Combat Martial Arguments: The Reality Of Dealing With Nitpickers

“Perfect is the enemy of good.” – Aaron Clarey

Special thanks to @consciouscarnivore for the article inspiration, as this started out as a back and forth me and her were having, that I figured would be worth covering here. I’ll be straight with you: Intellectual Openness, admitting that “the more you learn the less you realize you don’t know” and being open to the opinions and facts other have to share, that is a double edged sword.

On one end of the blade, when used correctly it keeps you from being complacent, ensuring you don’t stop and continue to grow. It is the humbleness that not only helps prevent you from thinking you “know enough” since there’s always more to learn and new information to discover, it also grants you the the ability to always find different and even unique ways in which to improve yourself. In that light, Intellectual Openness is a very important tool that makes the rest of your positive life directions possible: it’s pretty hard to, as an example, bench press 300 pounds when you have the mindset that 100 is enough, or worse, your built in maximum.

On the other end of the blade, however, is the “swamp of nitpicking”, where other people use it to tell you you “don’t know everything” and therefore listen to their opinion, which of course is always somehow the “correct one”. This can take many forms (which, since it is a form of sophistry, should come as no surprise), ranging from “well, your philosophy seems well intentioned, but it’s never been tried before”, or “well that’s a nice idea, but it wouldn’t work for [insert reasons here]”, or “I saw a study /anecdotal story that says [insert activity to criticize] isn’t as effective or more harmful than [insert alternate activity here]. Perhaps my favorite one is “well not every person (usually involving some group with whatever traits, whether they were born with or inflicted upon themselves) can do that the way you do it because [insert more reasons].

Sometimes it is a genuine person that really is trying to help you by offering constructive criticism, and that kind of feedback is worth it’s weight in bitcoin. Far more often than not, however, it is someone that is trying to throw sand in your gears and slow you down, possibly even to stop you. There are a few reasons people will do this: the most benign would be erroneously informed about whatever activity (let’s use one of mine, which is wearing weights during my daily*laughcoughs*nightly activities): the sheer amount of statements I got about how bad it would be on your joints or back (it should be noted almost everyone who said this was pretty overweighed themselves with weight you can’t simply take off), how bad it is for my hands (I still think that girl was turned on and couldn’t figure out why), stories of how a guy did what I’m doing and had to get knee surgery, etc. Those I can give a pass to: wrong as they might be, and though the effect is roughly the same, the intent isn’t malevolent.

The other two reasons I believe this behavior happens is, one worse than the other. 1. They want you to stop doing whatever it is out of fear and laziness: if it’s something noteworthy enough for them to get your attention and speak up about, chances are it’s something that requires mental, physical and intellectual rigor and discipline, possibly even a financial investment, some or all of which they are too lazy to do or even worse, makes them uncomfortable that you’re working to improve your life at a degree they’re unwilling to do themselves (True Story: a good friend of mine had one of her childhood friends literally tell her they couldn’t hang out anymore because she was getting in shape and it made her feel bad), and it is far easier to criticize and nitpick from the sidelines rather than take to the field.

Far more insidious than the previous would be reason 2. They have some sort of vested interest that your ideas or activities threaten, whether directly or merely perceived. This is what I would call one of many flavors of evil, because unlike the previous two, this person knows damn well what they’re doing, and would rather stall your progress rather than take responsibility (that’s a curse word these days I know: I’ll wait for you to recover) over what are likely bad life decisions that led to whatever vested interest they’re trying to protect, whether it’s something tangible, or their own damn feelings. Keep in mind that they are working from the opposite premise of philosophy which states that you start with a hypothesis and work towards a conclusion: they “have the correct conclusion”, and their goal is to use your Intellectual Openness to keep you from finding the correct one, or one at all for that matter. And they do this in 3 main ways:

1. Constantly switching arguments, aka the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. Let’s use taxation as a light easy topical example. Let’s say you had the insane idea of not using a system to pay for various social costs that if you don’t pay into will end with you in jail or 6 feet under, and perhaps using a system where people voluntarily put money towards causes you believe in, like helping starving children. One argument that could be made for taxation is that there are programs available to help needy children, and the counter argument is that ever since said programs, which have been growing in number for decades, have the result of more kids starving than ever before. Do they address that counter argument, or do they jump right to another talking point, almost as if that argument never even happened? A slightly related tactic, usually not even worth pointing out, is when they simply repeat the previous point, as if you hadn’t said anything and that repeating the same talking point you just answered will change reality.

