no thanks to soylent. they only filled three of my orders last year.

theyre shipping again now, so maybe it will keep going up…

the “name the trait” argument is so well known vegans just call it “ntt”. they’re not here in good faith; they think they have a gotcha.

it takes MUCH more plants to feed animals to then feed humans.

most of the plants fed to animals are parts of plants we can’t or won’t eat. a great example is soy: we run over 4/5 of the global crop through an oil press and extract what we want, and feed the leftover plant matter to animals. no more plants are harmed in this process, and we conserve resources by getting food back from the animals.

And yes, it’s ok to kill plants because they do not feel pain

you can’t prove this

Killing animals for taste pleasure is morally wrong

no one does that, anyway. but even if they did, what is wrong with it? eating animals is fine.

going vegan doesn’t stop cows from being given water

otherwise it would be waste after we press the soybean for oil

we already feed people soy. but we make a lot more than people want to eat. feeding it to livestock is a conservation of resources

if we don’t plant soybeans, we won’t get soybean oil

these papers are years-old. I’ve read them.

they do not consitute proof that any animal understands personal mortality

Their ‘reactions’ to being cut, like the smell of cut grass, are chemical reactions. Not feelings or desires.

all neurological responses are chemical response. you don’t know if a plant might experience this like emotions

this is not proof crows or elephants understand that they, themselves, might die

it is not evidence at all about the cognitive abilities of turkeys

plants don’t want to be eaten. animals don’t want to be eaten. and the reason for both is the same: we don’t have proof they understand the concept

somehow I read “beef and dairy”. whoops

my bad. carry on

Since we both dont really know for sure, we should probably just

suspend judgement on the claim until there is more evidence.

we can’t prove a negative. but you are making the claim that requires that they do understand personal mortality, so it is on you to support that claim

I’m explaining that “not wanting” something does not require that you even know of that things existence

you spoke specifically about cattle. now you are moving the goal posts

I’m asking for some peer-reviewed paper to support your claim