Active Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About theSpartanCat

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,317 profile views
  1. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    Not purposefully wanting to throw in a wrench, but how about raw veganism? With all this discussion about veganism being healthy, or at least the potential to be healthier than an omnivore lifestyle, where do we draw the line between what is healthy, healthier, and healthiest? Would raw veganism be the healthiest, and therefore make non-raw veganism seem no longer that healthy? I suppose I'm getting philosophical here, but that's what I do.
  2. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    *facepalm* Fail.
  3. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    "As far as the misunderstandings go, I think many arose from my not quoting specific lines from your post to show exactly what I was responding to (which is why I quoted certain elements this time). I read what you wrote (it's true ) and everything I said was an attempt to respond to something in particular you asked or said. My statements were directly connected with aspects of your preceding post and were intended to be read with that context in mind. However, I believe the biggest misunderstanding has been the illusion of overarching disagreement; I too am advocating long-term improved health and attractiveness through a healthy vegan diet same as you, and have all along, from my first post until now. We both promote a healthy lifestyle through a vegan diet as well as compassionate living, and actually agree on most points." That paragraph to me sure sounded like you think you knew what you were talking about and understood what I said. I'm not trying to change the whole English language, just the definition of the word "retard." I would never call someone I like a "nincompoop" because the word "nincompoop" isn't directly tied to any demographic of persons as a way to slander / condescend towards anyone who doesn't deserve to be called by such a label. I pretty much, like 99% of the time use words as they mean in the dictionary. In fact, I'm helping people who have disabilities (I have ADHD myself which some would see as a disability but I don't, whatever,) by using the word "retard" as a word that does not mean and refer to any demographic of people for something that they can't help but be born with. There is nothing wrong with doing that; imagine if the way I use the word "retard" caught on, then the rightful people who should be considered dumb, (those who are PURPOSEFULLY dumb,) would have that label instead of innocent people. Please refer to what I responded to with PauljustPaul's post about the term "vegan;" and "quote" vs. "quotation." English is not a set-in-stone language. Look at the word "gay." If I said I was gay, most people would not assume that I just meant I was happy that day, lol. But, in the dictionary that is what it would say. But times are a' changing just like Bob Dylan said, and it seems like you're one of the people who wants to be pedantic and sink like a stone. Language, like culture, is alive and ever-changing, and if we can change it for the good, then why not. Get with the program Redgrapes. Or not. Whatever. And plus I usually tell people what I mean by the word "retard" before I say it, but it seems this time I impulsively did not mention what I meant by it this time, because I was just typing away in an annoyed fluster due to your condescending posts. As far as my phraseology, I suppose the way I word things may come across a little harsh to some people than I actually mean them, but not everyone sees me as that, the way you do. This is only your perspective, though it seems you're trying to psychoanalyze a blanket statement about my personality, and therefore my character. But logically speaking my personality does not necessarily reflect upon the kind of person I am. Some of the rudest, meanest people I have ever met say things "nicely and politely" and have a "nice personality," but their actions say otherwise. They can fool people in the beginning with the notion that they are actually nice because of the way they seem to be on the surface. The way you act, or how you word words, does not speak of your inner character and the kinds of actions you show towards others. I'm not the most lovey dovey person in the way I speak, nor my personality, but my actions show I'm compassionate and caring towards loved ones, strangers, and innocent animals who don't deserve to die and be exploited. You care too much about appearances it seems just based on your posts, not only vegan people's appearances, but the way my personality appears to be. You don't care to look deeper than that, what lies beyond the surface. And I'm also more kind to people who don't talk down to me I'll have you know. If someone is disrespecting me, (aka like you,) I will give them a little taste of their own medicine back, and usually such people don't like that, as it seems to be the case with you. I don't tolerate disrespect: Don't judge me until you know me, don't underestimate me until you challenge me, and don't talk about me until you've talked to me. If you can't even clearly understand my posts, there is no way you should be making judgment statements about the kind of person I am, especially without any evidence to back you up. The judgment statements I've made about you has evidence to back me up at least. As far as being apathetic, I mean I'm apathetic about the whole trying to explain the vegan-related topics. But I'm not apathetic about standing up for myself when people are condescending, unnecessarily judgmental, and making me look like a rude person when they are the ones being rude, aka using psychological projection onto me. Yes, I use strong language, but it's because I'm passionate about being vegan and everyone being treated fairly, including myself. And I don't hide the way I feel about people, especially when I feel disrespected. Maybe you are not used to people being honest, as your passive-aggressive quips about me seem to be more in your comfort zone. As one song says, "true friends stab you in the front," not the back. While you're not my friend, I still choose to give you this respect. Now, please, stop adding messages to this forum. This has been old for sometime. If you have any (vegan) beef with me, then PM me, although I hope you do not. Please. Stop. Leave me alone.
  4. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    Yes, I am completely recovered from my flu. LOLOL, seriously you did not understand what I was saying even though you say you do, because clearly you don't, if you still have questions to ask me and think I was being contradictory, lololololol. Otherwise you wouldn't see my point as contradicting. (Feel free to PM me if you really want to try and understand my point. I will do my best not be so irritated, lol.) Bottom line: we both think having a healthy vegan lifestyle is the most ideal, the end, lolololololol. As far as using the word "retard," I was not referring to the demographic of people, others often associate with the word "retard." No one on this earth is "retarded," regardless of their abilities and cognitive levels. I suppose our lexicons are different for the use of this word, but I just use it as a word meaning a really, really dumb person who is dumb on purpose. Yes, I know this is not the definition in the dictionary probably, but that is how I use this word. If anything, I should be offended by YOU (though I'm not, because I'm not easily offended lol,) for linking the word "retard" to any demographic of people. I think higher of people, such as those with down's syndrome, than to call them / refer to them as a "retard," so I would suggest you rethink associating the word "retard" with any demographic of people. Because everyone at the end of the day is smart and stupid in one way or another, whether or not societal values perceive it this way. I'll have you know that a girl and her family at my high school only allowed me and no else at the school, let alone anyone else that wasn't family, to come to her house. They said they could tell before they even invited me over to their house that I was a compassionate and understanding, non-judgmental person who would not be mean to this girl's two handicapped children who also had some linking behavioral problems. Her parents commended me for how I interacted with them, and how I treated them the exact some way as their non-handicapped daughter, and didn't act "extra nice" because they were handicapped, but just treated them like any other person, because I feel this is the way they should be respectfully treated. I even told her parents not to call their own children "retarded," (although of course they love their two handicapped children, they didn't mean it in a condescending way,) because I don't see anyone as "retarded," and told them I only use the word "retarded" to refer to people who are purposefully stupid / foolish. There are people in my biological family who work with handicapped people as well. So once again, thanks for assuming. Have a good day. Please don't respond on this thread, if you want to further this conversation PM me, but I don't know if you'll ever comprehend what I'm trying to say, especially since you're so set on believing that you understood what I was trying to say, roflololololol. Oh redgrapes, you know me so well, yes, you prospectively frustrated me, lol. Well one thing we do have in common is that we're both apathetic about this conversation at this point, although I already was by the second time I posted a message on this thread, lol. *And they all lived happily ever after, kiddos. The end. La Fin.*
