Why are cute animals given a special treatment?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

How does it come that lots of people, like "animal rights" activists, are against the hunting of some kinds of animals but not others?

It just strikes me as hugely ignorant.

For example, why is it ok to hunt and kill some ugly looking creature, and then perhaps use its meat or skin, but not ok if the animal being hunted is something cute like a seal?

Am I the only one who feels utterly disgusted when I hear people explain this by saying "yea but its not the same because THAT animal is CUTE!"?

People don't care if cows or chicken are killed in their millions on massive meat farms, but if someone shoots/kills a seal or two then that person is a monster it seems.

One (very poor) argument tha I have heard some people use is that if everyone would hunt certain animals then that animal would go extinct. The problem with this argument however, is that this doesn't only apply to cute aniamls. ANY animal would go extinct if it were overhunted. This is why rules and regulations about how many animals can be hunted over a period of time to prevent that species from going extinct exists. The same applies to the cute animals just like every other animal, and thus that animal does not exstint so long as proper regulations and laws are fallowed.

So, why is hunting cute animals different from hunting other types of animals.

I dunno, the whale ISNT cute and yet people still defend it.

People are usually against seal clubbing because its overly cruel and targets the baby seals. The fur industry is also under fire because it rips the skins off living animals and then dumps their skinless twitching bodies into carts. Do you wish to see a video? I dont mind hunting. I despise needless cruelty. Bile farms and fur farms that do this to animals are disgusting.

I was gonna link it but i think its against the rules, youtube "Fur farm china" and its the first option. Suffice to say ive never seen animal suffering as grotesque as watching someone skin a dog alive and then watching the dog still moving and trying to blink without eyelids. Its pretty grim and scarring.

If regulations are followed to ensure the animal doesnt become extinct AND regulations are followed to prevent extremely excessive cruelty i have little issue with this stuff.

Because people like cute things? At least that's why those ones get more publicity. The truth is that the primary factor behind labeling something animal cruelty is just that, cruelty. Excessive cruelty is just wrong. We should avoid it.

BiscuitTrouser:
I dunno, the whale ISNT cute and yet people still defend it.

image

BiscuitTrouser:
People are usually against seal clubbing because its overly cruel and targets the baby seals.

There is no rule that says seals have to be clubbed, anymore then there is a rule saying that all other animals have to be clubbed. In addition, the idea that all seals that are hunted are being clubbed is lies anyways.

BiscuitTrouser:
I dont mind hunting. I despise needless cruelty.

Well, like I said. So long as there are proper rules and regulations.

Because when something isn't a right, whether they get it depends solely on whether people feel like granting it.

It's no different from pretty girls having an easier time finding help for heavy lifting than ugly ones. And underline how some less reflected animal activists rely solely on emotion rather than thought for their views. And that the smarter ones realize that the face of a baby seal is more propaganda friendly than that of a rat.

image
That's why.

No, but in all seriousness I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with Imperator_DK, especially in that first sentence. It's really just because they appeal to us more, because we like cute things. So we give them better treatment than the animals that don't appeal to us. We don't hurt them, and we don't eat them.

People aren't reasonable. Or rather, we respond more strongly to appeals to emotion than to appeals to reason, and cuteness is a strong emotional motivator. If you tell people bad stuff is happening, they'll say 'oh yeah that is bad, but I don't see how its my responsibility'; you need something extra to make people actually care.

Like with bees; everyone has heard the thing about how if bees dies out, it would be terrible and lead to famines and all sorts of shit, but most people are still more worried about pandas, who are a bit of an evolutionary dead-end. Because pandas appeal to our emotions, and bees don't.

Hardcore_gamer:
-snip-

I think your answer is in the question: they're cute.

In a movie, how do you spot the main protagonist? The most attractive guy in the room, of course. And it's everywhere in media--the good guys are pretty, and the bad guys are ugly. About the only time you'll have an ugly good guy is when they're trying to make a point with their ugliness (like Quasimodo from Hunchback of Notre Dame). We automatically sympathise with what we like, and if something is "cute" then there's something we like about it. And plus if it's cute it's often harmless. Tropical birds are cute and you aren't going to see them kill anybody, but soldier or fire ants in the rainforest? Holy shit, those things hurt like hell and can eat a person alive. We're not getting anywhere near those things. Kind of ironic, really--the bad "animal rights" activists (because there are good ones out there) complain about how hunting is so cruel and primal, when in ignoring species that are "cute" or harmless to humans they are doing sort of the same thing: preserving their personal safety at the expense of an animal.

