I considered putting a little foot note at the bottom because I knew you'd respond with the culture/hunter thing. It's the usual go to red herring response. Is veganism accessible to every person on the planet? No. But since you have access to the internet, ski, and spend time on ns, I am willing to bet you have access to a grocery store and are not worrying about going to bed hungry tonight. I'm not trying to convince people living in tundras who can't grow food to go vegan, I'm trying to convince you.
It's not just "people in tundras" it is billions of people all over the world that absolutely have the ability to grow their own food. In fact, they're are roughly 78 million people estimated to be vegan in 2020. That's literally like 1% of the global population. But hey, let's stick to me then.
https://wtvox.com/lifestyle/2019-the-world-of-vegan-but-how-many-vegans-are-in-the-world/#:~:text=Number%20of%20Vegans%20In%20The%20World%202020&text=Based%20on%20the%20most%20recent,world%20is%20approx%2078%20million.
I'm not sure what you mean about the tablet but if you're implying that it's unhealthy, it's not. Your source of b12 (animals) get their b12 from those same tablets. Animals cannot make b12, only bacteria can. Fish cannot make omega 3s, only algae can. You simply take it from the source instead of putting in an inefficient middle man (the animals). And nutrients from animals are not at all better and in fact, they're actually worse in a lot of cases. With animals you get cholesterol, PCBs, heavy metals, etc. It's widely regarded as fact, even among meat eaters, that red meat is not good for you too.
Couple massive issues with your argument here. First, the point I was making is that to be vegan you need access to supplements. If you live somewhere in the world, or even the US for that matter, where you cant or you cant afford them (because you'd be lying if you said they are cheap) then if you tried a vegan diet your health would absolutely suffer.
Ruminants and poultry can absolutely get B12 from grazing and feeding in a natural environment. Every time a vegan mentions how animals are supplemented B12 they are referencing fortified grains used in feed lots because, hint hint, its not a natural environment. Same goes for fish. Please don't patronize me like I'm not already aware of these things lol.
As for red meat, that is patently false. You are talking about comparative studies (vegan vs balanced vs vegetarian vs pescatarian). Of course if you compare a piece of meat to a head of lettuce you could make the argument that the lettuce is "healthier" or the piece of meat is "unhealthier". What those studies never address is other variables like whether the meat being consumed was highly processed or whether the subjects were avid smokers or drinkers for example. These factors are still highly contested. These studies rarely, if ever, set constraints on the quality of food being eaten. Do you think a grass fed piece of meat raised on a local farm is comparable to a cheeseburger from McDonalds?
Now for the third world country stuff. I think you misinterpreted my argument. I wasn't saying that the entire world has access to veganism. I was only talking about you and I who would only be eating animals for nutrition or taste. And coincidentally, the majority of the world barely ever eats meat because it's too expensive. Meat is a luxury for most people living in poverty. If you have very little money and need to buy the most food possible, you'd buy potatoes, beans, and rice. Not meat.
Not sure your point here. Meat is a luxury, veganism is a luxury. Both don't work for people in poverty. Though I would say you saying "the majority of the world barely eats meat" is factually inaccurate.
And for you and I, yes, yes we can establish that eating animal products is only for taste.
No we can't as I have already stated I eat meat for nutrition, and more so, because its nutrient dense.
You say I conveniently picked out sight but that's literally the point. We eat animals for nothing other than to appease one of our senses. And by we I mean you, don't deflect onto people living in poverty. This is about you, not them. If eating animals to appease any of our other senses is wrong then it's also wrong to eat them to appease taste.
I think eating meat can delight all the senses, not just one.
And just because you aren't personally killing the animal doesn't mean you don't vote for it to happen. Every time you buy a steak at the grocery store you are saying "I need you to kill another cow to replace this." By your logic, hiring a hitman to kill someone isn't wrong at all. You're only paying for it to happen and not doing it yourself, right?
Well no, because hiring a hitman to kill someone would implicate you in a murder. You cannot murder an animal because murder only applies to humans. Terrible example. I'd stop trying to compare humans to other animals as if their equal, doesn't bode well.
And you bring up "vegan foods" (assuming you mean beyond burgers and fake meat) as if they're a staple in most vegan's diets. You are basically saying that since unhealthy vegan foods exist then you need to eat animal products.
I mean, sort of yeah. Animal protein garnered from locally raised, healthy animals and part of a balanced diet is absolutely better for you than quite a bit of the vegan offerings regularly available.
If you choose to respond to this, keep it pertaining to your situation. Explain to me why
you can't go vegan, not native Siberians or people like that.
It's not that I cant go vegan, it's that I think it's inferior to a balanced diet. It's that it's a lifestyle that has inherent flaws that vegans almost always refuse to address (you have yet to respond to the iPhone or pet argument I brought up). I don't think it makes you a better person if you're vegan.
