Poll of the Day > Vegans and vegetarians shown to have above average intelligence

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet-could-affect-your-intelligence

I didn't read the article but as a lifelong vegan I can safely assume it will support my preconceived notions. If not it was clearly written by meatheads.

---

This sounds like something that the fox doctor would be most interested in.
---

That's clearly wrong if they're also PETA members.
---

Revelation34 posted...

That's clearly wrong if they're also PETA members.

PETA are composed of the smartest and most principled vegans. Not only do they not eat meat, they also kidnap animals from their owners' properties and euthanize them immediately, and make tone deaf criticisms of Japanese videogames.

---

Sarcastic posted...

tone deaf criticisms of Japanese videogames.

im so tired of cultural relativism and identitarian bullshit. sorry peta criticized your favorite toy for promoting outdated ideologies, lmao

---

They also get super powers!!!

---

OniRonin posted...

im so tired of cultural relativism and identitarian bullshit. sorry peta criticized your favorite toy for promoting outdated ideologies, lmao

Yes, making a game where you chase Mario as a bloody tanooki to get your skin back is only worth critique due to cultural relativism and identity politics. Not because it's stupid. Did you also know when you sheer sheep they get bloody and cut up? And you shouldn't eat honey stolen from bees?

wolfy42 posted...

They also get super powers!!!

I hear they jump higher and run faster.

---

Sarcastic posted...

Yes, making a game where you chase Mario as a bloody tanooki to get your skin back is only worth critique due to cultural relativism and identity politics. Not because it's stupid.

agreed

Did you also know when you sheer sheep they get bloody and cut up? And you shouldn't eat honey stolen from bees?

*shear

---

OniRonin posted...

agreed

I bet you do

*shear

A typo is par for the course when defending PETA

---

Revelation34 posted...

That's clearly wrong if they're also PETA members.

OniRonin posted...

im so tired of cultural relativism and identitarian bullshit. sorry peta criticized your favorite toy for promoting outdated ideologies, lmao

You should both probably look at the name of the gimmick account you're replying to there.
---

Sarcastic posted...

I bet you do

A typo is par for the course when defending PETA

you seem to think i love peta because people criticize them in really stupid ways, like saying theyre being culturally tone deaf. dxe and MfA are way better orgs. the only great thing about peta is how mad they can make ppl by saying things that are obviously correct

---

okay but they dont get chicken

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You should both probably look at the name of the gimmick account you're replying to there.

POwned again by your inability to understand a very simple argument

---

I respect your desire to not eat meat. Please respect my desire to not eat fake meat.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

I respect your desire to not eat meat. Please respect my desire to not eat fake meat.

please respect my desire to kill and eat your family. thank u for respecting my culture

---

OniRonin posted...

you seem to think i love peta because people criticize them in really stupid ways, like saying their being culturally tone deaf. dxe and MfA are way better orgs. the only great thing about peta is how mad they can make ppl by saying things that are obviously correct

Yes, they were obviously correct. Here is the quote from the super mario brothers 3 booklet regarding the tanooki suit:

"Mario chased down a poor defenseless tanooki, clubbing baby seals along the way and even pissing on an ant hill, to skin it and take it's powers to become an immobile statue."

And of course, you are right when I criticised them for being culturally tone deaf. If only I had just said tone deaf, which would mean more simply that they thought they were hitting the right note when they weren't.

---

Mead posted...

okay but they dont get chicken

Wtf chicken isn't vegan?

OniRonin posted...

POwned again by your inability to understand a very simple argument

He sure has egg on his face

OniRonin posted...

please respect my desire to kill and eat your family. thank u for respecting my culture

Not very vegan of you. As the original post outlived, eating meat impacts your intelligence

---

tfw my favorite japanese cartoon character is represented inaccurately in a parody

---

OniRonin posted...

you seem to think i love peta because people criticize them in really stupid ways, like saying theyre being culturally tone deaf. dxe and MfA are way better orgs. the only great thing about peta is how mad they can make ppl by saying things that are obviously correct

They made a fuss because PICTURES of animals were in cages on a box. They are a few pecans short of a fruitcake.

---

Sarcastic posted...

Not very vegan of you. As the original post outlived, eating meat impacts your intelligence

im too dumb to understand this because of all the crucial ''brain vitamins'' im missing, since they unfortunately cant be reproduced synthetically in a pill to take once a day.

---

OniRonin posted...

tfw my favorite japanese cartoon character is represented inaccurately in a parody

THEY CAME AFTER PHOENIX WRIGHT TOO?! That's it I'm eating meat.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

They made a fuss because PICTURES of animals were in cages on a box. They are a few pecans short of a fruitcake.

sorry peta doesnt like your favorite movie or w/e...? like this is exactly my point. they can just say "oh, it's bad to put animals in cages" and people have this intense visceral anger to it. it's great. their animal crossing article is my favorite one

---

OniRonin posted...

im too dumb to understand this because of all the crucial ''brain vitamins'' im missing, since they unfortunately cant be reproduced synthetically in a pill to take once a day.

You clearly didn't even read the topic title. Vegans are more smarter.

