Emerald

I'm terrible at debating. And that is because debating is more about certainty of posture than it is about speaking out what's true. And I am just not very good at persuading through statements of truth. (Though I am pretty good at it when I ask people questions) Like, the person I'm debating with could be arguing that the typical color of grass is purple with pink polka dots and silver stripes, and I could be saying that the most common color for grass is green... and I would still lose the debate. So, I just don't debate because I'm not good at it, and no matter how right I am... people will see my debate performance and be like "You know, before she started debating, I used to think grass was green. But now that she's arguing that the grass is green, it sounds wrong. So, I'm going to believe the person who's saying that the grass is purple with pink polka dots and silver stripes because they are saying so with utmost certainty." The only reason I debate on here is because it's in writing... so it's only a bunch of people shouting statements at each other. And it helps me get clearer on my own perspectives and to practice staying centered when being challenged.

I used to think the same thing when I first went Vegan about 9 years ago. I went Vegan for ethical reasons. And then health-wise, I was like "a whole food Vegan or whole food omnivores diet are probably similarly healthy." But then, a couple years ago, I actually looked into the research on how the consumption of animals and animal products are more likely to lead to the formation of plaques in the arterial walls compared to the consumption of plants... and how this leads to greater instances in heart disease and stroke. And this is because animal products are higher in saturated fats compared to plant sources, where most plant sources (except coconut) tend to be low in saturated fat. And given that heart disease and stroke are the biggest health-related killers, I no longer hold the belief that plant-based diets and ominivorous diets are equally healthy.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of people, who live in regions where food isn't scarce, don't need to eat meat and dairy to survive and be healthy. Most people eat meat and dairy solely out of convenience and pleasure... at the expense of the animals' life. And statistically speaking, most people would enjoy a longer life-span and greater health if they switched to a plant-based diet as they would reduce their risk of heart disease and stroke (which are the number one killers). So, most people who are like "I eat animals for health reasons." are either genuinely mistaken or just telling themselves that to avoid the truth of their own motivations. And attempts to invalidate Veganism as a diet through claims that "the Vegan diet is unhealthy" is one of the ways non-Vegans with Vegan values justify their choices to themselves, so as to avoid having to confront the fact that they are prioritizing their own creature comforts over animals' lives and wellbeing... which goes against their own values. So, what I'm saying is that you can do whatever you want and eat whatever you want... but be honest with yourself and face with the REAL reason you're doing it. Don't hide behind ideas like "I'm not Vegan because Veganism is unhealthy." or "I'm not Vegan because Vegans are too idealogical" or "I'm not Vegan because I'm trying to preserve culture." or "I'm not Vegan because the Bible is against it." or "I'm not Vegan because indigenous people still eat meat and Vegans are being mean to them." The real reason for most people in food secure regions is, "I'm not Vegan because I get pleasure and comfort from eating animals and animal products. And even though I don't believe human pleasure is more important than animals' lives and well-being, I'm still eating animals for pleasure because I don't want to change my habits." A little bit of self-honesty goes a long way. -- *Also, in relation to the studies and meta-analyses that you mentioned, I would need to look into them to make sure there are no conflicts of interest there in terms of who has funded and participated in the studies and to see what the sample size is and how they do the sampling. But setting aside that you can meet all of your nutritional needs on a Vegan diet if you pay attention to your nutritional needs... ... even if all of that is true about a high percentage of Vegans having nutrient deficiencies with regard to certain nutrients, a Vegan diet is still associated with greater longevity because of the decrease in stroke and heart disease risk and its association with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality. So, if you're picking your poison... one of those poisons is more likely to send you to an early grave. Tons of people are dying early from heart disease because it's the number one killer. Very few people are dying early from Iodine deficiency.