  5. Yes, I agree, romanticism is the worst thing to have ever infected the idea of love in the context of relationships and turn it into narcissistic self-promotion and exploitation of a hedonistic relationship. Romanticism is just a euphemism for the phrase, "bulls*** that feels good, and therefore opposed to the reality at hand." It makes an individual not see their significant other for who they really are, but instead for who they want them to be. Yet, hypocritically want that person to love them with their mistakes and all. But, I think they understand that maybe that person would possibly not accept them for who they are as they are, so they also put up a façade and do their best to create a desirable impression of themselves to their significant other. However, this game of charades can only go on so long before people become worn out and tired of being something they aren't. Glimpses of who they really are come out more often, and this can cause disappointment and disillusion between the two parties in a couple. If these glimpses of their authentic self emerge completely, or even remain as sometimes evident, divorce can happen. Or, a forever unhappy, not-what-anyone-wanted-nor-expected kind of marriage. I like the part of the article in the beginning that says "In a wiser, more self-aware society than our own, a standard question on any early dinner date would be: “And how are you crazy?”" To be honest, if I ever date again, this would be one of the questions I would ask on a first date. I would also have no problem answering the question either. Supposed normal people scare the living daylights out of me. Everyone has their quirks, because we are all individuals. Fortunately for me as an individual, I'm a bit of a cynic and pessimistic according to society because I'm not the kind to go off in lala land and let dopamine rushes of dating someone dictate my behavior and how I perceive another. This is what annoys me because I can see the guys that I have dated previously and those who like me who are too much in lala land and really do their best to block out that I have flaws and that I'm not by any means perfect, and all that jazz. I hate how this happens, and if I were dating again, and this were to happen, I would just cut myself off from dating then and there. I think people who can't deal with the harsh realities that come with a relationship, really are not meant to be in a relationship, because a fake idealizing relationship is not a relationship, but a shoddy impersonated imitation of what a real relationship is. But then I guess they aren't actually in a relationship to begin with. It's like the difference between an actual rose, and a fake rose you buy at an arts and craft store. This is why I have the (controversial I'm guessing,) opinion that romantic movies are in various ways just as damaging, if not more than to watch than porn. I also blame the "self-esteem" movement that is infecting and plaguing the media, schools, workplaces, self-help books, etc. It's like people are being subliminally and even being consciously taught that they must think the utmost of themselves. It's true. Most people can't handle hearing bad about themselves, even if it's true, and even if it's done in a loving manner with the intent of being constructive, without having nothing short of a little meltdown. People are taught that they must think they're intelligent, they're beautiful, they're kind, etc. and they must be these things, even if they're not. Or even if they don't necessarily want to be. People are told to conform in an idealized way that is not conducive to healthy mental and emotional thinking, and therefore not conducive to healthy relationships built upon the reality of life, the realities of what happens within the relationship, and the realities within their own selves. I would actually want someone who lovingly gives me constructive criticism that would benefit me, and not coming from a place of their own selfish intentions and perspective of how I should be, so that I can improve myself and be a better person for me and our relationship. And I would do the same for them. But people are afraid of hard emotional work in which they metaphorically have to look at the dark side of themselves in the mirror. And admit to begin with that they indeed do have a dark side. The article is true in suggesting that friends usually never point this kind of stuff out to their friends, because they can't even do it in themselves; therefore people don't have any previous experience from friends for receiving constructive enlightening. It's true, it's a sad fact that most "friends" don't care enough to enlighten you because it would cause uncomfortability in themselves to do so, and their comfortability is more important than your opportunity to possibly grow as a person and your temporary or permanent crossness at them for pointing out the truth. That's why I only consider my close friends to be those who are blatantly honest. And if one can't do this in a friendship, what more in a romantic relationship which is what apparently so many people pine for? Sadly I think most people will do whatever they can, to varying degrees of course, even if it means sacrificing honesty for the sake of keeping a relationship going. I also agree with this sentence from the article: "Marriage ends up as a hopeful, generous, infinitely kind gamble taken by two people who don’t know yet who they are or who the other might be, binding themselves to a future they cannot conceive of and have carefully avoided investigating." This is sooo very true. Although I think any relationship whether it ends up in marriage of not is a crapshoot, most marriages are more at a level of crapshoot than they need to be. People think that researching their significant other's parents, childhood, yearbooks, likes/dislikes, height, hair color, income, career, a bunch of vapid and asinine facts about them makes them "know" their significant other and is enough for them to get married. Who they are doesn't have any indication of who they are going to be around you and how they treat you. And then most also fail to consider what kind of person they really have become around their significant other, and if they are content with this as well. But unfortunately or fortunately, this is all a moot point to try and discover who your significant other is if they are placing up a façade, and I wish the best for anyone trying to figure out if they are or not. As far as the whole marrying for logical / rational reasons originally, and the now marrying for feeling / love thing, I disagree with in the article quite a bit. There are some people who aren't so madly in love with their significant other, but marry based on more logical / rational reasons they believe are more important than the love feeling. People think arranged marriages only still happen in India and such countries, but think about how some people almost arrange marriages for themselves based on certain requirements: religion, race, kids / no kids, appearance, etc. Some people won't even date someone if these requirements are not met. Sure maybe there can be that love feeling with that other person, but some requirements based on logic / rationality need to be met. Honestly, I don't really see all that much different between marriages that were more arranged based on logic / rationality back then and the marriages of now. Both still led sometimes to infidelity, unhappy constantly bickering spouses, mothers left with the children, spouses leaving other spouses, etc. It's just that now, we pick our own poison, in general, more based on love than on acquisition of property. The next sentence that stood out to me that I semi-agree with and semi-disagree with is how people, "...find ourselves rejecting certain candidates for marriage not because they are wrong but because they are too right — too balanced, mature, understanding and reliable — given that in our hearts, such rightness feels foreign. We marry the wrong people because we don’t associate being loved with feeling happy." If you are a self-actualized person who actually gives a s*** about yourself in a non-conceited way, but in a way that genuinely looks out for your own self-worth and dignity, then you would, at least to the best of your abilities, not self-sabotage yourself into a marriage that is