Plantchads report in

[Anonymous No.11951397]

>accepted into world famous masters at Oxford last week
>throatfucked a teenage twink yesterday while his gf rimmed me (note, both of them unsurprisingly consumed animal products)
>Weeks worth of a delicious VEGAN CRUELTIES CRUELTY FREE stir fry in the fridge
>20 years old, 40k GBP, 13 btc

When do we stop winning?

[Anonymous No.11951405]

Why the fuck would I want to live any longer

[Anonymous No.11951407]

Also, it really is true that nothing beats that first /sip/ of soya of the day

[Anonymous No.11951413]

>>11951405
Cause life is great. I'd want to live at least 10k years. Kill yourself now is you disagree

[Anonymous No.11951420]

>>11951413
Forgive me

[Anonymous No.11951432]

>vegan
>homosexual degenerate

Adds up

[Anonymous No.11951584]

>>11951397
>>11951407
you two should be gay together

[Anonymous No.11951599]

>>11951584
Literally nothing looks wrong with the guy on the left. In fact he looks very attractive

Guy on right is just ugly, and nothing really wrong with him apart from shitty hairline. Loads of meatcucks have the same issue

[Anonymous No.11951606]

>>11951397
>just got my professorship approved at Harvard
>fucked 20 10/10 traps boi puccies over the course of the last week
>fridge contains only beef and a gallon of milk
>18 years old, 300k USD, 14 btc

your move plantcucks

[Anonymous No.11951607]

>>11951397

>masters program
>can't construct a coherent post

sure thing, guy.

[Anonymous No.11951609]

>>11951599
lol why are our teeth even capable of chewing meat? we should just consume vegan soylent and the worlds problems would be solved!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HwBtRlyxPs

[Anonymous No.11951613]

>>11951606
kek

[Anonymous No.11951617]

>>11951609
Lol just realised right IS a meatcuck. No wonder he balding lmao

[Anonymous No.11951626]

>>11951617
how many diagnoses do you have ?

[Anonymous No.11951628]

>>11951626
Cringe

[Anonymous No.11951633]

>>11951617
you DO realise he was a vegan for 10 years, is mentally insolvent and now thinks RAW MEAT CARNIVORE diet. thinking you can find a more effective better way to feed yourself than what is already conceived by humanity you are a fucking loser who will be swayed your whole life by either this or that. i really do hope you just eventually die from all the aids

[Anonymous No.11951639]

>>11951628
grow up young man

[Anonymous No.11951644]

>>11951397
>the virgin vegetable-gatherer
>the chad shark-hunter

[Anonymous No.11951645]

>>11951633
>now thinks RAW MEAT CARNIVORE diet.
That's why he looks like shit and the left guy is attractive

[Anonymous No.11951658]

>>11951645
yer totally dude, he should get some WILLIAMSBURG KOMBUCHA © it really activates your mhz frequency and sets the tone for the rest of the day! i myself am a pedophile homosexuale, and i must say i really really love this one!

[Anonymous No.11951659]

>>11951644
Manly and Based

[Anonymous No.11951922]

>>11951397
I'm vegan 4 lyfe! Ending animal cruelty is more important than trivial things like my teeth..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nf7wAMwfrw

[Anonymous No.11951976]

>>11951633
>Implying the food industry tries to maximize public health, not personal profits
I wonder what it's like being a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11952028]

>>11951922
>Implying carnists aren't constantly cracking their teeth on chicken bones

[Anonymous No.11952087]

>>11952028
I don't have time to worry about carnists, can you recommend a good vegan dentist?

[Anonymous No.11952226]

>>11951976
>implying the food industry existing is why people eat meat

i never implied that, i dont know where you have that from. and by the way the "food industry" is not a homogenous big corporation with a big headquarter that says "the food industry©"
does it make you feel smart calling others brainlets? jesus christ anon your ignorance is really shining here

[Anonymous No.11952257]

>>11952226
I'm not reading this whole thread just to figure out what you fuckers are arguing about but the food industry is in fact why our dietary habits are what they are. Meat subsidies are like $300 billion a year and fruit and veg subsidies are like $20 million a year. If meat was priced based on free market principles people would eat a lot less of it and be healthier. The argument for subsidies was supposed to be that it maintained price stability and prevented farmers from going bankrupt during a bad year, but it turned into this stupid political cronyism system where we flood the poors with buckets of pink slime so they'd think they had prosperity while only enriching a few meat businesses and the hospital industry which gets wildly rich treating all the colon cancer and heart disease.