2. Death by a thousand nitpicks. It is far easier to destroy than it is to build. It is even easier to criticize an idea or argument than it is to conceptualize and analyze. For the “starving little Timmy” example, you could point out that when we actually had charitable organizations worth a damn, they would help families that have fallen on heard times. The nitpicking would take the form of “well “not all” (more on this in a moment) kids were helped, and they had to work as newsies or in coal mines where they were underpaid by the robber barons, and what about the kid whose parents dies or were terminally ill, you get the idea. The aim, of course, is to intice you into countering each and every single point individually so that you’re on the defense and therefore you can’t hold them to their own standards of an idea being perfect in order for it to be implemented. The aim, of course, is to hinder your argument to the point that it isn’t worth entertaining, if not to you, to any audience watching the debate, and certainly the person doing the nitpicking.

Alternatively, though related, they’ll try to get you to pursue perfection in your idea, usually in what seems like an encouraging tone. Your idea of voluntarily helping deserving families would miss some that deserve it, or they might not get enough to help “end childhood hunger” (more on that in a moment), therefore until that problem is fixed, we must use the tax system. The intent, of course, is that is a ever moving goalpost meaning were you to take this seriously you’d never get your idea out there, which leads to:

3. Using vague concepts instead of real world examples. This is a very tried, very true way of convincing people to vote against their best interests. For example: the phrase above “ending childhood hunger”. What exactly qualifies as a child that is indeed starving? Is this a kid that’s homeless, one of a littler of 13 kids by 19 fathers in section 8 housing, an orphaned evil genius, or even a child within a nuclear family in the middle of a recession? Or is this simply a term designed to evoke feelings of sympathy and shut down the part of the brain that uses critical thinking (which I bet is actually being bred out of humanity), so you are more agreeable with whatever social program proposed to save the “starving childwen”?

Alternatively, usually if the above tactics don’t have the desired effect, or the person really is that intellectually lazy, they’ll simply use labels in lieu of arguments, often labels preestablished as negative to society. If you’re against taking that rich white guys income to feed those poor kids, you must be pro big business and therefore hate the poor! And since you’re defending those evil white capitalists, you must be a far right wing fascist nazi that wants minorities to be slaves again. If you other people that voice the same arguments and bring data and evidence to back it up, and they committed the original sin of also being born with a pink penis that wants to ejaculate inside of a pink vagina, their arguments are also invalid because of a lack of melanin and a surplus of testosterone, whether they’re right or not. If someone comes to the same conclusion and either aren’t white or not male, they must be some kind of rare unicorn to have those views, because there’s no way they can think things differently from the culture they grew up with.

Side tangent aside, all of these tactics aren’t to help you or debate from a philosophical stance, but to push an agenda that most likely serves their best interests at the expense of yours. Now that you know how to spot them, how do you respond effectively? There’s a few I’ve either adopted or came up with that have served me well, the idea being akin to Combat Martial Arts rather than Movie/Sport/MMA Martial Arts: Rather than a cinematic visually appealing hand to hand duel (or these days, rolling around on a mat in an octagon) that most people associate with fighting, you quickly and effectively defeat and drop your opponent, because you don’t know when the rest of his buddies are coming with weapons.

