# I'm a Vegan, and I recommend EATING MEAT.... #SuperMeat!!!



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Fund this amazing thing right here -

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/supermeat-real-meat-without-harming-animals/x/4593653#/backers

Watch the video.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Good. In 2013 I was telling people this shit would be here within 5-10 years and no one believed me. Bastards.


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

On a side note, if this works, I predict a new market for exotic, endangered, or engineered Supermeats. 

Lions, dinosaurs, humans, walnut flavored bald eagle, etc. 

If all they need is a biopsy, you could have the very trippy experiencing of finding out what pan-fried you tastes like. With a little bit of butter, of course.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

A good idea, but a bit overhyped. They can make ground beef already, but growing muscle is harder than just growing the parts. We aren't that advanced in making the extracellular matrix yet.

My sister works in skin grafts, and did several projects on producing artificial skin. It works, up to a point, but it's nowhere near ready to start mass production, takes lots of resources, and it's still clearly different from 'real' tissue.

Still, projects like these are great to slowly change these things. I'll wait for the day when they can just grow chicken nuggets in the right shape. By that time, they may even be able to make them taste good.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Oh yeah, an industry that won't hurt animals... conventionally. Human activity kills animals, it's unavoidable, and it's not even immoral.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

If we can survive this transition without repeating the GMO fiasco uniting fundamentalists health freaks and hippies behind irrational paranoia of "cloned meat", humanity deserves a golden medal.

If it really is cheaper to produce and has the exact same ingredients, they should double down and have two affiliated brands: One with a big Super Meat label for those looking to make it environmentally friendly, and another to sell as the back end product for frozen food manufacturers and restaurant chain suppliers marketed as nothing but the same old meat for a better price, what worked for "Just Beef" & MacDonald's might just work for earth.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

As long as it bleeds on my plate it works for me


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Or forget the moral high ground and just eat meat.


----------



## Sava Saevus (Feb 14, 2015)

And the miracles of Capitalism.

Checkmate, Socalists.


----------



## 54-46 ThatsMyNumber (Mar 26, 2011)

But why? If it's not necessary for our survival and only makes us more unhealthy and susceptible to disease, what's the point, unless you use food as a drug.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Oh yeah, an industry that won't hurt animals... conventionally. Human activity kills animals, it's unavoidable, and it's not even immoral.


So basically an argument from futility. Because humans will always fuck the planet up in some way it means we should just give up and not try and reduce harm that we do?

Come on man.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Or forget the moral high ground and just eat meat.


Or, how about you watch the video and realise there's a lot more to it than moral standards, and that animals are sentient creatures who don't deserve to be raped, tortured and murdered purely for our pleasure?


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

54-46 ThatsMyNumber said:


> But why? If it's not necessary for our survival and only makes us more unhealthy and susceptible to disease, what's the point, unless you use food as a drug.


I agree, we don't need meat to live, but I still support this because a massive portion of our species just doesn't give a fuck and this might be the only realistic way to end animal suffering as much as practically possible.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> Or, how about you watch the video and realise there's a lot more to it than moral standards, and that animals are sentient creatures who don't deserve to be raped, tortured and murdered purely for our pleasure?


Yea, it's so you feel good about yourself because in your mind you did something good. But you didn't do jack.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Schrodinger Savage said:


> And the miracles of Capitalism.
> 
> Checkmate, Socalists.


I predict too many animals being alive and destroying our farmland as to cause a loss of our primary vegetative food source.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

54-46 ThatsMyNumber said:


> But why? If it's not necessary for our survival and only makes us more unhealthy and susceptible to disease, what's the point, unless you use food as a drug.


Since when do we do limit ourselves to what is necessary? Everyone wants more.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Yea, it's so you feel good about yourself because in your mind you did something good. But you didn't do jack.


It's got nothing to do with ego.

I love animals, so I don't contribute to their suffering. I love the world, so I reduce the amount of damage I do it as much as I can. I love my body, so I don't put things in it that it doesn't benefit from. I also think starving humans deserve the resources that are being wasted on animal agriculture.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> It's got nothing to do with ego.
> 
> I love animals, so I don't contribute to their suffering. I love the world, so I reduce the amount of damage I do it as much as I can. I love my body, so I don't put things in it that it doesn't benefit from. I also think starving humans deserve the resources that are being wasted on animal agriculture.