[Anonymous No.11952297]

>>11951432
reminder that "degenerate" is zoomer-speak for "thing I dislike".

[Anonymous No.11952324]

>>11952257
>calling out food industry subsidies for what they are
based, woke, redpilled, enlightened and transcendent. one point you forgot is that ordinary people have literally forgotten how to make food taste good, relying on the re-congealed oversalinated pink slime as a crutch

[Anonymous No.11952328]

>>11952257
>Dump a load of bs on a forum.

Go back to your kibble vegan, nobody is taking your plants away.

[Anonymous No.11952337]

>>11952257
Additionally, if the cost of intensively farmed meat correctly reflected it's negative environmental effects, it would be consumed even less.

[Anonymous No.11952359]

>>11952337
Hey vegan idiot, you already consume zero meat, he can you consume less than that?

[Anonymous No.11952362]

>>11952359
I eat about 500g of meat per week, carnist idiot. Enjoy dying at 37 from colon cancer.

[Anonymous No.11952403]

>>11951397
Pesca vegetarian life span was based on one study which has now proven to be false and has been retracted. Vegans live the longest.
https://m.slashdot.org/story/352196

[Anonymous No.11952524]

>>11952362
>carnist

Cringe

[Anonymous No.11952527]

>>11952359
I mean that other people in the market would eat less meat if prices reflected their true social/environmental cost. Obviously I've already made a personal decision on the subject.

[Anonymous No.11952544]

>>11952403
vegans are fat, too. most people are fat from desserts which are plenty vegan

[Anonymous No.11952586]

>>11952544
And yet something like 10% of adult vegans are overweight in the U.S vs. approximately 30% in meat eaters.

[Anonymous No.11952602]

>>11952586
It's 50% for omnivores

[Anonymous No.11952606]

>>11951397
Everyone dies so there is a 100% risk of death for everyone. This is a terrible infographic.

[Anonymous No.11952617]

>>11952606
>Vegan is healthy and natural
>Have to artificially fortify or take B12 supplements
???

[Anonymous No.11952620]

>>11951397
How is your fridge cruelty-free, anon? Does it run off off your self-righteousness instead of electricity?

[Anonymous No.11952629]

>>11952617
>Average vegan diets tend to be deficient in three nutrients, whereas average omnivores tend, unfortunately, to be deficient in seven.

[Anonymous No.11952648]

>>11952629
Just eat a mostly vegan diet and then add some meat

[Anonymous No.11952677]

>>11952620
fucking this

[Anonymous No.11952696]

>>11952648
why? why not just add supplements if you're worried

[Anonymous No.11952707]

>>11952620
>heh, you are probably not 100% virtuous and are forced to live in a world where it is a literal impossibility to completely separate yourself from environmental degradation, guess you're just a HYPOCRITE and we should just go on destroying our only environment so i can eat my MANLY STEAKS, i'm so smart
libtard OWNED xD

[Anonymous No.11952708]

>>11952696
>why?
Natural foods are healthier than supplements.
There is no supplement or vegetable on earth which can complete with the nutrition of liver. You'd be a fool to remove it from your diet.

[Anonymous No.11952710]

>>11952677
maximum whataboutism

[Anonymous No.11952712]

>>11952629
>>11952586
>>11951397
All these statistics are garbage
You’re retarded if you believe veganism itself is the main factor here and not the fact that you need to be of a significantly higher economic class to be able to afford a vegan lifestyle + the nutrients to supplement that lifestyle

[Anonymous No.11952714]

>>11952707
That wasn't my point at all, anon. I don't disagree that veganism reduces cruelty. But I do draw the line at claiming that *eliminates* cruelty.

It's nice that you got triggered and started some silly strawman though. Next time, just tell the truth about your meme diet rather than exaggerating about it.

