Correlation does not imply causation. Veganism and intellect are correlated because smart people often become wealthier than uneducated people (which creates an evil cycle of poverty) and wealthy people have options, including veganism. Poor people, on the other hand, may have to buy non-vegan fast food in order to avoid starvation, resulting in a positive vegan-education correlation.
Furthermore, humans are omnivores, and evolved to hunt and kill. Although beans can replace meat in a diet when counting nutrients, human bodies are complex and veganism has not existed long enough to do detailed longitudinal studies to determine just how much unhealthier a no-meat diet is.
The question, then, is why veganism is better than an omnivorous diet, even if there are no health detriments. And please, no "animal ethics" excuses. People that could choose veganism can also vote with their wallets by buying free range meat with no added hormones.
Another problem with your plan is that many economies (like Argentina's and several states in the U.S.A.) function on agriculture, including meat. What plans do you have to stabilize all the crashes that happen when you outlaw a carnivorous diet?
All this is argued from a straight economics point of view. If you bring up ethics despite my request that you not, since your plan is already unfeasible, I will not respond to you, since you've proven inconsiderate enough to insult an entire political party (of which I am not a member) and then can't be bothered to respond to my question. I only want rebuttals from a political, economic, or social viewpoint.
English
-
Don't expect the hipster to understand.
-
Bump.
-
This was the best, most logical (dare i say it; scientific ) answer i think I've ever seen in an offtopic "serious debate." All the stuff i was thinking and trying to formulate, you said and i couldn't have said it any better if i tried. You sir, get two thumbs up and a follow.
-
You've probably never seen Bobcast post before, have you?
-
If i have i don't remember
-
Thanks, but I'm just a guy who has taken a few high school courses and listens to NPR. I like to think that anybody who pays attention to the world and learns about it whenever possible can apply logic to answer any question.
-
... you forgot to add that you're also an idiot that falls for obvious bait. [spoiler]Oh wait...It wasn't obvious to you 😂😂😂[/spoiler]
-
It wasn't obvious because there is no sarcasm tone on the Internet. You didn't add a satire or any other indication of that, and I have known some extremely radical vegans and vegetarians who really do believe that
-
You need to retake English class, you idiot. Satire is notable when something is horrendously exaggerated and/or when it's posted on a gaming forum. Ha, so much for being logical.
-
"Satire is notable when something is horrendously exaggerated" Also the definition if most vegan I've met
-
Satire, by definition, requires over-the-top ideas and often is designed to elicit horror from readers, a la [i]A Modest Proposal[/i]. There is no definition suggesting that any kind of media (especially a gaming forum) is a requirement or indicator of satire. Furthermore, Ad Hominem is not a valid form of logical attack, nor is circular logic. Your attempts to incite a reaction are very poorly disguised, and demonstrate that your understanding of rhetorical argument is flawed. As such, I cannot debate with you properly, and your arguments are undone by your poor rhetoric. I'll not bother responding to any more of your malicious fits of anger.
-
-
Thank you, I'm glad you think that my rhetoric skills merit a [quote]rekt[/quote]
-
>Be you >Keep trying too hard >Reply to troll >Keep trying too hard >Reply to troll >??? >TopKek
-
You keep on demonstrating how idiotic you are.
-
As long as you keep an open mind and question everything, i can agree to that
-
The government can figure all of that out.
-
They can't even figure out what to charge a terrorist with after murdering 9 people and a senator I have my doubts about something this large scale that also involves the lives of every person in the US
-
I didn't ask somebody else to figure it out. I asked you to. If a proposal can be shot full of holes, it is not the shooter's (or anyone else's) responsibility to patch them. If the proposer cared and felt that his proposal was a good one, then he would do research and be inventive to solve the problems. People that want your proposal to fail (like the republicans you mentioned) certainly wouldn't do it for you. If you don't have a solid plan, you have an empty dream.
-
I disagree
-
Brilliant
-
More government= we don't have to worry
-
Historically: not a good idea.
-
The same government that can't agree on anything due to the prevailing opinion that one side is more right than the other, and a refusal to work across party lines?