Emerald

I already said that there's no proof to that conjecture as there is ZERO evidence that "some people are not capable of going Vegan without compromising their health." So, even my idea that there could potentially be people who can't go Vegan is just a baseless conjecture. I was just being charitable to your position when I conceded that there may be. But there is no such evidence. And I have framed that from the beginning as a mere hypothesis and NOT as a claim. I have NOT made any baseless claims of truth. BUT YOU HAVE when you claimed that it was true that "40% of people are not capable of going Vegan without compromising their health." But just like there is no such evidence that "5% of people aren't capable of going Vegan without compromising their health." There is EQUALLY NO EVIDENCE to your CLAIM that "40% of people aren't capable of going Vegan without compromising their health." But there IS evidence that adopting a Vegan diet leads to better health outcomes in terms of the prevention of heart disease and stroke... which are the number one killers. And the ADA and WHO have both deemed a well-planned Vegan diet as nutritionally adequate at all phases of life, which they would not have done if they had evidence that 40% of peoples' health was at risk from going Vegan.

What I mean by real evidence is evidence that is derived from studies and meta-analyses from large sample sizes of the population. That's the only valid evidence you could use to determine the truth about claims of the overall health of a diet or lack-there-of. You can't just be like, "Because I believe this diet is healthy, it means it's healthy." or "Because ___ got good results on this diet, it means it's healthy." That's just a lower quality standard for evidence. Jenky science = Jenky epistemology I've posted the Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence below so that you can understand better what constitutes real evidence when you're making a claim of truth about something.

I already said it was a hypothesis and framed it as such. Like I said, there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE that there are people who exist who aren't capable of going Vegan without compromising their health. But out of charitability to your position, I WAGER that there are some edge cases where some people who can't go Vegan because of certain conditions which haven't been accounted for in studies. As I said... this is a hypothesis. I am not framing it as true. It is just what I believe to likely be true in lieu of evidence that supports your point about dietary diversity. But your claim that "40% of people can't go Vegan because of dietary diversity" IS BEING FRAMED AS TRUE. But there is ZERO EVIDENCE to back up that claim. You just keep appealing to the notion of dietary diversity as evidence enough to support that claim, when you have no evidence to support that claim. And you keep clutching your pearls and throwing ad homonyms about how radical I am for "rejecting dietary diversity" when I have done no such thing. I recognize the possibility of dietary diversity and it makes sense to me that human needs would vary to some degree. But there is no evidence that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health." And it doesn't matter how much you try to slice things.. there is ZERO evidence that backs up your claim.

As long as you're not making any objective claims about the Vegan diet, then you can hold whatever beliefs you want. But as soon as you start making baseless claims like "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health" or some other general claim about the Vegan diet, you're going to need some real evidence to back that up. And real evidence means actual studies and meta-analyses on the human diet.

Yes it is dietary diversity. I just have a hypothesis that dietary diversity between human beings is subtle... not extreme. But you have a hypothesis that dietary diversity between human beings is extreme. But regardless of our own baseless hypotheses on the matter, there is no evidence that exists that "___% of people can't go Vegan without health issues." That's why I'm saying that I wager that there probably are some people who can't go Vegan, even if they aren't accounted for yet in a study. And that is me being charitable to your position, despite there being no evidence to support that claim that "some people can't go Vegan." So, my hypothesis is that there may be a small percentage of people out there who can't go Vegan because of very specific conditions that make plant-consumption more difficult. But there is ZERO evidence that a large percentage of people can't go Vegan because of EXTREME dietary diversity. And if it were the case that 40%+ of people are not capable of being Vegan, this would most certainly be accounted for in the litany of studies and meta-analyses that have been done on the human diet. But there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. You're just pulling that idea out of your own mind.

My argument isn't about health, at its core. I am of average health, and I am not claiming to be super healthy. My argument is about how people use evidence-less claims that "plant-based diets are unhealthy" to justify their own actions to themselves. And to get people to see their self-deceptions, you have to get people to recognize when they are making baseless claims about health... or other things as well. Otherwise, they can keep hiding themselves from themselves using those baseless claims.

