>I can safely say aside from the animal abuse stuff

Which should be enough for anyone to not support something so barbaric that is not necessary to live, but love glossing over that lmao

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561420306567

Do you have the actual data and conclusion drawn by the article? Because this is an abstract with no value statement or results accessible through the link lmao. Can you at least pretend to read the sources you cite?

​

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561420306567

Given that somewhere between 99.6% and 94% of the US's population is non vegan, and 94% are deficient in one or more vitamins, even if we place every single vegan within that camp, that leaves at minimum 88% of carnists and vegetarians being vitamin deficient. This is not an inherent shortcoming of the concept of the diet in either case, and the study you cited and definitely, totally read notes that low micro and macro nutrient intake is not inherently linked to health problems. Plant protein is still incredibly abundant, and benefits from being one of the few healthy protein sources typically found even in food deserts due to the prevalence of tinned beans.

>"Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in many countries. Pesticides, fertilizers and other toxic farm chemicals can poison fresh water, marine ecosystems, air and soil. They also can remain in the environment for generations. Many pesticides are suspected of disrupting the hormonal systems of people and wildlife. Fertilizer run-off impacts waterways and coral reef.
>
>The agricultural sector consumes about 69 percent of the planet's fresh water. Without creative conservation measures in place, agricultural production consumes excessive water and degrades water quality. This adversely impacts freshwater systems throughout the world."

...Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Not sure if you know this chief, but livestock don't photosynthesize. Livestock feed accounts for the majority of space taken up in our arable land. If you want to reduce the effect of agriculture on the planet, the firs thing to do is stop pumping most of our food into a stupendously less efficient source of food just because it tastes better. Literally all negative traits of our agricultural practices from pesticide use to runoff are simply magnified by the existence of livestock.

>It is not as simple as you are making it, you have no real plan for any of the massive amount of problems you would create by doing what you think should be done. Period. So stop lecturing people like you have it figured out, you don't.

It's actually more simple. Plant based calories (yes, on a per calorie basis) take up less land and less water

>Or go find arguments to those that aren't case studies. Good luck.

What do you think case study means, exactly? And we're excluding them, because...?

>Oh and go look up what droughts and famines are. Figure out how to feed the planet without killing half of it, while being environmentally friendly and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Yelling and lecturing is easier though right?

Ok, stop feeding plants we could be eating to livestock and feed those to people instead. Again, all complaints about the nature of our agricultural practices are magnified by livestock, not replaced by. Stop dedicating the majority of our arable land to livestock. Now that we've done that, what's the next step, kiddo?

>I knew you people would go to the civil rights movement lol, you always
do. Look the civil rights movement was A. this is a problem B. This is
the solution. Harassing racists to stop being racist makes sense, its
still undemocratic and borderline terroristic, but it makes sense.
Harassing joe smoe over the climate when you have no real solution to
the problem just makes you an asshole. Joe needs his fucking car to go
to work and earn money, joe has no ability to stop corporations from
polluting, joe doesn't even really believe what the fuck you are yelling
about

Ah yes, we all remember the famous end to the civil rights riots following MLK's assassination right? When all the Joe Schmoes decided to stop being racist? No major legislation to help enforce the equality of citizens being driven by the large scale pressure of an enraged populous here! Lmao

I didn't say it wouldn't help. I said it wouldn't solve all our problems. Electric cars are also not the solution to that problem. Less cars are, mass transit is, denser, more walkable and bikeable cities are, removal of zoning restrictions that artificially reduces the amount of dense housing that can be created, driving the cost of the few walkable cities we already have through the roof is. Electric cars are a very well packaged bandaid on a festering wound the public chomps right up because it's a solution that causes no real disruption to their day to day lives.

>Of course you have to bring up the Koch's though because that is your real goal which is silencing the right at all costs

Oh it is? Thats news to me. If you equate removal of this absolute abhorrent presence of these lobbyists' influence on legislators with "silencing the right", well, you've said more about that party than I have. But pick any of them you'd like.

I can attest at least to "lack of protein" or in this case, a complete lack of that being a real issue rather than a hand waiving attempt by people who seek to make no improvements to either their environmental impact or to live a more humane life. Plant protein is readily abundant, easy to prepare, easy to store and constantly available in new forms as the years go on.

It's also less of thinking I'm morally right than knowing it. In what universe is directly contributing to animal abuse not morally reprehensible? It's weird how quickly we condemn other acts of violence towards animals for not necessary purpose, like dog fighting, but apply the same logic to our reprehensible treatment of livestock and you want to pretend it's actually not an issue?

100%. 15% of our annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, the single largest cause of deforestation, a huge sink of land, water and resources, and you know, all the animal cruelty and what not, that is not necessary for human existence. I don't value temporary human pleasure over stopping any of that.

That doesn't solve all our problems. There are already a variety of things we could be enacting on a mass scale if the existence of a better option were all it took. A sudden, miraculous, break through source of energy doesn't solve the car dependent infrastructure that's responsible for so much pollution, it doesn't remove Koch and Exxon's financial grip on our legislators, it doesn't magic away the wasteful presence of the livestock industry, etc.

Bad take imo. All major societal change in this country has been marked by, at the very least, loud public protest. And it often escalated to vandalism, disruption and even riots. It's not like we're just a scientific breakthrough away from solving all our problems; American exceptionalism won't help us here. We also need a public that's educated and cares, and that puts consistent pressure on policy makers through whatever means necessary.

People made the same complaints as you about the sufragettes, civil rights movement, stonewall riots, etc. But it wasn't just an educated few in those instances that enacted change.

Shit like this happens every day and motorists still throw a tantrum when they see an Idaho stop and cry about bikers being allowed on the road