Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(StudyFinds)   The Obvious tag is here for some news about vegetarian and vegan men   (studyfinds.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, Nutrition, vegetarian low-fat diets, vegetarian diets, low-fat diets, low-fat vs, Testosterone, male testosterone levels, new study finds  
•       •       •

1470 clicks; posted to Food » and STEM » on 17 Apr 2021 at 11:14 AM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



121 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-17 9:13:25 AM  
1) there was a lot of "may" in this article

2) an overproduction of testosterone isn't good for you either.

3) the list of "good fats" the article lists are available without eating meat
TFA: Men should ideally consume plenty of monounsaturated fats, which are found in olive oil, avocados, and nuts, to boost testosterone. Fat is an essential component of a healthy, balanced diet. Experts generally advise against overdoing consumption of saturated fats, common in butter, fatty meats, cakes, and pastries. Too much fat in your diet, especially saturated fats, can raise "bad" LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol - which also increases the risk of heart disease.
 
2021-04-17 9:31:05 AM  
Women know this
Which is why so many men did not elect to go that way for Any other reason, right Jules?
 
2021-04-17 9:35:54 AM  
 I have no particular beef (heh) with veggies or vegans. I just don't want to be obnoxiously judged for my love of meat. So if you keep your opinion to yourself, we'll all get along.
 
2021-04-17 9:42:09 AM  
Testosterone levels plunged after the group switched to a diet with half that amount of fat.

How long after the switch was made were the guys tested?  Because it's possible there was a dropoff initially, but would have been followed by a rebound. For a more definitive conclusion, research needs to also measure testosterone levels by long-time vegetarian/vegan men compared to non-vegetarian/vegan men of the same age cohort.  Granted, that's going to have its own confounds given that diet is largely self-selected.  There may be some qualitative differences between men who choose to go vegetarian or vegan and those who don't, and that can complicate the situation.
 
2021-04-17 9:45:02 AM  
Ha ha no.
 
2021-04-17 9:45:38 AM  
Suddenly hungry for a big, sexy ribeye.
 
2021-04-17 9:47:19 AM  

dickfreckle: I have no particular beef (heh) with veggies or vegans. I just don't want to be obnoxiously judged for my love of meat. So if you keep your opinion to yourself, we'll all get along.


I'm generally indifferent to meat consumption, eat it if that's your thing. Provided that its cost is accounted for, and non-meat food receives the same kind of subsidies and tax breaks. Also the environmental damages should be taken into account, as well as public health risks/care. So have your meat, be willing to pay for it's actual cost.

Here is a big problem:

Fark user imageView Full Size


I just don't want to subsidize your hamburger while having to pay proportionally more for my salad.
 
2021-04-17 9:47:53 AM  

DeathBySarcasm: Suddenly hungry for a big, sexy ribeye.


Rule 34 I guess.
 
2021-04-17 9:50:26 AM  

plecos: Ha ha no.


/anecdotal personal experience , I should be clear.
 
2021-04-17 9:51:17 AM  
I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.
 
2021-04-17 9:51:47 AM  

RodneyToady: Testosterone levels plunged after the group switched to a diet with half that amount of fat.

How long after the switch was made were the guys tested?  Because it's possible there was a dropoff initially, but would have been followed by a rebound. For a more definitive conclusion, research needs to also measure testosterone levels by long-time vegetarian/vegan men compared to non-vegetarian/vegan men of the same age cohort.  Granted, that's going to have its own confounds given that diet is largely self-selected.  There may be some qualitative differences between men who choose to go vegetarian or vegan and those who don't, and that can complicate the situation.


TFA was starkly bare of facts until the last paragraph, which encourages men to eat vegetable fat instead of meat fat. It was devoid of long term knock on effects and then was apologetic as to why this line of study went nowhere.

I'm guessing there was some beef industry money (from my tax dollars inevitably) up this study's butt.
 
2021-04-17 9:55:03 AM  

plecos: plecos: Ha ha no.

/anecdotal personal experience , I should be clear.


How you doin?
 
2021-04-17 9:57:23 AM  

The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.


Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.
 
2021-04-17 10:11:09 AM  

yohohogreengiant: 1) there was a lot of "may" in this article

2) an overproduction of testosterone isn't good for you either.