Again... this is a strawman of my argument. My argument is not, "Veganism is good for everyone." nor is my argument that "Everyone who eats the same diet gets the same exact results." I already mentioned that there are some ailments that make going Vegan much more difficult, like Epilepsy and certain autoimmune issues. And of course, if someone really does need to eat meat to survive due to food scarcity, then that's also going to be healthier than the alternative (which is starving). So, stop arguing against claims that I'm not even making. My claims are... 1. People who aren't Vegan often go into cognitive dissonance around their diet to hide their discomfort with their own choices from themselves. 2. Statistically, a diet that increases plant intake and minimizes the consumption of animals and animal products is associated with lower cholesterol, lower blood pressures, less chance of atherosclerosis, and a lowered chance of heart disease or stroke. 3. Your claims that "Veganism is unhealthy and unsustainable and lead to nutrient deficiencies" requires you to provide more than anecdotal evidence to support that claim as you need studies of large sample sizes to determine the health of a diet or lack there-of. Keep your argument to the claims that I'm actually making.

The problem isn't that I'm holding to scientific dogma. The problem is that you're doing bad science! And you're also doing a bad job at holistic thinking because you are mincing paradigms and sacrificing the scientific perspective instead of integrating it into your holistic framework. What you are calling holistic thinking is just mental gymnastics dressed up in holistic jargon. First off, I need to see the ACTUAL empirical evidence if you're making the broad-sweeping claims that "50% of Vegans are malnourished" and that "supplementation doesn't resolve nutrition problems". These claims about the overall health of a diet REQUIRE studies with large sample sizes to get real accurate data about the health of a diet, as an anecdote only ever has a sample size of one. Like, I could go right now and find 20 videos of personal anecdotes right now about people quitting Carnivore, Keto, or the standard omnivorous diets and saying "I feel so much better now that I quit the ____ diet and decided to do ____ diet instead." But that doesn't make it viable evidence for the health of the diet they switched to... nor does it make it viable evidence for the lack of the health of the diet they switched from. And because you're only looking at personal anecdotes that confirm your pre-existing biases, you ignore the ones that don't. So, it's cherry-picking anecdotes. Like, be honest... if I provided you anecdotal videos where people talked about having better healthy outcomes from going Vegan, you'd probably ignore those videos or brush them off as "not good evidence". And that's precisely because you would only value videos that confirm your pre-existing biases. And anecdotal evidence requires cherry picking because you simply CANNOT watch every singe diet-related personal anecdote that people have made... even if you tried to watch every "Why I left ___ diet" video on all of YouTube. So, for me to take your "evidence" seriously, your evidence can't just be, "some dude on the internet said so." You're just giving me non-viable evidence and using mental gymnastics dressed up in the jargon of holistic thinking And you are criticizing science from below... not above. You just don't understand the scientific method enough to understand why personal anecdotes are not proof of the health of a diet (or lack-there-of). So, you think you've transcended the scientific method and can chuck it in the trash in favor of whatever suits your own biases.

100% That is my problem with the people on the thread who are like, "This guy in the video quit Veganism and went Carnivore and felt better. That's proof that Veganism is an unsustainable and unhealthy diet... and that a diet that includes meat and dairy is the healthiest diet for humans to eat. And if you don't recognize this video as equal evidence to the thousands of studies and met analyses, then your epistemology is flawed and you're closed minded."

Sorry if I overlooked your post. But I did say to Integral that many these studies also account for healthy user bias. So, it isn't just like "all healthy diets are equal". The more plants and the fewer animal products you have in your diet, the more it is statistically correlated with better health outcomes in terms of longevity.

If you don't recognize that personal anecdotes are not viable evidence for the health of a diet (or lack-thereof), I'm done having this conversation.

@integral I'm sorry. If you just provide for me a bunch of anecdotal evidence of people saying "this is why I left Veganism" and a system for thinking about food created by some guy, then that's not going to weigh in heavier to my viewpoints more than actual data gathered through various studies and meta-analyses (some which cross-reference thousands of studies... and many of which do control for healthy user bias) Also, even if Vegans did have the nutritional deficiencies you mentioned (which is dubious because a Vegan diet can meet all nutritional needs except B12, which is easily supplemented)... How many people are going to an early grave from these alleged nutrient deficiencies compared to people who are going to an early grave from heart disease and stroke? So, even if Vegans did have nutrient deficiencies like you say, their health outcomes are still better overall. (Plant-based diets are associated with lower instances of all-cause mortality) But beyond that, consider this... Why are you going through so much effort to invalidate Veganism and to convince me that Veganism is an unhealthy diet? Are you trying to convince me to stop being Vegan? You don't see me going around evangelizing people on their diets, despite having an ethical reason to want to do so. Notice how I only ever respond to people who hate on Veganism to call people out on their cognitive biases? And this requires me to swat aside mis-information. But notice how I never comment on some random person who's posting about their Carnivore or Keto diet and say, "Don't you know your diet is unhealthy and unethical? You should be Vegan!" That just isn't something I would personally do. So, why are you trying to persuade Vegans that their diet is bad as a non-Vegan? *Also, people don't lose weight on any "healthy" diet. People lose weight on any diet that puts them in a calorie deficit whether the diet is healthy or not.