... Because people are hypocrits!

There is nothing else to say really.

BiscuitTrouser:
I dunno, the whale ISNT cute and yet people still defend it.

People are usually against seal clubbing because its overly cruel and targets the baby seals. The fur industry is also under fire because it rips the skins off living animals and then dumps their skinless twitching bodies into carts. Do you wish to see a video? I dont mind hunting. I despise needless cruelty. Bile farms and fur farms that do this to animals are disgusting.

I was gonna link it but i think its against the rules, youtube "Fur farm china" and its the first option. Suffice to say ive never seen animal suffering as grotesque as watching someone skin a dog alive and then watching the dog still moving and trying to blink without eyelids. Its pretty grim and scarring.

If regulations are followed to ensure the animal doesnt become extinct AND regulations are followed to prevent extremely excessive cruelty i have little issue with this stuff.

Damn... Just... Damn. That's probably the sickest thing I've ever seen.

Another milestone in how low humanity is prepared to go.

Is there even a point in keeping the animals alive whilst skinning them?

Thanks for sharing that, though. It's good to be slapped in the face with how grim reality is every once in a while.

We're hard-wired to want to protect and care for cute things. The features we consider cute (roundness, small body with a larger head, large eyes, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting) are all features found in human babies. Finding those features cute means when we see a baby human we'll want to take care of it. As a side-effect we also want to take care of anything else that shares those features.

So when someone is looking at the animal rights issue purely from an emotional perspective, cuteness is going to have a big impact on which animals they feel concerned for.

SimpleThunda':

Is there even a point in keeping the animals alive whilst skinning them?

I would think keeping the animal live would be detrimental, because the animal's moving around could result in the the skin being torn.

Ugh as far as I know seal hunting is still legal, based on a quota system like you said. We don't hunt dogs or cats because they are domesticated as pets, people don't hunt dairy or meat cows because they are domesticated as food producing animals. However if you look at rabbits they are both domesticated and wild, the wild rabbits are hunted probably based on a quota system as well. I don't think the statement, "we don't hunt cute animals" is accurate at all.

Edit: I also wonder why care about animal rights activists and their opinion. Also animal rights activists regularly go after the food industry and eating meat in general.

SimpleThunda':

BiscuitTrouser:
I dunno, the whale ISNT cute and yet people still defend it.

People are usually against seal clubbing because its overly cruel and targets the baby seals. The fur industry is also under fire because it rips the skins off living animals and then dumps their skinless twitching bodies into carts. Do you wish to see a video? I dont mind hunting. I despise needless cruelty. Bile farms and fur farms that do this to animals are disgusting.

I was gonna link it but i think its against the rules, youtube "Fur farm china" and its the first option. Suffice to say ive never seen animal suffering as grotesque as watching someone skin a dog alive and then watching the dog still moving and trying to blink without eyelids. Its pretty grim and scarring.

If regulations are followed to ensure the animal doesnt become extinct AND regulations are followed to prevent extremely excessive cruelty i have little issue with this stuff.

Damn... Just... Damn. That's probably the sickest thing I've ever seen.

Another milestone in how low humanity is prepared to go.

Is there even a point in keeping the animals alive whilst skinning them?

Thanks for sharing that, though. It's good to be slapped in the face with how grim reality is every once in a while.

Oh. My. God.

That is horrible. Absolutely horrible. For once, I am glad PETA did something by making a video that shows how terrible that is. That poor tanuki...

Ah well this sort of reminds of a debate about animal morality I had on these forums before. Morality is a social construct between sentient life forms. There is no morality between two animals incapable of intelligent thought. One wouldn't normally consider a lion evil for killing a gazelle or a lizard for eating a fly.

Morality is based solely around how we humans perceive good and bad and our ability to project our feeling onto other beings. The logic would go roughly: I don't like to die, so that guy probably wouldn't like to die either. I consider killing another person bad because I am able to toward project my own emotions onto that person. Between two people this projection of emotion is very easy but it's also possible to project human emotions onto other living creatures. In general people seem better able to project their emotions onto animals with higher intelligence and more human-like appearances. Animals like chimpanzees and dogs are very intelligent and have similar anatomies to humans - most people would consider killing them bad but something like a spider with very low intelligence and alien anatomical features most people would have no objection toward killing. Thus the more relate able the animal the more rights it tends to receive.