3) the list of "good fats" the article lists are available without eating meat
TFA: Men should ideally consume plenty of monounsaturated fats, which are found in olive oil, avocados, and nuts, to boost testosterone. Fat is an essential component of a healthy, balanced diet. Experts generally advise against overdoing consumption of saturated fats, common in butter, fatty meats, cakes, and pastries. Too much fat in your diet, especially saturated fats, can raise "bad" LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol - which also increases the risk of heart disease.


Yeah, nobody except your mother is going to get enough nuts to supply all their protein.

Also, nothing wrong with a bunch of saturated fats if you exercise.
 
2021-04-17 10:12:03 AM  

RodneyToady: Testosterone levels plunged after the group switched to a diet with half that amount of fat.

How long after the switch was made were the guys tested?  Because it's possible there was a dropoff initially, but would have been followed by a rebound. For a more definitive conclusion, research needs to also measure testosterone levels by long-time vegetarian/vegan men compared to non-vegetarian/vegan men of the same age cohort.  Granted, that's going to have its own confounds given that diet is largely self-selected.  There may be some qualitative differences between men who choose to go vegetarian or vegan and those who don't, and that can complicate the situation.


This isn't rocket science. There is no "rebound" effect here.
 
2021-04-17 10:12:32 AM  

yohohogreengiant: dickfreckle: I have no particular beef (heh) with veggies or vegans. I just don't want to be obnoxiously judged for my love of meat. So if you keep your opinion to yourself, we'll all get along.

I'm generally indifferent to meat consumption, eat it if that's your thing. Provided that its cost is accounted for, and non-meat food receives the same kind of subsidies and tax breaks. Also the environmental damages should be taken into account, as well as public health risks/care. So have your meat, be willing to pay for it's actual cost.

Here is a big problem:

[Fark user image image 425x302]

I just don't want to subsidize your hamburger while having to pay proportionally more for my salad.


Too bad. Not going to happen.
 
2021-04-17 10:28:24 AM  

yohohogreengiant: plecos: plecos: Ha ha no.

/anecdotal personal experience , I should be clear.

How you doin?


Pretty good how about yourself?
 
2021-04-17 10:29:56 AM  

yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.


In general, vegetarians eat a lot of processed foods.
Enjoy your colonoscopy.

/ no, I don't care what you, personally, eat
 
2021-04-17 10:45:38 AM  

lindalouwho: yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.

In general, vegetarians eat a lot of processed foods.
Enjoy your colonoscopy.

/ no, I don't care what you, personally, eat


Meh. Just pay your share. I don't farking care how you justify your life, diet, whatever.

Same problem with Rural red America. They're absolutely sure they're entitled to a subsidized  lifestyle at the expense of blue States and cities, and then use their unequal power to shiat all over the people who are paying their bills. It's vastly more expensive to enjoy a modern lifestyle in red hell nowhere than in an urbanization.

Actually I'm guessing meat-at-all-costs advocates and Red rural conservatives create a venn diagram that's circle-like. Their "reasoning" sounds alike. If beef lobbyists vanished tomorrow, you'd see beef prices increase an order of magnitude. See my chart in this thread. Or not.

Whatever.
 
2021-04-17 11:28:12 AM  
I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?
 
2021-04-17 11:31:56 AM  

yohohogreengiant: lindalouwho: yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.

In general, vegetarians eat a lot of processed foods.
Enjoy your colonoscopy.

/ no, I don't care what you, personally, eat

Meh. Just pay your share. I don't farking care how you justify your life, diet, whatever.

Same problem with Rural red America. They're absolutely sure they're entitled to a subsidized  lifestyle at the expense of blue States and cities, and then use their unequal power to shiat all over the people who are paying their bills. It's vastly more expensive to enjoy a modern lifestyle in red hell nowhere than in an urbanization.

Actually I'm guessing meat-at-all-costs advocates and Red rural conservatives create a venn diagram that's circle-like. Their "reasoning" sounds alike. If beef lobbyists vanished tomorrow, you'd see beef prices increase an order of magnitude. See my chart in this thread. Or not.

Whatever.


What the heck are you going on about?  Unless you think salad stuff is only grown in blue areas or are produced by a wizard in the back of a store.
 
