Not true, we can eat animals who only eat grass or sea weed. Grass grows in places wheat or corn cannot.

Animal foods are an important part in maximizing available food.

I understand how you would have that misconception with all the vegan misinformation being spread these days though.

Fake biased report. Ignores carbon created from harvested mono crops. Ignores nutritional deficiencies it will create. Fake news

Typical vegan brain fog behavior. When any of your ideas are challenged you scream racist and block.

Rather than face the fact that the country with the most vegetarians has one if the lowest life expectancies you just scream racism.

Hong Kong proves meat doesn't kill. That's enough right there never to be a vegan.

I for one will enjoy my steak well into my 70's.

Said the guy who post blogs as a source.

Source: I own cows, they eat grass.

https://www.neogen.com/neocenter/blog/fast-facts-state-of-u-s-cattle-ranching/

https://ussoy.org/97-the-percentage-of-u-s-farms-that-are-family-owned/

All the farms where I live

Yeah but we don’t feed them seaweed.

So feed them sea weed.

Please tell me what about cow burps outweighs their methane emissions to make the comparison to trees sound.

Cows shit makes the ground so much more fertile the plants that grow where they live absorb so much carbon in balances out. Methane is a short lived greenhouse gas. Carbon a long lived. If you are worried about it you can also feed them seaweed.

Yeah, lots of vegan propaganda there. Blogs are not peer reviewed sources by the way.

Edit: I see your new sources and they are all bull shit.

https://carolinestocks.medium.com/debunking-the-methane-myth-why-cows-arent-responsible-for-climate-change-23926c63f2c0

They are calculating it wrong. I can pull up many more sources but it's not like you are going to read them.

The correlation of them being meat eaters is not the cause of their longevity.

Gonna need a source for that claim buddy.

this is because they largely don’t smoke

edit on your new sources:

Those aren't peer reviewed sources.

You say that heme iron is found only in meat as if we need it but iron from any source will give you your nutritional needs.

False. Plant iron absorption varies greatly from person to person. And everyone can absorb heme iron better. Its why vegans are so often iron deficient.

Every Hindu on the planet has somehow survived without eating meat

Great point. India has more vegetarians than almost any where else. Have you seen their life expectancy? Its complete shit. Like 67. If veganism were at all healthy surely it would have effected their life expectancy. Its a killer. Veganism kills.

Grass lands are common, but what about the animals? There couldn’t have been nearly that many if a few early colonists hunted them down so quickly.

It wasn't actually that quick. It was over many generations. White people did hunt them by the millions but also the natives were newly armed with horses and guns and so could hunt them down much more efficiently, then sell the hides.

Messing with their pH balance? As in, giving them diarrhea?

Not just diarrhea, salmonella and other diseases. Their stomachs are not designed for corn. Feeding them mostly corn makes them vulnerable to lots of bacterial over growth. That is the reason they need antibiotics to begin with.

Maybe in parts of the EU people should protest cattle farming but here in the states I see lots of really happy cow farms.

All of that may be true, but most cattle and chicken currently don’t graze on that land.

Incorrect, most cows in the U.S. Are raised on grass most of their life.

In fact, more than 97 percent of U.S. beef cattle farms and ranches are family farms. It's a myth and one that has really gotten out of control. Vegans will hunt for the worst farm and take a picture at the worst time to make it look like all those farms are that way. False, fiction.

You’re also assuming that those grasslands should actually be used that way. Nowadays, much of the land has been obtained by deforestation, and an increased demand for energy and protein, combined with the inefficiency of animals, is an important factor contributing to this.

Again this isn't really true. Pre colonial America, the Buffalo were everywhere. Grass lands everywhere. America is where horses evolved. That is how much grass land is here. (they left but came back long story). Grass lands are very common naturally.

As for antibiotics, I believe you’re partially missing my point. While reducing the number of animals reduces resistant organism spread proportionally, applying counter-resistance policies would only have an effect if a very large proportion of the animals are under that policy, that is, if nearly every country enforces it.

Again I think you missed my point here. There is only one option either way. Stop using Antibiotics.

You can either stop using antibiotics by not eating meat or stop using antibiotics wile using meat. In either case you would have to force it in every country and in either case you will fail.

Also, not using antibiotics at all is not an option.

Yes it is. And actually, feeding animals more of their natural diet would make it more possible. One of the reasons cows get bacteria over growth is when they are fed to much corn. It messes with the ph balance of their stomach. If you feed them only grass, they won't need antibiotics at nearly the amount the do now.

So antibiotics is a non issue.

However, beef contains less than 5%. Since 1/3 of the total cultivated land is used as grassland, simply using it for crops would increase the total protein output.

