♻️
Ethics steaks. That the bears eat.
Sure sir, here's a steak. You need protein.
"The only way to communicate with this species is by consuming it. Curious."
And that’s why I think it’s fine I ate my neighbors’s dog, Your Honor.
That isn't a reply; it's a desperate failure of reading comprehension packaged as a lazy joke.
What you typed is a Slippery Slope fallacy, arguing that acknowledging biological reality (that humans are omnivorous predators) somehow forces me into committing a criminal act: eating a neighbor's dog. You deliberately ignore the obvious distinction upon which the entire debate rests: the line between livestock and pets.
Me: Consume ethically raised livestock (the "prey" for omnivorous), but reject the immorality and environmental risks of factory farms.
You: if you eat any meat, you must logically be fine with pet theft and consumption.
The difference between a cow, pig, chicken, etc. and your neighbor's dog is precisely where human law, morality, and social norms have been drawn for centuries. Some cultures even find it normal to consume dogs. To pretend that acknowledging our predatory nature invalidates all those distinctions is not as clever as you think it is—it's just a transparent attempt to substitute emotional shock value for actual logical engagement.
You're also using Reductio ad Absurdum, just like other losers on this thread, because you can't defeat the core premise of what I said. You have to drag this into absurdity to make it seem like I'm advocating for social collapse, rather than just advocating for better ethical sourcing. If your only move is hypothetical "Your Honor" theatrics about a pet dog that's kidnapped and eaten, you've admitted you have no genuine counter-argument.
You suck at advocating for veganism.
I don't know about you, but I'm ready to mutilate my thirst.
I can't believe this exists as a product, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Here's a language model's take on this thread.
That reply commits a logical fallacy. It's an example of Reductio ad Absurdum (or Appeal to Ridicule) and a Straw Man, intentionally misrepresenting my point to make it sound ridiculous.
My argument was about biological reality (humans are omnivorous predators) to defend the consumption of ethically sourced meat. Your counter-argument shifted the focus to an absurd political non-issue.
Your Logical Fallacy Explained
I used the bear analogy to highlight our fundamental nature as predators. I did not suggest we run for Congress together. The debate is about biological capacity and the ethical choices we make with that capacity, not about who gets a ballot.
Edited for clarity.
When you masturbate to a picture of yourself masturbating, make sure you think of me eating a steak and "enjoying" my amino acids when you orgasm.
Cool story, hoe. You seem like the sort who masturbates to picture of you masturbating.
Keep malding about nothing.
My "cruelty" in consuming animal flesh is acceptable to me as I am an omnivore.
Fun fact: I already said humans should avoid "factory farmed" meat.
Well, you snide douchebag, as I said before, I like beefs culinary versatility, or if that's too pretentious for you, it tastes good.
As far as amino acids go:
Meat is a major source of dietary protein and fat across the globe. Red and white meat are the major terms consumers use to refer to types of meat; however, these terms do not fully encompass the range of nutrients provided by meat sources. Red meat refers to meat from mammalian skeletal muscle, while white meat refers to poultry. Red and white meat both provide a wide range of nutritional components in the context of fatty acids, amino acids and micronutrients. Importantly, it has been demonstrated that amino acid profiles differ between red meat and white meat as well as between different sources of red meat. Red meat is a complete source of dietary amino acids, meaning it contains all essential amino acids (EAAs), and in addition, it contains all the non-essential amino acids (NEAAs). Red meat is also the most abundant source of bioavailable heme-iron essential for muscle growth and cardiovascular health.
Meat is considered a complete dietary protein, meaning it contains all of the essential amino acids (EAA). Additionally, meat contains 11 non-essential (NEAA) or semi-essential amino acids used by the human body. As previously mentioned, AAs are commonly divided into 3 categories in the context of nutritional requirements: EAA, NEAA and semi-essential amino acids. EAAs, also known as indispensable amino acids, are those which the body is unable to produce in sufficient quantities internally.
AAs also play key roles in biological functions such as maintenance of acid-base balance, hormone secretion, and nutrient metabolism]. Additionally, as the main source of exogenous nitrogen, AAs play a crucial role in maintaining nitrogen balance within the body.
There's a lot more in there, but big word scary, I know.
I don't understand. Is your argument that bears do have ethical and social responsibility regarding humans?
There's no way you could have known, but I am, by blood, part of one of those historically enslaved groups I mentioned.
Fuck off.
So, please, with all that "love" in your heart, gargle my balls while you continue straw-manning, falsely equating, and morally posturing on the internet.
It's more than just lysine. Too much of any one food is not good for anyone. There are definite carcinogenic effects of eating too much red meat, especially when prepared in certain ways.
However,
Red meat is a complete source of dietary amino acids, meaning it contains all essential amino acids (EAAs), and in addition, it contains all the non-essential amino acids (NEAAs). Red meat is also the most abundant source of bioavailable heme-iron essential for muscle growth and cardiovascular health.
Finally, red meat may also be situationally more beneficial to some groups than others, particularly in the cases of sex and aging. For pregnant women, increases in red meat consumption may be beneficial to increase the intake of semi-essential amino acids, while in the elderly, increases in red meat consumption may better preserve muscle mass compared with other dietary protein sources.
Thank you, sincerely, for putting into simple words what I've been trying to explain to self-righteous militant vegans with little success.
The historical context of human chattel slavery, which involved systematic racism, dehumanization, and violence is unique in its human dimension.
I think that many people, particularly those from historically oppressed groups, would find your attempted comparison a deeply offensive false equivalency and reductive of human suffering.
Too much of one thing (in this case, meat) is bad for you. Measured and monitored diversity in one's diet is optimal.
Here's a great article explaining the risks and benefits of meat consumption.
Since we're having so much fun, here's another language model's critique of your reply:
Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.
Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument 'autocomplete,' and question my 'human mind.' If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.
Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on 'buzzwords' while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn't for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive "voting bears"
My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.
I used the bear analogy to establish the 'Is' (our biological capacity for predation).
'Ought' (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.
My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your 'voting bears' reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.
My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the 'Ought' to the 'Is.' I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.