2021-04-17 11:40:09 AM  
We'll just leave my recent past posts as evidence that this is obvious beyond obvious.
 
2021-04-17 11:41:13 AM  

yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.


people used to sell their soul on eBay. real transaction for payment. I don't know if that is a qualifier.
 
2021-04-17 11:41:56 AM  

yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.


Even if they were real, most religions don't think non-human animals have souls.

/but also eating meat doesn't harm your colon
//and statements like that are why people don't like vegetarians and vegans
 
2021-04-17 11:44:31 AM  

Green_Knight: yohohogreengiant: lindalouwho: yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.

In general, vegetarians eat a lot of processed foods.
Enjoy your colonoscopy.

/ no, I don't care what you, personally, eat

Meh. Just pay your share. I don't farking care how you justify your life, diet, whatever.

Same problem with Rural red America. They're absolutely sure they're entitled to a subsidized  lifestyle at the expense of blue States and cities, and then use their unequal power to shiat all over the people who are paying their bills. It's vastly more expensive to enjoy a modern lifestyle in red hell nowhere than in an urbanization.

Actually I'm guessing meat-at-all-costs advocates and Red rural conservatives create a venn diagram that's circle-like. Their "reasoning" sounds alike. If beef lobbyists vanished tomorrow, you'd see beef prices increase an order of magnitude. See my chart in this thread. Or not.

Whatever.

What the heck are you going on about?  Unless you think salad stuff is only grown in blue areas or are produced by a wizard in the back of a store.


No, I think this:

Fark user imageView Full Size


Is unfair, and harmful. The rationale behind blue States subsidizing red rural States at an insanely higher cost sounds a lot like the rationale of subsidies going so unevenly to meat as opposed to... Any other food, really.

The geography of where the meat or vegetables is produced is irrelevant in this argument, any more than it matters where that very expensive transformer is built to transmit power to largely empty land over vast uninhabited red, rural distances. Or where the road equipment and materials were manufactured for those long straight roads to nowhere.

Where are they consumed, and what is the supposed justification for the inequity in public funding? Why am I paying for these expenses  while being charged more for a life that is actually far cheaper and more sustainable? Same same.
 
2021-04-17 11:45:10 AM  

dickfreckle: I have no particular beef (heh) with veggies or vegans. I just don't want to be obnoxiously judged for my love of meat. So if you keep your opinion to yourself, we'll all get along.


No worries my fellow trouser hoagie aficionado, sIze queens are welcome here.
 
2021-04-17 11:47:01 AM  

yohohogreengiant: 1) there was a lot of "may" in this article


Yeah, that article (and site) kind of sucks.

The study it cites includes a whopping 206 people, and even says that random controlled trials were still needed.
 
2021-04-17 11:48:24 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.

Even if they were real, most religions don't think non-human animals have souls.

/but also eating meat doesn't harm your colon
//and statements like that are why people don't like vegetarians and vegans


Well, whatever lets you sleep:

Although the results vary, studies from around the world have suggested that a high consumption of meat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer. In some studies, fresh meat appears culpable; in others, it's processed, cured, or salted meat - but in all cases the worry is confined to red meat, not chicken.

I mean this is just Harvard medical... Can't hope to keep up with TFA.
 
2021-04-17 11:50:21 AM  

yohohogreengiant: Green_Knight: yohohogreengiant: lindalouwho: yohohogreengiant: The Googles Do Nothing: I won't eat anything unless it had a soul and was previously destroying the environment with its methane farts.

Souls aren't real.

Enjoy your colonoscopy.

In general, vegetarians eat a lot of processed foods.
Enjoy your colonoscopy.

/ no, I don't care what you, personally, eat

Meh. Just pay your share. I don't farking care how you justify your life, diet, whatever.

Same problem with Rural red America. They're absolutely sure they're entitled to a subsidized  lifestyle at the expense of blue States and cities, and then use their unequal power to shiat all over the people who are paying their bills. It's vastly more expensive to enjoy a modern lifestyle in red hell nowhere than in an urbanization.