I am the Vegan in question. He's trying to use your personal anecdote about going Carnivore as a way to challenge my perspective. He isn't saying that you're a Vegan. Edit: Nevermind. He is assuming you're a Vegan. He just threw me in on the reply.

My claim isn't that eating meat can never produce a positive benefit in someone's life. So, that is a strawman of my argument. People with Epilepsy or people with certain auto-immune issues where eating plants cause an auto-immune reaction might find it easier to eat an elimination diet with only meat. Also, if a person who wants to lose weight switches over to a keto or carnivore diet, they probably will lose weight because their body will be in ketosis. Perhaps it's not the healthiest way to lose weight, but a person would undoubtedly experience "a benefit" if that is their goal. And clearly if someone is starving to death, eating anything that the human body can metabolize will produce a positive benefit. So, don't strawman my argument and say I was making arguments that I wasn't. Here are my ACTUAL claims that I've made in the previous thread... 1. A lot of people (maybe even the majority of people) have Vegan values where they don't want animals to suffer and die a premature death... and don't agree that human pleasure is more important than an animal's life and well-being. But people who live a non-Vegan lifestyle who consume animals for pleasure (who have Vegan values) have to lie to themselves and go into cognitive dissonance and defense mode to defend their own choices in their own eyes. And they do so by invalidating the choices of Vegans because Vegans are the ones who are walking their own talk... and it makes these non-Vegans with Vegan values feel uncomfortable with the incongruence between their actions and values. 2. Statistically, plant-based diets are associated with better health outcomes in terms of longevity and lower risk of heart disease and stroke because meat, dairy, and eggs are linked with greater instances of atherosclerosis, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure... which means the person eating these animal products have a higher risk of heart disease and stroke. Basically, the more animal products you consume is statistically correlated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality according to many studies and meta-analyses. So, even if a person experiences a short-term benefit from going carnivore (like weight loss), it is a trade-off for having a greater risk of stroke, heart disease, and an earlier death.

I don't think it's left-wing naïveté when it comes to the wide-spread preference for regulation over Laissez-faire economics. I see it as more of a contextual preference and a recognition for a need that is missing in the current economic system, where the private sector has WAYYYY more power than the government. There are no check and balances between those two systems of power, because the government is basically and extension of the private sector and doesn't challenge it often enough. So, this preference for more government regulation is very much happening in a context where the best economic situation you can possibly have is where the government and private sector check and balance one another... but that is not happening. And so, the preference for more regulation (within the context of the current Capitalist system) is just an awareness of what is needed to balance things out.

They have been keeping the data since 1992, and it has been within a few percentage points since then. So, there's no marked change in literacy during the time they've been collecting the data. But for sure, there are unique challenges with regards to the use of technology. And certainly addiction to devices is one of those things. And I do believe that younger people will be more proficient at handling it compared to older generations... in the same way that people in my generation are better than people in my parents generation at picking out internet misinformation. The main problem that I see arising from the increase in technology is the decrease in opportunities for 1-1 socialization, as everything has moved online. But as far as intellect goes, there is no marked difference between elementary/middle/high school students I went to school with 20ish years ago, elementary/middle/high school students I used to teach 10 years ago, and my children's elementary and middle school classmates who are in school now. And I think it's important not to fall into the same trap that people from older generations always have in terms of believing the younger generation to be uniquely ill-equipped to handle the world. This is mostly because they never had an accurate whole-picture perspective of how their generation was in the first place... and so they believe the new generations to be uniquely lacking.

Yes!!!! That's the kind of ingenuity we need for the new age!