not worthy of you. I do agree though, because I do see it, how people will not even give the time to someone else, and just for some reason say they're not attracted to that someone for a reason they can't put their finger on, when really it's because subconsciously they aren't comfortable with a healthy, mature, balanced, loving, and understanding relationship / marriage and probably won't ever be ready for one like that. In this way, I do agree with the article. However, not everyone is like this and I would hope the article meant this statement as a generalization, and I would also like to point out that there really is no way of knowing whether the relationship you believe to be a healthy adult relationship will be that way once marriage happens. So not everyone who ends up in such a crappy marriage had the mindset that they didn't deserve a healthy one, it's just that their a******/ b**** of a spouse was just a good actor during the dating phase and then showed their true colors once married, for whatever reason. I also disagree with this sentence, "No one can be in an optimal frame of mind to choose a partner when remaining single feels unbearable. We have to be wholly at peace with the prospect of many years of solitude in order to be appropriately picky; otherwise, we risk loving no longer being single rather more than we love the partner who spared us that fate." It's ridiculous to say that people can't make a rational opinion of choosing a partner because they are so lonely, and will give in to not being as picky and will marry out of desperation. It's like saying that an overweight person who loves chocolate cake with a chocolate cake before them can't make the decision to not eat the chocolate cake because the overweight person can't choose a healthy lifestyle, since they are too vulnerable in a state of addiction towards chocolate cake to think clearly. LOL. I mean, maybe it might be a bit more difficult, but you can always be determined and hold yourself accountable, as well as ask people who are known to be blatantly honest and have your best interest to give their perspective on the partner you are dating. In other words, tendencies and inclinations are not excuses for compulsions and going through with those tendencies and inclinations. But, so it seems, many people do not have that strong self-discipline when it comes to love, and many people obviously if you look at the state of how messed up our world is, are starved for it. And they will metaphorically drink a vial of poison, as long as there is even a drop of love in it. Though I will say that feeling of lonely is not harmful in and of itself; after all, if one is not lonely and / or feels the need to be in a relationship, what is the point of getting into a relationship and thinking that you will be able to love that person as well as someone who actually really does want a relationship, considering all else to be equal? So, once again a general statement made in the article that most people can probably relate to, but I can't, because I don't let my want of the idea of being in a healthy relationship ruin my reality of never having one. I do agree though with the article that most think that marriage will be like this bundle of cozy fuzzy ball of yarn with rainbows, sunshine, and gum drops. They marry to continue the dopamine rushes and lala land feeling they have around this person. I think really all of what I'm trying to say boils down to, how can anyone marry the right person, when they themselves can't even be honest and accept the not so good times in their life well and maturely, without wanting to block it out and run away from it? What more when you bring another person into the picture? So really, I have no pity for those who end up in these wrong marriages whatsoever, and believe they deserved it justly, because it was kind of their fault to begin with. The only exception of this demographic that I would have compassion for would be those who really were realistic but just ended up getting the wrong side of the crapshoot with a spouse who was a good actor during the dating phase and then showed their true colors during marriage. That would be the only demographic of people who end up in the wrong marriage I would feel compassion for. As far as not divorcing the person who you are in a "wrong marriage" with, is not up to me nor the person who wrote the article to decide. Yes, I do believe if people actually tried harder and didn't have rosy lenses on, a lot of marriages would be saved, and hey, might even be relatively happy and satisfied marriages based upon reality! But, this is not always the case, especially if we find out our spouse is the complete opposite of who they made themselves out to be. Acting / faking / pretending to be someone you are not in the name of romanticism is not the same as just finding out your spouse is someone who is imperfect, just like anyone else. Those two situations are completely different. And having worked in a family / divorce law office before, I definitely know it's not any of my business nor opinion to make when it comes to whether someone should stay in a marriage or not; after all, I'm not the one having to live with the decision. And actually, if someone is going to be so discouraged and quick to run away when the going gets tough, then it probably in a way is a blessing if that person divorces you because you probably deserve better, presuming you're a relatively decent person. Also, not sure about "Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition." It seems as everyone is an individual, for some compatibility will be more important, and for others to be happy and content in a marriage, it's not as an important factor. Really, all of this just boils down to I believe, is that "pessimism" isn't such a bad idea in a society that encourages and at times even mandates impossibly high standards of "optimism" and "romance" in a relationship / marriage. Honestly what is deemed to be "pessimistic" a lot of the times is really just what I consider to be the truth. And you know what? I actually think this makes me more inwardly content and genuinely happy than people with fake plastered smiles convincing themselves of their happy relationships / marriages. I think it's more satisfying to be able to have a spouse and tell them, "Even though you can be a total d*** sometimes, I love you flaws and all for it, and accept you just the way you are," versus saying some delusional flowery crap like, "Oh honey, you're such a perfect angel, you're just the most perfectest angel and that's why I love you." If any guy said anything like that to me, it would be a total red flag and I would run away as fast I could. I don't want someone to love an idealized romantic image of me, I want them to love me. And who I am is sugar, spice, and not always everything nice all the time. And I would love them with the same amount of respect, knowing that they aren't all pleasant all the time. Then again, I am of the controversial opinion that no matter how annoying / bothered we may be by a significant other's flaws, I believe that we also fall in love with their flaws as much as we fall in love with their "positive" traits. After all, I think what someone's positive trait is, can at times also be their greatest negative trait and vice versa, depending on their situation. But, I digress... LOL. I would say this article would be true for most of the population. But for people, who are rooted in reality, which seems to be a dying breed nowadays, then I think the article is less relatable, although understandable in regards to how they would see most of other people to be.
  6. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    Dear God, you did not actually read my post, as in, understand what I actually was trying to say, did you? Currently I have a terrible cold / flu, but this post when I read it made me feel even more physically ill. So please, if you want to respond to this post, I beg you to take some time before replying until I can get better, because I don't want to get any sicker and have a bigger headache than I already do have from reading your posts, no offense. (Apparently I wasn't around when God was handing out patience, as some people would say.) Yes, I am not a retard. I do know what the original purpose of this thread was addressing, which was geared towards more of physical appearances. Redgrapes, believe it or not, I can read. That didn't mean I couldn't add any extra thoughts regarding this topic that were somewhat related, and maybe could give a bigger picture to those who are reading these posts and are thinking about going vegan. Yes, I am not dumb and understand that younger people want to be attractive... do you think I live in a cave or something?! Please stop explaining things to me that are "common knowledge," as it comes across quite condescending, and is just making me look unnecessarily like a dumb***, (maybe this is your intention?) And I have no patience for anyone, and I mean anyone, explaining stuff I already