---

OniRonin posted...

sorry peta doesnt like your favorite movie or w/e...? like this is exactly my point. they can just say "oh, it's bad to put animals in cages" and people have this intense visceral anger to it. it's great. their animal crossing article is my favorite one

It was a box of animal crackers. You dont even pay attention to what theyre doing, how can you be a faithful follower?

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

It was a box of animal crackers. You dont even pay attention to what theyre doing, how can you be a faithful follower?

im sorry peta hurt your feelings by attacking a snack you like

---

OniRonin posted...

please respect my desire to kill and eat your family. thank u for respecting my culture

Yea. That's, like, nowhere near the same thing.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

It was a box of animal crackers. You dont even pay attention to what theyre doing, how can you be a faithful follower?

Unbridled9 posted...

Yea. That's, like, nowhere near the same thing.

How...DARE you criticise a vegan. We are you moral and intellectual superiors! Only vegans can hope to debate with vegans. Now shut up or we'll kill and eat your families so you know how our anthropomorphic mental image of the animals you eat feel.

---

OniRonin posted...

POwned again by your inability to understand a very simple argument

Ahh, I see, reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit. I was obviously expecting too much of you.

Please feel free to ignore me and go back to getting trolled by a gimmick account if that's what helps you grease your hog.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Ahh, I see, reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit. I was obviously expecting too much of you.

Please feel free to ignore me and go back to getting trolled by a gimmick account if that's what helps you grease your hog.

Tbf my gimmick is pretty general disingenuousness. And when I do it I lay it on pretty thick, just in case I ever need not to do it.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Ahh, I see, reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit. I was obviously expecting too much of you.

Please feel free to ignore me and go back to getting trolled by a gimmick account if that's what helps you grease your hog.

PO is upset


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Ahh, I see, reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit. I was obviously expecting too much of you.

Please feel free to ignore me and go back to getting trolled by a gimmick account if that's what helps you grease your hog.

you realize you can just admit that you misunderstood something, right

---

OniRonin posted...

you realize you can just admit that you misunderstood something, right

he doesnt. hes gotta posture himself as an intellectual

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Yea. That's, like, nowhere near the same thing.

yeah, they're pretty different! but it demonstrates that 'respect my desire to do thing' is not a very good argument in isolation, since it would also justify me killing and eating your family.

---

OniRonin posted...

yeah, they're pretty different! but it demonstrates that 'respect my desire to do thing' is not a very good argument in isolation, since it would also justify me killing and eating your family.

This. Just because you want to do something doesn't make it morally justified. Like genocide. We can all agree it's wrong even though SOME people disagree. The only arguments we should entertain are those that hold up in isolation from all context.

---

Sarcastic posted...

The only arguments we should entertain are those that hold up in isolation from all context.

or you could just add context to the argument... like if I claim "x + 4 is equal to 5", you need extra context to evaluate whether what I said is true. So in this case, you'd need an airtight argument that his family members are worthy of moral consideration in a way that animals aren't.

---

I suspect you'd see a similar correlation with any well-conceived diet plan. Putting any effort into eating well (provided it's a viable diet) will tend to have positive effects on the body and mind, and doing so successfully requires a certain degree of intelligence in the first place, to say nothing of the financial means to support it (SES being pretty strongly correlated with IQ).

Granted, the article linked seems to be supporting the opposite conclusion from that stated in the topic title, so this probably isn't a very serious topic.

---

OniRonin posted...

or you could just add context to the argument... like if I claim "x + 4 is equal to 5", you need extra context to evaluate whether what I said is true.

Or algebra.

OniRonin posted...

So in this case, you'd need an airtight argument that his family members are worthy of moral consideration in a way that animals aren't.

Hmm...I can't think of any. Guess cannibalism is a-okay for meatheads amirite?

---

Sarcastic posted...

Hmm...I can't think of any. Guess cannibalism is a-okay for meatheads amirite?

this bit of yours is a cool way to deflect from actually thinking about whether you can justify your beliefs

---

Sarcastic posted...

Or algebra.

How do you use algebra to evaluate whether "x+4 = 5" is true without additional context?

---

OniRonin posted...

this bit of yours is a cool way to deflect from actually thinking about whether you can justify your beliefs

Joking aside, you're asking for justifications in the nature of mortality. There are numerous thoughts on the matter, and no single unifying theory of mortality. Many great philosophers have attempted to create their own theories. Socrates, Kant, Bentham. All different ideas, all with holes.

Vegetarianism and veganism have flaws as well. Ignoring the fact that supplements cannot be mass produced in enough levels to allow the entire human race to be on these diets (and even if they could, we have more than enough food for the entire human population and people are still starving in no small part because of the logistics of getting that food to other people) you still have the agricultural shortcomings that all land is not equally fertile. You cannot necessarily grow human consumable crops on grassland, but you can feed grass to livestock for food. Speaking of livestock, much of them are domesticated and cannot survive without human involvement. Will you take care of them? Or is genocide preferable for those species?

How about environmental impacts? In order to increase agriculture for human crops, the rainforests have been cut into. On the extreme end, vegans argue that we should stop beekeeping. The thing that increased the bee population. That's a post in and of itself.