Those things are real and unique to this era compared to eras before it. And they present real social and emotional challenges. And you can notice that children and teens struggle more with social skills. But there have always been and will always be literacy struggles among a percentage of the population as innate aptitudes vary. Go back 10, 20, 30, 40+ years and you will find tons of high schoolers who read at an elementary school level. It's not a new phenomenon at all. With regard to the literacy levels of 12th graders who are deemed "proficient" at reading based on NAEP standards... the percentage of proficient readers has stayed pretty steady within a few percentage points of the 40% mark. (They've been taking this data since 1992 and the graph is posted below). It may be shocking to acknowledge for those who haven't worked in education who first enter the profession and see how many kids really struggle. And this may cause these unseasoned teacher to assume it must be something environmental or circumstantial that's causing the issue... as that is a more comforting story that feels like it has a solution. But people struggling with reading proficiency is nothing new. And the phone and new tech is a good scape-goat to blame for those problems... just as the tv was blamed in previous generations. Even reading itself was blamed for all manner of problems, prior to the tv. And I don't buy for a second that the current youth generation is less equipped than previous generations to learn or handle adult challenges... with the exception of building in-person social relationships. Older generations always believe the younger generation is going to hell in a hand-basket.

While I'm sure that kids are struggling attention-span-wise... the literacy issues are certainly not a new phenomenon. I was a teacher 10 years ago (and a substitute teacher prior to that)... and there are and have always been a sizable minority of high schoolers that still read at an elementary school level. And that is NOT typically because of external factors. It's just that there's a high degree of variability relative to innate skills and aptitudes relative to particular subject matters. I've worked with very dedicated students that had to work the butts off to get a D. And I've worked with slackers who skate by with As. So, these issues have always been going on. And these same narratives keep framing the current youth as uniquely harmed and stunted by the culture have always been going on since humanity has been around. But the reality is that there have always been kids who leave high school not knowing how to read very well... and there always will be. There are certainly improvements to be made. But we should get really realistic about what peoples' capabilities are without scapegoating a whole generation. It would be like if school was centered around how well people played basketball and always had been. And then, there would be all these articles like "Did you know there are kids leaving high school that don't even know how to do a lay-up?!?! It must be because of smart phones!" But the reality is that there would be short people (like me) who would just never get very good at basketball no matter how hard we tried. And there always had been... and these same alarmist generation-scapegoating narratives have been used on back and back and back.

Just screwing around with the semantics of what war means to justify the suspension of Habeas Corpus and undermining the rights granted in the Constitution. I wonder if he believes what he's saying or if he knows he's bullshitting.

My husband, my kids, and I sometimes joke that, in the future, you will be able to eat lab-grown "self-burgers". Just take a sample of your own DNA... give it to the lab-grown burger company... they create a custom batch of self-meat from the DNA... and bon appetit! We even came up with a business concept called "love burger", where you and your significant other can create lab-grown "self-burgers" and then eat each other on special occasions like Valentine's Day or wedding anniversaries. Cue the puking cat image! But in all seriousness, there probably will be a market for lab-grown exotic meats... like lions, zebras, elephants, and other animals. And if someone really wanted to... rats could be on that list.

No need to apologize. It can be hard to differentiate actual Neo-Nazis from the run-of-the mill conservative now-a-days because a lot of Neo-Nazi talking points have gotten normalized and picked up by center-left liberals, moderates, and center-right conservatives who don't know they've been influenced by Nazi propaganda. But there are tells when someone literally is a Neo-Nazi and not just someone who's been influenced by their talking points if you know what to look for.

I've seen his posts around before, and they're always just literal verbatim Neo-Nazi propaganda.

