[gameshot911]

>I accept that biologically I thrive on chicken meat yet I am intellectually capable of thinking chicken are very lovely animals.

But today you have the capacity to biologically thrive equally as well without needing to eat chick en meat, so "lovely beings" are being slaughtered for no more than a few moments of sensory pleasure. A terrible price for such a lowly payoff.

[sph]

No, I do not thrive on a meatless diet. I do not want to go into the particulars of my digestion and body, but it certainly isn't the diet for me.

In general my opinion is meatless diets are possible, but not as healthy as omnivore ones. Thus the complexity of the matter, whose answer is not that simple. That said, I honestly do not think this is the place for such a debate.

[0daystock]

> In general my opinion is meatless diets are possible, but not as healthy as omnivore ones.

Indeed, that is an opinion. However, the science is clear that meatless diets are more sustainable and healthier for humans.

[sph]

The science is anything but clear. And science is never final, especially dietary science, rife with subpar studies and economic lobbying.

One thing is certain: there is more money on the meatless bandwagon than outside of it.

Please let's agree to disagree, as I said this is not the place for such an argument and these days it's become like discussing our favourite football teams. I don't care for it.