Minding The Details: Let’s say you face the first tactic of getting machine gunned with different arguments. First, you have to nip that in the bud: I wouldn’t let it go beyond 3 examples. Once they give an argument or example, you counter it with whatever argument, and they attempt to move to a different one, stop them right there and say “excuse me, but I just answered your previous case: are you acknowledging my point as valid, or are you ignoring it completely?” If they have any integrity this will give them a mental jolt, because it’s likely they’re aware they’re even doing it. If they continue to try moving along, you can move along as well with your day because it isn’t worth your time, or you can use Aaron Clarey’s patented Betting Tactic, where you pick whatever point and you have them put money on whether they’re right or not; keep in mind it needs to be an objective provable fact. I personally haven’t had any takers:most either try to squirm out of it and eventually back off, get angry that I’d dare to charge them, or try another talking point, at which you can rinse and repeat the above.

Setting Hard Limits: The best way I’ve found to end it is to ask “how much is enough”. Back to Starving Tanner and the Nitpickers, let’s say the increasing pile of criticisms is starting to get to you, and it’s clear this person has an endless supply of them. What you can say is “O.K., so let’s say that voluntary charity won’t work so we need taxes: what percentage level of taxation would you be O.K. with to “end hunger”? Because it’s been increasing over the decades while the problem is getting worse: at what level would you feel better knowing that Landon will be able to eat?” Again, this usually catches them offguard, so they might throw a random number like 20%, which in the U.S. you can immediately counter with the fact that public spending per GDP is closer to 40%, so it’s already double what they think is enough. That should be all you need to end the debate, though they’ll likely try to squirm to some other figure or another argument, in which case you do what previous paragraph laid out.

Define Your Labels: again going back to the “calorically challenged”, you will commonly get concepts and labels of various vagueness that don’t tie into anything concrete. So you call them out on it: “so you’re all for spending other people’s money to “end childhood hunger”, how exactly do you determine that?” If they’re honest they might quote some statistics about household poverty or other sources of data, in which case you can have a conversation and tackle that directly. More likely is you’ll get more subjective pablum like “well 4 our of 10 households have to choose between their next meal or getting the kids a new jacket for the winter, and we believe no mother should have to make that choice.”, which sounds nice but dodges the question. Here you can ask where they got those numbers, which I wouldn’t recommend: instead I would press them harder on actually defining “childhood hunger”, and whatever answers they give for that you question them as well. Not only does this give you the image of actually being inquisitive, but it turns the tables and put them on the defense instead of you.

Against Me Argument: Coined by Stefan Molyneux, this is reserved mainly for Thanksgiving table arguments. The idea is to accept that whatever argument they have is correct, and whether they’re O.K. with living and let live with yours. The example being taxation: ” So you believe taking money from these groups of people to help out the children, and I accept that. Can we agree to disagree, and let me help out the needy in my own way? “No, you must contribute to my system to help the children!” ” So you’re willing to watch me get dragged off to jail or shot to death because I disagree with your system?” There really are only two responses to this: 1. they agree, in which case you can accurately call them a horrible person in front of everyone and disavow them, since why would you want to associate yourself with them. Or 2. if they value their relationship with you, let alone those around them, the reality of their system will set in, and they’ll be forced to reconsider their position. That would be the time to counteract, and reason with them if possible.

Short Circuiting: one of my favorite tactics to date, reserved for when you know reasoning will be a circular journey. Essentially you tailor a response designed to throw the conversation into a hard left turn that the opponent wasn’t expecting and therefore likely has no defense against, mine heavily favoring comparisons. Examples: this last family gathering one of the kids got into some lotion prompting the mom to spank her. I was standing with one of the family friends and said “yeah, hit the kids, because you can’t figure out how to explain that lotion isn’t food”, to which she replied “oh you know, it’s just a little boop”, doing the little swatting motion. Realizing early on reasoning was off the table, my immediate response was “yeah, just a little unwanted finger up the vagina isn’t so bad, it isn’t actually sexual assault and certainly not rape….” The intellectual discussion ended rather quickly, with her backing out with fan favorite phrases like “we just agree to disagree”, “we’re entitled to our opinions”, etc. It was really punching down with a well placed reverse punch, but since the nice conversation I had the last time didn’t exactly get through, switching to armor piercing rounds was justified to me.