100%

I've seen that guy's posts before. And he is literally a Fascist and is espousing literal Neo-Nazi propaganda. And I mean that simply as a matter of fact and not as a judgment or way of slinging mud at someone who I disagree with. He may deny it and "hide his power level" and claim to be a run of the mill right winger. But he genuinely agrees with Fascism. So, you're not going to talk him out of liking it when Kanye says "Heil Hitler" or other pro-Nazi stuff, because he is pro-Nazi. Keep in mind that Fascists and Neo-Nazis (like Kanye and the other poster) are anti-Israel and anti-Zionist because they are antisemitic. They don't actually have a principled stance against the genocide or ethnic cleansing that the Netanyahu's government is responsible for. They just want Jewish people to be on the receiving end of the genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Thank you. It's important to keep getting people to face with the truth of how they actually feel about their own choices. People lie to themselves when they are out of integrity with their own values. I did the same thing until I went Vegan 9 years ago, where I was always justifying my own actions through rationalizations of futility, like "It doesn't matter anyway because animals will still die." And the biggest challenge around making the shift is to recognize my own power and the fact that I had been choosing a course of actions that was partially responsible for bringing about outcomes that harm animals that I did not want to happen. I just denied my own power by rationalizing that small power was the same as no power. And that way, I could avoid taking responsibility for my own choices. More than any kind of rationale as to the benefits of abstaining from eating meat and dairy is the ability to get someone to face squarely with the truth of their own values and feelings.

Veganism is a choice that I have made to stay in integrity with my own values and to honor my own boundaries because I want to utilize what little power I have to reduce suffering... not a coping mechanism to deal with shame. And everything you've written here is a coping mechanism through which to defend your own dietary choices (to yourself) and to discredit the values and choices of Vegans, so as to make your perspective "correct" and their perspective "incorrect" in your own eyes. And you wouldn't need to do all this Veganism invalidation, if you felt your actions were truly in integrity with your values. You just want to feel better about your choices, so you have to rationalize yourself that Veganism is delusional, a coping mechanism, wrong, unsustainable, unhealthy, unspiritual, unnatural, harmful, etc. Non-Vegans do this type of rationalization all the time to invalidate the choices of Vegans to get comfort from their own cognitive dissonance. It's trying to convince everyone that Veganism is wrong because they can't handle the fact that some people choose Veganism and that it is a valid choice that comes from deeply held values and not some pathology. Also, you can find plenty of anecdotes of people quitting all sorts of diets. Like, I could find videos of people quitting a whole food omnivorous diet or a Keto diet or the Carnivore diet in favor of a Vegan one and reporting feelings so much better and healthier. But these anecdotes don't mean anything about the actual health and sustainability of the diet itself. Plus, people who quit Veganism tend to want to invalidate Veganism itself as "unhealthy" or "unsustainable" because they have Vegan values... but have chosen to abandon living by those values. So, it is precisely people who leave behind a Vegan diet who have the most incentive to create narratives around the Vegan diet being unhealthy and to seek validation from people who will tell them, "Don't worry. It's obvious that the Vegan diet is unhealthy and unsustainable. You're correct for changing your diet." But it's just the same kind of rationalization to assuage guilt and to go unconscious to the misalignment of values that people who have never been Vegan before have... but on steroids, since that person has already become conscious enough of their values to make the choice to go Vegan in the first place. So, it takes a lot more mental gymnastics to assuage the guilt and cognitive dissonance for people who go Vegan and then quit. They have to find a way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. But in terms of ACTUAL research that's been done (of various studies and meta-analyses)... plant-based diets are associated with healthier BMIs, lower cholesterol, and lower instances of heart disease and stroke (the number one killers). So, there is no science backing up your assertion that Veganism is unhealthy or unsustainable. It is just an incorrect assumption that you must hold onto to justify your own actions to yourself.

I'm not making the claim that a cow should get more rights within the context of a human society than a human has... and that is a straw man of my position. My argument is that the life and well-being of a cow should be treated as more important than the fleeting pleasure the human feels while they're consuming the cow for pleasure. Like, if it were like "Either this cow will be killed or this human will be killed."... by all means... kill the cow if those are truly the only options. That's why I have no problem with people eating meat or animal products to sustain life IF it's really necessary to sustain life. And I believe that all animals get to prioritize the life of one of their own species over the life of that of another. So, I have no problem with humans considering humans more important and killing other species of creatures to save and/or sustain a human life... any more than I have a problem with bees stinging another creature they believe to be a threat to their hive or a lion eating an antelope. A species prioritizing others of its own species is just part of the circle of life... and projects no false hierarchies of importance onto nature. My issue is when human beings operate as though they are superior to other creatures in some absolute way. And because of this grandiosity and illusion of human exceptionalism, they feel their own fleeting sensory pleasures are more important than the entire life of another sentient being... or even the well-being of the eco-system itself.