This makes several incorrect assumptions.

1. That you can grow something that isn't grass in those locations. There actually exist places in which you can grow grass but you can't grow "corn,wheat,grains". Many places in fact. We should be expanding our cows, goats, sheep into all those areas.

2. That there isn't supposed to be cows in those locations. Grass needs ruminant animals to eat it in order to grow. Ruminants and grass have a symbiotic relationship. Having cows graze land will actually make it easier to grow corn and wheat in those locations in the future. This is called regenerative agriculture.

3. That there isn't other things animals eat that we can't or don't want to. Chickens eat bugs. I don't want to eat bugs but I do want to eat chicken. Let them eat the bugs and let me eat the chicken.

Antibiotic

Again, the solution is the same either way. The only solution is to not use antibiotics. Whether you accomplish that by not eating animals or not giving animals antibiotics doesn't make a difference so this isn't even a point worth considering.

Hello, lets talk about these topics and try not to feel emotional. I am going to challenge some to all of these ideas but please do not take offense.

Farm animals are typically fed monocrops, and they are very inefficient at turning them into meat

This is completely false, or I should say 80% false. Farm animals are fed the scraps. Cows for example are not fed corn meant for human consumption most of the time. They are fed the leaf part, which represents over 80% of the plant. Humans cannot eat the green part. They are fed many other scraps that we can't eat. They aren't competing with us for food.

Most cows are also fed grass most of their life. And they are extremely efficient and converting grass to meat.

It is only until their last few weeks that they are fed corn humans could eat to fatten them up. In Japan they are fed rice.

You can slaughter them without feeding them grains and that is a better solution than not eating them. We cannot eat grass. Cows can, if you don't eat cows you are wasting grass.

They also produce greenhouse gases

They produce methane, a very short lived greenhouse gas. Plants also produce methane. It was recently discovered that trees produce lots of methane,

You wouldn't say we need less trees would you?

In either case, you can feed cows seaweed and their methane production goes to almost zero.

antimicrobial resistance

The answer to antimicrobial resistance is to just stop feeding them antibiotics and allow them to eat grass as they are supposed to. Not eating meat is not helping. Instead people should buy meat produced in healthy ways.

Because Germany and the US have different cultures you would have to show that before prostitution was legal the divorce rate did not change after is was legal and within the same demographics.

for example religious Muslims are probably less likely to participate in prostitution. So if there was a influx of Muslim immigrants in Germany you would have to take that into account.

The divorce rate has in fact increased in Germany since prostitution became legal in 2002. So Germany's data actually supports my theory and not yours. Even without taking into account demographic differences which would surely make it support my claim even more so.

I'm arguing specifically that middle aged women can always give handjobs if it were legal. It's doesn't take any skill to slide your hand up and down on a dick. Preventing marriages from originally forming is not the argument. It's for already established marriages with children.

It's no secret that marriages stay together our of necessity. Rich people always get divorced. we could argue whether it's good or bad to have that divorce but i'm not making that argument. I'm arguing legalizing it will increase divorces.

What is the value in keeping around marriages that would be lost if prostitution were legal?

So that children grow up with their parents together.

I don't want to assume anything so I'll wait for him to update it to reply.

Please no more links to wikipedia. that source is beyond bios on the topic.

Question: Let’s assume intelligence was overwhelmingly shown to be the ‘root factor’ behind intelligence

Ehhh do you need to reword that?

I think the blatant stupidity of kings past serves to debunk that

kings were often killed by close family members if they proved to be to unstable. Many were very intelligent. Obviously some made the mistake of marrying cousins.

Capitalism often favors intelligence. Just like natural selection. It takes a high degree of intelligence to understand what to invest your money in.

This is not actually true. Subjugating others is the easiest way to make money. Being a psychopath will probably help you out more than intelligence.

Subjecting others seems like it would take a large feat of intelligence seeing how most people don't like being told what to do.

Opportunity is important to be super wealthy but the difference in upper and lower middle class seem like it has more to do with how effective a person is which correlates highly with intelligence and IQ score.

But if its true intelligence is hereditary and intelligence makes one more likely to make more money isn't the fact that their parents had money and they passed their classes an indication that their genes are expressing intelligence?

You've said IQ is mostly a measure of education and education a measure of wealth. But unintelligent people will clearly not spend their money wisely and you've given no actual proof that its money and not intelligence to begin with.

But isn't education level a measure of intelligence? Wikipedia is clearly biased.

If you have a low IQ you aren't likely to pass your PhD program

Yeah I agree. Communism killed millions in Russia and China.