Argentinian here. I also hate this because it means I have to stand this idiotic management even longer
dont you mean soybeans? cattle is brazils thing.
Which is after dumping $40 billion into their economy in the form of financial aid.
Basically we’re propping up their beef industry instead of funding snap.
this is pretty controversial, but how about we don’t kill billions of cows per year?
Yeah, I can dig that. Frankly my outrage is more about the cutting of nutritional assistance to impoverished humans, but the funding of industrial beef farming is also pretty fucked up.
They’re taking the money from people who need it and are using it to pay people in Argentina to torture and kill cows.
I enjoy beef for its flavor, culinary versatility in cuisine, and its natural complex amino acid density compared to other protein sources.
That said, the mass production of beef is a public health and environmental crisis. What I pay for “ethically” sourced beef is what it should be priced at per gram in every market, if I were calling the shots.
Impossible beef is to the point where it’s almost indistinguishable from real meat, and has a complete amino acid profile. If you haven’t tried it yet, I’d highly recommend picking some up! Their burger patties are especially good in an air fryer.
its natural complex amino acid density
lysine, just eat more legumes.
Yes, because as we all know, if you’re craving a nice steak a bowl of lentils will be totally satisfying.
or learn to cook? red meat eaters have all kinds of diseases from chronic inflammation.
I don’t think that’s an argument for legumes. I’m a hell of a cook now and when I make beef wellington, confit lamb, or curry goat I’m demonstrating a lot more skill than I did back in college when legumes featured more heavily in my menu.
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.
its natural complex amino acid density
I’d ask if you could be any more pretentious but I bet you could be.
Big science words too hard for you or something?
Cool story, hoe.
Anyway, here’s some smart people writing about amino acids in “red” meat.
Or are they PrEtEnTiOuS too?
No, I get it. They’re obviously industry plants.
Edit: Wrong article fixed. But yeah, so pretentious.
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.
Because you seem concerned about complete protein sources here are some other sources
- Fish.
- Poultry.
- Eggs.
- Pork.
- Kangaroo.
- Lamb & Mutton.
- Dairy.
- Whole sources of soy (like tofu, edamame, tempeh and miso).
So what exactly about the “complex amino acid density” of beef do you enjoy?
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.
That isn’t specific to beef but go off.
You seem like the sort that eats testicles because some influencer shilled it.
Cool story, hoe. You seem like the sort who masturbates to picture of you masturbating.
Keep malding about nothing.
How do you ethically take someone’s life from someone when that someone doesn’t want to die?
Cows aren’t people
why don’t you believe an animal who is capable of feeling love, pain, curiousity etc is worthy of living their life? They are sentient beings.
someone’s life
Do you consider animals (other than homo sapiens) “people” with “natural rights” to life?
If so, then there’s no way for ethical animal husbandry for human consumption.
However, my opinion is that we homo sapiens are animals, along with other ancient hominids and current high primates, and we are omnivorous predators. Our prey’s opinion on its right to life is inconsequential to whether we kill it to eat it or not.
Hypothetically similar to a brown bear hunting hikers along a trail through Yellowstone. The bear doesn’t care if a hiker wants to live or not; it wants to eat the human.
And that’s why I think it’s fine I ate my neighbors’s dog, Your Honor.
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.
Waiter, I didn’t ask for the sophist word salad, can you take this back, please?
Sure sir, here’s a steak. You need protein.
Let’s give brown bears the right to vote if there’s no difference in ethical agency or social responsibility between them and us, as you claim to believe. We can set up polling booths at the salmon streams.
I don’t understand. Is your argument that bears do have ethical and social responsibility regarding humans?
Try to reread your comment and mine, and think about it a little longer.