Actually I'm guessing meat-at-all-costs advocates and Red rural conservatives create a venn diagram that's circle-like. Their "reasoning" sounds alike. If beef lobbyists vanished tomorrow, you'd see beef prices increase an order of magnitude. See my chart in this thread. Or not.

Whatever.

What the heck are you going on about?  Unless you think salad stuff is only grown in blue areas or are produced by a wizard in the back of a store.

No, I think this:

[Fark user image 425x302]

Is unfair, and harmful. The rationale behind blue States subsidizing red rural States at an insanely higher cost sounds a lot like the rationale of subsidies going so unevenly to meat as opposed to... Any other food, really.

The geography of where the meat or vegetables is produced is irrelevant in this argument, any more than it matters where that very expensive transformer is built to transmit power to largely empty land over vast uninhabited red, rural distances. Or where the road equipment and materials were manufactured for those long straight roads to nowhere.

Where are they consumed, and what is the supposed justification for the inequity in public funding? Why am I paying for these expenses  whi ...


You do know Cali is the largest producer of dairy right?
 
2021-04-17 11:58:27 AM  

redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?


Meat eaters (including me).
 
2021-04-17 12:01:44 PM  
Sigh. Yes, I know.

Follow along.

It doesn't farking matter where the shiat is made. It's being subsidized by tax dollars in a vastly uneven way.

The arguments for meat-at-all-costs are unfair, as they require federal subsidies to producers that other crops don't get.. To the point where I'm paying more for vegetables that would be vastly cheaper than meat if they got the same subsidies.

Sounds a lot like red rural States justifying why blue States should subsidize their very existence, while shiatting on them the whole time. To the point where the back 40 macmansions  have an up front cost that appears less than a modest urban dwelling -they're artificially propped up by unequal and unfair subsidies from the Fed.

Yes, math is required to appreciate the subtleties, but I posted some pretty pictures that will show how the food subsidies go up above.
 
2021-04-17 12:03:10 PM  
Apparently the people who dreamed up this study and initial results have somehow not heard of the country of India.
It has a massive population of vegetarians as part of a major religion ion that country.
And it has the second highest population in the world, over a billion people.

This surface level observable reality would suggest vegetarian diets are not interfering in men's interest in baby making.
 
2021-04-17 12:04:49 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?

Meat eaters (including me).


If you do the numbers, there is a certain amount of meat that everyone on Earth can enjoy without farking up the planet. Ditto with offspring. There is no immediate rational argument to completely ban meat for environmental reasons. That may change as the crisis worsens.

Hint: it's less than what the USA consumes, because consumers are shielded from the actual cost.
 
2021-04-17 12:13:49 PM  

yohohogreengiant: Sigh. Yes, I know.

Follow along.

It doesn't farking matter where the shiat is made. It's being subsidized by tax dollars in a vastly uneven way.

The arguments for meat-at-all-costs are unfair, as they require federal subsidies to producers that other crops don't get.. To the point where I'm paying more for vegetables that would be vastly cheaper than meat if they got the same subsidies.

Sounds a lot like red rural States justifying why blue States should subsidize their very existence, while shiatting on them the whole time. To the point where the back 40 macmansions  have an up front cost that appears less than a modest urban dwelling -they're artificially propped up by unequal and unfair subsidies from the Fed.

Yes, math is required to appreciate the subtleties, but I posted some pretty pictures that will show how the food subsidies go up above.


So think the cali is with the most production is not getting the most subsidies? your graph just says what but not where.

It in some says makes more sense anyways. if your a poor looking for calories to the dollar you need meats.  A head of Lettice is 53 calories while a pound of ground beef is 1500.
 
2021-04-17 12:14:13 PM  
What a vegan may look like apparently

i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-17 12:20:07 PM  

PvtStash: Apparently the people who dreamed up this study and initial results have somehow not heard of the country of India.
It has a massive population of vegetarians as part of a major religion ion that country.
And it has the second highest population in the world, over a billion people.

This surface level observable reality would suggest vegetarian diets are not interfering in men's interest in baby making.


Not eating cows is not the same as being a vegetarian, they eat of other meats. I really enjoyed curry's and chicken.