[Anonymous No.11952716]

>>11952696
Why would I supplement something I can just eat from food. My typical diet consists of 40% vegetables, 40% grain and 20% meat

[Anonymous No.11952718]

>>11952714
>triggered
lol the absolute MADMAN continues his epic libtard destruction spree, fucking based

[Anonymous No.11952719]

>>11952710
That's not whataboutism at all. It's objectively true that a pig raised locally and fed off scraps causes less environmental harm than the modern lifestyle of buying veggies at the supermarket or using your phone toy to order uber eats from the latest trendy vegan cafe.

[Anonymous No.11952723]

>>11952718
wow, someone sure is buttmad.
that's two posts in a row you can't write logically and instead you have to resort to silly projection.

[Anonymous No.11952726]

>>11952719
I was wondering why my local trash companies decided to add a 'food scraps' container. Guess that's what it's for

[Anonymous No.11952730]

>>11951397
what the actual fuck does "lower risk of death" even mean? I hear this stat quoted all the time for shit, but the risk of death is always 100% so how can you possibly reduce it?

[Anonymous No.11952738]

>>11952730
You can make 'stats' say anything when you make shit up or take studies out of context

[Anonymous No.11952744]

>>11952708
I doubt it.

>>11952716
Bad effects outweigh the good ones there. 0% meat is the healthy way, if that's all you care about

[Anonymous No.11952747]

>>11952726
Could be that, but it's most likely for compost. The risks of using scraps collected from the public to feed animals is high: what if someone, by idiocy or deliberately, threw something toxic into that collection bin?

The old-fashioned small family farm is by far the most enviornmentally friendly way to feed people. It's a closed-loop system in which you raise mostly crops but a little meat. The animals eat the leftovers from crop farming--the parts of the plants which humans can't eat. Meanwhile the animal's poo fertilizes the farm field. This avoids the use of chemical fertilizers entirely. You also don't need to grow crops for animal feed specifically because they eat the leftovers from the humans. Any deviation from that process which upsets the balance between meat and veg causes problems.

[Anonymous No.11952749]

>>11952744
>I doubt it.
Look it up then. Name a vegetable which can compete with the nutrition of liver, especially in terms of bioavilability.

Your indoctrination into an overly simplistic meme religion has stopped you from being able to analyze facts.

[Anonymous No.11952761]

>>11952749
Why would I care about 1v1 competing? I'll just combine 2+plants and get a better combo that way.

Do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe carnie diet is more healthy than vegan? You better try some other way.

[Anonymous No.11952777]

>>11952730
This should end the thread

[Anonymous No.11952789]

>>11952761
>Why would I care about 1v1 competing?
Because that's the topic I posited which you said you doubted.

>>I'll just combine 2+plants and get a better combo that way.
OK then, do it. give me an example. You can use up to 5 plants. Equal or better nutrition for an equal amount of ingredients by weight.

>>Do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe carnie diet is more healthy than vegan?
Simple. It has more options. When you remove options from your diet it is a mathematical certainty that the resulting diet is less optimal.

I do agree with you that the average westerner eats an unhealthy amount of meat. But the optimum solution is a low-meat diet, not a no-meat diet. Veganism is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Anonymous No.11952790]

>>11952744
I don't see the point in supplementation if I can get everything from just eating. Supplements aren't always good. For example, most magnesium supplements can't be absorbed and mainly used as a laxative. The type you can absorb is expensive and I'm sure this hopes true for many nutrients

[Anonymous No.11952804]

>>11952790
you'll risk dying sooner if you eat meat. didn't you see OP?

>>11952789
>But the optimum solution is a low-meat diet, not a no-meat diet.
Did you see OP? Prove this first.

[Anonymous No.11952806]

>>11952712
>higher class lifestyle to afford potatoes, cabbage, rice, and beans

[Anonymous No.11952815]

>>11952730
You live longer dumbass. How are you this obtuse?

[Anonymous No.11952820]

>>11952804
I'd rather die earlier than live a lower quality life being deficient in things

[Anonymous No.11952821]

>>11952815
that's a not a decreased risk of death though, if I still die

[Anonymous No.11952831]

>>11952821
>>11952815

[Anonymous No.11952832]

>>11952820
then eat supplements..........................

