Quote: "So the government intervention on the consume of tobacoo is a violence? Are you kidding uh "

What else would it be other than violence? Govt IS violence. You seem to be lacking some basic understandings if you do not recognize Govt for what it is.

Also, I think Oprah getting sued for talking about the meat industry is as bad as what you are proposing. Stop using false dichotomies, its not an either:or situation. You are trying to say that its "either: we stop eating meat altogether" "or: you support every practice of the current status quo" - which is one big reason why I find your arguments so ineffective.

Quote: "I will not argue with you about any moral issue, you as clearly has show you do not have any problems eating pig products, even knowing that pigs are not different from dogs that USA love so much, aside the ammount of meat that they can produce."

I am fine with people eating dog as well. People in some parts of the world love dog, and cat as well. Nothing wrong with that. I get the feeling that you do not understand the concepts my argument is based on, which is why you do not want to go there. Your mentors in this debate are so used to aiming at straw men (DesCartes) that they have given no positions for you to easily parrot when it comes to my argument.

Quote:"Please link me any scientific articles about people that cannot synthesize (protein -> amino acids) from plants that cannot be replaced by other plants.. "

This is you missing the point as seems per the usual when it comes to this subject. The point is that there is wide varience on how different humans metabolize, which is indisputable. Research on how various people and groups of people react to and metabolize and synthesize specific amino chains is nascent and conclusive data nonexistent. It will probably be another 30 years before this data becomes available.

In the meantime, I will stick to a diet that does not make me feel like shit. (aka vegan diet)

If vegans start living past 100, and retaining their mental faculties while doing so - it will be the wave of the future without having the govt stick a gun in everyones face. I am not anticipating that happening in the slightest, but it is what it is and time will tell. I do think people will start eating *less* meat, and insisting on higher quality meat however.

I know too many people who lived well past 90 in good health eating large quantities of pork daily to expect that meat itself is the culprit. However in most of these cases, the bulk of meat eaten was grown on small farms without extra hormones/chemical/additives or preservation chemicals.


Quote: " Again lets debunk this by parts

First it's a connected matter, you will never get me to simplify it to you because it's global problem, it's not only about one matter, that is what you are failing to see.
And when said in the previous topic about that you didnt care about inefficiecy, as the same as you do not care about your Country."

First, there are no "global problems" , there are only problems that occur in many places on the globe.

I absolutely see that it is not about one matter, the problem is your basing your linked logic on too many false premises and use too many false dichotomies as examples.

Also, of course I am selfish - as everyone should be. I do not exist for the benefit of my country, the country exists for my benefit - and the same goes for everyone. People who get that backwards are inevitably doomed to tyranny. Bad things happen when Govt becomes the master, and not the servant.

You do not make a good case for eating no meat in your last point, though you do make a good case against socialized medicine and big govt. As you say though, if certain types of diet are superior then ultimately the market will sort it out. Not sure why you even bother to evangelicize.

And yes, I am terrified by the level of insanity shown by many of my countrymen thank you very much. Its not about fear of change, its about fear of change for the worse.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)