there seems to be a real emotional response by many people...

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13 points 2 days ago (17 children)

I mean..."Look at me, I'm a human. I enslave millions (billions?) of animals for the express purpose of slaughter and give them shitty lives just because. Then, I buy their meat from a store, not having to face death myself. Teehee why do people get so triggered?"

I'm an omnivore, so it's not like I don't get it. But even from my viewpoint meat eaters are insufferable about their meat eating. Some make it their whole personality.

So yeah, that and carnivores pushing around vegetarians and vegans for so long probably didn't help. "Ew, rabbit food" and whatnot. Even you're doing it now, what with choosing to use the word "trigger" like it doesn't already have a meaning.

Just be better. No one cares if you eat meat.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago* (4 children)

    One animal per person per year for cattle. Compared to the number of field animals killed by harvesting machines for people who eat wheat or drink beer. And I'd prefer to eat retired dairy cattle if they were available, and those have a good life, as the slightest problem stops them giving milk

    No one cares if you eat meat

    How can you have visited this community and think that? We post a science paper saying it's healthy to eat meat and it will attract more down votes than this community ever sees in up votes

    There are comments above yours in this thread telling us we're as bad as cannibals, or cause global warming

    I notice that you "who doesn't care what we eat" down voted this post, along with five others who presumably don't have a problem with us

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

    And I'd prefer to eat retired dairy cattle if they were available, and those have a good life, as the slightest problem stops them giving milk

    Uh, might want to do a little research before you make a claim like that. They definitely don't live "good" lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

    They really do. They have sunlight, grass, and no predators. The grass is the sort they like, in modern farms they get milked as soon as they want

    Cattle don't have complex needs, they're not migratory like buffalo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 days ago (5 children)

    Thank you for sharing.

    The fact you express your omnivore diet in terms of 'slavery', 'shitty lives' demonstrates you have lots of guilt associated with your omnivore lifestyle. I see a few options for you - go full plant based, or purchases meat that doesn't have a bad life (i.e. meat your local regenerative farmer)

    carnivores pushing around vegetarians and vegans

    Carnivore isn't about other people, its a eating pattern, which is a powerful tool in fixing metabolic health. It's really not about what other people eat. Framing everything in a combative either or probably is also adding to the guilt you carry.

    Just be better.

    That is why we are here, to be better together. Thank you for joining us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

    Oh look, more bad faith arguments. Was that your alt I was arguing with earlier? Edit: Hahaha it IS his alt! Hahahahahahaha

    I feel guilty sure, but who're you to tell me what to do? Why don't you eat something other than meat? See how that works? Oh and I'd be first in line for lab grown meat, so wrong again.

    You just use what you believe are 'smart' words to disguise your illogic.

    Also I specifically said no one cares if you eat meat. That includes me. No need to segue randomly to "metabolic health" (you don't know what metabolism means huh) because you don't have any counter arguments.

    Man, you're really dumb. You used the word "trigger" then got* big mad that someone matched that energy.

    Pathetic. Pathetic and really stupid. You're probably feeling guilty about being a dumb piece of shit. Should go address that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    I feel guilty sure, but who’re you to tell me what to do?

    We are just chatting, living with guilt is troublesome, i would like to see you have a healthier relationship with yourself.

    Why don’t you eat something other than meat?

    It's not healthy for me, i react poorly to plant based foods, but that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy them.

    See how that works?

    Yup! It's a wonderful way to have a conversation!

    Oh and I’d be first in line for lab grown meat, so wrong again.

    It's already available for sale in singapore, but its 97% plant based 3% "lab meat", but it's a start.

    You just use what you believe are ‘smart’ words to disguise your illogic.

    Sure please show me my illogic and i'll evaluate it to inform my future logic.

    Also I specifically said no one care if you eat meat. That includes me.

    I feel guilty sure

    Sounds like you do care.

    you don’t know what metabolism means

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metabolism

    The dynamic energy storage and utilization throughout the human body. Including all energetic substrates, cell health (especially mitochondrial health), oxidation.. .basically anything that uses ATP, which is pretty much everything in the body.

    you’re really dumb

    Great, please educate me (with sources), I am happy to get better.

    You used the word “trigger” then get big mad that someone matched that energy.

    You are clearly triggered here, your guilt, the projection of biases and motivations i haven't demonstrated. That is ok, it's what i asked for in the post after all. I'm glad you are explaining things to me now

    Pathetic. Pathetic and really stupid. You’re probably feeling guilty about being a dumb piece of shit. Should go address that.

    Lots of angry energy, are you doing ok?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Lmao look at this guy. Sources huh? If you're so smart, why are you asking such a dumb fucking question here?