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
My Statement Was About: Your Reply Misrepresents It As: The Logical Error in Your Response Biological Capacity Identical Ethical/Political Agency Reductio ad Absurdum / Straw Man The fact that Homo sapiens are omnivorous animals and predators driven by evolutionary needs (justifying the capacity to eat meat). A claim that humans and bears share identical social, political, and ethical traits (e.g., the capacity for voting rights). You took my comparison (predation as a biological reality) and pushed it to an absurd extreme (voting bears) to avoid addressing my actual point. The amoral reality of predation in nature, which makes the prey’s opinion irrelevant to the predator’s act. A dismissal of all human ethical systems and social responsibilities, implying I advocate for complete ethical equivalence with wildlife. My argument accepts that humans have ethical agency, which is why I explicitly called for avoiding factory-farmed meat. You ignored the ethical choice to focus on an irrelevant political concept. My defense for eating ethically sourced meat, acknowledging the failure of factory farms. A crude defense of all forms of killing for food, regardless of method or context. The entire point of my comment was to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable meat consumption, a nuance your fallacy completely discards.
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.
We may be omnivores, perhaps, but that means we can eat animal flesh or plants. Why would we kill 2T animals a year when we don’t need to?
Yeah… that was my point. Meat for humans in the contemporary era should cost more, there should be far less consumption per capita, and meat producers shouldn’t be so cruel to the animals. However, some of us enjoy animal flesh. Some of us are in fact healthier when we consume it. We can consume animal flesh in a better way.
All animal ag is cruel. You can’t take the life of an animal who wants to live without it being cruel.
My “cruelty” in consuming animal flesh is acceptable to me as I am an omnivore.
If you’re healthier consuming meat than you would be consuming a plant-based diet, you’re a statistical outlier. Most people would be healthier with a plant-based diet.
Most people would be healthier eating more plants because most people (in the US) eat too much meat and not enough plants as it is. That doesn’t mean that meat is inherently unhealthy
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.
They paid more for it, so that makes it okay
Yes, it’s better to eat meat from animals that aren’t “factory-farmed”, which is, as one would expect, more expensive.
My slaves are ethically sourced, I paid more for them. It’s a shame people can’t see how good I am.
Calling animals slaves doesnt bring people to your cause, they just roll their eyes at you and move on.
Don’t bother. It’s a cult.
deleted by creator
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.
Fun fact: Even holocaust survivors called what we do to animals another holocaust.
Thankfully they have you to tell them when to be offended. Fuck off.
The sooner we remove an industry propped up by slaughtering animals for profit the better
I don’t want to be a pariah in front of my people but honest to god… the kind of food insecurity that Americans experience in USA is a literal open buffet when compared to the starvation in these countries:
Sudan Yemen Afghanistan South Sudan Democratic Republic of Congo Somalia Nigeria Haiti Mali Syria Central African Republic Ethiopia Kenya
I point this out because ridiculous hyperbole makes us look as bad as… the opposition.
You’re not wrong and I think a lot of Americans miss that perspective. We’re bottom of list in comparison to “developed” with similarly wealthy economies, but we haven’t reached the poverty of poorest countries, yet. Right now we’re more comparable to an imperial power like Russia, but even then we’re probably falling behind (at least they have a strong labor market thanks to their war killing so many young men).
That said, it is entirely possible for us to reach that level of devastation if the coming depression is bad enough and we enter a prolonged period of war and instability following Trump. I wouldn’t bet money on it, but it is more likely than most want to believe.
I wouldnt be suprised if the USA’s food insecurity only exists for profit, as in they have enough domestic production, but choose to export high quality stuff and import low quality for the sake of corporate profit, AFAIK this actually happens with beef industry, they literally export high quality beef only to import lower quality argentinian and brazillian beef (mostly for things like burgers patties)
A little research here will win the day.
Cuba has a higher life expectancy than the US. Just because “US=rich” doesn’t mean that poor people in the US aren’t having a fucking hard time, massive inequality leads to this. Yesterday I saw a reel about a food program called “ugly potato day” and +15k people queued for hours to get some produce… In a single city… The USA is fucked.
Like, sure, colonial regions have it worse, but the root of the problem is the same: western capitalism fucked their lives.
So… you witness a little socialism in the US and claim it’s fucked? This is progress.
Charity is the opposite of socialism. Socialism ensures that everyone works and everyone can sustain themselves, charity is what happens in capitalism. I don’t want people to rely on the good will of others and on motherfucking food stamps to survive.
Not to worry… to the MAGAs in line… it seems like socialism and hence pushes them just a little to the left… we will get there.
