Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Journeyman Pictures"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
Okay, here are a few:
Not all animals are killed inhumanely, (slowly and painfully)— this is in fact something I would advocate for with you. Animals that are killed need to live good, stress-free lives (humane, and makes them taste better as cortisol alters flavor), and killed quickly with as little suffering as possible. But no, it's still murder right?
How about this? We've bred animals to be the way they are— an American cow is no bull, nor is a farm pig a boar. If we were to release these animals back into the wild, most of them would starve or be eaten. They'd suffer anyway, but we'd be wasting food (sorry! I'm talking both about the animals, and the plant life they eat btw) in the process. At this point, there's not much we can do with them besides let them live in captivity, and just raising and wasting time and energy on animals, letting them live and die without providing anything for us, isn't a good way to be sustainable.
From a purely historical perspective, our bodies have adapted to eat meat. The simple fact that we can even digest meat indicates that we have evolved to do so, and that people who were able to, passed their genes on more successfully than those who couldn't.
It is, in some sense, written in our genes to crave and eat meat. But we deny pleasure to ourselves in pursuit of higher ideals all the time, so what's the big deal here?
Here's what:
Humans need vitamin B12. You could, in theory, isolate it and take pills for it, but that seems to scream that veganism isn't natural or healthy, if a commerical, industrial product is needed to sustain our new lifestyle.
A common argument is that animals don't actually produce it, but rather ingest it themselves, ridding humans of the need to eat them as a gastronomical middleman, so to speak. That's absolutely true, but many vegans forget that it's synthesized by bacteria found in soil. Soil contains silica, which is toxic to humans, so if you were to get B12 directly from the source, you would die.
Finally, culture and politics are tied into this. Would you protest against the diet of the native population of Greenland, which is exclusively carnivorous? How about places whose geography simply can't sustain a biodiversity large enough, to feed a population on vegan food? You in America may have the luxury of importing almost any food you like and forget about availability when thinking about food choices, but most others countries don't, and have to make do with what their (usually colder, drier) climate can provide them.
There are some arguments. Thoughts?
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derickz723
1) Nice Ben Shapiro quote, but doesn't bode well for your argument.
2) You know nothing about statistics if you used the term "fact."
So, you probably also don't know how to verify whether that source is true.
In statistics, you either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is no "fact".
You can also manipulate data by shifting variables (p-value, sample size, strata, association strength, etc)
I hope to God (lol) that you don't also think "evolution is just a theory". Same problem, lack of understanding of terms.
3) The FEE is a libertarian think tank; their sole job is to promote a political worldview. They start with the conclusion, and work backwards to create the study that supports it. If you want impartial data, look at economic growth trends.
Interpretation of economic policy efficacy will always have a political slant, but this is just the worst place to start. Try again, new source.
4) You posted the name of the website as your source. I can't click anything to verify, seems shady to me... maybe post the actual link, please?
1
-
@derickz723
Again, no links.
And nope, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're making claims? Back them up.
Even despite that, I took a look. What are you talking about? The index doesn't give a single score per country, or rank them!
It's a dataset with multiple variables.
If you actually looked, the U.S. is mediocre. Average civic engagement (from the supposed beacon of democracy), environmental status, sense of community, education, and life satisfaction.
Extremely poor work-life balance, below average life expectancy.
Try again.
1
-
@derickz723
If you're too lazy, or bluffing too hard, to post a link, that's your problem, not mine.
And that's what I already did. Are you slow? I described to you how the index works, and you stuck your fingers in your ears.
The U.S. is not at the top of the index, what don't you understand?
The website's FAQ states "Which country is #1? That's up to you! The OECD has not assigned rankings to countries. Instead, Your Better Life Index is designed to let you, the user, investigate how each of the 11 topics can contribute to well-being."
Even in a user-compiled ranking, the U.S. barely made the top ten, and its rank dropped since 2016.
So, why are you lying to me?
1