Although some Hindus are vegetarians, a large proportion consume eggs, fish, chicken and meat. According to a survey, 13% of all non-vegetarians in India are Hindus,[68] although another survey suggests a much larger fraction. According to an estimate, only about 10% of Hindus in Suriname are vegetarians and less than five percent of Hindus in Guyana are vegetarians.   from wiki
 
2021-04-17 12:25:15 PM  

redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?


What's laudable about your comment is that the article demonstrates it is easier for vegan men to not have kids.
 
2021-04-17 12:28:16 PM  

Green_Knight: yohohogreengiant: Sigh. Yes, I know.

Follow along.

It doesn't farking matter where the shiat is made. It's being subsidized by tax dollars in a vastly uneven way.

The arguments for meat-at-all-costs are unfair, as they require federal subsidies to producers that other crops don't get.. To the point where I'm paying more for vegetables that would be vastly cheaper than meat if they got the same subsidies.

Sounds a lot like red rural States justifying why blue States should subsidize their very existence, while shiatting on them the whole time. To the point where the back 40 macmansions  have an up front cost that appears less than a modest urban dwelling -they're artificially propped up by unequal and unfair subsidies from the Fed.

Yes, math is required to appreciate the subtleties, but I posted some pretty pictures that will show how the food subsidies go up above.

So think the cali is with the most production is not getting the most subsidies? your graph just says what but not where.

It in some says makes more sense anyways. if your a poor looking for calories to the dollar you need meats.  A head of Lettice is 53 calories while a pound of ground beef is 1500.


The point. Whar?

Yes dairy ag businesses get subsisized. In California even, where ag is a tiny part of it's GDP.

It doesn't matter where it's produced. It's the unfair consumption enabled by vastly uneven subsidies.

Who is consuming the product? Why is it so cheap to consume than compared to other products that cost far less to produce?


Tricky part: you can substitute "meat"
For "red rural lifestyle" where it says "product" and the defenders of both sound just alike in their justifications without ever even attempting to touch in the basic inequity of why the fark do the rest of us have to pay for your absurdly expensive shiat? To the point where we are going broke paying for ours?
 
2021-04-17 12:30:49 PM  

Green_Knight: It in some says makes more sense anyways. if your a poor looking for calories to the dollar you need meats. A head of Lettice is 53 calories while a pound of ground beef is 1500.


That speaks less to the benefit of disproportionately subsidizing the meat industry that it does point out another shortcoming as to how the US handles poverty.  If you decrease the meat subsidy and increase food stamps, you still help the poor and probably save more in government spending overall.  I get why my tax dollars should help the poor have enough to eat.  I don't get why my tax dollars have to subsidize middle class and wealthier folks who buy steak.
 
2021-04-17 12:31:19 PM  

yohohogreengiant: I just don't want to subsidize your hamburger while having to pay proportionally more for my salad.


Personally, I resent having to subsidize all the crotchfruit everyone keeps thunking out that are going to destroy the planet. You don't always get your tax dollars spent according to your individual preferences, this is a society after all.

You want to complain about how your tax gets spent? Petition a politician.

redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?


Breeders, that's who. Even vegan ones.

A carless vegan parent who does not ever fly is over 11 times worse for the planet than a childless meat eating car driver who goes on a couple of transatlantic flights a year. Having a child eliminates every single good action you do towards reducing climate change unless you live in an unpowered hut and grow your own vegan diet.

In the grand scheme of things, the childless have the ethical high ground. That said, I have yet to meet a vegan who is not a parent or does not have plans to be one soon. Obviously the unicorn of a carless vegan who will never breed is on the ethical pinnacle.

Bennie Crabtree: redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?

Meat eaters (including me).


Rejoice, for you are wrong.
 
2021-04-17 12:32:59 PM  

fasahd: redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?

What's laudable about your comment is that the article demonstrates it is easier for vegan men to not have kids.


Have you ever met any vegans who were not also parents or planning to become a parent at some point?

I'm genuinely interested.
 
2021-04-17 12:34:41 PM  

yohohogreengiant: why the fark do the rest of us have to pay for your absurdly expensive children?


FTFY

As I say, you don't get to complain about how the nations taxes are spent based on your personal preferences.
 
2021-04-17 12:44:40 PM  

Green_Knight: yohohogreengiant: Sigh. Yes, I know.

Follow along.