    I'm not gonna address your other angry bullshit. Just be mad, you're really bad at hiding it.

    Hey man, just like, give me some sources maaaaan proceeds to give no fucking sources of his own this entire time

    Edit: oh also, you said "metabolic health", which if you knew the definition of the word, you'd have known was nonsense.

    How can someone be this dumb? Holy shit man

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago* (5 children)

    You're very quick to assume, and to impose your morality on others. We could all be better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    I'm not gonna deny that I can be better, but if what you got out of what I said was soley 'assumptions', then are you not imposing your misinterpretation over the truth?

    You can play word games, but in the end, most of what I've stated are facts or close to them. Also, you stated 'assumptions' but gave no examples?

    So uh, what's your deal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    I was stating an observation. Here's another: you're also very defensive. Perhaps some introspection is in order?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Lmao you're arguing in bad faith and want me to be introspective? Do you know what that word means?

    Lmao turns out it's just a troll

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    You and me both, perhaps. Best you block me and move on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    Why, so you can spread more bullshit unimpeded? No, I'll continue to call you out thanks.

    And no, pretty clearly you're the only troll here. Go ahead and block me though, if you'd like!

    Lmao talking about assumptions and assumes it's 'best' I block him. Man you're stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (20 children)

    I assume it's similar to how a carnivore might get triggered by serial killers or cannibals.

    A cannibal or mass murderer might think it's useless or delusional to "leak your empathy" beyond yourself or your own family.

    You probably extend your empathy to most humans. A lot of people extend it to animals to different degrees and we perceive the other groups as a threat.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (19 children)

    I would rather animals die to feed me than for me be as unhealthy as I was when I ate plants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (18 children)

    If you could be just as healthy eating plants would you be plant based instead?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Maybe. I don't see my plant tolerant friends willing to try just meat. It takes a lot to make you try an unusual diet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    fair enough. There are many still who switched diets both ways.

    I asked because you sounded like you would like to be plant based for moral reasons but your body doesn't tolerate it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago

    I wouldn't go plant based for environmental reasons - I feel that it is a lie to distract us from industry in general which is responsible

    The world has always been full of animals and didn't suffer global warming until we started burning fossil fuels

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    Sure, the people who are trying to optimize their health would use any tool to optimize their health if you demonstrate its optimal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    if you demonstrate its optimal

    What kind of demonstration would convince you of that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago

    It was the demonstration of this diet in the book The Fat of the Land that the diet was safe long term that convinced me

    And wow were the health improvements good when I changed to this

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (10 children)

    That's unfortunately not a useful thought experiment; you understand that from where we're coming from it's the same as saying "if you could be just as healthy ingesting poisons would you ingest poisons?"

    Plants all contain toxins, and there isn't any requirement for them in our diet, so why even think about it? There is no way that we can be as healthy eating plant matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago* (9 children)

    Define toxin. That's a term I see get thrown around a LOT by "health influencers"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (8 children)

    A plant toxin is a poison made by a plant. They're generally defense chemicals that plants make to protect themselves. I think that much is obvious, so you're perhaps trying to get at "the dose makes the poison." Toxicity depends on dose, but again, since there are no essential nutrients that you can only get from plants, why eat them at all considering that they all contain various doses of these chemicals that we don't fully understand? Who defines what the safe dose of each alkaloid or terpene is, and on what basis? What about long term chronic exposure?

    For your reference here is a list of plant toxins. The list is not complete, and it contains both false positives and false negatives, since we learn more about these chemicals every day. https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/en/toxic-plants-phytotoxin-tppt-database

    Also as a side note, I'd pay "health influencers" no heed if I were you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago (7 children)

    Interestingly, it's not just the dose that makes the poison, the conditions in which you consume it too.

    Many poisons even ionizing radiation can make your cells stronger and live longer through hormesis.

    So you have to demonstrate that plant based foods after they are processed by cooking or fermenting are harmful to humans due to these toxins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 child)

    It is the dose. Ionising radiation breaks DNA that won't make your cells stronger, it'll make them dead.

    Boiling, baking, fermenting can detoxify some poisons from some plants, but we appear to be able to survive for 120 years, so what's limiting that by 40 years since we invented agriculture?