Another straw man. I haven't rejected the concept of dietary diversity at all. I even said that I would wager that there are some people who can't go Vegan who have certain conditions like Epilepsy and autoimmune issues. So, my claim isn't that "dietary diversity doesn't exist". I'm just pointing out that your claim that "40% of people can go Vegan without compromising their health" doesn't have any actual evidence to support it. You're just explaining the general notion of how a bell curve works and claiming that the way that bell curves work is viable evidence to your above claim. And you are referring to this baseless claim listed above when you're using the term "dietary diversity". And then you're pretending that my pointing out that there's no evidence to that claim means that I am rejecting the existence of dietary diversity, when I acknowledged it earlier in the thread.

You see, I'm not even trying to convince people to go Vegan. Nor am I saying that Vegan values are universal values. Like, you won't ever see me randomly trying to convince a person to change their diet. Nor will you find me trying to convince a person who doesn't care about the well-being of animals to care about the well-being of animals. I have these arguments mostly because intellectual dishonesty annoys the crap out of me... no matter which form it comes in. And people who make anti-Vegan posts that are like "Veganism is bad because ____" are unconsciously employing a lot of intellectually dishonest tactics for the purpose of convincing themselves that they are fine with doing something that they're not actually fine with deep down. So, because intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics is a pet peeve of mine, I can get really into these types of arguments where I try to show an uncomfortable truth to people who are trying to use all sorts of jiggery pokery to make that truth seem false and to shut it down so as to avoid acknowledging that truth. But alas, arguing with a person who's intellectually dishonest and unaware of their intellectual dishonesty is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. You could be making all the right moves, but the pigeon will just crap all over the chess board and claim that they won the game.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you in particular. This entire conversation began on another thread where another poster made some kind of hokey argument about the existence of Veganism eroding cultural practices. And when someone challenges Veganism with these insincere arguments, that's when I try to get people to face the REAL reason why they're being so defensive in the first place.... which is usually doesn't actually have anything to do with their defense, but purely because they don't agree with their own actions. Otherwise, they wouldn't go into defense mode and have to create these hokey arguments in the first place. And now, you're doing it with all these unsubstantiated health claims about the Vegan diet.... like your conjecture that 40% of people can't go Vegan at all. And you're trying to protect the idea of this unsubtantiated claim under the guise of "embracing the diversity of dietary needs" and "here's a chart about how bell curves work." But no matter how you slice it, there just isn't any evidence that 40% of people can never go Vegan. Your claim is baseless. And there is no evidence to your claim that "Veganism is unhealthy and unsustainable." This claim is also baseless. And why would you hold onto such an unsubstantiated claim in the first place, unless this unsubstantiated claim was protecting you from recognizing deeper truths about yourself?

Yes, there are all kinds of messages in the culture that serve the function of trying to discredit the choices of those who go against the status quo and to try to convince those that go against the status quo to return to it. And I saw some kind of study that Vegans were rated as the group that has the most negative associations with them. And I suspect it's because a lot of people agree with Vegans values-wise. They just don't live in alignment with those values. So, the existence of Vegans make people who are not Vegan very uncomfortable and combative and defensive about their dietary choices. And being on the receiving end of that combativeness and defensiveness, can make it tempting to just give up the good fight and go back to the status quo and to cook up some reason why "Veganism is actually bad after all!". The reality is that it just makes people uncomfortable when people make different ethical choices than the majority because people go, "OH NO! Does that mean that I'm unethical!?!?!" And they quickly find a way to get that thought to leave their mind. But yes, it can be difficult to stick to Veganism if everyone around you is repeating a bunch of "Veganism will kill your health" narratives. The main challenge is staying aligned with what you know to be true and what feel is right, even when others are trying to knock you off the center spoke of your sovereignty with all sorts of invalidating narratives.

You could also use this rationale to justify allowing serial killers to kill indescriminately... but I doubt you'd be okay with that. So, you don't really believe this... unless it's used to justify your own dietary choices.

I used to justify my meat consumption through these appeals to futility as well. I was like, "Well, I could quit eating meat. But the animals will die anyway." But the fact of the matter is that boycotts are an effective form of protest. The fact of the matter is that my power is small. But I do have power. And I choose to use what little power that I have to make a vote in the direction I'd like to see. Plus, it helps me stay aligned with my own values... which I wasn't before when I was eating meat. Also, you are not in the same position as the lion, because the lion literally NEEDS to eat meat to survive. For humans who aren't dealign with food scarcity, we don't need to eat meat to survive. We only eat it for pleasure. And yes, meat is delicious. Some of my favorite foods were meat or meat related. But I quit to stay aligned to my values.