It doesn't farking matter where the shiat is made. It's being subsidized by tax dollars in a vastly uneven way.

The arguments for meat-at-all-costs are unfair, as they require federal subsidies to producers that other crops don't get.. To the point where I'm paying more for vegetables that would be vastly cheaper than meat if they got the same subsidies.

Sounds a lot like red rural States justifying why blue States should subsidize their very existence, while shiatting on them the whole time. To the point where the back 40 macmansions  have an up front cost that appears less than a modest urban dwelling -they're artificially propped up by unequal and unfair subsidies from the Fed.

Yes, math is required to appreciate the subtleties, but I posted some pretty pictures that will show how the food subsidies go up above.

So think the cali is with the most production is not getting the most subsidies? your graph just says what but not where.

It in some says makes more sense anyways. if your a poor looking for calories to the dollar you need meats.  A head of Lettice is 53 calories while a pound of ground beef is 1500.


Do you remember analogies from the SAT?  That's what he's doing here: subsidizing meat is to vegetarians as subsidizing red states is to democrats.  He's not annoyed at meat sudsidies because they go to red states, he's annoyed at meat subsidies because he is paying extra for someone else's luxury, just as democrats might be annoyed at paying extra to support failed economic policies in red states.
 
2021-04-17 12:45:26 PM  

dready zim: fasahd: redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?

What's laudable about your comment is that the article demonstrates it is easier for vegan men to not have kids.

Have you ever met any vegans who were not also parents or planning to become a parent at some point?

I'm genuinely interested.


I have enjoyed many meals at their homes. I don't follow Halal or Kosher, I don't believe that diet should be part of a religion and religion should not be imposed on children. Yes Veganism is a religion. Anthony Bourdain had the right diet; if  it's food, eat it.
 
2021-04-17 12:47:44 PM  

fasahd: dready zim: fasahd: redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?

What's laudable about your comment is that the article demonstrates it is easier for vegan men to not have kids.

Have you ever met any vegans who were not also parents or planning to become a parent at some point?

I'm genuinely interested.

I have enjoyed many meals at their homes. I don't follow Halal or Kosher, I don't believe that diet should be part of a religion and religion should not be imposed on children. Yes Veganism is a religion. Anthony Bourdain had the right diet; if  it's food, eat it.


That was a lot of words that avoided the question.

Have you ever met any vegans who were not also parents or planning to become a parent at some point?
 
2021-04-17 12:53:27 PM  
yohohogreengiant:
Tricky part: you can substitute "meat"
For "red rural lifestyle" where it says "product" and the defenders of both sound just alike in their justifications without ever even attempting to touch in the basic inequity of why the fark do the rest of us have to pay for your absurdly expensive shiat? To the point where we are going broke paying for ours?


I'll see your colon cancer and raise you a diabetus. Start subsidizing stevia and take away the subsidies for sugar and corn[syrup]. Clean up your own backyard and then you'll have room to talk about ours.
 
2021-04-17 12:56:02 PM  

Green_Knight: PvtStash: Apparently the people who dreamed up this study and initial results have somehow not heard of the country of India.
It has a massive population of vegetarians as part of a major religion ion that country.
And it has the second highest population in the world, over a billion people.

This surface level observable reality would suggest vegetarian diets are not interfering in men's interest in baby making.

Not eating cows is not the same as being a vegetarian, they eat of other meats. I really enjoyed curry's and chicken.

Although some Hindus are vegetarians, a large proportion consume eggs, fish, chicken and meat. According to a survey, 13% of all non-vegetarians in India are Hindus,[68] although another survey suggests a much larger fraction. According to an estimate, only about 10% of Hindus in Suriname are vegetarians and less than five percent of Hindus in Guyana are vegetarians.   from wiki


Suriname and Guyana are in South America. Together they're a little over a million people total. Hindu/Indians are minority population there.

When you mush those percentages together with actual India (more than a billion), you're painting a picture that has little relation with the landscape.

The dietary statistic in India is interesting, but we'd need to know more about consumption before you can start rehabilitating TFA. The original observation that India has a huge population with a large percentage of historically vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diet still casts a ton of shade on TFA.
 
2021-04-17 12:56:46 PM  

yohohogreengiant: Green_Knight: yohohogreengiant: Sigh. Yes, I know.