You like animals therefore YOU like it when they are well treated. That's basically you ego.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> You like animals therefore YOU like it when they are well treated. That's basically you ego.


No, I like it when animals are well treated because I have empathy, and it upsets me to see them unhappy.

I don't know whatever ego issue you have, but not everything I do to be kind revolves around morals and ego.

Empathy is a natural human function with survival and evolutionary benefits.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Or forget the moral high ground and just eat meat.


It's not that that bothers me so much, it's that it's very resource expensive to farm animals. If you could grow meat in the lab instead it would be so much more efficient and better for the environment.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> No, I like it when animals are well treated because I have empathy, and it upsets me to see them unhappy.
> 
> I don't know whatever ego issue you have, but not everything I do to be kind revolves around morals and ego.
> 
> Empathy is a natural human function with survival and evolutionary benefits.


Empathy to animals have no evolutionary benefits

In fact it would have killed you back in the day because you just lost one food source.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Empathy to animals have no evolutionary benefits
> 
> In fact it would have killed you back in the day because you just lost one food source.


Empathy in itself does have evolutionary benefits, and thankfully we live in a time where we can make a life that revolves around happiness and peace, rather than just survival.

And I can still empathise with animals but defend myself when needed.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

B3LIAL said:


> So basically an argument from futility. Because humans will always fuck the planet up in some way it means we should just give up and not try and reduce harm that we do?
> 
> Come on man.


The main ideology which fucks up the planet right now is the very same which pretends that life is intrinsically moral.. 

To reduce harm.. how do you even measure it? You're comparing apple and oranges. Reducing harm based on what's hurting your feelings is a selfish and non sequitur decision. If you force me to eat poorly engineered artificial meat, you're not doing better.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

IDontThinkSo said:


> The main ideology which fucks up the planet right now is the very same which pretends that life is intrinsically moral..
> 
> To reduce harm.. how do you even measure it? You're comparing apple and oranges. Reducing harm based on what's hurting your feelings is a selfish and non sequitur decision. If you force me to eat poorly engineered artificial meat, you're not doing better.


I'm not forcing you to eat "poorly engineered artificial meat", you don't have to eat this meat, It's just an alternative, and it's not even a fake meat, IT'S EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME, just the process is different. 

You could just stop eating meat altogether which would benefit the planet and animals and also your own health. I would never force you to do this, nor call you a bad person for continuing to eat meat, because you should be free to look into the situation yourself.

I'm a vegan for many reasons, but primarily to reduce suffering, and I measure that by how many living organisms are being subjected to pain.

I know we cannot eliminate all suffering, but any loving and empathetic person who grows to understand what's really going on would naturally want to do whatever they could to reduce the amount of suffering they contribute to as much as practically possible. 

If you don't care about animal suffering then I'm not going to hate on you for that, I can't force you to feel empathy, but the only reason an empathetic person who loves animals would continue to eat meat right now is because they are too used to it and find it difficult to give up, or are ignorant and think that it's a necessity.

Greater empathy can come with understanding, and most people simply don't understand the level of sentience in the creatures we primarily victimize, and think they're brain dead, or think they don't suffer as much as they actually do.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> Empathy in itself does have evolutionary benefits, and thankfully we live in a time where we can make a life that revolves around happiness and peace, rather than just survival.
> 
> And I can still empathise with animals but defend myself when needed.


How does what you said refute what I said? if back in the day, you didn't eat animals, the human would have died. So what ever you got is not an evolutionary advantage. 

I am not saying empathy as a whole is not an advantage however your particular empathetic trait that made you empathize this strongly towards animals would have cause humanity to go extinct long before it became a civilization.

It is like the desire to have sex help us survive but desire to have sex with a donkey wouldn't help us survive therefore it is not an advantage.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> How does what you said refute what I said? if back in the day, you didn't eat animals, the human would have died. So what ever you got is not an evoluationary advantage.
> 
> yes empathy to your own species yes. not to animals because had that happened, we would be dead due to lack of food.