So why do people defend the harming of cute animals? We can sympathize with them better and thus feel a greater moral responsibly them.

To be honest I'm thinking the OP is wrong here. I've known a number of activists (dated one and met her friends) and they all have seemed to care more for horrific far ing practices for cows and chickens and pigs than they cared about seal clubbing. It would be naive to assume that the only ones activists care about are the cute ones, rather, those are the o ly ones you've noticed.

Again, I don't think that that's all they care about. But cute baby seals look better on posters than cows.

BrassButtons:

I would think keeping the animal live would be detrimental, because the animal's moving around could result in the the skin being torn.

There isnt a cheap or easy way of killing it that doesnt break the skin, thereby making the pelt "Substandard". Euthanising or shocking is too expensive and time consuming, these factories are 100% bent on efficiency so why waste time doing something that doesnt maximize profit? The animals are stunned first with a hit against the ground to keep them still as you saw.

Suffice to say i felt physically ill. Who WORKS there? I mean fucking WHO?! Imagine how poor, desperate or sadistic you must be to do that just to eat. Self loathing much?

BiscuitTrouser:
Suffice to say i felt physically ill. Who WORKS there? I mean fucking WHO?! Imagine how poor, desperate or sadistic you must be to do that just to eat. Self loathing much?

To be fair, probably the same kind of people who work at abbatoirs or vivisection labs. As disgusting as it is, I expect they become hardened to it after a while.

I would actually support fur farming if it was more humane, as unlike synthetics it's a renewable resource. But skinning them alive?! Even the morally bankrupt meat industry doesn't chuck live and conscious cows into grinders (as far as I'm aware). A bolt through the head or gassing them would be a negligible cost, surely?

Batou667:

I would actually support fur farming if it was more humane, as unlike synthetics it's a renewable resource. But skinning them alive?! Even the morally bankrupt meat industry doesn't chuck live and conscious cows into grinders (as far as I'm aware). A bolt through the head or gassing them would be a negligible cost, surely?

I agree. But think about it. That farm was fairly... low tech. It was animals in steel cages, fed food in a basic bowl then pulled out and hand skinned one by one with a freaking cart to transport corpses away. They dont get gas, the rooms to admister it in or the equipment to store it. Also when people want pelts they imagine this:

Whats the point, in their mind, of putting a great big hole through its head. It wastes time and money to basically reduce the value of the pelt. Obviously this is sick and why legislation is needed to enforce more humane forms of farming.

BiscuitTrouser:

There isnt a cheap or easy way of killing it that doesnt break the skin, thereby making the pelt "Substandard". Euthanising or shocking is too expensive and time consuming, these factories are 100% bent on efficiency so why waste time doing something that doesnt maximize profit? The animals are stunned first with a hit against the ground to keep them still as you saw.

Yeah, didn't watch the video. I'd prefer being able to sleep tonight.

I can understand the dilemma, though. Depending on the profit margin these places have, using a method that damages the pelt could be completely infeasible. Same with non-damaging methods like gassing, if those methods are too expensive. This is particularly true if the consumers of pelts don't care how the farming was done (and thus don't make humane farming methods more profitable than inhumane ones).

Suffice to say i felt physically ill. Who WORKS there? I mean fucking WHO?! Imagine how poor, desperate or sadistic you must be to do that just to eat. Self loathing much?

I don't think a person needs to be any of those things to work in a place like that. They just need to have a different view of animals than you or I do.

I know someone who has spent a lot of time working on a farm, and from what he's told me being in a position like that makes you look at animals differently. The animals you're working with are in a different class from, say, pets. He could never just casually chop off the head of his dog (even if his dog WASN'T a big German Shepherd with enough bite force to crack bones) but he's done just that to a number of chickens. They're different categories, and so different standards of treatment are acceptable.

Obviously this is sick and why legislation is needed to enforce more humane forms of farming.

I'd agree with you, but the only reason I can think of for why I oppose those practices is that it bothers me emotionally, and I can't support making something illegal just because it makes me uncomfortable.

