I will place one of my links directly after a paragraph where I think it is better suited, but the rest will be annotated at the bottom of my post. [quote]1. We need animal protein[/quote]We need protein. There is nothing magical about animal protein that cannot be obtained elsewhere. [quote]creatine[/quote]Produced endogenously, and most forms of monohydrate are synthetic (vegan). [quote]carnosine[/quote]Also produced endogenously. I'm assuming you got these from the same site that was linked by another user. Regardless, carnosine production can be increased by taking beta-alanine (vegan) (i). [quote]and DHAs.[/quote]There are plenty of vegan DHA supplements available. (ii) [quote]2. There are no studies, whatsoever, that prove being vegan is a better choice. Ever.[/quote]Well, there are, just as there are studies in the opposite direction -- such as certain atkins studies, which I'll get to in a sec. Many of these studies lack sufficient peer-reviewing and the controlled conditions are difficult to map onto conclusive findings rather than simply suggestive ones. As of yet, the only concrete conclusion that matters is that both vegan and meat based diets can achieve optimal health, [b]if[/b] structured properly (this is important for both). [quote]3. The Atkins diet, a low carb high fat meat eating diet, crushed veganism in a study on multiple human subjects. Atkins participants were healthier and better off.[/quote]Citation needed. I am assuming that you are referring to the A to Z study, which is questionable on a couple of fronts. 1. There was no mention of supplementation 2. The ornish (pseudo-vegan) diet contained animal products, likely due to a lack of (1) and 3. The results showed no health regresses in a moderate to high carb diet, simply less progress than a low carb one. The good news regardless is that the Atkins diet is doable with vegan foods, and with the same positive results (iii and iv). [quote]4. Vegans use scare tactics to get more people and lie to get their way becuase they have no valid evidence.[/quote]There are no doubt uneducated vegans just as there are uneducated people in every field. However, there is plenty of evidence in favour of going vegan, and not all of it is health related. [quote]Animals are not people and dpn't deserve our same rights.[/quote]Of course not. Nobody is saying cows should be allowed to vote and run for public office -- they don't have the capacities to do so. However, do they have a capacity to feel pain and suffer? Yes. Do they have an interest in not being killed? Yes. Any "rights" a person has is dependent on their capacity to exercise them. Otherwise it would be a meaningless word blowing in the wind. Animals have rights as far as such capacities extend. [quote]Anima cruelty is unacceptable, but no United States governed slaughter house does nay of the thing PETA says they do.[/quote]This is false. There's a good documentary -- not affiliated with PETA -- on youtube that shows inside footage from America's leading factory farms. Worth a watch, if you can stomach it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuQ-J04eLQ&app=desktop&persist_app=1&client=mv-google&hl=en-GB&gl=AU Interestingly (although not surprisingly) there are people who see footage like this and still refuse to accept that it represents the majority of factory farms. When I ask them to present evidence backing their belief, however, they are unable to. They have become so conditioned to seeing cows in grassy meadows on milk cartons and McDonald's adverts that, when presented with a far more inconvenient truth, they shrug it off as "the exception". This is clearly a case of confirmation bias. Ask yourself: which evidence is more valid -- footage by the media with their hands in the farming industry's pockets, or footage captured (often illegally) by small nonprofit groups with no clear agenda other than exposing the truth? [quote]There is no point in slaughtering male chicks, there's no meat! They are used in other ways; that would not be cost effective and GMO grown heavy foul are better utilsed.[/quote]No, because the chicks in the egg industry are selectively bred in a different strain than meat chickens. Egg chickens do not grow large breast and leg muscles and the males are therefore useless for meat. (v) [quote]6.The China Study was total bullshit.[/quote]Agreed. [quote]8. Vegan diets CAN work short term, but only in short term ill people.[/quote]How do you figure this? What exactly is detrimental in the long term? Keep in mind that all essential nutrients can be obtained from non-animal sources before you answer. [quote]11. Veganism would ruin our economy, and if veganism had any real ground, we'd figure it out. But it doesn't.[/quote]Except the world wouldn't turn vegan overnight. If it were to happen, it would happen gradually, and the economy would shift with it. Also be aware of corporate incentive -- having a monopoly of the meat industry is a good move when most of the population eats it. Having a monopoly of agriculture is a good move when most of the population is vegan. Economic collapses usually happen due to unforeseen circumstances. It should also be noted that as far as a global economy, the animal industries are doing damage -- wasting massive amounts of food (vi and vii) that could be outsourced to developing countries and establish an intercontinental market. There are obviously moral implications here as well as economic (although the two need not be separated). [quote]12. Humans are meant to eat meat.[/quote]We evolved the ability to digest it. This is a very different (and less misleading) statement than saying we are "meant" to eat it. In fact, in order to claim we are [i]meant[/i] to do something you require a moral imperative. Otherwise, there's no obligation one way or the other. i: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/carnosine ii: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B005R5CARY?pc_redir=1412269268&robot_redir=1 iii: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=415074 iv: http://www.atkins.com/Program/Overview/Ways-to-Customize-Atkins,-Your-Diet-Plan/Atkins-for-Vegans.aspx v: http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-happens-with-male-chicks-in-the-egg-industry_100.html vi: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm vii: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html