[Anonymous No.11952839]

>>11952832
You keep ignoring the fact that supplements are not as readily absorbed as real food

[Anonymous No.11952845]

>>11952839
>you keep ignoring my meaningless hippie conjecture
Yeah

[Anonymous No.11952849]

>>11952831
>>11952815
risk of death for normal people = 100%
if you reduce the risk of death by 19% then 19% of vegans should be immortal

[Anonymous No.11952851]

>>11952839
But that does not make a difference! Or prove that it does.

[Anonymous No.11952857]

>>11952849
19% of vegans ARE immortal

[Anonymous No.11952872]

>>11952845
>meaningless hippie conjecture
>Pro-vegan

>>11952851
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11794633
Nutrients such as Magnesium can have different forms and each one has different levels of absorption
>Results indicated relatively poor bioavailability of magnesium oxide (fractional absorption 4 per cent)

[Anonymous No.11952885]

In other words, they never considered causes of death such as automobile accidents or the fact that because there is a far smaller percentage of people who are vegetarian or vegan, the average lifespan can rise more easily because of a few extraordinary samples (outliers).

[Anonymous No.11952888]

>>11952804
>Did you see OP? Prove this first.
I did see OP. OP's problem is that it does not compare diet only. It does not seperate the type of person from their diet.

For example, a person concerned about their health might choose to eat vegetarian or vegan. In fact, those are pretty much the only people who choose those diets. Meanwhile, meat-eaters include both people who are concerned about their health, as well as rubes who don't give a shit and binge-eat fast food all day. This means that OP's conclusions are misleading.

If you compare two groups of people who BOTH care about their health, and one eats meat and the other does not, the meat eaters easily win. We can see this in many studies of professional athletes who all eat well (but not to excess), and in that case the meat-eaters beat the vegans in all measures.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on that list of veggies which can compete with liver in the nutrition department.

[Anonymous No.11952906]

>>11952888
>In fact, those are pretty much the only people who choose those diets
This is the most ridiculous cope there is. Vast majority of vegetarians/vegans do it for muh animals

[Anonymous No.11952912]

>>11952906
>Vast majority of vegetarians/vegans do it for muh animals

That doesn't make logical sense though. Veganism doesn't avoid killing animals, and in many ways is worse than the problem it tries to solve.

But if you have any statistics on the subject go ahead and post 'em.

[Anonymous No.11952927]

>>11952872
>We conclude that there is relatively poor bioavailability of magnesium oxide, but greater and equivalent bioavailability of magnesium chloride, lactate, and aspartate. Inorganic magnesium salts, depending on the preparation, may have bioavailability equivalent to organic magnesium salts.
Wonder why you left that out

[Anonymous No.11952939]

>>11952885
Why would you consider car accidents in a study about diets?

>fact that because there is a far smaller percentage of people who are vegetarian or vegan, the average lifespan can rise more easily because of a few extraordinary samples (outliers).
This is you poorly opining on something you obviously don’t have any knowledge of

[Anonymous No.11952947]

>>11952927
Because I said before that the forms that have higher bioavailability are more expensive such as magnesium chelates

[Anonymous No.11952949]

>>11952912
Go to college. Not even a vegetarian it's just so, so basic that eating animal food requires less energy then eating animals due to thermodynamics. You're also stating shit with zero evidence which is absolutely unacceptable in academia. Ops pic was probably made by a vegan website, but whatever the source was will have adjusted for all the basic variables. Loads of studies have been done but you clearly lack the education to understand them or how important evidence is. Then and again this is the same with most of 4chan

Legit cringe

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/526S/4689992
https://www.google.com/search?q=vegetation+vs+carnivore+lifespan+study&oq=vegetation+vs+carnivore+lifespan+study&aqs=chrome..69i57.12023j0j7&client=ms-android-xiaomi&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
(Literally just go through them lmao)

[Anonymous No.11952950]

>>11952730
charred food is carcinogenic, that's were all the meat causing cancer propaganda comes

[Anonymous No.11952951]

>>11952888
>OP’s conclusions are misleading because of my coping conjecture despite never having gone through the study myself

[Anonymous No.11952954]

>>11952949
>if you're not a vegan you're a carnivore
cabbage for brains

[Anonymous No.11952958]

>>11952949
>Go to college
did that 20 years ago.