Agree and Amplify: also a fan favorite, though not one I came up with. This is a style of responding to a loaded question, and one you can have a lot of fun with: essentially whatever statement or argument they make you take it and turn it up to 11. “How do you feel about women making $.85 for every dollar a man makes?” “I think that’s rather generous: they’re usually worth maybe $.63 for every dollar a man makes, and that’s if they’re not on the rag!” “So you agree with a system that promotes white supremacy!?” ” Damn straight, I love living in a pro white society that ended slavery: Have you seen what black people are doing in South Africa? We should have white people rule everything!” The true beauty of this tactic is that it takes whatever verbal weapon they were hoping to tag you with and turning it back upon them with even greater force; a true Aikido method of mental submission.

Humoring The Argument: this one can be a bit tricky to pull off, but the idea is to let them go along with their line of logic, and ask questions that pick apart their narrative bit by painful bit, to the point that it becomes ridiculous even to the most basic outside observer, or even them. “Do you believe that climate change is real?” “Well yeah, I thought the climate is always changing, isn’t that called seasons?” “You don’t know of anthropogenic catastrophic climate change? Fossil fuels are warming the atmosphere so fast the planet is in danger of exploding!” “Really? How are fossil fuels warming the planet?” “It puts co2 in the air which acts as a greenhouse gas that threatens all plant life!” “Really? Tell me more, because I was under the impression plants breathed co2 and do better in warmer climates, which is one reason greenhouses are a thing; are you saying that’s not the case?” “Well if the temperature goes too high parts of the earth will be uninhabitable!” “Wouldn’t that mean the colder climates would then be more habitable?” This one is also scalable, but if I’m using it I prefer to let them dig their own grave as deep as possible before adding nails to their coffin.

Mockery & Ridicule: For example, when someone, usually a woman, uses some phrase that blames men for whatever, like “well the man should/should’ve done _____”, the response is “yeah, put the responsibility all on men, because women are children; you can’t trust them with something like that!”. If someone is talking about banning whatever the next hot item is for firearms, “wow, why do you want women to get raped? I thought we wanted them to be equal and be able to defend themselves without relying on men.” “We need to ban plastic straw because environment!” “Yeah, we need at least 90% of the population wiped out via super world wide war/collapse of the economy so resources are scarce again, if that’s really worth complaining about.” “[Insert any complaint women have today about men]” “yeah I can’t imagine why I don’t take women seriously anymore: must just be because I’m sexist and evil or something….” You can deliver these with many kinds of structure and inflection, each giving it’s own spin to it, and while they may seem like just tactics to incite a negative response, I’ve found it can bring out an intrigued impression, as often that style is totally out of left field for them. And finally:

End Game Reasoning: similar to mockery and ridicule, but reserved for the ones that are sand in the engine and know it, there’s no getting through to them because of whatever reason, so you might as well have fun at their expense. There’s a few routes I like to take. One is to completely call out the argument and send it down in flames. “Would you please sign my petition to end childhood hunger?” “You mean vote to take other people’s money to pay a bunch of worthless parasites so maybe some of the money can get Little Timmy some applesauce? No thanks: if I’m gonna waste my time, it’ll be on something fun. Cheers!” “Did you know that Latina women make $.57 for every dollar a white male makes?” “Yeah, and half that number is probably earned by one lovely Latina in San Antonio, and the rest by lazy housekeepers and janitors that barely speak the host country’s language. That answer your question for you?” They might call you names or accuse you of some -ism, but most will know not to fuck with you further. And again, depending on how you tailor the response, you might shock them out of their routine and get them to inquire further.

