This probably won't go over well but it's funny how the "truth" can be spoken so many different ways.
Well the inhumane sloughtering of inoccent and cute animals, the forced separation from calves from their mother and killing afterwards in filthy and disease spreading enviroment certainly is not some kind of propaganda, but a very real thing. And I prefer the "propaganda" of a plant based food that promotes ecological behavior and compassion towards every living being instead of consuming the rotten flesh of a dead body or wearing it."
So it's about the
way they are killed, not the consumption of the meat then? So that strikes out "healthier" as this has nothing to do with it. Proper slaughtering and humane treatment are important to society and to "ethical meat" but not the diet. Spouting PETA propaganda and yet they are the
most inhumane treaters of animals? Ironic.
Eskimos NEVER thrived as a civilization and most of them are obese ,sick and fat. The humans who thrived were the ones who have been eating VEGAN HIGH CARB DIE. Plus they didn't have plant based food choices due to the ice. I mean people would even become cannibals to survive if there wasn't any plant or animal around them.
Now they are, just like the rest of the modern world but prior to the modernization and processing of meat, they were healthy. The traditional diet was one they lived on for millennia before Europeans came along. There was no higher risk of heart disease or other diseases like scurvy associated with it.
Claiming they never thrived as a civilization is the same as saying North American Indians never thrived. Or that anyone prior to Europe "thrived." Living in a frozen tundra with literally nothing but frozen ground and ice to work with puts a damper on innovation.
The Inuit Paradox
Why Eskimos never got scurvy despite an all meat diet.
Surely you've actually bothered to research this yourself?
Do you realize that it is impossible for meat to be unprocessed and clean enough for the billions of people to consume it? It isn't affordable from a financial standpoint and not practical enough.
Similarly, you make an assumption that all vegetarian will solve all the food problems in the world. It won't. Are you so naive to think that all that vegetable is unprocessed, fresh and grown just outside of town? Do you know the time, distances, methods, the kinds of pesticides and treatments made to make sure your vegetables are at the supermarket fresh? It's not all sunshine and roses for your diet either.
For instance,
Quinoa is now so expensive, the farmers who grow it can't afford to eat it themselves. There are plenty of other examples of this but it's all for the good of the vegetarian diet in the civilized world.
If you want to bring in the billions of people who need to eat, come prepared to defend it with a better argument.
Yeah I will never accept meat is healthy. Not after I stopped eating it compared to fruit and vegetables.
That's fine. For you. Forcing it on others however is most definitely
not.
This is all far more complicated than your confused defense of the supposedly healthier diet but suffice it to say, you seem more comfortable not torturing animals than letting the humans who grow your food be able to afford it themselves.
What
I am saying is that there needs to be a
balance and that this
balance isn't going all vegan because you don't want to feel bad cute little animals were killed. Or that the all vegetarian diet is the only good diet myth.
Dude I am just posting valid arguments. Why do you feel offended by that?