Hardcore_gamer:

BiscuitTrouser:
I dunno, the whale ISNT cute and yet people still defend it.

image

Uh, that's a hugely misleading photo, and you know it. You can take ANY animal and draw it like that.

So, could you provide some info on what animals these hypocrites do not care about? If you can, I'll agree. If you can't, I'll once again wonder what your point really is.

People don't care if cows or chicken are killed in their millions on massive meat farms, but if someone shoots/kills a seal or two then that person is a monster it seems.

'People' is a weasle-word (a word that is purposely used in a vague manner to be misleading), as a lot of people really DO care about meat-farms. They are called vegetarians (though fine, some don't, and just dislike meat for the taste). Do some care about seals, but not about chickens? Yes. Are they hypocrites? Yes. What's your point?

Realitycrash:

Hardcore_gamer:

BiscuitTrouser:
I dunno, the whale ISNT cute and yet people still defend it.

image

Uh, that's a hugely misleading photo, and you know it. You can take ANY animal and draw it like that.

Well, Dolphins are whales to: image

I think it might not always seem like just the "cute ones," it also applies the ones that look "majestic."

image

You will find more campaigns on "SAVE THE WHALES" than you will "SAVE THE SHARKS" because every single depiction of sharks in films make them out to be monsters, while most depictions of orcas have them being nice and friendly. Thus, hunting whales is illegal even in international waters while shark fishing is still legal.

Batou667:
To be fair, probably the same kind of people who work at abbatoirs or vivisection labs. As disgusting as it is, I expect they become hardened to it after a while.

Totally inaccurate statement. Food and scientific research are a valid necessary purpose, fur farming is not. Fur farming is an unnecessary activity done purely because rich people, more specifally the dumb and immoral ones among them, consider fur to be fashion.
Why you work there, money. Spent one summer holidays pushing a cart of entrails through an abbatoir. Stinks to high heavens and major disgusting, sure, but I made four times what people of my age were making.

Also there's strict rules on both slaughter and animal testing. Nothing pisses off researchers more than the claim that they're cruel to animals; the book with rules for animal tests is thicker and heavier than the bible and you need to go through expensive alternatives before animal testing is authorised.

The only exception to that rule is archaic religious slaughter practises from either islam or judaism. You won't see me defending those though, and the same goes for most abbatoirs too. Religious slaughter isn't even done in normal abbatoirs either for that reason.


It's becoming increasingly irrelevant though.

Wearing fur in public is a sure way of earning vocal disapproval from most people you meet. That's long been a trend. I remember a children's song that ridiculed people who wear fur, called 'a second hand coat'. And that was 1981, and that's the kind of stuff that everybody raised their kids with in those days to make them good and virtuous kids.

It did its work I guess, because I'd likely spit on someone who comes in all high and mighty wearing a fur coat. I won't stand for such decadence. Some people even smash on artificial fur as being a 'wrong signal'. In the Netherlands a 'bontkraagje', translation 'fur collar', is a word to indicate a lower class person who's hanging around being useless and engaging in small crime (example), following the trend among lower class young Moroccans to wear coats like this.

I am confused as to why people think that only cute or majestic and what not has anything to do with which animals are protected and which are not. From my understanding, most of the animlas listed on the endangered species lists are quite ugly:
http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/species.html#Rhadine

Not G. Ivingname:
Snip

My point was more that the picture was grossly misleading. Afterall:

image

Cute shark.

But yeah, I know. People ARE biased, and it IS wrong. But that is an obvious and rather trivial postulation. Why are they biased? Because people like cute shit. People dislike predators. People like things they can associate with (anything with eyes tend to get at least some special treatment. Insects and the like..No).

Realitycrash:

Not G. Ivingname:
Snip

My point was more that the picture was grossly misleading. Afterall:

image

Cute shark.

But yeah, I know. People ARE biased, and it IS wrong. But that is an obvious and rather trivial postulation. Why are they biased? Because people like cute shit. People dislike predators. People like things they can associate with (anything with eyes tend to get at least some special treatment. Insects and the like..No).

Why do people tend to think that? Most of the animals on the endangered species lists ARE insects and the like..

Blablahb:
Wearing fur in public is a sure way of earning vocal disapproval from most people you meet.

It is? Because I have met literally nobody in person who feels disgusted by others wearing fur. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but to claim that "wearing fur in public is a sure way of earning vocal disapproval from most people you meet" is just bullshit.