There are other styles of tackling the nitpickers, naysayers, and otherwise slothful and dishonest people seeking to waste your time, but the idea is to use the weapons you have now, rather than the perfect ones you don’t. Best analogy I’ve heard so far is Stefan Molyneux’s, where he compares it to training a soldier to hit a melon at 30 yards to be considered ready for combat, then a golf ball at 40, then a marble at 50, then a live dragonfly at 75, and oh crap: either the enemy has already overrun your position or he’s too old to fight because his vision is gone. So the question is this my friends: are you willing to run with what’s good enough and learn along the way? Or will you forever be in argument purgatory, arguing until your finite time is gone?

Implosion Of Veganism: Experimental Late Night Podcast, Part 3

“Religion is not a diet.” -Utterly Jordan

Update: did a slightly more concise recording using some different software. Listen to this one without the pre ramble:

Download here: Vegan Youtube Recording Part 2

Full length recording, first fresh read here:

MP3 Download: vegan artcile (1)

Came Across this article the other night, and couldn’t resist waiting until I could set up the mic to read it live! Probably a bit echoey: Didn’t have time to put up any sound proofing. Side note rambly pre story of how I waited almost 3 hours for my insurance to find a tow truck driver after my fuel pump went out, immediately after I refueled the damn car.

Want a good laugh at some vegan’s expense? Read along down below:

thedailybeast.com/vegan-youtube-is-imploding-as-stars-like-rawvana–bonny-rebecca-and-stella-rae-change-diets

Ideology Vs. Reality: The Case of Veganism as a Religion

“Stray far enough from Reality, and Nature wipes you out.” -Stefan Molyneux

So I had another entire article ready to be edited and ready to be published, but this couldn’t be let go, not without answer. I’ve spent the last few weeks with this guy on instagram with the handle @mk_macabre (such an uplifting handle if I’ve ever seen one) tagging me in every PETA vegan animal farm video he can find. I can only imagine he did this (and still does) to target my name, because I doubt he’s scrolled the rest of my feed,  else he wouldn’t have called me some of the names he did. That’s right, shocker! A vegan guy not only called me names (repeatedly), but doesn’t know when to stop; it’s my opinion he’s pretty much a drone with zero self awareness. So much so, that I started taking every post he tagged me in to start a Q&A session called Ask Bacon. As you can imagine, it started a wildfire of anger, because I dared to offer information that you don’t get if you’re under the religion of veganism.

Not surprisingly, this is about Vegans, their recent targeting of me, and the reality, as the title states, of how veganism is a religion even though every vegan will deny it. The reasons they do will be explored, but first, let’s go through some definitions, because if you are to have a productive conversation with anyone, you need hard objective definitions to figure out the reality of the situation, and draw answers from it. Otherwise, if you only stick to subjective answers, that means everything can be interpreted differently, meaning there can be no answer or conclusion to be drawn, in which case what’s the point of having the conversation in the first place?

Religion – Obviously we have the deity version, but for the sake of conversation we’ll go with the more open version: “A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. “I’ll leave the definition of “scrupulous conformity” alone because I hate repeating myself, but it is my view, using reality as the lens (which means no lens), that veganism acts the same way, whether their practitioners want to admit to it or not, which I hope to prove later.

Ideology – The back up word I usually go to when vegans get angry that I call their beliefs a religion: “a. A manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture. b. The integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program, and c. a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture. ” See too many differences between the two definitions? Yeah, me neither. Let’s get to the next one, which is the most important one so far:

Persecution – This is where, I propose, an ideology becomes a religion, in that it starts to do the following to non-believers: “the act or practice of persecuting, especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook.” In other words: “You don’t believe in my belief system!? YOU’RE A NAZI!!!!!” But wait, there’s one more important word that needs defining, which is important not only to the argument here, but to veganism specifically, because the argument is often used that animals are:

Sentient – There’s two versions of this word. The first: Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions; in other words, you can process sense data. the other: The capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively; meaning to be able to conceive abstract concepts. Relating to the first definition, which is the most recognized, is that it would involve every living species today: the reason they are still alive and not extinct today is because they can perceive the real world and adapt accordingly, including plants. Meaning no matter what, you cannot use the “sentient” argument whilst pursuing the veganism narrative. The other, of course, is a uniquely human trait, since we are the only ones able to abstract things not even present in reality. Meaning that, sure, cannibalism is off the table, but also that no other creature isn’t, because they aren’t sentient, animal, plant or otherwise.

