Saturated Fat Controversy

[FlatAssembler]

I keep telling you that these statements of fact about what contributes to global hunger aren't a moral condemnation you have to defend yourself or a political or economic system from, and you keep trying to have that argument.

Now I see that we're on to abortion. Tighten up nutter, I'm only discussing the realities of food production and how they create a circumstance where people starve. What I do, is test alternatives to the conventional model that could allow more people to plug in to a system that was not built for them, or with them in mind, a system that..for all of it's benefits, does not benefit them.

You are speaking very unclearly here, and are making it hard to argue with you by that.
And I am not really interested in the idea that moving the animal agriculture a step backwards can somehow solve the global poverty.

---

Moving the goalposts, claiming meat eaters are immoral, making up facts about animal cruel slaying...

It almost look like veganism is the newest religion. Kids these days don't know what to do with their own lives.:grumpy:

Who is really switching the goalposts here? You guys here haven't provided any response to the points made in the Opening Post... other than making nonsensible ad-hominem attacks on one of the most respected nutritionists these days.
And I don't think the authors of my biology textbook were vegans when they wrote that naked mole rats don't have functioning nociceptors because they live in an environment where their blood always has a lot of CO2 in it and their nociceptors would fire constantly and be useless, because CO2 in blood causes nociceptors to fire. All what you've done in response to that is make scientifically absolutely ridiculous claims that "nociceptors aren't a thing" and that CO2 in blood doesn't kill.

---

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. What I meant is that, for example, abortion isn't wrong if the child is found to have an illness that would prevent him or her from leading a happy life. Similarly, we should not breed more farmed animals into existence, if we have good reasons to think they will lead a miserable life.

How in the name of any hell you care to mention did you manage to fold abortion into this? Can you justify that nutty non-sequitur?

If you read it carefully, I believe it's clear what I meant. Saying "Well, farmed animals today can't survive on their own, so, if we don't eat meat, they won't live at all, and it's better to have a miserable life than not to live at all." is the same logic as the anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia nonsense is.