>>so basic that eating animal food requires less energy then eating animals due to thermodynamics
Please explain further. I have a master's in mechanical engineering so I know my thermo pretty well.

>>You're also stating shit with zero evidence which is absolutely unacceptable in academia.
Agreed, that's why I asked for statistics if you had them.

You posted lifespan studies. I'm not asking for lifespan studies. I asked you for statistics regarding the motivations of people for choosing a vegan diet.

[Anonymous No.11952963]

>>11952951
Where do you see a study in OP, anon?

[Anonymous No.11952965]

>>11952947
So?

[Anonymous No.11952969]

>>11952954
Don't even get what this is trying to say

>>11952888
This crap though is just such a dead giveaway of lack of education. You can't literally just make stuff up, and it's you whose meant to provide the evidence if you disagree

[Anonymous No.11952973]

>>11952963
If you don’t see a study and have nothing to reference from, then why are you making absolute conclusions on it?

[Anonymous No.11952992]

>>11952950
Meat has nitrosamines and PAHS in it, the more its cooked the more its released

[Anonymous No.11952996]

>>11952958
First result for "why do people go vegan survey"

You're either an absolute fucking retard or purposefully bring misleading.

https://vomadlife.com/blogs/news/why-most-people-go-vegan-2016-survey-results-reveal-all

[Anonymous No.11952999]

>>11952969
>This crap though is just such a dead giveaway of lack of education.
Look in a mirror, idiot.
When you do a study it is a burden on the researcher to ensure that the study separates and focuses on only the variable(s) under study. If you don't do this then you can easily influence the data.

For example, suppose we were doing a survey to find out what the "most popular music" was. If I only survey geriatrics from Kentucky then I might get data which shows that bluegrass is the most popular, but we both know that's totally misleading when it comes to popularity of music as a whole. OP's data is equally misleading.

If we are talking about which is the optimum diet from the perspective of someone who cares about their health and is willing to optimize that diet, then we should do so consistently.

[Anonymous No.11953000]

>>11952949
>After adjusting for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, animal protein intake was not associated with all-cause mortality but was associated with higher cardiovascular mortality
>Plant protein was associated with lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality
>These associations were confined to participants with at least 1 unhealthy lifestyle factor based on smoking, heavy alcohol intake, overweight or obesity, and physical inactivity, but not evident among those without any of these risk factors.

[Anonymous No.11953011]

>>11952999
See >>11952996

You're post was LITERALLY just making stuff up, which was obviously wrong if you checked out yourself

[Anonymous No.11953014]

>>11952996
I'm not being purposely misleading, but I am being purposely strict.

You posted survey data. Survey data is worthless because people are stupid. Where is the entry for "I wanted to virtue signal on social media"? The reason why people *say* they do things is rarely the same as the real reason.

I was asking if you had data on the real reason, because I've tried to find it but failed hard. I was hoping you might have some insight that I didn't.

Also waiting on that "thermodynamics" nonsense you talked about. Bring it on.

[Anonymous No.11953032]

>>11953014
Your original post
>I did see OP. OP's problem is that it does not compare diet only. It does not seperate the type of person from their diet.

Shows your not in touch with reality at all. Didn't bother checking if you were correct either. Now you're inevitably just going to do gymnastics but there are no ways of getting around it. "Survey data is not valid" yeah let's just make shit up based on our opinions lmao

You were completely, completely wrong. Accept it and move on

[Anonymous No.11953044]

>>11952999
>OP’s data is misleading because of yet again my absolutely worthless conjecture
Lol

[Anonymous No.11953045]

>>11953011
Why are you referring me to that post? We were talking about nutrition, then you directed me to a post asking why people went vegan? I don't follow.

>>You're post was LITERALLY just making stuff up
I didn't state any claims or data. I questioned the validity of the data being discussed because I suspect a poorly designed study guilty of sampling error.