Good luck convincing a vegan with this argument though., due to the following definition:

Cognitive Dissonance: Psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously.  Or as better explained here: “The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in people is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: they reject, explain away, or avoid the new information; explain away, or avoid the new information; persuade themselves that no conflict really exists; reconcile the differences; or resort to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in their conceptions of the world and of themselves.” In other words, no matter how well reasoned it may or may not be, it doesn’t matter: science, or reason and evidence, is always self-critical; ideology, and religion, is always self reinforcing. Related to this is the often used technique known as Projection, where the person will accuse you of the behaviors and attitudes that they themselves are responsible for; for example,  accusing you of using ad hominems, while also calling you names. So why do I keep comparing veganism to religion? Aside from the fact that it really gets  under their skin, there’s one definition I forgot to mention, which I will put here:

Secular – 2. (for clarity) “Not bound by monastic views or rules; specifically of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation.” In other words, it doesn’t need a church to impose an order. What this has to do with veganism is that whenever you compare it to any religion, vegans will inevitably use the argument that veganism has no god to follow (more on this later), therefore it isn’t a religion. That only holds water until you realize that religions, or cults, or ideologies, can be what they are without a deity, as defined here. Like many ideologies, they also live more in language rather than reality, meaning they place more value upon what is said, rather than what is done. So now that we have some definitions to work with, what’s really going on here?

My own quote: “the moment an ideology becomes a religion is when it starts persecuting nonbelievers.”

Quick question: if you eat meat, do you come after people that only eat plants? Sure, people do it in a joking way, as people do everywhere, but as far as I know (which is not empirical, understood), I don’t see too many people giving a moral argument that eating just plants is wrong. You know what i do see? Public transport buses with VEGAN billboards over them. people like the ones on Instagram who continue to come after me, simply for my name. It should be noted that I didn’t even start my page to come after the vegans, yet they came after me. You know who else solicits their own beliefs, uninvited, in order to convert others to their cause? Namely in this country, Mormons, Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. (I’d include Islamists, but they tend to be more stabby). Yet most vegans I come across tend to be more of the secular variety, meaning they’re usually against any religion that has a god, or any overarching values to guide them.

So the problem, of course, is that people need a belief system to follow: just because traditional religion is gone doesn’t change that fact; people still need some belief system to fall behind. And that’s where things like veganism come up, along with other accompanying ones like environmentalism (which, if I were to name a deity for this along with veganism, it would be Gaia. ) along with socialism/communism, which brings up another point:

There’s the argument that’s often brought up, which is when a vegan acknowledges that animal products were necessary for human survival, they’ll say it’s time to “progress” beyond them and “GO VEGAN!” The obvious short of that argument is that the solution is aways to take away things that help the human body and replace them with an inferior product (Even Domz Thompson, a noted vegan bodybuilder, says he would be even bigger if he ate meat, meaning he’d have more muscle mass if he had an actual balanced diet that helped build what his body is made of, which is meat not plants). But this narrative of an argument follows the same pattern as people who argue for environmentalism, usually against fossil fuels (“well fossil fuels helped humanity flourish and grow, but now it’s time to move beyond them and Go Solar Panels!”), along with Communism/Socialism (“Well Capitalism helped us grow out of poverty into clean cities and excess resources, but it’s time to move beyond it and collectivize: Go Democratic Socialism!”) Hell, you can even see veins of this narrative in Atheism: “Well religion helped us stay together as a community, but it’s time to grow out of believing in sky ghosts while throwing out all of the accompanying principles and be Atheists!”, the irony being that they still make it an ideology to follow.