know and that they would know I know. Now, with that said, if you actually understood my post, you would understand I NEVER said that the vanity card shouldn't be played, but that it would be better for the benefit of veganism long-term, if it was explicitly shown instead of explained. Refer to the third paragraph, end of the fifth paragraph, and the sixth paragraph from my previous post, as I am hella not going to try and explain what you may not interpret correctly again anyway. Or somehow twist my words and/or create a red herring fallacy argument, which is what seems to have been done. Indeed, many people come from an unhealthy lifestyle, which is why they are interested in veganism and a lot of the time become vegan after their initial interest. Yes, I understand that, but can't that support my point and not yours, about how healthy living should be the focus, and how the vanity card can be played but it should be shown rather than explicitly explained? Lol, I think you accidentally made a statement that could actually support my point not yours. And yes, I know healthy living and appearance are correlated, not necessarily a cause-and-effect, so what's your point? That doesn't make healthy living any less important... again, please re-read certain paragraphs of my previous post that I already have pointed out. LMAO, I am not "promoting" the junk food vegan lifestyle, rofl. (In fact, I'm in the process of trying to figure out more about being raw vegan. I don't consume gluten, white flour, salt, refined sugar, etc. unless I had to have it as a last resort in some hypothetical situation.) What I'm trying to say is that unlike the reason for going vegan to become more "attractive," which again, I never said wasn't an applicable reason, (and I would argue correlation is not enough, when people are attracted to veganism as a potential direct cause not correlation for becoming "attractive,") the reality is some people don't and will never become healthy. I live in reality. This is the reality. Maybe you have been spared the experience of meeting such people where their indulgence preferences and/or lack of self-care for themselves will (probably) forever outweigh the desire and therefore the outcome of them ever being a healthy vegan, let alone healthy. So... might as well let them know they can continue their "junk food" lifestyle without having to kill animals. I find it's easier for some people to care about others more than themselves. I am not going to pretend that I live in some frickin' utopia where everyone is going to go vegan and be healthy; that doesn't mean that therefore I'm promoting a "junk food vegan" lifestyle. This would be like saying because I acknowledge that murder exists, and some people won't stop murdering, that I am supporting murder by suggesting that the only legally available weapons to citizens should be the type that don't cause physical pain / cause very little physical pain to victims when used if it were possible. However, the outcome with encouraging vegan for attractive reasons, don't necessarily fulfill the expectations for why that person went vegan. (Although again, I do think going vegan for "attractive" reasons is fine, as long as we aren't explicitly explaining this, but rather showing this through our actions. Although not all vegans are healthy and attractive, there is still enough in the media and whatnot to make their presence known.) They won't necessarily become "attractive" after going vegan, and plus like I said it IS a big deal that there are other ways to achieve this "attractiveness," because they probably are a lot easier to do and much more of a quick fix, which is what most people want, since they have the inability to think of long-term negative / positive consequences. But with becoming a junk food vegan, (again, I'm not promoting this lifestyle at all, lmao,) the outcome is exactly what they're expecting, you see? They expected to eat junk food as a vegan, and they got what they were expecting. Though the same can not be said for expecting to "look good" as a vegan, there are so many variables factoring into a holistic health (i.e. mental health, social support, stress levels and attitude towards stress, financial health, etc.) that the outcome won't necessarily be what they thought. THIS IS WHY I WANT TO PROMOTE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE, BECAUSE IT WILL DIRECTLY POINT TO A VEGAN DIET!!! (I'm not yelling, I'm just emphasizing, though at this moment I want to yell and bounce off the ceilings, because I'm pretty much being a broken record as I'm basically re-explaining everything I said in my last post, which you didn't comprehend the way I meant it.) I never tried to imply you were or weren't promoting Dr. McDougall 100%, I'm not very stupid, I understand this. And no f***ing duh, I know he is a medical doctor ... I mean, DR. MCDOUGALL is pretty self-explanatory. I don't appreciate these condescending explanations you are giving me, whether they are unintentional or not! I am scientifically inclined as well, and by the way I hope you're not using an appeal to authority fallacy as a logical argument. As I would think you would know, or hope you would know, just because someone is a doctor, the president, or whatnot, doesn't mean they are always correct in their thinking, for instance medical doctors who are pro-paleo diet. After all, they went through the same medical school application process as Dr. McDougall, did they not? So I don't give a flying frisbee who is telling me the information, whether it is a ghetto gangbanger or Leonardo DiCaprio, as long as the information is true, is fact. Honestly, I think / wouldn't be surprised if Dr. McDougall is a government shill for the meat and dairy industry posing as promoting a "vegan" diet. Who the f*** cares if labeling yourself vegan will make some people errantly think you are also promoting a junk food vegan diet; he can always clarify and say that he promotes a healthy vegan diet full of whole fruits and vegetables, and no processed / refined sugar saturated hydrogenated oil salt fat crap!! I mean, how difficult would it be for him to say that? Not very, just one sentence that could take less than literally eight seconds to do. LMAO, oh, so it's okay that he eats less than a deck of cards of turkey every other year? What if I decided I wanted to eat less than a deck of cards of your body every other year, that would be okay too, because I promote a healthy vegan diet anyway, right? Darn son of a biatch, I was not trying to make an exclusive reason for going vegan!!! (*migraine increasing*) I was just pointing out more beneficial / "legitimate" reasons for going vegan, but I'm not trying to limit the reasons,(no matter how stupid or not they are,) for going vegan. Whatever floats your boat, ain't my life anyway, I say. Yes, going vegan for environmental reasons is pretty sound reasoning. But, I would just like to point out, for the sake of being devil's advocate, that it would be even possibly more environmentally friendly if someone shot themselves so as to deteriorate, and become healthy mulch / fertilizer for the soil without continuing to leave a carbon footprint on this earth. But you don't see me promoting such kind of thinking, do you? My point that I'm making (which I already made in my last post,) through exaggerated facetiousness, is that if there are more appealing alternatives that are short-term and not as difficult, people will take that probably rather than becoming vegan. But there is no alternative when it comes to a healthier lifestyle than veganism. Short-term and easier alternatives maybe, but they will never be healthier. This is why although I'm not trying to act like the social police, and tell people why they should and shouldn't do things, it can't be argued that going vegan for health reasons and for the animals have no other better alternative for these reasons. Period! (Yes, people can be against seal skinning, against fur, etc. , but it doesn't beat going completely vegan, does it? In other words, no better alternative other than becoming vegan for this reason.) Now, if you actually want to address my actual arguments, instead of making arguments for things I'm not even addressing or making a conclusion from, then feel free to respond. Otherwise, if you make another post that has nothing to do with what I'm actually trying to say, I will just respond with a "smiley face" as I do not have nor want to have the time to reiterate myself for a third time. Please make sure you actually understand what I was trying to say before you make arguments, unless you realize that I'm right in what I'm saying, and just don't have any comebacks, and therefore go off on a tangent arguing about something I wasn't even addressing because it would make no logical sense to do so. Okay goodbye... time for some chamomile tea and a nap. Oh, and happy belated vegan thanksgiving to you, but I don't celebrate any holidays on purpose because I think they're all stupid, so... yeah, once again, thanks for assuming.