But your biology doesn't require meat. I haven't eaten meat in 9 years. And I know people who've been lifelong Vegans and Vegetarians who were raised that way who have never eaten meat in their lives. So, the reality is that you DO eat meat for pleasure and convenience... even if you believe you eat it because you "require it." And I disagree with the practice of eating meat for pleasure because it doesn't sit well with me.

@integral The whole reason we've even gotten into the scientific argument in general is because you were trying to use scientific arguments to invalidate Veganism as a diet and as a practice, so that you can defend your own choices to yourself. The whole crux of my argument is, "People use tons of rationalizations to invalidate Veganism because it helps them avoid their real motivations from themselves." And "I'm not Vegan because Veganism is unhealthy" is just one of those rationalizations that people hide behind to avoid seeing their motivations that they would disagree with if they became conscious of them. I didn't go Vegan for health reasons myself. I went Vegan to stay aligned with my own values because I disagree with the practice of eating animals for pleasure. It's just a bonus that it comes with added health benefits and environmental benefits. And the only reason why I'm arguing with the health claims in the first place is to show you that you're using a bunch of unsubstantiated health claims about Veganism in order to explain away your choices, so that you don't have to acknowledge the fact that your consumption of animals doesn't have anything to do with health at all. Either that, or you are genuinely mistaken and believe that the Vegan diet is unhealthy. And if I can help you realize that this belief is unsubstantiated, then you can get more honest about your own motivations because you won't have the misconception that "Veganism is unhealthy" to hide behind. And, the only thing scientific you've given me is a few studies that show that a high percentage of Vegans are deficient in a particular nutrient. And if you were making the claim that "x% of Vegans tend to be deficient in ___ nutrient.", then that wouldn't be an issue. But you're making wild unsubstantiated claims like... "40% of people can't go Vegan because their health would deteriorate." "The Vegan diet is unhealthy and unsustainable for most people." "You can't meet all of your nutritional needs on a Vegan diet, even with supplementation." "Supplementation doesn't help with nutrient deficiencies." And none of these claims are based in evidence. And when I point this out, you accuse me of being ideological. But I just want you to see the truth that you're doing mental gymnastics with all these unsubstantiated health claims. Just face with the real reason you're ACTUALLY eating animals without clinging to unsubstantiated claims around Veganism being unhealthy. And then, ask yourself, "Does this motivation align with my values?" And since you've been Vegan before, it will be extra difficult for you to face the truth. And that's why you're trying so hard to justify your dietary choices to yourself by proxy of arguing with me.

I'd rather them die of old age and in a manner that has nothing to do with my personal choices or my own exploitative actions. The reason I don't eat animals or animal products is because I disagree with the practice of eating animals for pleasure.

This is tiring. I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you guys that anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute valid evidence to the overall health of a diet or lack-there-of. (regardless of what the diet is) I've already been clear that my reason for being Vegan is to stay in integrity with my own values because I don't see human pleasure and convenience as more important than the life and well-being of animals. And if I were to keep eating animals for pleasure like I used to, I'd have to do a lot of hard-core lying to myself and mangling my epistemology and dampening the scope of my consciousness like you guys do to maintain that habit. And I've already conveyed to you guys that there is no evidence that a Vegan diet leads to worse health outcomes compared to an omnivorous diet... and that reducing and eliminating animal products from your diet decreases the risk of heart disease and stroke, which are the number one killers. And I've already conveyed that most people who make appeals to health as a way to invalidate Veganism are doing mental gymnastics because they don't want to face the facts of their real motivations... which is to continue eating animals for pleasure and to convince themselves that they're eating animals for health. Take those facts or leave them. I don't want to keep reiterating the same facts at a brick wall. If you want to argue with me, you can just reference this post... which contains the full extent of the claims that I'm making.

Thank you for being honest. It makes sense that you are not Vegan... because you don't have Vegan values. I disagree with your position. But I can at least respect that you are not doing mental gymnastics and going into cognitive dissonance to try to maintain an identity of goodness.