Follow along.

It doesn't farking matter where the shiat is made. It's being subsidized by tax dollars in a vastly uneven way.

The arguments for meat-at-all-costs are unfair, as they require federal subsidies to producers that other crops don't get.. To the point where I'm paying more for vegetables that would be vastly cheaper than meat if they got the same subsidies.

Sounds a lot like red rural States justifying why blue States should subsidize their very existence, while shiatting on them the whole time. To the point where the back 40 macmansions  have an up front cost that appears less than a modest urban dwelling -they're artificially propped up by unequal and unfair subsidies from the Fed.

Yes, math is required to appreciate the subtleties, but I posted some pretty pictures that will show how the food subsidies go up above.

So think the cali is with the most production is not getting the most subsidies? your graph just says what but not where.

It in some says makes more sense anyways. if your a poor looking for calories to the dollar you need meats.  A head of Lettice is 53 calories while a pound of ground beef is 1500.

The point. Whar?

Yes dairy ag businesses get subsisized. In California even, where ag is a tiny part of it's GDP.

It doesn't matter where it's produced. It's the unfair consumption enabled by vastly uneven subsidies.

Who is consuming the product? Why is it so cheap to consume than compared to other products that cost far less to produce?

Tricky part: you can substitute "meat"
For "red rural lifestyle" where it says "product" and the defenders of both sound just alike in their justifications without ever even attempting to touch in the basic inequity of why the fark do the rest of us have to pay for your absurdly expensive shiat? To the point where we are going broke paying for ours?


You're trying to hard to make this red state vs blue. Sorry. people don't like Veggies as much as you do.
 
2021-04-17 1:01:11 PM  

yohohogreengiant: dickfreckle: I have no particular beef (heh) with veggies or vegans. I just don't want to be obnoxiously judged for my love of meat. So if you keep your opinion to yourself, we'll all get along.

I'm generally indifferent to meat consumption, eat it if that's your thing. Provided that its cost is accounted for, and non-meat food receives the same kind of subsidies and tax breaks. Also the environmental damages should be taken into account, as well as public health risks/care. So have your meat, be willing to pay for it's actual cost.

Here is a big problem:

[Fark user image 425x302]

I just don't want to subsidize your hamburger while having to pay proportionally more for my salad.


A salad does not cost more than a BigMac around these parts.
 
2021-04-17 1:10:45 PM  

dready zim: yohohogreengiant: I just don't want to subsidize your hamburger while having to pay proportionally more for my salad.

Personally, I resent having to subsidize all the crotchfruit everyone keeps thunking out that are going to destroy the planet. You don't always get your tax dollars spent according to your individual preferences, this is a society after all.

You want to complain about how your tax gets spent? Petition a politician.

redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?

Breeders, that's who. Even vegan ones.

A carless vegan parent who does not ever fly is over 11 times worse for the planet than a childless meat eating car driver who goes on a couple of transatlantic flights a year. Having a child eliminates every single good action you do towards reducing climate change unless you live in an unpowered hut and grow your own vegan diet.

In the grand scheme of things, the childless have the ethical high ground. That said, I have yet to meet a vegan who is not a parent or does not have plans to be one soon. Obviously the unicorn of a carless vegan who will never breed is on the ethical pinnacle.

Bennie Crabtree: redsquid: I eat meat. I don't have kids. Who's farking up the planet?

Meat eaters (including me).

Rejoice, for you are wrong.


Carrying capacity is a function of consumption, production, and population. You not having kids is great, but that doesn't magically erase your carbon footprint. Or other waste.

I've lived in Mexico and seen medium to large sized families (in cities even!) live comfortably on a fraction of resources with tiny amounts of waste compared to US nuclear family living.

You want your quality of life and justify it by saying you don't have kids so it averages out. I used to think this way and got a vasectomy at 23. Glad I did too.

But the math doesn't follow. The math of ecologies and trophic levels and just basic farking consumption... If the entire world lived like an average American does... Even a childless one, it would be ecologically catastrophic. Worse than we see now certainly

Not reproducing may be smart and good, I certainly think so, but it isn't a "free pass"  unless you really don't give a fark about anyone anywhere else.
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.