  7. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    I am not arguing that there isn't a correlation between being vegan and being more attractive, because obviously there is. However, correlation, NOT causation. But I think it's harmful when people have the stereotype that all vegans are Aphrodite and Adonis. After all, most people are always trying to argue their way out of being vegan, even from the most stupid reasoning. And so if they can judge you not to be the Aphrodite/Adonis they consider, they could possibly stupidly reason veganism is not the lifestyle for them. I think it's helpful to have all kinds of vegans, a variety of what vegans do, say, are, and look like because that means a more variety of people (and therefore hopefully that would equate to more people in general,) can relate themselves to someone who is a vegan. Granted, I wish every vegan was a healthy vegan, but I understand not everyone is into that, so maybe it's helpful to have unhealthy vegans who attract those unhealthy people that can see themselves maintaining their unhealthy lifestyle as a vegan as well. Also, some people have hormonal skin conditions, genetic issues which may be helped with a vegan diet, but I'm not about to say that veganism is going to cure them of it. (i.e. stressed out vegan breaking out into hives) Also, BMI is a bunch of bullocks, especially for those men who are especially fit with lots of muscle because they often will appear "overweight" on the BMI scale. Fertility is definitely helpful with a vegan diet, but there are vegans who still aren't able to have children, or even those born without the ability to have children. As far as body odor, the vegans who eat onions and garlic, especially the ones who use them a lot in their cooking, don't smell so wonderfully in my opinion, lol. And yes, I'm not arguing with you that we should be the best version of ourselves, no matter what age. But no matter what you say, it's apparent from psychological, sociological, and statistical studies as well as what's portrayed in the media, many are indeed into the youth beauty paradigm. Sure, a healthy-looking older vegan man would probably be more desirable than an unhealthy bummin' 25 year old man, but this is a matter of comparison, not that most people would automatically be into the older vegan man without any comparison of someone deemed less attractive in general. I think society is a bit ageist unfortunately. And I wasn't trying to say vegans are making any argument about veganism improving their facial symmetry, lol, thankfully pro-vegan argruments haven't become that pathetic and stupid (yet). I understand you emphasized that if for no other reason, go vegan to satiate one's vainglorious-ness. Still, I'm going to argue this is a harmful thing to do. Besides, I don't think we need to tell people this, they can see the results for themselves in the actual living examples of people who are vegans. They can come to their own conclusions. I don't know if you know anything about narcissists and people with those tendencies, but I highly highly doubt that once they go vegan, these kinds of people are going to start giving a s*** about animals all of a sudden. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying vanity isn't an acceptable reason to go vegan in itself, but I am concerned with the backfiring consequences of explicitly stating this as a reason to go vegan. I find there is no problem with showing this through the way us vegans look and take care of ourselves, but not to explicitly state this to omnivores and the rest of the world aloud. Why? Well, some people already look "good" though not on a vegan diet, let alone a diet near the healthier side of an omnivore diet. And I find it's these kinds of people who could make good money scamming people by saying, "Yes, you can eat eggs and bacon and dairy, I mean look at me, I look good and I eat these foods and exercise! Look how good my skin and body looks!" To me, that's exactly what vegans who make the "appearance" reason sound like, although I do know the vegans are actually speaking truth, but to an omnivore, this is only a confusing reason because both sides are making this point, you see. I mean, most people don't follow a vegetarian, let alone vegan diet, but I don't find most people to be "ugly" or whatever, then again, I don't really judge by appearance but by their character / morals. There are a lot of fitness instructors, (as in most,) who are not vegetarian/vegan but they "look good." In either case, it's still a moot and confusing point because there are vegans who don't "represent" a healthy-looking appearance, and there are omnivores who appear to do so, and vice versa. What if there are some people who never personally experience seeing a vegan who looks good? It doesn't matter what Dr. McDougall is saying to them, they are probably only going to trust their own personal experience. Here is a visual example of what I'm talking about: Just look at veganism now, it's like a battle of who looks the best / who is the most fit, instead of vegans banding together for the original cause of caring about the animals. How can vegans be taken seriously by the world at large when we are fighting between ourselves, ("we" as in vegans in general,) like different sects of Christians fighting within their own religion? This and many more other reasons is why I think a lot of people consider veganism to be a religion or like a religion nowadays, which obviously I think is a bad thing that people would think of veganism. I mean, being vegan in itself is already not taken seriously, what more when we fight amongst ourselves, or vegans trying to persuade others to go vegan for asinine / irrelevant reasons that are not exclusive to being vegan anyway. Though not religious, I observe how Christians for example are trying "to fit in" and how ridiculous they look trying too hard. I mean, this is an extreme example, but if society was really into wearing potato sac dresses and eating dog crap, should we do the same just to gain society's attention and "work around" what society is into? It's like some vegans are so desperate to get the message across, they kind of contradict their own message in the process, and end up doing more damage than benefit in the name of veganism. And besides, why do we have to mold how we go about being vegan and talking about being vegan around society's values? I mean, being vegan to begin with is not society-friendly, and I understand you think the vain card would be a good way to make vegan seem more accessible. But, I already gave my reasons why this isn't an advantageous reason (in the above two paragraphs,) in the long-term. Short-term yes, but not long-term. Look at stupid PETA. They try to make vegan seem "accessible" and try to blend in with the image-obsessed culture. There are women covered scantily in lettuce leaves, men barely censored with a pineapple or banana or whatever, and sexually suggestive, "beautiful" celebrities and non-celebrities, "all in the name of veganism." Please, entertain me by trying an argument that all these "beautiful" people actually encouraged a significant number of people, let alone any number of people to go vegan because they played the vain card. What person is actually thinking, "Gee, that person is hot, and I could be hot for my age if I go vegan too, I'm totally going to try it out despite all the culturally, sociologically psychologically, social media programming I've had my whole life that is instilled in me, that I'm completely unaware of. And I'll just dismiss the fact that there are many 'attractive' people who aren't vegan, and still go vegan anyway, despite this is one of the reasoning of why someone should go vegan. Makes sense." LOL. In short, there are better and less contradictory reasons why to go vegan than playing the vain card. I mean duh, of course I know each person who goes vegan contributes, no matter the reason for it. But I'm looking at the long-term consequences of the reasoning and arguments we use as vegans for why people should go vegan. And plus the vain card too much emphasized, often takes out the health factor. Being healthy is what will make people change long-term, not how "attractive" they are. People want lots of money, to look good, etc. because they believe all these things will make them happy... but you have nothing unless you have your health. Health is wealth. And usually a side effect of being healthy is appearing good, because at the very least you feel good, even if your face is asymmetrical. Plus the factor of health is one reasoning that can't be used on the side of the omnivores. Hands down, as I explained in response to PauljustPaul's post, veganism is the healthiest lifestyle, even if there are "healthy" omnivores. (Read my post response to him for more details.) It doesn't make logical sense to pitch veganism for a reason, that someone could achieve by other means, (i.e. caffeine pills for weight loss, cosmetics to cover up signs of aging, prescription pill for health problems, etc.) especially since many people want immediate gratification, not to go through the longer, but more healthy process long-term. In addition, too much appearance on the outside sometimes is deceptive. There are many skinny/thin people who look good, but are a walking heart attack inside. This is why, if someone is truly a narcissist, ironically in some ways it would be more appealing to them to go vegan for health reasons... after all, they'll probably be able to live longer if they're in good health, which means a longer time to prim and preen over their appearance and ruin other people's lives, lol. Also, out of all the vegan doctors, I kind of dislike Dr. McDougall. Honestly not sure if he really is a vegan (don't know about currently, but I remember him saying that he would eat some turkey at Thanksgiving and meat during other holidays...) and while I would be appreciative of people he did turn towards veganism,. I think there are better / less confusing examples of vegans out there. I think he's more interested in selling his books and promoting a starch diet, than using the term vegan diet. Here are some links that further expound why I don't particularly like him as a vegan resource: As far as ex vegans, why the heck would you not be concerned about them?! It's not like they keep their mouths shut about once being a vegan anyway. Do you know about that vegan who wrote the book "Breaking Vegan" and how much attention she received from it? (Granted, she had an eating disorder basically and blamed veganism on it, although many people believed her b.s. nevertheless about veganism being simply an option / unhealthy for some, etc.) Ex vegans have major influence no matter what you say. It can stop someone from ever trying or looking more into veganism. And to be honest, I partly blame vegans who don't do well enough with the education of being a healthy vegan. No, most of y'all are more interested in focusing on how it makes you look good and that vegetarians/vegans have higher IQ's and how we taste better. Meanwhile, the appearance of people's internal body organs and the appearance of their health from the inside, as well as the screams of crying animals, are left to the wayside as a second priority of vegan conversation topics. Ex vegans when they have children, do not raise vegan children, nor most likely children who will grow up to have an open mind about veganism. How is this not a concern of yours?! And yes, young people / college -aged people are the most willing demographic to be interested in and/or turn veganism, but I don't get your point. What does that fact have to do with anything? I mean, that is the demographic that is being targeted already, so it's not like we as vegans in general aren't taking advantage of this already. And plus, like I mentioned, how can we have open-minded college-aged people as much, when they were potentially raised by an ex vegan, (which some vegans like you are not concerned about addressing and helping as much it seems,) who obviously would affect the way they look at veganism to some extent? I've written a lot, and I feel like this thread has gotten a little off topic, or maybe not, I don't know at this point, but if you have anything else to say, that I already haven't addressed, you can pm me... or I guess we can continue to debate on here. I guess it could be informative to those thinking about veganism... who knows.