Can I trust you grow and eat your own crops? If not, factory farming kills innumerable field animals while harvesting those crops you eat. I have a garden. Do you? All my vegetables, I grow myself. At least I eat the animals I contribute to killing, rather than letting them rot in a field.

So what else do I do? I cut back on meat so I can spend a little more on meat that I research so I know It's not factory farming. I also give more precedence to other humans than I do animals. I also hate organizations that pretend to care about animals and then kill them because they think domestication is bad.

You dare to say I should justify my decision? Why don't you justify yours?

---

Sarcastic posted...

Joking aside, you're asking for justifications in the nature of mortality. There are numerous thoughts on the matter, and no single unifying theory of mortality. Many great philosophers have attempted to create their own theories. Socrates, Kant, Bentham. All different ideas, all with holes.

Vegetarianism and veganism have flaws as well. Ignoring the fact that supplements cannot be mass produced in enough levels to allow the entire human race to be on these diets (and even if they could, we have more than enough food for the entire human population and people are still starving in no small part because of the logistics of getting that food to other people) you still have the agricultural shortcomings that all land is not equally fertile. You cannot necessarily grow human consumable crops on grassland, but you can feed grass to livestock for food. Speaking of livestock, much of them are domesticated and cannot survive without human involvement. Will you take care of them? Or is genocide preferable for those species?

How about environmental impacts? In order to increase agriculture for human crops, the rainforests have been cut into. On the extreme end, vegans argue that we should stop beekeeping. The thing that increased the bee population. That's a post in and of itself.

Can I trust you grow and eat your own crops? If not, factory farming kills innumerable field animals while harvesting those crops you eat. I have a garden. Do you? All my vegetables, I grow myself. At least I eat the animals I contribute to killing, rather than letting them rot in a field.

So what else do I do? I cut back on meat so I can spend a little more on meat that I research so I know It's not factory farming. I also give more precedence to other humans than I do animals. I also hate organizations that pretend to care about animals and then kill them because they think domestication is bad.

You dare to say I should justify my decision? Why don't you justify yours?

got em

---

OniRonin posted...

How do you use algebra to evaluate whether "x+4 = 5" is true without additional context?

You mean...numbers? Are you actually serous or do you want to go into the subjective definition of numerical symbols?

---

Sarcastic posted...

You mean...numbers? Are you actually serous or do you want to go into the subjective definition of numerical symbols?

im completey serous. im pretty sure you would need additional context to determine whether the statement "x+4=5" is true. it has nothing to do with the 'subjective definition of numerical symbols' though. I just think I would need to know what the value of x is

---

OniRonin posted...

im completey serous. im pretty sure you would need additional context to determine whether the statement "x+4=5" is true. it has nothing to do with the 'subjective definition of numerical symbols' though. I just think I would need to know what the value of x is

Fine. It doesn't matter if 1 is 1, or x is 1, or is 1. The values themselves are what matter. The symbols are unimportant to the values they represent. But when using agreed upon symbols to represent values and one unknown symbol to represent an unknown value, if you can't figure out what the unknown represents....

And I'll give you the botd and assume you misspelled completely as a way to mock serous. Unfortunately, serous is a real word and didn't get caught up in my mobile's autocorrect so I didn't see it. Unlike completey.

---

Sarcastic posted...

Fine. It doesn't matter if 1 is 1, or x is 1, or is 1. The values themselves are what matter. The symbols are unimportant to the values they represent. But when using agreed upon symbols to represent values and one unknown symbol to represent an unknown value, if you can't figure out what the unknown represents....

And I'll give you the botd and assume you misspelled completely as a way to mock serous. Unfortunately, serous is a real word and didn't get caught up in my mobile's autocorrect so I didn't see it. Unlike completey.

ok then. is "x+4=5" true or false?

---

OniRonin posted...

ok then. is "x+4=5" true or false?

You aren't a programmer, are you?

---

no, im not a "programmer". im a principal software architect.

---

Sarcastic posted...

How...DARE you criticise a vegan. We are you moral and intellectual superiors! Only vegans can hope to debate with vegans. Now shut up or we'll kill and eat your families so you know how our anthropomorphic mental image of the animals you eat feel.

Go ahead. Do it. Then you won't be vegan and you'll be as dumb as the rest of us meateaters!

OniRonin posted...

yeah, they're pretty different! but it demonstrates that 'respect my desire to do thing' is not a very good argument in isolation, since it would also justify me killing and eating your family.

I could also say it justifies me restarting the Soviet Union. Even though they aren't related at all. However, a person's desire to respect the choices of others in regards to what they eat is extremely similar and, thusly, a viable comparison.

OniRonin posted...

ok then. is "x+4=5" true or false?

If X = 1 or an equiv then it is true. If X =/= 1 or an equiv then it is false.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

If X = 1 or an equiv then it is true. If X =/= 1 or an equiv then it is false.

yes i agree. I was trying to understand how Sarcastic evaluates whether it's true or false without any additional context such as the value of x

---

OniRonin posted...

no, im not a "programmer". im a principal software architect.

So you understand basic mathematics and Boolean operators? If so, you should understand why your question makes no sense

---