And like any ideology, it must go after things that go against it’s narrative: environmentalists rail against fossil fuels, Socialists are against Capitalism, and Vegans are against animal products. Notice a pattern here? Though they  can and will deny this, nearly every religious system not only need something “good” to believe in, but must have something “evil” to oppose, whether it’s Christians denouncing Satan and any behavior associated with it, or Islamists opposing anything they consider as infidels or infidel behavior. This is an important distinction from methods that seek knowledge such as the scientific method or philosophy (in other words: reality), both of which when done properly rather in name only, look at the whole picture, all sides of the conversation.

So in the case of veganism, do they look at any of the positive aspects of using animal products (such as meat containing quite a few key nutrients that plant based diets alone cannot provide, or their uses as building materials), or any of the negative aspects of plant based products (such as the huge damage added sugar and vegetable oils do to the body, which a lot of off the shelf vegan products have)? Some do, but in general no; the narrative is usually Meat Bad, Veggies Good. Do they employ freedom of choice: meaning do they provide all of the facts in an unbiased manner (yes, I laughed out loud typing this) and let you choose to follow the reason and evidence on your own? Or are you told that you must accept it as thee written gospel, and if you go against it, as stated above, you must be in favor of the mass rape, torture and murder of those poor, innocent animals (actual accusations I’ve gotten), or ad hominems and name calling in general, such as you’re super unhealthy and will die a horrible death (which, in fairness, is better than telling me I’m going to Hell)?

It’s demonstrably obvious that veganism, while there is merit to some of what it preaches and people have had improvements to their health, is flawed at best(not going to get into  it now, because this article is already getting too long as it is. for starters, check the Healthline link below). So why does it exist at all let alone continue to be a pervasive diet, let alone ideology? As explained above, the loss of a belief system led to veganism becoming what it is, but there are a couple of other reasons  I think are important to note:

Emotional Coercion: I will say some vegans will present actual facts, flawed or otherwise. But, as my recent experience has been, chances are you’ll get a gut wrenching picture of some animal in a pen or a hanging carcass, or something along those lines. This usually goes alongside the arguments of how animals are treated and that they suffer for your love of bacon and wings. While I’m a philosopher (and insane) and therefore am pretty much immune to emotional arguments, the vast majority of people tend to be at least somewhat affected, which you often see with vegans that become public figures. The doublethink here, of course, is that plants also want to live, also have feelings, and also defend themselves from attackers. (again, links are below) “In order for you to live, something has to die”. It is simply picking one form of life to eat rather than the other.

Bad Childhood Diet: As I’ve written about before in the War On Fat article (which is an important one to read), many of the health problems seen today popped up in the last 40 plus years, chiefly from replacing some of the healthy foods used the last hundreds of years with new, more manufactured ingredients, with predictable disastrous results. This not only harmed the adults that adopted the diet, but many people that grew up during that time period  also had it during their childhood, myself included. As noted in the Fast Food article, it is so damaging that just about any diet, including the vegan variety, would be a better alternative, since even vegan cuts out a lot of the deadly ingredients. So people, who usually start out as vegetarian and then go vegan, will attribute veganism as the cure, when in reality it is just damage control.

Laziness: This doesn’t just apply to veganism as a diet, but other diets as well, fad diets in particular; it’s far easier to adopt a system or methodology rather than create your own. And, at the risk of repeating myself, when you don’t have your own values, any prefabricated value system is far more attractive to follow, which veganism is today; even the Keto movement, though it may very well go down the same path, is fairly unique as a movement more than it is a diet or lifestyle. Which, whether they say it or not, leads to:

Consequences: There’s a grocer I talk to regularly that I get into arguments with constantly. Lovely lady, someone I enjoy talking to about most subjects.  But even just taking our physiques into considerations, I kind of have an unfair advantage: the fact that I actually exercise regularly certainly helps, but it’s clear I’m in far better shape than her. Also, to be fair, she is a little older than I am, but given the scores of bodybuilders out there in their 60’s & 70’s, that’s not being used as an excuse. She also exhibits many of the visible symptoms explained above not to mention any underlying physical problems, so unfortunately I don’t have much faith she will listen to reason until it is too late. And that’s the fear I have for many of the people that follow this religion today.