Holy shit you are exactly the kind of vegan people aren't supposed to listen to!

Don't even bother man. He won't listen. Every reason you listed is backed up by actual science and THOUSANDS of studies. I'm now putting militant vegans on the same of level anti gun zealots.

The level of cognitive bias in some people is just astounding. His claims - no sources - "they're backed by THOUSANDS of studies!" My response - numerous sources including reports from the United Nations and Environmental Protection Agency - "militant vegan". But if you can provide just a handful of these "thousands" of studies demonstrating whatever claim you're making (you didn't really specify) I'm all ears. [url=http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html]Here's one that applies to you right now.[/url]

LOLDIDNTREAD

I'm always amazed at how foolish people make themselves look when they try to save face, when they could simply admit they were wrong and keep their dignity. I gave a civilised response addressing all of your points, with plenty of evidence and sources to back them up, yet you are too juvenile to return the most basic courtesy. As a result, your argument imploded. Can't say I didn't try.

But you're wrong, and none of your studies have been accepted by the scientific community. You're just bias and filled with cherry picked lies. My argument didn't implode because I didn't argue, and sorry for the late response. I don't have mobile or live on the computer. Give me a legitimate study.

You clearly didn't even review the sources yourself, then. There are reports from the United Nations and Environmental Protection Agency, an article from the Atkins website itself, alongside basic nutritional information -- with their own references in the annotation. Of course, one can simply choose to think that any evidence they don't like "isn't accepted by the scientific community" and any evidence that reaffirms their beliefs is. http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html I also agreed with you about The China Study, which should tell you that I'm not interested in simply peddling any study that backs me up. I'm interested with what's true. If veganism weren't backed by rock solid logic and evidence, I wouldn't be one. Please, stop wasting my time. Address my points and each of my sources. If the "scientific community" doesn't accept them, you should have no problem providing your own sources in contrast. The sole reason your argument imploded is [i]because[/i] you didn't argue my response. Like most people here, you came in thinking you knew more than you did. Maybe you were armed with a quick google search result. You wanted nothing but to reinforce your beliefs and diminish the OP's. Then, when your post was quickly cut down to size, you backed off. Read through this thread, and you will see others take the same undignified route that you did. It's a shame, because I was completely ready to have a respectful, open-minded discussion with you. And then you do that. Now you're trying to redeem yourself while still shirking a proper response. I'm not having it. Stop playing games and address my points -- or you can make excuses again, and let this discussion end more unfavorably for you than it already is.

Citing the EPA is not evidence

Good response yet again. We're done here.

Just becuase it isn't a long response pretending to know what it's talking about doesn't mean it isn't valid.

You covered that with your original post.