Blablahb:
I'd likely spit on someone who comes in all high and mighty wearing a fur coat

Spiting on other people would not prove anything other then that the person who did it is a self-righteous asshole.

Hardcore_gamer:
It is? Because I have met literally nobody in person who feels disgusted by others wearing fur.

But you're among conservative Americans, I'm not. The people I asociate with tend to have quite a high moral standard. The kind of standards that state you can't kill animals just to make a fashion statement.

Hardcore_gamer:
Spiting on other people would not prove anything other then that the person who did it is a self-righteous asshole.

I doubt it. Some things can't be tolerated, some things deserve to be scorned in public. This is one of those things and I have an airtight reasoning why.

Can't imagine someone disagreeing for any reason.

Lil devils x:

Realitycrash:

Not G. Ivingname:
Snip

My point was more that the picture was grossly misleading. Afterall:

image

Cute shark.

But yeah, I know. People ARE biased, and it IS wrong. But that is an obvious and rather trivial postulation. Why are they biased? Because people like cute shit. People dislike predators. People like things they can associate with (anything with eyes tend to get at least some special treatment. Insects and the like..No).

Why do people tend to think that? Most of the animals on the endangered species lists ARE insects and the like..

Because what the general public think is cute and thus does not mind getting killed is not equivalent with what non-biased people who's job it is to protect endangered species think?
The Endangered List is not a democracy. It doesn't give a shit what people like or dislike.

Blablahb:

Hardcore_gamer:
It is? Because I have met literally nobody in person who feels disgusted by others wearing fur.

But you're among conservative Americans, I'm not. The people I asociate with tend to have quite a high moral standard. The kind of standards that state you can't kill animals just to make a fashion statement.

Which brings is to the topic at hand; Somehow (and I might be wrong) I doubt that these people do not mind people wearing a leather-jacket to make a fashion-statement.
I mean, I personally dislike fur-farms, but I wear a leather-jacket. Why? Well, mainly because I find the farms to have atrocious living-conditions. As far as I know, Cows aren't cramped up like that, and are killed far later in life, or in association with slaughter (and since the meat is going to get eaten, why waste the skin?).
Still, it leads us into the discussion of eating meat. Which I find immoral. But I also eat meat myself, fully knowing I am immoral doing so. Because it's more beneficent for me than not doing so (in the short term, not the long term if we look at 'me' as part of the human race).

BrassButtons:
We're hard-wired to want to protect and care for cute things. The features we consider cute (roundness, small body with a larger head, large eyes, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting) are all features found in human babies. Finding those features cute means when we see a baby human we'll want to take care of it. As a side-effect we also want to take care of anything else that shares those features.

So when someone is looking at the animal rights issue purely from an emotional perspective, cuteness is going to have a big impact on which animals they feel concerned for.

SimpleThunda':

Is there even a point in keeping the animals alive whilst skinning them?

I would think keeping the animal live would be detrimental, because the animal's moving around could result in the the skin being torn.

Then why on EARTH would they do it?

Realitycrash:
Still, it leads us into the discussion of eating meat. Which I find immoral. But I also eat meat myself, fully knowing I am immoral doing so. Because it's more beneficent for me than not doing so (in the short term, not the long term if we look at 'me' as part of the human race).

But why compare it to a healthy diet then? Staying healthy is not immoral. The whole point of why people are opposed to fur is because mink are kept and killed exclusively for their fur, while all other animals we keep for production are used for so many purposes that almost nothing goes to waste. Many of those things are also essential: Food, soap, shampoo. And that's just the bare essentials. Plus production animals tend to have a pretty good existance in most places.

Fur on the other hand is purely a particular style, purely a fashion statement, which has no other uses. And outside of countries that have regulated the fur industry, conditions are pretty bad. That makes fur a deeply decadent thing which can't be compared in such a way.

Blablahb:

Realitycrash:
Still, it leads us into the discussion of eating meat. Which I find immoral. But I also eat meat myself, fully knowing I am immoral doing so. Because it's more beneficent for me than not doing so (in the short term, not the long term if we look at 'me' as part of the human race).

But why compare it to a healthy diet then? Staying healthy is not immoral. The whole point of why people are opposed to fur is because mink are kept and killed exclusively for their fur, while all other animals we keep for production are used for so many purposes that almost nothing goes to waste. Many of those things are also essential: Food, soap, shampoo. And that's just the bare essentials. Plus production animals tend to have a pretty good existance in most places.