I'm saying that, if your claim that "40% of people can never go Vegan without compromising their health" were true, these health organizations would not have the stances on Veganism that they do. And beyond that, there would be ACTUAL data to back that up in studies. But no such data exists. You're just pulling these really high numbers out of the air. Also, there is no such evidence that there even are people who exist who can't go Vegan. But despite the lack of evidence that there are people who can't go Vegan, I'm being charitable to your position and assuming that there are a few percentages of people who would struggle to go Vegan because they have certain conditions. So, given my baseless charitability to your position, I would wager that it is possible that there are people who can't go Vegan but that they're a small minority. But that is just a hypothesis, because there is no actual evidence that I'm aware of to your claim "some people can't go Vegan without compromising their health" at all.

If you are trying to make claims about the overall health of a diet (or lack thereof), yes it is self-deception (or even just a misunderstanding of what constitutes viable evidence) to see personal anecdotes as an indication of what's true. But @ExploringReality isn't making such claims. So, it's fine on that level. The reason why I'm telling you that personal anecdotes aren't valid is because you keep making wild unfounded claims about plant-based diets that aren't backed up by anything other than personal anecdotes. And you are cherry picking the personal anecdotes that already fit your own biases... as you could just as easily find personal anecdotes that support the opposite claims.

True

You're pulling those percentages out of thin air... and they are unreasonably high. Like, it's fathomable to me that there would be some exceptions where some people really would struggle to switch to a plant-based diet... like people with very specific ailments that make it difficult to eat plants. But these exceptions would be a few percentage points at most... not like 40%-70% of people. If it were true that 40%+ of people could not go Vegan without health risks, the American Dietetic Association would not have deemed the Vegan diet as an adequate diet for meeting nutritional needs at any phase of life including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. And the World Health Organization would not have suggested more people to shift to a plant-based diet to prevent Non-Communicable Diseases (like heart disease) and to have a better impact on the environment. These health organizations would have had to have given a warning like... "Caution, only 30% of people can healthfully go Vegan!" The fact of the matter is that the majority of people are able to go Vegan and thrive with few exceptions. And most people who claim they could not because of health reasons are just justifying their choices to themselves under the guise of health, when the reality it's for some other reason. I'm not even saying that they're consciously lying. But when people make decisions that go against their own ethical compass, they have to find a justification that makes them feel okay with their choices. And while it's uncomfortable to admit, "I'm choosing to go back to eating meat and dairy because it's easier and I find it more pleasurable and socially acceptable." it's much less uncomfortable to tell one's self the story that, "I'm choosing to go back to eating meat and dairy because I was just the type of person who can't go Vegan without compromising my health." But it's not actually true. It's just a common trick that people play on themselves to justify their own choices.

I suppose that's probably true. But I still tend to wonder with Tim Pool's rationale, what of it is deliberate dishonestly and what of it is just drinking one's own Koolaid. You're probably right that it's more likely that he's drinking his own Koolaid.

Yeah, that's what I got the sense of too.

I'm not saying that there are zero instances where a Vegan diet doesn't work for an individual person. What I am saying is that it's fairly uncommon... and that people will often use the "Vegan diet didn't work for me because of health" argument as a cover to lie to themselves about why they have quit Veganism... and to hide from themselves about the REAL reason they ACTUALLY quit Veganism. And it's difficult to differentiate between the small number of people that actually couldn't make a Vegan diet work for them because of their physiology (like Epilepsy, autoimmune disease, difficulty digesting plant fiber, etc.)... ...and people who just didn't approach a Vegan diet the correct way (like people who go Vegan and don't eat enough calories)... ...and the people who are just experiencing a no-cebo effect relative to a Vegan diet because they are tricking themselves into giving up because they want the pleasures, convenience, and widespread social acceptance associated with not being Vegan. So, because it is difficult to tell the difference between people in each of these groups, it's best to be a bit skeptical when people are giving a "I quit Veganism because it didn't work for me health-wise" argument... as it's far more likely that they either didn't do it right or are lying to themselves to go back to comfort zone of their old habits.

I just don't like debating in the public square because I feel it is fruitless, because people are just going to go by things like body posture and certainty rather than what's actually true. So, I don't do it. It's a whole lot of energy expenditure for nothing.