  8. Most annoying WTM criticism?

    Okay, first of all, unlike a lot of other people here, I don't give a s*** what anyone thinks of my personal decisions. Also, I tend to keep my business to myself, so I won't openly tell people I'm wtm or whatever else I think or believe in, unless it comes up in conversation directly at me. And even then, so what? Criticism is criticism, judgment is judgment, whether it comes from someone you care about or not. Just because they are someone I care about doesn't make me view their opinion any higher than mine, so I don't get worked up over these kinds of things. After all, I've put a lot of thought into the important decisions I make in my life, well at least most of them lol. As far as physical compatibility, I've heard of stories where people are personally compatible, but not sexually compatible. But I figure if you love that person and they love you, then you compromise / compensate, and work to make it better, even if it means going to a sexual therapist, you know? Also, my blood was a bit boiling, so I had to respond when you said sex is just for procreation. Really?! I mean, I'm guessing you might be a Christian or something like that, and maybe that's how you view it, but seriously... some people don't even experience sexual pleasure due to health reasons, can't even have sex, etc. Sometimes people aren't even necessarily motivated by sexual pleasure on purpose, whether their own or the spouse's. Bonding purposes / exploring intimacy together for instance could be primary motivations behind having sex. Or maybe they are using sex as a way to physically express their love for their spouse as a means to physically express love for its own sake and own purpose. In addition, some people are not ever able to biologically procreate from birth, as it is in their DNA to have that destiny. If sex was truly designed solely for procreation, then "God" would have designed / prevented people from being born without the potential to have kids. In addition, not everyone plans on having children, so they don't view sex as a procreation activity... we are not dictated by biological instincts and markers, only unless we choose to be. Something else I challenge you to think about is translating legal marriage into a marriage that means it has more legitimate / real commitment involved. Making it harder for someone to leave because they are involved in consequences of legal entanglement is not love. To me, that just reeks of having control issues and fearing that the marriage isn't as stable as you actually would like it to be from the start. If it's for religious reasons, fine. But other than that, legal contracts do not necessarily translate into a contract made from the heart. There was a time when legalities did not exist, but some people still stayed committed to their partner because they made a commitment from the heart. And I personally would not be comfortable thinking that maybe the reason why someone was staying committed to me was due to the fear of financial and legal consequences, because if they were, they probably wouldn't tell you or at least would deny it. Anyway, to have a marriage contract is like making a deal with an enemy. It's like, "You continue to love and be with me, and everything will be okay. But should you choose to leave, then you will be financially and legally screwed over by me because I love you so and also love having the upper hand. I don't really trust you'll stick around and I can't deal with that without making you pay for it, so here, please sign this contract that will 'ball and chain' you to me. Oh, but did I mention though that I love you?" That sounds psychotic to me. Don't misunderstand, I would be monogamous with the right person, but I think love is not supposed to be a trap. A trap is what hunters use to catch scared animals that have their own personal wants and desires. Traps are never beautiful. Allowing the other person to have choice, a freedom, an autonomy of their own shows love, and when you show genuine true love, most of the time that person will want to stay with you and be committed to you even more. That's unconditional love. It may sound counterintuitive for some, but it's like trying to squeeze and hold onto water, it just flows faster out of your hand that way. But if you lightly cup water into your hands, it stays. I've worked at a family law office, and dealt with many and various cases, so I know how crazy / depressing divorce can get, especially in the cases where children are involved. That just shows if someone wants to leave, they're probably going to leave anyway; many people divorce despite knowing the financial / legal consequences it will cost them. And what if two people just naturally grow apart, or one person had a moment of weakness that can't be mended in the marriage? The couple will pay enough with the emotional / mental / psychological pain that will be inevitable, why cause more damage by royally screwing over both parties with court fines / paperwork, etc.? In addition, yes it could be easy for a man / woman to just walk out when a child is involved in the picture. But hypothetically speaking, if I ever had a child, I would want them to have a father who wouldn't need a piece of paper for them to want to stick around. If my hypothetical child had a father who needed a contract to keep him committed to our family, then honestly I wouldn't even want him in the picture, my child would be better off without that father anyway. A child needs to be loved with a love that just doesn't come from a sense of obligation, but from the heart. To me, a contract that comes from the heart is what matters, and I won't settle for anything less than that, like a piece of paper. That is not to say marriage contracts mean nothing to other couples, but that is because they already made a commitment from the heart, the paper is just an extra symbolic commitment. Nothing is certain in life except uncertainty; sometimes people who even believe they want kids end up realizing they made a "mistake." This is why I encourage people to foster first or shadow a day in the life of a family for at least a couple months, who have less than well behaved kids. Hanging out a couple hours a day with a kid or your little cousin ain't going to give you a realistic perspective of what it takes to raise a child and therefore how you actually feel / what you actually think about it. Because there is no guarantee that just because one thinks they and their spouse are decent people, that their child will come out resembling their parents in any way. Especially with vegans, I'm always surprised when they don't plan on adopting, since they claim to be vegan to alleviate the suffering and pain of sentient beings. There are many scared, frightened abused children who just want love in the foster care / child protective services system. Many of them are drugged with antipsychotic medication just because they are crying and in fear. Plus who is to say your biological kid will end up being vegan? You could end up bringing another omnivore into the world. At least when you adopt, you can find out if the child is keen to learning about veganism or wants to be a vegan. But that's another story... As far as what people should and shouldn't do, I don't care. And not that I don't care in the sense that I am a psychopath or whatever, but in the sense that people are going to do what they want to do. It's a matter of choice despite there being a right or wrong choice, but still, I'm not going to get worked up over decisions people do or don't make. Nor do they have to for the choices I make. Sometimes even right decisions end up with negative outcomes and vice versa. I think everything happens for a reason... if freedom to make a choice was not meant to be, then I don't think the freedom of choice would exist. This of course does not detract from the concept there is right and wrong, and the importance of making right decisions, but why waste my time criticizing other people? It would probably only make things worse anyway. No one lives up to their own moral standards all the time too. It's best to just live by example than lecture other people. When you literally point a finger at someone, sometimes there are four fingers pointing right back at you, and this can be taken metaphorically too I think it's acceptable to make judgment statements about people's decisions, if I decided to waste my time and energy doing pointless stuff like that, but I'm not about to judge people's feelings. People have a right to feel what they feel, even if I don't like their feelings or wouldn't feel that way myself in said situation. No one should be told to feel anyway else than what they do. I will always defend the right for people to feel what they feel. no one should dictate or take that away from them. It's more of the decision that they attach to this feeling that I think could change and be assessed by someone else, should they care to do so. But, I have better things to do than that, I just like to debate for fun, or unless someone really fires me up.