Speaking of which, Poor Lierre Keith. She followed the doctrine of veganism, and as she said herself, it ruined a lot of her life, let alone her health. She now has a book out speaking against it, and apparently now has vegans making death threats against her, though I doubt any of them have the energy, let alone the ability, to carry them out. I do suppose, had she not taken the vegan route, her story about what NOT to do wouldn’t be here today for you to learn from but, and I don’t know about you, I’d rather people avoid these kinds of consequences  and suffering in the first place, rather than having to learn from them.

Roses: Someone brought this up while we were talking about the Instagram kerfuffle, so I thought it was worth bringing up here. How many vegans buy roses for their loved ones, even though that’s death to said roses? People tend not to even eat them, instead merely using them as decoration and a way to get laid. So while vegans will rail against anyone that dareth to use anything that any creature that falls under the animal kingdom once breathed on, and at the same time many of these very same people will kill plants for no other reason than vanity. Let that sink in for a second: vegans will shame you for enjoying bacon because it cost a living creature’s life, yet they will take a creature’s life because it looks pretty in a nice vase?

Last thought: carnivores in nature tend to be smarter than herbivores, since it takes far more brain power and coordination to hunt an animal than it is to eat grass. Funny enough, r/K theory could apply here as an example alone: rabbits (the symbol for the r) can meet their nutritional requirements just by grazing on grass and other grains that are readily available and can’t put up much of a fight rather than their own chemical warfare. Wolves on the other hand (the K example), have to find, hunt down and catch said rabbits and other prey sources of food, which takes a lot more coordination and intellect than just eating grass. Humans not only evolved to be apex predators, but are THEE apex predator, and one that helped make other life on the planet flourish. Vegans, through virtue signaling for their own egos and religion in lieu of actual human progress, want us to go backwards in time, making us all become prey once again. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather myself and my loved ones prevail over all others. So if you’re really worried about minimizing the human footprint instead of making life better for your own species, I have a question for you: which of your own family are you willing to sacrifice for your own ideology to prevail?

 

Definition links:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive%20dissonance

https://www.britannica.com/science/cognitive-dissonance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecution

 

Article on nutrients you can’t get from plant foods:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants

Evidence of plant life being able to sense and feel pain or damage:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/do-plants-communicate-underground

https://www.zmescience.com/science/biology/scientists-how-plants-communicate-14092018/?utm_source=ZME+Science+Newsletter&utm_campaign=dc0e38dbe5-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3b5aad2288-dc0e38dbe5-242563493&goal=0_3b5aad2288-dc0e38dbe5-242563493

“My current size is actually my vegan size.  What I mean by vegan size is that if I was to eat meat, I would actually be a lot bigger than what I am!” -Domz Thompson

Mr. December

Lierre Keith interview with Steven Crowder:

 

Picture credit:

https://psmag.com/social-justice/support-industrial-slaughterhouses-local-meat-76120

https://www.robertharding.com/index.php?lang=en&page=search&s=combine%2Bharvester&smode=0&zoom=1&display=5&sortby=1&bgcolour=white&paged=2

hashcart.in/product/ jesus-christ-cross-statue-wooden-crucifix-wall-cross-cross-wall-crucifix-catholic-wall-mounted-cross-rosewood-crucifix-for-home-church/?c=cf13ce20305c

https://pixers.us/posters/islam-symbol-gold-crescent-and-star-icons-of-islamic-faith-41057253