I said empathy in itself is an evolutionary advantage because it helps us stick together and the opposite would not benefit the species.

I never said empathy towards animals necessarily has survival advantages, I stated that now we can tap into our empathy and stretch it out towards all life, rather than just our family and friends.

And what you said about having empathy towards animals being detrimental to our survival is wrong because you can still defend yourself if needed, and you can still kill animals if you need to do so, but if you don't need to do so, you can also make a decision out of emapthy not to kill the animal.

We don't have to make decisions purely surrounding survival bro.

Yeah, we don't necessarily have to empathize with animals and give a shit about them, but if making them suffer and killing them is unnecessary, then why shouldn't we try to end it?


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> I said empathy in itself is an evolutionary advantage because it helps us stick together and the opposite would not benefit the species.
> 
> I never said empathy towards animals necessarily has survival advantages, I stated that now we can tap into our empathy and stretch it out towards all life, rather than just our family and friends.
> 
> ...


and by taping into that empathy basically you guarantee the death of humanity. good thing you live in this time and age man.....



> but if making them suffer and killing them is unnecessary, then why shouldn't we try to end it?


see we are back to the ego again. why is it unecessary? why should we give a shit about them? =o


----------



## 54-46 ThatsMyNumber (Mar 26, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Since when do we do limit ourselves to what is necessary? Everyone wants more.


Everyone? You are to intelligent to say that. More love, more tolerance, more peace, more understanding that we are all one, sure. More torture, more killing, more gluttony, more raping the land to produce food to feed animals so we can eat them when it isn't necessary. I choose to be the change I want to see in the world, I've heard ignorance is bliss, I don't have that luxury. No I didn't say you were ignorant.


----------



## 54-46 ThatsMyNumber (Mar 26, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Since when do we do limit ourselves to what is necessary? Everyone wants more.


Do you have a turd in your pocket? Who the fuck is we? Everyone? You assume to know inner most thoughts, desires and intentions of 7 billion+ people, I may be in the minority but I'm a not alone.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I could see this opening up its own ethical can of worms. opcorn:


----------



## Sava Saevus (Feb 14, 2015)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I could see this opening up its own ethical can of worms. opcorn:


Judged by people who have no understanding of the key word: 'Ethics'. 

Also, pass the popcorn. :ninja:


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Schrodinger Savage said:


> Judged by people who have no understanding of the key word: 'Ethics'.
> 
> Also, pass the popcorn. :ninja:


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

54-46 ThatsMyNumber said:


> Do you have a turd in your pocket? Who the fuck is we? Everyone? You assume to know inner most thoughts, desires and intentions of 7 billion+ people, I may be in the minority but I'm a not alone.


No I'm just talking about America because I only care about America like every American because Americans don't think outside the border.


----------



## Liminal (Jul 18, 2016)

I'd try it. I've been wanting a third nipple.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

johnson.han.3 said:


> and by taping into that empathy basically you guarantee the death of humanity. good thing you live in this time and age man.....


Yes, it's a great thing we do live in this time because now we don't have to do everything for survival, we have choices. But, since you mention it, our survival as a species now probably depends on the reduction of meat consumption, since animal agriculture impacts the environment too much.


I really hope this thing works and is healthy so I can finally stop eating animals.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> and by taping into that empathy basically you guarantee the death of humanity. good thing you live in this time and age man.....
> 
> 
> see we are back to the ego again. why is it unecessary? why should we give a shit about them? =o


Like I said before, it's nothing to do with ego. It's unnecessary because of the fact that we don't need to do it for our survival or our health. 

We're doing it purely for pleasure and convenience.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

We need to kill or else the cattle will just multiply forever. Actually, there wouldn't be any cattle, they just exist cause we eat them. 

Let me try again: we need to kill so that cows can exist, yay.


* *




I'm not buying that: "it tastes just like the meat you killed blah blah"


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Yes, it's a great thing we do live in this time because now we don't have to do everything for survival, we have choices. But, since you mention it, our survival as a species now probably depends on the reduction of meat consumption, since animal agriculture impacts the environment too much.
> 
> 
> I really hope this thing works and is healthy so I can finally stop eating animals.


Yea reduction in eating meat us a good idea.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> Like I said before, it's nothing to do with ego. It's unnecessary because of the fact that we don't need to do it for our survival or our health.
> 
> We're doing it purely for pleasure and convenience.


Isn't pleasure a good thing ? I think that is a good enough reason.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

B3LIAL said:


> I'm not forcing you to eat "poorly engineered artificial meat", you don't have to eat this meat, It's just an alternative, and it's not even a fake meat, IT'S EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME, just the process is different.
> 
> You know, there's a huge difference between the muscles of some wild chickens and those which grow in cages, eating crap, yet it's "exactly the fucking same", chicken muscle. "Just the process is different". It's pretty cool to free life on Earth from our selfish needs, but my need is premium food for my premium brain.
> 
> ...


^


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Isn't pleasure a good thing ? I think that is a good enough reason.


I've got nothing against hedonistic lifestyles, as long as they don't come at the cost of pain and suffering to others, including animals.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

IDontThinkSo said:


> ^


You say you need 'premium food for your premium brain'... so why would you focus on eating meat then? Surely you'd eat foods that give your brain a consistent supply of glucose which better fuels the brain, like from fruits and vegetables? Meat isn't a health food, it's a convenient source of protein and fat, but that's about it really. You can get healthier and even cheaper plant based sources of those things.

My standard is basically this -

If the living organism is sentient and can suffer, then we should try our best not to inflict suffering on the animal as much as we can.

I don't know if we can turn the entire world Vegan, but Veganism for me isn't not a puritan standard that has to be the end goal, no exceptions.

I use the term Vegan for communication purposes. My main concern is reducing the amount of suffering we cause as much as we can.

If this means that 80% of the world is Vegan, 10% vegetarian and 10% meat eaters, I'm fine with that, if that's what it has to be like. 

If you must kill animals to sustain yourself, there's no problem with that at all because I think we should stick by our own species first when we have to make a decision between us and them.

But most of us don't have to make that life or death decision. For us, meat is just a luxury, and a luxury which other forms of life have to suffer and die for, which I don't think is fair.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

B3LIAL said:


> Fund this amazing thing right here -
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/supermeat-real-meat-without-harming-animals/x/4593653#/backers
> 
> Watch the video.


So they figured out how to Mass produce it?


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

Forget about the fucking morality of eating meat. Moral arguments about pretty much anything, never work because everyone has a different conception of what is moral and many people resent it when you tell them something they consider as moral is immoral to you and so ought to be immoral to them too. It's just a waste of time.

Instead you should argue based on the benefits of switching to lab meat. The tangible benefits that are guaranteed to improve the world:

- lab meat means livestock becomes more or less redundant
- no need for livestock means we can save on water
- this water used for farm animals can be rerouted to provide drinking water for humans or other essential aquatic services
- water shortages can thusly be reduced
- no need for livestock means we save land used for grazing
- this land can be used to grow crops
- it can be used for housing growing populations
- it can be used for renewable energy projects like windmills or solar panels
- freeing up land means we can slow the rate of deforestation, thereby maintaining a greener environment
- eliminating livestock means we no longer will have billions of cows polluting the atmosphere with chemicals emitted from their asses
- a cleaner atmospheric environment benefits all
- eliminating livestock means we can end the industry of meat production and slaughtering, and put millions of exclusively animal farmers out of work
- this creates a big new source of the most priceless resource on the planet, the human mind and human labour
- instead of raising and killing animals, these people can be put to work elsewhere, doing something useful for a change
- thereby improving our collective standard of living

So long as the quality and taste of lab meat is as good as slaughtered meat there is literally no reason, short of you being a moron who ought to have been strangled by your mother with her umbilical cord at your time of birth; for not making the switch to lab meat. The benefits it can bring us are limitless. By eliminating livestock we save water, land, and human labour; as well as reducing negative impact on the environment through atmospheric pollution and deforestation. It's win - win, we get to enjoy meat on our plates with none of the negatives and drawbacks inherent in having to feed, water, and house enough animals to support a population of 7bn and rising.

If the taste and nutritional value of lab meat sucks then that means it's back to the drawing board for scientists, it doesn't invalidate the concept forever. We're a species that have landed on the moon for fuck's sake, as if coming up with a way to have meat without needing to farm animals is a challenge beyond the ingenuity of our finest minds. Sooner or later somebody will get it right. For all our sakes I hope it's sooner.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Empathy to animals have no evolutionary benefits
> 
> In fact it would have killed you back in the day because you just lost one food source.


Its been scientifically proven that people who have pets are less stressed then people without them. So that is actually a health benefit. 

Animals are soft little warm balls of fur with the intelligence of a two year old child(Yes science has said this). Humans have a higher reguard for children and children will instictually go to anything warm and soft for comfort which is suppose to stimulate the warmth/comfort of a mother. So on a psychological level animals activate a humans instictual affection and protection for a child, and at the same time the warmth one might get from a mother so animals are very comforting.

BTW there is a simple way to eat meat without killing animals that is seemingly overlooked. All you have to do is eat insects. Thanks to the chain insects are at the bottom. Insects are very abundent and how much energy you get from a creature you eat is whats left after they eat that creature.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> Its been scientifically proven that people who have pets are less stressed then people without them. So that is actually a health benefit.
> 
> Animals are soft little warm balls of fur with the intelligence of a two year old child(Yes science has said this). Humans have a higher reguard for children and children will instictually go to anything warm and soft for comfort which is suppose to stimulate the warmth/comfort of a mother. So on a psychological level animals activate a humans instictual affection and protection for a child, and at the same time the warmth one might get from a mother so animals are very comforting.


it only prove that humans are social creatures that needs health relationships. Too bad nowadays most people have pets instead of human companions. 

;D


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

johnson.han.3 said:


> it only prove that humans are social creatures that needs health relationships. Too bad nowadays most people have pets instead of human companions.
> 
> ;D


There is a reason for that. 

A 2 year old child does not have enough of a thought process to figure out how to stab you in the back.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> There is a reason for that.
> 
> A 2 year old child does not have enough of a thought process to figure out how to stab you in the back.


But a two year old can't really support you. It's pretty much like having an imaginary friend. When real problems hit, only another human is able to care about you.

It is a risk, but sometimes you win and some times you lose.

Never give up


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> I've got nothing against hedonistic lifestyles, as long as they don't come at the cost of pain and suffering to others, including animals.


Why can't my pleasure be built on the suffering of animals ?


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

johnson.han.3 said:


> But a two year old can't really support you. It's pretty much like having an imaginary friend. When real problems hit, only another human is able to care about you.
> 
> It is a risk, but sometimes you win and some times you lose.
> 
> Never give up


People dont have pets to support them. They have pets becuase they are warm, fluffy and you want to hug them. So having them around makes you happy. Its basically the same as adopting a child, but we are adopting children of a different species that will never have the same type of abilities as creatures of our species. You are the type of person who wants everyone to take care of them clearly and so an animal would serve no purpose to you.

Work animals and guard/attack animals are a different story though. Those are service animals. Service animals you adopt for a particular purpose of task. One might argue that animals we eat fall into this category but some might argue they deserve thier own category. 

So you are wrong on all accounts. 

Animals can provide a service, pets provide about the same amount of emotional support, and your imaginary freind can not die from not feeding it. I hope you dont use that same logic with children. "Oh, well its the same as an imaginary freind, it will make its own food, dont worry".


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> People dont have pets to support them. They have pets becuase they are warm, fluffy and you want to hug them. So having them around makes you happy. Its basically the same as adopting a child, but we are adopting children of a different species that will never have the same type of abilities as creatures of our species. You are the type of person who wants everyone to take care of them clearly and so an animal would serve no purpose to you.
> 
> Work animals and guard/attack animals are a different story though. Those are service animals. Service animals you adopt for a particular purpose of task. One might argue that animals we eat fall into this category but some might argue they deserve thier own category.
> 
> ...


I am not wrong and you are not wrong. You see it as your adopted children where I know others look to them for support. To each their own.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

johnson.han.3 said:


> I am not wrong and you are not wrong. You see it as your adopted children where I know others look to them for support. To each their own.


No one looks to thier pet dog to support them financially. The fact you think that is why the majority if pet owners have pets is delusional and anyone who adopts pets with that intention is a complete idiot. Its very clear that the real world does not work the way you think it does. Most sane people would realize that an animal can not support you financially. We do not hold animals to the same standards as us.

Standard: Cat lays around, eats, poops, steals food not meant for it, gets into the trash 
(Its just a cat) 
Human Standard: Lay around, eats, poops, steal food not meant for them, gets into trash "Get a job you bumb" 

If its a child this standard is not applied till age 18 though

So sorry but you are dellusional and are totally wrong. I also did not say all humans view animals as children. However animals resemble the traits which are found comforting in both mothers/Children and so it makes sense people would find comfort in being surrounded by animals.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> No one looks to thier pet dog to support them financially. The fact you think that is why the majority if pet owners have pets is delusional and anyone who adopts pets with that intention is a complete idiot. Its very clear that the real world does not work the way you think it does. Most sane people would realize that an animal can not support you financially. We do not hold animals to the same standards as us.
> 
> Standard: Cat lays around, eats, poops, steals food not meant for it, gets into the trash
> (Its just a cat)
> ...


Emotional. same with religion.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

johnson.han.3 said:


> Emotional. same with religion.


Are you not smart enough to realize the difference between a concept and a living creature? I am getting the impression that you might be a hazard to yourself and others. 

Its already known that you can get emotional support from an animal and you can substitute human contact with animal contact. So you really have no argument at all. You are saying since you dont agree with the idea of replacing such a thing with interaction with other species it must be impossible. Which is isnt and you are speaking from personal bias and stating it as fact.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

MisterPerfect said:


> Are you not smart enough to realize the difference between a concept and a living creature? I am getting the impression that you might be a hazard to yourself and others.
> 
> Its already known that you can get emotional support from an animal and you can substitute human contact with animal contact. So you really have no argument at all. You are saying since you dont agree with the idea of replacing such a thing with interaction with other species it must be impossible. Which is isnt and you are speaking from personal bias and stating it as fact.


Lol there is no need for insults. Just because I hit a sore spot, there is no need for that. Human friends are better than animal friends. ;D

Maybe if you get more human friends, you wouldn't be this sore ;D

I merely said emotional support. Just like some people look to god for emotional support. People look to animal for emotional support. I am not comparing animals to religion except both can offer emotional support. o.o. 



I have told you already, lets leave it at that. to each its own. we all see things differently. But you kept on insisting on arguing something so subjective.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

ITT, people thinking it's all about meat. Meat isn't the most valuable part of animal. Fat and giblets are. Also, bone broth and stuff like that.

Also, eggs.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

I think you are all missing the biggest funnest part here:
We can take samples and grow them into a full juicy meaty meal. 

You realize what this means? Finally, _*legalized cannibalism*_! :carrot:enguin::brocoli::m0827:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I give about as much of a fuck about animals as Matt Bomer gives about vaginas, but if they can produce it more economically and it has the same health properties as organic, pastured beef or poultry, let's do it.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm not that much of a meat eater anyway; more of a fish and seafood eater but if this supermeat really is healthier, tastes good, saves the planet and puts an end to world hunger; who wouldn't want that? I am still extremely skeptical but it sounds great in theory anyway.

Next, they need to invent a human pregnancy machine, to end the entire abortion debate, once and for all. ^_^


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

That I'd still rather eat an animal makes me a savage and a barbarian but I just don't care. There's something comforting, deep rooted in my psyche, about ripping it's meat off the bone. Not going to change while I still can.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

JayDubs said:


> On a side note, if this works, I predict a new market for exotic, endangered, or engineered Supermeats.
> 
> Lions, dinosaurs, humans, walnut flavored bald eagle, etc.
> 
> .


Eventually we'll forget what real meat tastes like, then soon everything will be claimed to taste like chicken,


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

What if I don't want to put something called "super meat" in my mouth?


----------