  9. Worried About Guys Cheating...

    Speaking from much experience, and being a somewhat observant person., you don't know who will cheat on you, and you will never know necessarily. Maybe that seems harsh to say, but I tell the truth, and sometimes the truth is not comforting. Sometimes people who cheat are those you would least likely suspect, trust me. Sometimes the people who cheat themselves can be surprised by their own actions. In fact, I think if someone is going to be in a long-term committed relationship, and/or get married, both people should go in thinking that they are both capable of cheating. Why? Because if you think something is so far past / beyond you of ever doing, then that's when you are more susceptible to it happening to you and/or it happening to your significant other!... because then you won't see the signs / small steps of it possibly heading towards an affair. But, if you acknowledge that cheating happens to even the most decent of humans, then you will consciously be cautious of preventing it from happen in the first place, versus not having to be conscious of it ever possibly happening because you think it is so far below you to begin with anyway. Hopefully I'm explaining this in a way that makes sense. There are always temptations, and basically giving your heart to someone is somewhat of a crap shoot in my opinion. I guess it's just up to you to decide whether someone is worth the risk. And if you're going to worry based on whether someone would cheat on you or not, then goodness gracious, have fun worrying yourself into a frenzy for the rest of your life. Because sometimes it's possible for someone to cheat on you and you'll never know it, because they're just that good at hiding it. Even if you choose to become a detective about it. You just have to make your best judgment and ask those around you who have your best interest what they think of that person, and that's all you can do really. Really, what else can you do? As far as the whole waiting till marriage thing, I don't necessarily think that says anything about that person except just that: they wanted to wait until marriage It doesn't necessarily mean they aren't prone, or will never cheat on you. Maybe there's a correlation, who knows. But still, correlation is not causation, and once again you're dealing with a relationship that won't guarantee a cheating-proof foundation. Even if, and this example is doubtful, but say even if statistically the correlation showed that 99% of those who waited wouldn't cheat, and there was a way of knowing this, you could still end up being the 1% who got cheated on. Also, what's your definition of cheating? Just physical, as in your significant other having sex with someone else? Emotional cheating? Deliberate flirting/cheating? I mean, you can't always be and know when your partner is, and that obsessive worry also shows a lack of trust to begin with anyway. And when someone thinks that you can't trust them, they're probably more apt to make your worry about them cheating a self-fulfilled prophecy of yours that comes true because they think you don't trust them and so they can't win anyway. Personally, if I were to be in a relationship, (which I'm not so sure about anymore, I find being single to be more worth it and fulfilling in a lot of ways,) I would be with someone who agreed that we each would have each other's passwords to our phones, computers, all our e-mail addresses, etc. because if there is nothing to hide, then it shouldn't matter that we have each other's passwords, you know? But still, other than that, it's a crap shoot. I hope my uncomforting words were comforting in that I didn't just say stuff to make you feel better for the sake of it.
  10. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    While I think a lot of people are vain, and it is alluring for them to go vegan because they will still be "attractive" when they are old like Dr. McDougall, this is actually deceiving. I mean, if you're not considered "attractive" as far as facial symmetry by society or whatever, it's not like veganism is going to turn you into a chiseled greek god / goddess automatically even when you reach the age of 92. Yes, Dr. McDougall looks better than most people for his age, but he ain't looking attractive like a 25 year old, even if that 25 year old happens to be a meat eater, if you really do want to play the vain card. But I don't. I think a lot of vegans in an effort to try and convince people that veganism is great, exaggerate and mislead with their words, (like evangelical Christians trying to convince atheists to become Christian, no offense...) by saying stuff like, "the sky looks bluer, my eyes are prettier, people like me better, veganism gave me a job promotion, I'm cured of all diseases / illnesses and will never have one again!" Okay, I exaggerate a bit so as to make a point, but you know what I mean. I still think veganism should be related to animal ethics, and if people don't have any compassion for that, then say they can do it for health reasons. But being healthier does NOT necessarily mean you will look more attractive. Sure, you can become more physically fit if you also work and such, but that doesn't mean society will all of a sudden consider you a good-looker. Let's stick to the facts, and stop trying to overdo the convincing to people who eat meat, because then we'll just be lying to them. And if we lie / exaggerate / mislead, and then the meat-eaters find out through becoming vegan that what we said doesn't come true for them, then now we probably will have an "ex-vegan" on our hands. Okay, officially done, unless someone wants to challenge / debate me.