    Have you seen the video about the carnivore since teenage woman running a cattle farm? She moves and looks like a healthy person in her 40s, but she was 82 when the video was made. I'll edit this with a link when I find the video

    Not the one I was thinking of but https://youtu.be/kxMLto084Pc Not this one either https://youtu.be/mnWdsEzx8F0 but probably the same person

    @silly_goose@lemmy.today updated with some links. I couldn't find the exact one I was looking for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago

    It is the dose

    Yea I agree. It's the dose, context and recovery. (I have written more in my other replies along with the example of exercise)

    woman in her 80s that looks and moves like someone in their 40s

    It's definitely possible. I have seen many who climb boulders (simple ones not bouldering sport level), carry heavy loads up and down the mountains everyday well into their 80s and 90s.

    They also look much younger and leaner. All on a mostly plant based diet. Whole grains, nuts, fungi, and legumes.

    so what's limiting that by 40 years since we invented agriculture?

    I think too much food, lack of exercise, pollution etc. The plants from modern agriculture have less nutrients and we eat very few varieties. Refined sugars and ultraprocessing of food is also up there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (4 children)

    Still, why eat plants? Cooking and fermenting may neutralize some amount of some of these toxins (which, and by how much?), but how much exactly is safe?

    I'm not against taking plants for medicinal effects if necessary, but otherwise I think I'll leave my cells alone since I don't know if any intervention I can do will result in a quantifiable improvement over baseline. And why find out? We can just avoid it all.

    Personally, I'd prefer demonstration that any processed foods are safe before they are sold for public consumption. For some unfathomable reason, our society doesn't require this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago* (3 children)

    I'm actually arguing that the phytochemicals are probably good with hormesis being one of the mechanisms.

    Observational studies with millions of people and over decades have shown plant based diets are good. Epidemiology proved the harms of many industrial chemicals, smoking and the benefits of exercise etc.

    I know carnivores reject epidemiology. But I personally find it convincing. (Along with the health benefits I have experienced)

    Interestingly I found some studies even in obligate carnivores like cats which when they go vegan have longer lifespan and healthspan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

    Hormesis is heavily debated. But just in general, I'm not a fan of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." What doesn't kill you generally makes you very sick.

    Epidemiology didn't prove smoking causes cancer, btw. It cannot. But the study in question that I presume you're referring to, Doll and Hill's, had a very significant relative risk finding:

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5298160/#%3A%7E%3Atext=And+what+did%2Cincreased+by+%E2%88%BC50%25.

    It showed a 45 fold increase for men smoking more than 35 cigarettes a day. In comparison, our favourite study of colorectal cancer by IARC had a RR of 1.18. In the same figures, that's a RR of 45 for smoking vs RR of 1.18 for processed meat. In percentages, that is 4500% vs 18%. And yet this is the most significant epidemiology that we have for studies in nutrition.

    An interesting aside is that Austin Bradford Hill, the Hill in "Doll and Hill", is also the person responsible for the Bradford Hill criteria . Generally, anything interesting worth investigating should have a RR of > 2. I don't reject epidemiology, btw, I think it's a good way to generate a hypothesis. But it cannot prove causality and isn't science on its own.

    You are free to draw your own conclusions, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    Epidemiology didn't prove smoking causes cancer, btw. It cannot

    It doesn't prove causation. I agree.

    It did show an 18% increase in risk for colorectal cancer in those that eat processed meat. It's small and maybe future studies might overturn it. But why take that risk now?

    Hormesis is heavily debated. what doesn't kill you generally makes you very sick.

    I think you do believe in certain forms of hormesis like exercise. If you look at its immediate effects, it breaks down your muscles, increases bp, stresses your liver, kidneys, bones etc. But as you recover you super compensate by growing bigger muscles, more efficient circulation and metabolism etc. Exercise makes you live better and longer. (I think carnivores also believe that)

    It's the same with other environmental and psychological stresses. It been demonstrated in studies too. It's all about Context, recovery and dosage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Because it's roasting the planet alive

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    You sound like the half a percent of people who eat only meat, who don't eat more meat than the average omnivore, but do eat the fat are responsible for global warming

    We tend to be more careful of the meat we buy than average too, avoiding feed lot animals and those feed grains as they have the wrong balance of fats

    Have you looked at how the fertilisers for plants are made? They aren't green. They aren't carbon neutral like beef is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 16 hours ago

    I'm fortunate enough to be able to buy from a local farmer that farms for his family and as a hobby, he's some executive. I know he treats his animals well and I know he feeds them the good shit. I say fortunate though, because it's not cheap. Not everyone has that luxury.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Food is a very emotional topic and some people with no manners can't seem to be able to mind their own business. No one has the right to police someone else's food thank you very much.

    So I just keep to myself, eat whatever the hell I want that makes me feel good.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 23 hours ago

    That's fair enough. I like feeling healthy, and so unfortunately now I'm precluded from eating plant matter. I wish it could be any other way, since I love baking, but such is life.

  • source
  • parent