Fur on the other hand is purely a particular style, purely a fashion statement, which has no other uses. And outside of countries that have regulated the fur industry, conditions are pretty bad. That makes fur a deeply decadent thing which can't be compared in such a way.

My point was that I don't believe one can take the moral high-ground by saying 'Oh, I harm animal, but only because I want to eat them!'. Since we can survive just fine on vegetable products (and some animal products that does not harm animals, like milk), and it is far cheaper to produce vegetable products instead of meat, etc (you know the arguments, I assume), there's no moral claim in saying that one reason to harm animals is better or worse than another.
Bringing up minks in tight, enclosed spaces just to be killed for their fur is just as bad as bringing up chickens in tight, enclosed spaces to be killed for their meat.

Realitycrash:
Since we can survive just fine on vegetable products

Survive, yes, stay healthy, no. That can only be true for women already in menopause, or men who are of light weight, nearly no muscle mass and consume quite a lot of meat replacers, the cultivation of which causes extensive harm to the environment.

This is for instance because it's impossible to consume sufficient plant-based iron to compensate for having a period, or maintaining your strength. One thing that goes out the window with vegetarians is your body's ability to transport oxygen. If a vegetarian and someone with a healthy diet engage in an activity that requires maximum performance, someone with a healthy diet willl always perform better because his blood transports more oxygen.

It's certainly a lot better a reason than 'but this pelt looks good on me'.

Blablahb:

Realitycrash:
Since we can survive just fine on vegetable products

Survive, yes, stay healthy, no. That can only be true for women already in menopause, or men who are of light weight, nearly no muscle mass and consume quite a lot of meat replacers, the cultivation of which causes extensive harm to the environment.

This is for instance because it's impossible to consume sufficient plant-based iron to compensate for having a period, or maintaining your strength. One thing that goes out the window with vegetarians is your body's ability to transport oxygen. If a vegetarian and someone with a healthy diet engage in an activity that requires maximum performance, someone with a healthy diet willl always perform better because his blood transports more oxygen.

It's certainly a lot better a reason than 'but this pelt looks good on me'.

Environmentally, vegetarianism is better than meat eating. The vast majority of the 'meat replacers' that are so harmful go into animal feed. Considering that a cow is about 6% efficient in terms of energy, it would be far better to just eat the damn soya ourselves.

You can sort of justify eating lamb, because it can be reared in places where crop cultivation isn't feasible. Although of course, many aren't.

I can't comment on the health effects of vegetarianism.

Blablahb:

Realitycrash:
Since we can survive just fine on vegetable products

Survive, yes, stay healthy, no. That can only be true for women already in menopause, or men who are of light weight, nearly no muscle mass and consume quite a lot of meat replacers, the cultivation of which causes extensive harm to the environment.

This is for instance because it's impossible to consume sufficient plant-based iron to compensate for having a period, or maintaining your strength. One thing that goes out the window with vegetarians is your body's ability to transport oxygen. If a vegetarian and someone with a healthy diet engage in an activity that requires maximum performance, someone with a healthy diet willl always perform better because his blood transports more oxygen.

It's certainly a lot better a reason than 'but this pelt looks good on me'.

So we eat pills as substitute for whatever we might lack, which should be easy to support production of, due to the massive requirements needed to create even 1 pound of pork. (I.e we turn our fields of Soy, which is the popular choice for feeding pigs, into whatever it is needed to synthesize the vitamins and iron we need. And we would still economically turn a tidy profit, since turning Vegetable matter into consumable animal matter is horribly inefficient, something like a 10% energy efficiency).

Look, everything I've read so far keeps it pretty simple: We can take vitamin pills, and iron, to replace what we might not gain from meat. We can get most if not all our nutrients from vegetable matter and animal matter that does not harm an animal (like milk).
Now, you claim different, and that's fine, but can you source me this? Because I'd very much like to read any material that claims this.

Edit: And also, I know it's anecdotal, but I don't understand your argument that it's impossible to build muscles if you don't eat meat. I do eat meat, but it's something like 200g every other day or so, and I survive just fine on it, and I work out and build muscles. I do consume a shitload of protein, though, mainly in the form of milk, cottage-cheese, eggs and protein-powder.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked