Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Free guy review

 


Aww... I was looking forward to this movie... I didn't really like it. I mean, it was alright and if I turned my brain off I probably could have just enjoyed the action, the awesome CGI and the few actually funny jokes here and there. But... I guess my expectations were just a little too high. The story base idea was awesome. NPC becoming a bit more sentient and falling in love. The whole thing was just a bit too devoid of reality to enjoy. 

I'll simply list the things I didn't really like about the movie.

  • Humorless cheap jokes.

Most jokes felt so cheap and cliched. I understand they wanted to appeal to gamers, so they had a few gamer moves, like tea-bagging and jumping around everywhere, that brought about a few chuckles. Other jokes, like having a streamer living in mom's house and complaining about cleaning his 'socks' was probably funny for children and teens (mind you that probably was the target audience). Otherwise, for the most parts, none of the jokes were memorable, or very funny. 

  • Poorly written characters

Taika Waititi's character was written so... hmm... well I guess 'cringe' is the only word I can think of to describe it, that it didn't really end up being 'funny'. His over the top acting really did not align with any realistic characters in the game development that I've seen. Like I get it, he's supposed to be a character that thinks he's cool, but everyone hates him because he's not actually cool. That's supposed to be the joke. We're supposed to laugh at him. I guess I'm just out of touch... I just... didn't really find it funny much.

Background characters were just all weird in-between being wall-flowers and an actual impactful character, like Mouser had more potential to be a memorable character, but nope. In fact, there were just way too many famous background characters that no one actually stood out to be awesome. John Cena bit was funny I guess? Jack sceptic eye, I knew so I had a "hey its, _____" moment. But those were really it. Buddy was the only cool side character I can think of but his character was so one-dimensional and plot driven, that he wasn't a good NPC or an actual sentient being like they tried to portray. 

  • People acting... not like people? Not aligned with reality? I'm not good with words
This is were the misalignment between reality and fiction became so wide that it was hard to enjoy. I mean, I'm a human, I like thinking of realistic human reactions towards a situation. I have no idea why they thought, 'oh every news would talk about good guy right?? Youtubers and stuff as well.' I just... don't get it. There's good characters in games all the time. Good NPCs as well.
I also don't get why they thought everyone would start loving NPCs and just like watching them... It's not what games are about. Yes, we don't have to kill them, but we don't just watch them. Even in Sims people have made pools without an exit to kill them off since the beginning. This is not human behavior. In fact, we have the animalistic instinct within us to want to be a strong dominant creature, that there will be heaps of people wanting to kill these 'NPC's that are sentient or whatever. 
  • Computer and programming. This is how it works... right?
I haven't learnt much programming. But even I knew that... this is just not how computers, programming works... Like one or 2 of those features, I would've been like, "oh it's just a part of the show" and laugh it off, but when they're doing something like making a bridge out of a building... or breaking servers and the bridge starts to collapse?? or NPC's just all getting sentient without overloading the server data... it's just... what?? And no just, 'delete the character file' anymore. They have to send in another macho Ryan Reynold character to combat it instead.
sigh... I don't know... 
  • Seemingly forced on romance...
I guess since they can't really Date off Molotov girl and Guy, so Key's will hint he was in love since the beginning and Millie just happened to not know and just ship them together at the end. It just seemed a bit forced and it just makes it less enjoyable. Especially since we're never going to find out what happens to Guy in the end. Just live in the never ending NPC world??

Anyway, I'm tired and I don't want to think about this movie anymore. It's a good movie to see with kids I guess? Got a lot of good action and I seem to be the only one who didn't like the movie, so oh well. 


Tuesday, April 13, 2021

I guess I'm an SJW in anime community now


Well, I was more of a social justice warrior than I thought I was.

I didn't know I would enjoy NOT seeing overly sexualized characters for once. I've always liked the Shonen manga genre, probably because of that aspect. Obviously, most Shonen manga still does a lot of fan service and along with the non-sexualized female characters along side of sexualized ones, but because it's targeted towards teens in a positive light, it showed mostly 'normal' girl characters.

Some examples of non-sexualized girls include





















When I say sexualized, I mean it in a real broad and general sense. Having big boob doesn't necessarily mean the character is sexualized. Women with big boobs are normal. It's how they're dressed and the angles the author focuses on that makes a character sexual. Claymore has nudity, but it's not sexual. 

For example, I wouldn't say Orihime from Bleach is a sexualized character, even though her boobs are big, because the focus in most scenes are not on her breasts or her butt. She definitely does have fan service moments where the author deliberately puts her in revealing outfits and shifts the camera focus to the breast and butt, but for the most part throughout the first few arc's (I haven't seen Bleach after the first 4 major arcs) of the manga, she's a normal likeable character with personal growth and independent for most parts from the main character. 









Rangiku Matsumoto on the other hand, I'd consider as a sexual character, due to the constant focus on her junk. 

















You don't even have to have big boobs to be sexualized. 

By the way, I should also add that I don't think sexualization is bad at all. For the most part, media is for enjoyment and having 'fan service' does bring joy and excitement in men. There is nothing wrong with that. Also in some anime and manga, the same applies to male characters as well, but just in a different sense as women and men have different taste in general. 
But the reason why I'm writing this is that, 'action' manga for teens have been dominated as 'shonen' for some time. It marginalizes a whole half of the population. There are many women who enjoy action, adventure type manga, with exciting battle scenes and character strength growth. Even the manliest Shonen manga 'dragon ball' has a female fan base. One of my all time favourite manga is Hunter x Hunter and I'm not the only female here who does. But straight female viewers have repeatedly been pushed out by a lot of action manga's emphasis on fanservice and sexualization of female character. We have boobs. We know boob 'physics'. It doesn't move like that. When High school of the dead came out, I actually was interested in how they'd survive, but I just couldn't get pass all that bouncing huge badonkadonk that was in your face. And the added harem that the male protagonist got. Same thing with Onepiece. I've watched up to about 300th episode, but the boobs in your face always... annoyed me. I guess especially since buff men showing their peck isn't my thing (and I'm assuming that's a bit of a fanservice for women). Same thing with Fire force. When sexual harassment is a punchline joke... it's off-putting... (I gave up on the show btw)

When manga like Kimetsu no yaiba, or Promised neverland, or Jujutsu kaisen came out, I realised I... really enjoy not seeing so much fan service... And it really isn't like the female characters aren't attractive or likeable. In fact, the fan community has already sexualized a lot of the characters for their own enjoyment, but for the most part, I can focus on the story, the development of characters and the personality of characters a lot more, when their "personality" isn't their big bouncy boobs (I'm of course, making a reference to the song "personality" by Johnny Mercer & The Pied Pipers (1945), made popular by the game Fallout haha). Plus liking a character feels a lot more inclusive as well since the focus of the character isn't just their breasts.
I guess one of the reasons I don't like about these sexualization, is the disconnect from reality. I work at a high school. Last year students can wear mufti. There are a few dress codes about how much you can reveal, but for the most part, majority of students like wearing 'normal' cloth... Some students have more mature body than others and when they wear tight clothing, it does seem revealing, but how they dress shows that they're not showing it off, or doing it for sexual attraction or attention. They like being stylish and follow the latest trend. They like hanging out with their peers looking nice with pretty makeup on, but really, even just by walking around the city area, most women don't like getting a huge focus on their breasts. So when anime zooms meticulously focus on the boobs and how they bounce, it almost feels like someone's ogling at my own boobs when I wanted them to focus on my... I dunno, pretty makeup? hahah I know men sometimes have this argument that it's a compliment, but here's the thing, sex have different meaning for men and women and whilst being desired by strangers can be a good feeling for some men, it's usually not the same for women. I've recently read a post on 9gag talking about how men imagine having sex with most women they're friendly with if they're around their age. That was... a bit disheartening to know. 

https://www.cbr.com/fire-forces-tamaki-bad-treatment/
https://thebackcatalogue905473583.wordpress.com/2019/10/14/fan-service-ruined-fire-force-for-me/

Here are some other articles on how ogling is not really pleasant for women
https://news.unl.edu/newsrooms/today/article/study-links-ogling-with-vulnerability-to-sexual-assault/

https://theconversation.com/sexually-objectifying-women-leads-women-to-objectify-themselves-and-harms-emotional-well-being-120762

https://www.tommiemedia.com/diversions/new-study-highlights-the-effects-of-%E2%80%98ogling%E2%80%99/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/01/science-columnist-tells-student-bothered-by-breast-ogling-prof-put-up-with-it/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brains-see-men-as-whole-women-as-parts/




Sunday, September 27, 2020

What we do in the shadows TV series review

 

I loved the movie 'What we do in the shadows' by Jemaine Clement, Taika Waititi.

But when I heard they were making a tv series, I kind of had my doubts. I guess even the movie itself was not a masterpiece of comedy like airplane or scary movie series, but it was like a nice 1~2 hour dose of brand new kiwi style humour which I like. Kiwi style humour seems to be a bit more of a milder version of british humour with a lot of awkwardness and quirkiness added to it. Kind of has a 'napolion dynamite' feel to it, but way more british haha. In any case, it usually isn't overtly sexual or violent in nature and I know 'what we do in the shadow' has vampires, there were lots of blood and a few scenes where people were actually impaled or had their heads chopped off, I still wouldn't call this completely 'violent'. 

In any case, this mild form of humour when it's not in a concentrated form like in a movie, ended up being a bit boring. I don't remember loudly laughing in any of the scenes. Maybe a few chuckles here and there? There definitely were a few cringe moments where it was awkward, not funny and just their exaggerated mannerisms seemed like they were trying too hard. 

Overall though, it wasn't a bad watch. The characters were well chosen and well portrayed. I loved how there's a new energy vampire and collin was both confident and awkward at the same time. I had a few chuckles like I said, and there weren't many cringe moments to ruin the experience.

Would I watch it again? Maybe. It's why I'm writing this blog right? haha Maybe in a few years time, I'll see this blog and go 'oh yeah. I should rewatch it' and sometimes rewatching something seems to be better than watching it the first time.






Friday, July 24, 2020

bioshock infinite review

BioShock Infinite - Wikipedia

I didn't like it as much as bioshock 1 or 2, even though the quality was much better than 1 or 2. Maybe I did enjoyed it more than bioshock 2?? but that was about it. I guess this was another game that showed that storytelling and ending was just as important as game play.
Bioshock 1 was about the conflict between personal choice and 'destiny' the players were forced to perform most of the game play to continue the story, but in the end of the whole game, the players fought against someone who has guided their narrative, insighting that players indeed at least had some choices in life, like going against fate. There were also different outcomes for what choices you've made, which was to save or use the 'sisters'. These aspects made the game engaging. As humans we desire to stray away from the idea that our life is a preset linear course by some deity. Most players saved sisters, simply as humans we liked helping each other to a certain extent. We enjoyed seeing that helping each other was indeed the correct choice.
Bioshock infinite... hmm... had a message about choice, but to link it with multiverse theory and consequences, it became way too complicated to involve character choice and lead to multiple endings. Bioshock infinite, without the ending and the general storyline, is a great game. There are engaging gameplay with skill sets that is fun to build. There is no one right way of defeating an enemy. You are forced to be creative with your limited ammos and weapons in hand. I died so many times fighting this universe version of big daddy, handyman, and I was annoyed to hell. But I realised that the environment and the new gameplay made it possible to fight these things without a huge hurdle. The skylines, elizabeth as support and the surrounding obstacles made the map more engaging rather than just forcing you to hide and shoot most of the time.
The reason why I didn't enjoy it as much, was due to the story and the ending. You know how some mysteries are like a knot. there's a bit of annoyance in untangling them, but ultimately, when you do untangle them, there's a good satisfaction and you see the whole picture nicely. Well this one... it was like, "Hey!!!! Multiverse. That's it. The end". It was so unsatisfying that I felt deflated after the game, thinking, 'where's the rest of the game???'. I won't spoil the game. Although not as challenging as time travelling concept, the multiverse concept is still a hard one to implement into a story without some sort of a plot hole. Comstock's abilities to predict the future was very vaguely constructed. Since it's poorly constructed, I guess it's way easier for the creators to say, "oh. Just cause." and move on, but that makes it all the more annoying. Same thing with tears. Because the idea of tears were... hmm... weirdly formed? Opening tears seem to do different things depending on what the writers wanted. Whilst that's handy for the writers, it's again, one of those things that just annoys the players invested in the story because all mystery answers seem to just be 'hey, all these stuff happened, because of magic.' I'll give you an example of how the narrative of 'tear' changes. It's treated like a window sometimes, where the tear occurs on one side, but the other side is unaware. It's treated like a doorway some times, where people can go through. It's treated like a universe shifter as well, where opening a tear basically changes the whole universe everyone is in, or if it doesn't fit the narrative, only a few people are transported when the tear is open. Elizabeth's abilities range from, being able to open a tear in any part of the world, to only that specific part of the world they're in, and being able to open a tear in a different universe, to a tear in the same universe. Honestly, I have no idea why she didn't just escape to a different part of the world when her abilities grew, according to the game, due to her age. I also don't understand how comstock didn't really see this happening to this extent and made better plans as a prevention.
This one is like the most minor complaint, but you know those particles that are meant to be stuck in space to create the floating city? Well, if they're moving with the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun, they're not really 'suspended' are they now? They're just levitating against gravity in a location above it's original location, isn't it?? Whatever. We'll just conclude it as another 'magic' moments where scientists can magically control the particle location as they please.
Also, if we stick with the multiverse theory that keeps the person coming in or out to different universe, completely unhinged, the ending makes no sense. No sense whatsoever. Nothing should've disappeared. (that's a small bit of spoiler).

All in all, I probably won't be playing the game again. So I'll give this like... I don't know... 6/10?

Oh... and I found out that.... there was another game... Bioshock infinite, burial at sea -_-... SIGH...

actually, I'll spoil it

I still hate the ending of bioshock infinite, because it goes against the idea of multiverse. Booker dying should just create another timeline and another set of universes, rather than erasing all the other universe. If the Elizabeth's that we see time travelled within their own universe, then we should've seen a different booker, rather than travelling with the same booker and he turns into the young booker. Also just like the luteces, elizabeth should not have disappeared, but stay in a state where she exists and doesn't in order for her to murder her own father, but also not being born at the same time.


More update, I just found that the DLC game, bioshock infinite, burial at sea, basically states that.

Thursday, July 23, 2020

You were never really here review

You Were Never Really Here (Film Tie-In) - Jonathan Ames ...

You were never really here - Directed by Lynne Ramsay

I don't usually like thrillers or movies with a lot of blood, but this movie was one hell of an emotional ride. Depicting mental illness and the beauty of the hope in this ugly world is a hard thing to do, but this movie does it so well that the blood and gore was actually a good addition to make the story meaningful.
I usually don't like fancy cinematography as well. Slow camera shots and loud sensory sounds can get quite repetitive and annoying for a lot of movies, but this one fit all these so well, that you were never really too bored waiting for the story to progress.
The story is simple yet complicated due to all the characters in play. We have Joe, this ex-military who is suffering from his own traumatic past. We have a mysterious young girl Nina, a daughter of a senator, who is frail and weak, yet shown as strong willed and minded through her actions throughout the movie. We have a caring mother, who have protected and loved her son, but is now growing weak, mentally and physically, due to her age. We have somewhat humanised enemies. People who are just hired or people with specific desires. One aspect that made this movie so attractive to me is that most of these people were neither dislikable, nor likable. They were just human. The main protagonist was a jerk towards his drug dealer or anyone he had any suspicions towards, and he was cold and calculative when he was at work. He left behind another girl that could've been saved, because it wasn't a part of his job. The girl was emotionless and looked defeat for most of the movie, completely lost after the traumatic experience she went through. Mother was so old and fragile that she was depicted as pitiful and sad. Even one of the senators goon was shown as some guy that was just doing his job, who died a pitiful end, but showed his human side.
Ending was superb as well. Joe, isn't this strong super human. He is in fact, saved by Nina. It's up to interpretation, but it seems like that Joe would've committed suicide if he did not save Nina. Nina, is also shown as a strong individual all along. She was able to overcome her own problems. It's no doubt that she will live drenched in trauma, but her next step in life is all up to the viewers imaginations and for now, she wants to move on from her dark past.

Overall, I'd give this movie a 9/10. The 1 mark off is just the really annoying sound level difference between the loud action scenes and gun shots and the conversation. I hate when movies do that. I want to hear what they're saying, so I put up the sound AND BAM!!!! When action scene comes in the sound DOUBLES. I don't like blasting my ear drums.







Friday, July 17, 2020

Kekkaishi review

Kekkaishi - Wikipedia

Kekkaishi manga review
Overall, I would probably give this manga a 7/10.

This is what I wrote as a comment for one of the chapters, 145.
"This is my first time reading this manga. I'm kind of bored at how much of a typical shonen manga the story has become. Like the guy just gets powers. Kimetsu no yaiba came out a century later as a much more engaging shonen manga with great character build up. We saw his training and each steps that lead to his victory. He also was very human, getting hurt and losing at times to strong enemies. Gen had a good character concept, but died too fast. This is like the second major time he just 'happens' to win against a seemingly unbeatable enemy because of unexplained magic. (I'm thinking of kaguro for the other major time) I also hate how there isn't a likeable and engaging side character. Tokine is plain as they can come and... to be honest, she's even more boring than sakura."

The review on the bottom has spoilers.
I think that comment contains a lot of what I feel for this manga already.
The manga had so much potential and it really has a good concept. The world lore is built well and there are a few good mysteries that keeps you reading. We get lured into this mysterious place called karasumori and the main character Yoshimori's search for truth and ambitions to seal it away becomes our search for truth. There are a few interesting character concepts, but unfortunately, most characters are plain shonen style character that just has either no depth, or boring depth.
There are good engaging mysteries and there are really unsatisfying mysteries. Ones that doesn't even make you want to pursue or some that are just plain lame because the truth unfolded was something like 'hey look. It's just magic alright?'. This manga has a few of those. For example, Kaguro.
OBD Wiki - Character Profile - Kaguro
He's introduced as a super strong enemy. He has an interesting characteristic and has actions that are questionable, like killing Aihi. But his back story is cut short and not much information is given as to why he is like that. I just found out that in the anime series, they actually gave the character some life and gave him a better explained backstory. Great move. But then again, like he had a really lame death. Another example is Byaku.
Byaku | Kekkaishi Wiki | Fandom
His backstory this time, is given to us. But... uh... it's lame and doesn't add much to his personality. Basically his backstory was only given to explain why Heisuke and his ayakashi servant named Risa exists. As readers, when his story and arc is over, we still have no clue why he was so nice to the Princess. He lost to her and was his servant, but his attitude towards her was more like love. However, we're not explained anything beyond that. Like did he actually love her? If so why? Why was he so cold to Risa except the fact that she wanted luxurious things? Why did he become an ayakashi? Also when the Princess died... uh... he just... disappeared? Like we never hear of him later. 
Just like the mysteries, there are lots of good ideas that just ends so suddenly or in a lame manner. Gen character was basically that.
OBD Wiki - Character Profile - Gen Shishio
I legitimately hoped and thought he was going to be another main side character. He had a interesting backstory and had a good personality and the dynamics between him and yoshimori and tokine was well fitting that with him around, I actually liked Tokine more when he was introduced. But he was killed off early on as well. It wasn't a lame death like Kaguro though, which was nice.

Also I just wanted to rant about Tokine.
Kekkaishi OST by Kekkaishi OST on SoundCloud - Hear the world's sounds
As someone who appears on a lot of the cover, right next to the main protagonist, she is as plain as they can get. She started off good and strong with an interesting concept. She was caring and she had her own sort of power. But these characteristics were killed off waaayyy too early and she became just a mere stepping stone for yoshimori to develop. Her caring nature only shined when Gen was around and after his death, she just became this unemotional character going around mosting uncaring about what the main character was doing. I found it funny when she got angry at yoshimori later on, when he basically went into the enemies den, since he even asked her and she just let him go. Then to get angry at him for being reckless?? are you kidding me? Also to cover for her weakness she refined her kekkai making moves to use it more like a weapon. I thought after that, she would shine a bit more, like fighting along yoshimori, or even going on her own battles where she shines. Nope. She went on very small mini battles of her own and got a new ability to travel into other dimensions, but nope... other than that, she quickly went back to being this unimportant side character that just shows up every now and again, and when she did, it was mostly just to make yoshimori act in a certain way. When I say unemotional, I really meant it. It's why the character is so boring. In fact, before and during the Gen arc, she actually had a bit of emotions and worries, like a normal human being. I was looking forward to her development because of that. She even made changes to her kekkai, which was a nice development and was wondering about her feelings towards yoshimori. After then gen arc though, the only time she showed any strong emotion was when yoshimori got into trouble and she scolded him. It became boring and repetitive fast. Maybe if the scolding leaded to her feeling more like towards yoshimori, I'd be happy to see it, but her emotions were purely to show yoshimori feel a bit remorseful.

Oh yeah. Another rant about yoshimori and his brother. Like, his brother is taking a huge load of the burden in fighting and getting power etc to protect the family. Yoshimori is annoyed that the brother is taking the burden alone. You know what annoyed me? Without having adequate power, he just kept either getting in his brothers way and kept repeating something like 'Listen to me! you never listen'... and then all he had to say was 'hey look you don't have to take the burden on your own', but like it's so deflating when he says that, because most of his actions are so thoughtless that he actually doesn't share the burdens of his brother. It happens twice and I just got annoyed at yoshimori rather than thinking, 'Oh, he's pure hearted'. Like he just doesn't get any proper character development to actually follow his words or start thinking straight. When he was at the







Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Humans are omnivore. But we should be vegetarian/vegans

It was just a random coincidence that I hopped on some videos that were debating whether humans should ditch meat or not. But it did spiral me onto this youtube binge watch of vegan vs... well any other omnivore really haha I just got annoyed enough at some of these arguments to make this blog.

Humans. Homosapiens. Something that scientists have categorized in this day and age to be us, is omnivorous. OK?... sigh... But vegans, in their argument, states that we're not. Watching all these videos reminds me of the protestors against the COVID lock down. They're a minority, but they're very loud and is a laughing stock of knowledge people elsewhere.
Now before I start my explanation on anything, I have nothing against vegans or vegetarians. As my title suggest, people should be vegetarians or vegans. But this is why I'm writing this blog. A lot of vegan activists promotes veganism by stating humans are meant to be vegans(or herbivores), as if it's some sort of a fact and they base it off some bad science.
Here's a concrete fact, most humans can live a healthy vegan diet for the rest of their lives due to our developed agriculture and science. Here's the big, However. However, we cannot live a herbivore diet without modern agriculture and this is because we are born omnivores. Just likes dogs. Dog ancestors, closely related to wolves, were carnivores. Now, dogs are more omnivore and can live off a vegan diet with the right type of food. Here's another concrete fact. Humans were only able to evolve to have this much intelligence due to our diet which included meat. Without us being able to and actively hunting meat, we would not have migrated so far, we would not have the culture we have so far and we wouldn't have the intelligence level we have so far. To argue otherwise and just forcefully compare us to apes and chimps, is equivalent to saying we should have the same level of intelligence as them. To suggest that we 'should' have the same diet as them, is a very poor argument because evolution due to natural selection changes the base DNA and we're simply not the same as apes and chimps.

So before I go into point by point, I just want to point out why I am arguing against this in the first place. Promoting false science hurts causes. Here's a extreme example. If you're allergic to peanuts and that's been tested, you've known that your whole life and you've had bad experiences with peanuts, and someone comes up to you and argues with you, "Humans are meant to eat peanuts all the time. You should eat these peanuts or else you're a bad person." What would you think? You'd think that person is nuts (no pun intended) and you'd ignore their point of view whether it has some base or not. Veganism and vegetarianism should be promoted with good science and good moral basis. This is the only way an argument that has so much backlash and science backing against it will win. Meat does taste good in most palates. A lot of people choose some sort of meat as their comfort food, not because they like murder, but because they like the taste of meat. A lot of people are addicted to fast food because they love the taste of meat as a part of our evolutionary trait and humans are meant to crave meat, even if it's bad in large quantities. 

Let's start our point by point argument why we're omnivores, even though there're hundreds of biological or evolutionary study out there on what type of diet we're meant to have, which most of the time, suggest we're supposed to be omnivores. (one of the false arguments was that the longest living people were herbivores and it doesn't take long to see that they're 'mainly' vegetarians with meat as a a side dish... rarely are people living past 100 purely vegan)

So here are the arguments against 'human are herbivores'

1. Human are herbivores, because our ancestors (evolutionary-wise) are herbivores.
Just a huge note that I've put in 'evolutionary-wise'. All these vegan seem to sort of ignore human history... They go straight to either comparing humans with chimps, or mentioning our pre-homosapien origin...
Anyway, back to the point... If we just focus on our 'ancestors', "Humans should not live in houses, because our ancestors didn't live in houses." "Humans should often eat our young, since our ancestors often ate their young." "Humans should violently kill each other for territory and houses, since our ancestors were like that."
Now a lot of these, are behavioural, but our current appendix structure, lack of hair, our lower pH level compared to a lot of monkeys and apes, the ability to digest lactose in a population as much as 80% depending on where you live, are a good indicator that animals evolve and change, including their dietary requirements. Just a big note, pandas were, (and possible even still are) supposed to be carnivores. Some vegans go as far as to comparing us to some shrew like creature that exists some 200,000 years ago and state that we should be herbivores, because they were herbivores. This is not how evolution works. Humans were able to migrate into places where apes would not be able to live, due to thousands of years worth of evolution, survival of the fittest and those who are able to have somewhat flexible diet, allowing us to live in harsh environments. I mean, us having dogs as pets are a huge evidence that this transaction happened. A wolf would not have followed us if we only ate vegetables. Yes dogs are now omnivores, but their diet (just like us) still requires a lot of protein, vitamins, mineral and fat that are only present in meat, but we're now (in the last few decades) able to provide throughout the year in terms of vegetation using modern age agriculture and transportation.

2. Human teeth is a proof that we're herbivores.
This is sort of a sub-category of answer 1. Animals evolve for the better or worse depending on the situation. Change in feature, doesn't necessarily decrease other related functions. Whales have 'lost' their legs due to millions of years of evolution. If we go far back, chickens used to look more like reptiles. Pandas were carnivores but even if they're vegetarians now, they still have the teeth and some other structures of a carnivore. Change in physical factors are not necessarily "these animals are meant to be" situation. Yes we have a mouth structure and teeth structure that have evolved for the worse. Our canines are much more blunt (compared to our herbivorous cousins, the gorillas), our mouth is much smaller than of carnivores, our intestines are longer than of other common carnivores. But as much as these are facts, if also is a very concrete fact once more that all these changes were made due to our diet of cooked meat for thousands and thousands of years. Animals change due to evolution and that may mean losing a trait. There was literally no need for a large, sharp canine when humans have found a way to tear into softer meat for more than 100 thousand years ago. To add to the fact that a lot of studies show 'aggression' was not necessarily a favoured trait amongst humans leading to females choosing mates with less aggressive features. If you want comparison between chimps or apes to be a proof that we're herbivores... well the opposing party can do the same to argue against. Our teeth structure looks nothing like a LOT of other herbivores... Cows, deer, rabbits, squirrel etc whose main diet is vegetation...

3. Humans not drooling over other animals is a proof that we're herbivores.
Ok, well to defend that I also haven't seen anyone drool over broccoli or beans unless it was cooked and covered in sauce. haha
In any case, did you know that there are quite a few domesticated animals, not just including omnivores, but carnivores as well that actually struggle to hunt or go after live animals? It's a documented fact. Carnivores, will hunt for food if left in the wild. But domesticated carnivores and omnivores like dogs and cats will sometimes not hunt unless taught. I know a lot of vegans will argue about cats, and I don't want to get into how recent cat domestication and the reason for domestication was, but I'll just say that cats were mainly bred for hunting mice whereas quite a lot of breeds of dogs were bred for socialisation in recent decades, more than hunting. The thing is, children that have grown up in farmlands or amongst a hunting family, will not find the process disgusting, but adults who have never seen anything of it will be 'shocked'. Even if our close cousin, the chimps hunt, even if it's completely natural and normal, some people are horrified. However, time and time again, cultures prove that the benefits of hunting outweighed the 'horror'. People were able to migrate to locations where vegetations was unobtainable for almost half the year. Many studies showed that eating meat was crucial for human evolution. There are no human culture that solemnly eat a plant based diet except very recent ones.

4. Longest living humans are herbivores.
Ok. Blatant lie. There are a handful of people living a strictly vegan diet and have lived past 100. Most people who have lived past 100 live a mostly vegetarian diet with a small amount of meat. Some video mentioned Okinawa diet. With a simple search, I saw Japanese people from Okinawa, over the age of 100 explaining her diet which includes a small amount of fish and some braised pork. NOT a strict vegan diet. Mediterranean diet, well known for their health benefits and being the diet of healthy old Italians, have fish, poultry and egg mixed in them. 

5. Humans use tools to hunt. This is not natural.
... At this stage I'm a bit sick of writing all these stupid arguments against stupid people. Lots of studies have shown that people on strict raw vegan diet are in fact unhealthy, but they simply ignore that because tools are unnatural and therefore, must be unhealthy. They also ignore the fact that most people INCLUDING vegans and vegetarians actually eat a good amount of COOKED food. Cooked implying that they have used fire... Fire doesn't naturally occur in the wild except after a thunderstorm or when a dry wildfire ravages... You don't walk around a field and say "oh hey! there's a normal and natural fire. Let's cook our vegetables on there so it becomes easier to eat and digest." And just so you know, it is easier to digest a lot of cooked vegetables, not to mention the other benefits, such as hygiene of it. But if we hunt animals using tools, suddenly it becomes a whole other story. As I've mentioned in my 2nd reasoning, our teeth are in fact an example of how evolution is not necessarily for the 'better'. Evolution is just a change. The fact that we see chimps hunt is a good indicator that our ancestors must have hunted. The fact that we even have canines, unlike cows, is a good indicator that our ancestors have used these for something. The fact that we crave meat is a good indicator that meat eating was a part of our diet. The fact that we came up with tools to hunt these, starting from a simple throwing of a rock or smacking with a stick, is a good indicator that eating meat didn't just come out of nowhere, but came out as a part of our evolution. I really hope people see where I'm going with this. Hunting with tool is not strange and is not a proof that we weren't supposed to eat meat. If that's a proof, that all these vegans are hypocrites for being online, since that's also not natural.


There's a few more points, but I'm getting tired so I'm going to stop here.
I'm just going to mention my title though and point things out.
Veganism is possible now. We have agricultural development and technology that allowed us to grow various type of vegetation throughout the whole year. We can also export and import food that are grown in various environments. Because of this, we can ignore eating meat and get all the necessary nutrients from plants.
Too many people eat way too much meat in the modern age. Farms mass produce meat and raise their animals in inhumane conditions to meet the quota and have cheap meat shipped to your local grocer. We can get away from this. We can even go back to purely hunting for meat and having most of our diet based on vegetables. Animals can live in nature and die in nature. Farms should definitely have stricter regulations to protect the welfare of their animals. 

Anyway, other than that, peace out