[Anonymous No.11953057]

>>11953045

You'd know to check if you were correct or not before posting something. Put that in a paper or something and it would be instant rejection

[Anonymous No.11953062]

>>11953045
Your suspicions are irrelevant. And you’re just obviously stating them as a matter of fact when you call it misleading despite obviously not going through the study.

[Anonymous No.11953072]

>>11953032
>Didn't bother checking if you were correct either
How can I check something when nobody has cited the study I am supposed to be checking?

> "Survey data is not valid" yeah let's just make shit up based on our opinions lmao
Survey data IS made up based on opinions. That's what you get when you ask someone a question: you get their opinion. I was asking if you or anyone else had data that wasn't based on opinions.

>>You were completely, completely wrong
About what? I haven't even made a point. I'm asking questions. How can I be wrong when I haven't even made a statement?

[Anonymous No.11953087]

>>11953072
How can you make rapid conclusions on a study being flawed or misleading when you haven’t even read it let alone seen a citation for it?

>Survey data IS made up based on opinions
Yes. That is different from saying “well i THINK the data is X because reasons”

>About what? I haven't even made a point
Now you’re backtracking. Yikes

[Anonymous No.11953090]

>>11953072
Your post
>I did see OP. OP's problem is that it does not compare diet only. It does not seperate the type of person from their diet.

Instantly proved wrong on Google. Statement that wrong would lead to instant rejection in anything serious

It's also very obvious if you interacted with normalfags. In conclusion, accept you were wrong it's better than painful denial

[Anonymous No.11953093]

>>11953057
>You'd know to check if you were correct or not before posting something
What do you think that I posted which was incorrect? I'm asking questions, not making claims.

>>Put that in a paper or something and it would be instant rejection
Put *what* exactly in a paper? What is this thing you think I am saying which is wrong? I'm not making any statements, I am questioning the validity of a study.

>>11953062
>Your suspicions are irrelevant
so I'm just supposed to believe whatever I see written without questioning it?

[Anonymous No.11953096]

Can I still be vegan if I'm 99% vegan?

[Anonymous No.11953106]

>>11953096
no vegan diet, no vegan powers

[Anonymous No.11953108]

>>11953106
Oh. Guess I'll go 0% vegan

[Anonymous No.11953111]

>>11953093
>I'm not making any statements, I am questioning the validity of a study.
Yeah on a wrong fucking assumption we've gone over a million times. If you suspect something like
>I did see OP. OP's problem is that it does not compare diet only. It does not seperate the type of person from their diet.
Then you're meant to fucking check. If you did, then you wouldn't be doing this retarded gymnastics display now.

YOU'RE STATEMENT WAS WRONG. Now move on

[Anonymous No.11953113]

>>11953093
>so I'm just supposed to believe whatever I see written without questioning it?
Nope. Now you’re just strawmanning to shift from the fact you tried passing off your baseless opinions as fact despite self-admittedly saying you haven’t even read it. You’re backtracking hard and it’s pretty pathetic

[Anonymous No.11953117]

>>11952403
>Pesca vegetarian life span was based on one study

No, it’s based on the demonstrable superior longevity of primarily pescatarian populations, but go ahead and die young from preventable neurological degeneration because you>>11952524
think fish have emotions if that’s your thing.

[Anonymous No.11953121]

>>11953087
>How can you make rapid conclusions on a study being flawed or misleading when you haven’t even read it let alone seen a citation for it?
Because I can see from the data that the survey is flawed. There should be an entry regarding "social pressure" or "following a trend" or other things like that, but they aren't present. That suggests to me that the survey was either poorly designed from the get-go, or that the data was doctored. I don't know which, but there's enough there for me to call BS.

>>Now you’re backtracking
I think you're misunderstanding me. Can you quote the specific point that you are referring to, because I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote.

[Anonymous No.11953125]

>>11953090
>>I did see OP. OP's problem is that it does not compare diet only. It does not seperate the type of person from their diet.
>Instantly proved wrong on Google.

How would google prove that wrong? Am I supposed to take a random google search result and then assign it to OP's post even though those came from totally different sources? That's also "instant rejection" in an academic setting.