  11. Vegan Style and beautiful women

    Yes, you are right about B12 not being that accessible in food: but neither is it for those who choose to eat animal flesh! In fact, flesh-eaters are more likely to have a B12 deficiency than vegetarians/vegans because putrefication (which happens when you eat animal flesh since it is difficult on the digestive system, and humans are actually herbivores, not omnivores by nature's design which I will get to later. Hopefully you are just an uninformed vegan and not a "vegan" troll, dear God...) slows down the production of B12 and interferes with the secretion of "the intrinsic factor." B12 is produced actually from within our bodies by the bacterial flora in our intestines and transported by a stomach secretion known as "the intrinsic factor." To the best of my knowledge, B12 levels reduce when we are stressed, so I suppose how much you need really depends on your stress level. There are only small amounts needed of B12 that are measured in micrograms or nanograms; 1 milligram of B12 can last the average person over two years. Healthy people usually carry around a five-year supply of B12. But many people stress at one time or another, in fact some people are full of stress, so... this would deplete our B12 supply... which is why it should be taken daily, or at least twice a week.... this article explains also why you should supplement with the methylcobolamin version of B12 and not the cyanocobalamin version too, as well as B12 deficient symptoms.... Also, it's pointless to have calcium, when one doesn't also have enough vitamin D so that your body can absorb the calcium, in other words actually make the calcium in your body usable. In fact, it is common for people to have a vitamin D deficiency, regardless of their diet. In addition, no, we don't need protein!!! Grrrrr!! We need AMINO ACIDS!!!!! This is why I am disappointed in people like Brendan Brazier who sells vegan protein, because really we need amino acids from food! It's all to make people buy their "health line" crap to make money!! Protein in your body has to split into its component amino acids, which requires more energy for your body, because it takes energy for your body to break down and build up nutrients, because any chemical process to occur requires energy, duh. But this requirement of energy of breaking down into the amino acid constituents makes it harder on the digestive system, which makes it harder on your body overall as a result. Especially since humans aren't meant to eat meat, no no no ,we are NOT omnivores, and I'll get to that later below in a chart of omnivore vs. herbivore. Animal flesh is acidic to our body. The more acidic we are, the more we are prone to disease and illnesses, a list of which is too long for me to list . Why do you think alkaline water is good for humans? Because our bodies are meant to be alkaline And the more of a hard time you give your body, the more tired you become. Even carnivores sleep a lot (almost all day) because the digesting process is still taxing on them too, despite them already being carnivores! Plus when you cook animal flesh, the amino acids coagulate and/or are destroyed, so that they aren't available for your body to use anyway. And plus, in addition, protein from animal flesh has to be broken down and reassembled into human protein, then again it has to be reassembled and broken down into amino acid constituents. Why? Because heat alters the structure of protein, Chemistry 101 anyone?! (That's why your hair straightens with a hair iron, your hair is protein ergo the heat is able to alter the structure of your protein, your hair.) Nobody has a protein deficiency, there is no such thing!!!! In fact, the problem is people having too much protein: linked to osteoporosis, heart disease, high blood pressure, arthritis, gout, increase in breast / liver/ bladder cancer, and the incident of leukemia just to name a few. Also, humans can produce 10 of the essential 20 amino acids, so technically you only need 10 amino acids from food, which lentils contain all of the amino acids you need from food. Beans, corn, and brown / red rice have amino acids too, etc. And plus animal flesh since it is acidic, will cause our bodies to be more acidic. Human blood pH is typically normal within 7.35 - 7.40. And animal flesh would lower our pH since it is acidic: even reaching a pH of seven is dangerous for the human body. Okay, now for the carnivore vs. herbivore chart.... by the way we're herbivores.... Carnivore ~ Herbivore long, sharp, and pointed teeth ~ molars for crushing and grinding jaw moves up and down = tearing and biting ~up and down AND side to side = grinding no ptyalin for digestion of starch ~ ptyalin for digestion of starch saliva is acid for digestion of animal protein ~saliva is alkaline stomach is a simple round sack ~stomach is oblong, complicated in structure secretes ten times more hydrochloric acid ~ stomach is convoluted with a duodenum intestines three times as long as trunk = rapid food expulsion ~ intestines twelve times as long as trunk = absorb nutrients liver can eliminate ten to fifteen times more uric acid than of herbivore ~ uric acid toxic to liver, only eliminates small amount has enzyme to break down uric acid = uricase ~ no enzyme to break down uric acid = no uricase don't sweat through skin and has no pores ~ sweat through skin and have pores urine is acidic / saliva is acidic ~urine is alkaline / saliva is alkaline tongue is rough ~ tongue is smooth claws made for tearing out guts of the carcass of a dead animal ~ hands made for plucking fruit off of a tree psychological first instinct to eat animals out in nature ~ NOT psychological first instinct to eat animals out in nature hydrochloric acid for digesting carcass ~ very little hydrochloric acid = not meant to break down and eat flesh!! *In other words, as humans we have become highly adaptable so as to survive as a species. To use an outlandish example, I could put dog s*** in my mouth and eat it, but does not mean that just because I can eat it, that I'm biologically meant to eat it. The same can be said for innocent animal flesh. Also, just my opinion, yes veganism is a misnomer, but despite this, I think we should keep this as a diet label; this isn't a courtroom so there is no need to get caught up too much in semantics, especially when we are the creator of semantics to begin with! Let me explain. I absolutely hate the term "strict vegetarian" because it definitely does not create a friendly welcoming invite to those learning about veganism for the first time with the word "strict." Most people are not into a disciplined lifestyle like myself, so I think the word "strict" would turn them off, as well as confuse them with the second part of the word "vegetarian." I hate how sometimes the word "vegetarian" and "vegan" are used interchangeably. Granted, I'm happy for anyone who takes any step, no matter how small, towards not exploiting animals. However, let's be blunt: vegetarians still indirectly support exploitation, no offense to anyone who is a vegetarian on here. Not to say vegans are perfect either, because some harm to the living on a daily basis indirectly is inevitable (i.e. accidentally step on an ant I couldn't see, buy vegetables from a grocery store that sells meat, kill microbes in the air when I breathe, etc...) but we do the best we can possibly do, no excuses. Also, I notice that the word plant-based diet is now being used by people who mostly eat plants, but still eat meat: in other words their diet is based mostly on plants, but.... not completely, it's just the basis. So then there's that confusion. And besides, every word in the English language is made up anyway, and words and meanings change, arrange, and rearrange all the time. An example is when people say my "favorite quote is...." and it's accepted as grammatically correct, when originally "quote" was just a verb and it would have been grammatically correct to say my "favorite quotation is..." but too many people said it wrong, so then the wrong became accepted as right. So why not do that with the word veganism? Why not make the ethical philosophy a word that can also be used for the word diet? After all, isn't that what's most important? That we're not killing and exploiting the lives of sentient creatures with lives who have their own autonomy? And yes, you're right, most people who are vegan can't say they did it for health reasons, because if they even choose to eat like garbage for a couple seconds, the whole notion of going vegan for health reasons go out the window. Although, not everyone eats like garbage, there are raw vegans who only eat whole-food non-processed stuff without exception, yes, they're out there. As far as there being healthy meat-eaters, sure, our bodies can still be healthy, and grow accustomed to the toxins we place in our systems (i.e. Arsenic, sulfur, and high LDL cholesterol in eggs. Antibiotics, pesticides,hormones, and pus in dairy. blahblahblah.) and our body is resilient enough that our blood tests come out fine. But I mean there are some people who live to be 100 and are smokers and eat bacon every day. Is that person considered healthy because they lived just fine until 100 smoking and eating lots of bacon? Then, you could have someone who lives until 70, but was a vegan and was born with type 1 diabetes. Does that mean this vegan was less healthy than the 100 year old smoker who ate lots of bacon? Technically smoking does not cause cancer, because if it did without a doubt, then every smoker would have cancer / die from cancer. But most people would not think eating lots of bacon and smoking is a healthy lifestyle. It seems from my observations, some people are more sensitive to not eating healthy, and have to be very strict with themselves just not to gain one single pound and have illnesses / diseases. Other people seem to eat like crap, not really exercise all that much and can seem to get away with a lot. That's not the point. What is "healthy" then? Is it mentally healthy to think it's okay to eat exploited, scared, suffering animals? It's definitely not physically healthy, whether or not this reflects on our blood test results or any other kind of medical diagnoses tools, as I just showed in the above carnivore vs. herbivore chart and everything I've explained so far. Is it emotionally healthy to be consuming animals who are filled with fear, sadness, hurt, and desperation to live, and consume that energy and assimilate that energy into our own bodies? Whether or not we "appear" to be healthy medically at one point or another, or whether we "appear" to be healthy by the way others judge us to be does not make a difference. I think the question should be is not being a vegan objectively healthy? Mentally healthy? Physically healthy? Emotionally healthy? Psychologically healthy? And the answer is no. *Mic drop. Bash podium to shreds. Rip business suit to smithereens. Bash guitar to pieces. Peace out imaginary audience. If I'm wrong about anything, let me know.