastics we dump in the waters. Are they anti plastic or something?????
/S
That's right! Oil spill is full of calories! Why don't they just slurp it up so they can contain a lot of fish oil!
We still need to eat someone
Are you sure?
Yeah, until we evolve to consume light directly, we'll be processing some other organics.
Imo harm does not equal to kill. A fish with limited imagination cannot be harmed if his life just ends and he does not feel anything.
Can the same be said about people? How do we judge imagination of a fish? If we don't understand what they feel is it because of their lack of imagination or ours?
To be fair, he's technically not wrong, exactly as you pointed out - if your life just ends instantly, be it fish or human, they won't feel or think jack shit.
Eat yourself then.
A person does not need to eat meat.
People absolutely do need to eat meat, specifically cooked meat in order to be intelligent. It's what made cavemen smarter than other animals. Also the recent rise in average height and IQ from good nutrition is in part directly related to cheap meat from factory farming.
Got any sources?
PBS video
Not exactly a scientific paper, but I guess it should be a good enough source for lemmy
The video says it was cooking, not cooked meat, and even says homo erectus mostly ate plants.
So you think our need to COOK meat is the same as needing to EAT meat?
My god. I don’t think there’s much help for you.
Uhhh... no. It's not good enough for lemmy.
You are absolutely 100% wrong on this. And so wrong that it’s hilarious. Please don’t reproduce.
Nice argument, you sure showed him! Oh, wait, you didn't - there was no substance to your reply. I suggest actually choosing a point of contention and explaining your perspective next time.
Oh, the irony.
There's no irony, as my point of contention is your inability to discuss things like an adult despite, presumably, being one.
We needed to eat meat to get to this point. We can stop now.
Except in most cases we can't. You may be able to, in which case, good job, but meat is much cheaper per quantity and quality of nutrients, not to mention people like me, whose only real source of dietary iron is meat.
Iron is just a mineral, where do you think the cows get it? Plenty of plants have iron. Meat is also typically a lot more expensive than rice and beans. Like you want to eat meat, that's cool, just stop acting like it's for your health when meat is literally a carcinogen.
Nails have iron, try eating one of those! The air is mostly Nitrogen, why do plants even need N2 in the soil?
It's basic fucking science that nutrients take different forms which can be absorbed differently.
Again: where do you think the cows get it, lol. Not from nails.
Unless you're a hunter there's no way meat is cheaper, wtf are you talking about?
1kg of chicken breast meat costs me less than 5 USD and covers multiple days of meals. To get equivalent nutrients out of plants would cost me way more than that.
wtf you can? Where I am chicken breast is USD $11.64 per kg!
Compare that to beans. Where I live I can get a kg of dried pinto beans for $3.50, and with 67% as much protein per serving as chicken it would cost $5.25 to get the same amount of protein as a kg of chicken breast.
What's the price of 1kg of dried beans where you live? That'd be a more apt comparison.
Depends a lot on brand and quality, but I'd guess the average is somewhat close to yours, at $3.00 US. Beans are a major source of protein for most people, where I live. Doesn't help me, though - I don't much mind the flavor, but they make me incredibly nauseous.
Beans are just about the best source of plant protein, yeah. Grains and nuts have protein too, but nuts are definitely pricier and grains have pretty bad carb/protein ratios. If you can't eat beans for whatever reason it'd be a serious commitment to be vegan! No shame in that.
As an aside, I actually have nothing against eating bugs like crickets and mealworms etc. It makes me a bad vegan but I don't really care about whether or not bugs have feelings lol
According to that logic, Inuit people should be able to outsmart all of us - but they don't seem to be smarter or dumber than the rest of the human population.
Access to meat (thus better nutrition) increasing doesn't imply meat makes you Megamind. That's a very poor argument in bad faith.
The minute you start blathering about a "rise in IQ" you are making a "poor argument in bad faith."
Because? Things don't become truthful just because you said them.
Don't tell me... tell your meat-obsessed friend over there.
Right... let's check his comment point by point, shall we?
I believe you'll agree with this without the need to further explain it.
This is strictly true, in our current context. The food production chain simply cannot cope with the abrupt loss of a main source of nutrients in most places. Particularly when 'muricans are throwing away up to half of their food.
Non-statement statement of dubious quality. Should be rewritten.
That's invariably the most accepted explanation to homo sapiens evolution
Meat provides very dense nutritional value, I'm sure you'll agree - it's why carnivores exist to begin with. We know, factually, that nutritional quality directly correlates with better health, both in body and mind. We also know that meat can be VERY cheap, as long as you're not looking for "grade A elite baby wagyuu" stuff.
Where, exactly, is your point explicit?
Oh really? Accepted by whom?
The fucking scientific community? Let me be direct - Are you seriously going to ask ridiculous questions a 5 year old could answer instead of providing any argument whatsoever? Because at that point, I'd rather not waste my time with a functionally illiterate individual.
Then you should have zero problem providing proper back-up to your claims, shouldn't you?