[Anonymous No.11953134]

>>11953113
>you tried passing off your baseless opinions as fact

I never claimed my opinions were fact. I said, basicially, "I smell a rat, let's get some real data"...and then nobody came up with that data.

I KNOW I don't have the facts. That's why I asked for data. I'm claiming that you likely don't have the facts either.

[Anonymous No.11953137]

>>11953121
>despite not having yet again read anything i can make a viable conclusion
BIG yikes. You seem pretty sociopathic honestly

>I think you’re misunderstanding me
Yes and no. You flip flop on what you actually mean and claim you’re not making baseless assumptions then admit to not reading anything related to it. Then just say “well actually i was just sayin..,” its perfectly understandable and baffling that you’re a deranged autist

[Anonymous No.11953140]

>>11953125
I'm done. See >>11953111

You're a legitimate retard. Next time check before posting.

[Anonymous No.11953141]

>>11953134
Yes you did. You literally have said X was misleading and flawed. Once you get called out for this you just say “ackshuly its just shuspucions!!”

>I KNOW I don’t have the facts
Yet you repeatedly give the narrative you do. Hmmm

[Anonymous No.11953144]

>>11953137
>>despite not having yet again read anything i can make a viable conclusion
So if I were to tell you I did a study of what the most popular music was, but hip-hop isn't even on the list, wouldn't you call out my data as being suspicious?

>>You flip flop on what you actually mean
I think that's you misinterpreting what I mean.

I'll summarize my point to minimize confusion:
1)I am skeptical of the sampling done in the OP study
2) I would like to see data to prove the sampling is sound.
3) I am asking people to provide that data so we can check the sampling before moving forward.

that's it. nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11953151]

>>11953111
>Then you're meant to fucking check.
I would love to check.
Where do you suggest I check? OP's pic does not mention the study they are citing. If you know the study they cited then share it and I'll be happy to read it.

[Anonymous No.11953155]

>>11953144
There’s really nothing that can convince your obviously deranged mind that you’ve done anything to indicate that you passed off your opinions as fact in any way. You’re basically going through a cringey meta to obfuscate your autism. Maybe you’ll learn that getting your doctorate, champ

[Anonymous No.11953162]

>>11953151
You’ve already read it and preformulated your conclusions in your head. Why even bother reading it?

[Anonymous No.11953163]

>>11953141
>You literally have said X was misleading and flawed.
Yes I did.

>>Once you get called out for this you just say “ackshuly its just shuspucions!!”
I don't see a difference.

>>11953141
>>Yet you repeatedly give the narrative you do. Hmmm
Your reading comprehension is horrible.
I know that data is bad. I don't know any data that's better, but I would happy to read it if you can post something better. Does that make it more clear?

[Anonymous No.11953168]

>>11951397
>lower risk of death

[Anonymous No.11953182]

>>11953163
>I dont see a difference between suspecting something and stating something as a fact


>your reading comprehension is horrible as I admit to a total contradiction

Yikes. Gonna jet out of this one. Genuinely worried about your status as a sociopath

[Anonymous No.11953195]

>>11953155
>There’s really nothing that can convince your obviously deranged mind
I'm not sure why you think this. Post good data and I'll be easily convinced.

>>11953162
I haven't read any studies in this thread.
I've looked at OP's infographic, and I saw the bar graph survey about why people went vegan.

I was hoping someone could post actual data, not just infographics which are clearly flawed.

[Anonymous No.11953217]

>>11953182
>>I dont see a difference between suspecting something and stating something as a fact
On an internet image board is there really a difference between:
>that looks wrong
and
>that looks suspicious

...or am I talking to captain pedantic here?

[Anonymous No.11953318]

>>11951413
I either want to live forever, or for as short a time as possible. Living for 10k years with the anxiety of death looming over me would be more torturous than anything I can imagine.

[Anonymous No.11954321]

>>11951397
>lower risk of death

LOL Oh I'm quite sure their risk of death will always and forever be 100%.

[Anonymous No.11954390]

>>11951397

[Anonymous No.11954980]

But what if a high protein diet is medically recommended while vegetarian sources of protein should be avoided? What do you do then? It's even recommended you have meat at every meal.

[Anonymous No.11955562]

>another vegan thread