Carnivore diet been doing great

[Someone here]

@Emerald define what is "evidence " please .

I don't have to give you an "evidence " that a carnivore diet is better than vegan diet. It's just a justified belief for me personally at this particular point in my life . That's how people actually conduct their lives. Drop this fantastical expectation that people have fucking evidence to back up what they do. 

 "justified beliefs" are used in place of "evidence "when we have a lack of facts.  If you gonna weigh out the evidence for why you're doing whatever you are doing in your life then you might literally just sit back and die.

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:35 AM by Someone here

[integral]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, my hypothesis is that there may be a small percentage of people out there who can't go Vegan

So 99% of people can do a vegan diet and this is your position which is an extreme position not supported by science.

Do we agree? 

[Emerald]

Just now, Someone here said:

@Emerald define what is "evidence " please .

I don't have to give you an "evidence " that a carnivore diet is better than vegan diet. It's just a justified belief for me personally at this particular point in my life . That's how people actually conduct their lives. Drop this fantastical expectation that people have fucking evidence to back up what they do. 

 "justified beliefs" are used in place of "evidence "when we have a lack of facts.  If you gonna weight out the evidence for why you're doing whatever you are doing in your life then you might literally just sit back and die.

 

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. 

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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. 

You're begging the question.  Real means actual ? And actual means objective? And objective means real ? I'm sorry but there is no escaping the elephant in the room.  Epistemology of evidence is on the list just for you 😂. 

 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, integral said:

So 99% of people can do a vegan diet and this is your position which is an extreme position not supported by science.

Do we agree? 

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.

[integral]

• @Emerald

OK, so it’s a hypothesis that 99% of people can thrive on veganism with 1% error.

clarify this

Edited Wednesday at 03:57 AM by integral

[integral]

@Emerald You have a burden of proof that you’re assuming exists

There is no evidence at all that 99% of people can thrive on veganism

Do you acknowledge this?

No science is pointing to this.

 

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, Someone here said:

You're begging the question.  Real means actual ? And actual means objective? And objective means real ? I'm sorry but there is no escaping the elephant in the room.  Epistemology of evidence is on the list just for you 😂. 

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.

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, integral said:

@Emerald You have a burden of proof that you’re assuming exists

There is no evidence at all that 99% of people can thrive on veganism

Do you acknowledge this?

No science is pointing to this.

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.

Edited Wednesday at 04:15 AM by Emerald

[Someone here]

@integral OK this is honestly turning into such an eye-sore. 

Please lock this thread .

Thanks 🙏 

[integral]

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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."

OK, thank you that was an extremely important clarification, that this entire time I could not understand why we were miscommunicating.

—

A lack of opposing evidence does not make something true, this is a very clear logical fallacy.

More importantly, there is opposing evidence and when I showed it, you said well the WHO would not support this if it wasn’t healthy, which is another logical fallacy. For one the WHO is stage green strongly in favour of environmentalism and the second is they themselves in the guideline are not saying 99% of people can be vegan.

They are literally not saying it. I’m not trying to deceive you.

More importantly, there is more than just the WHO, the Mediterranean diet and various other diets all show massive decreases in cardiovascular disease that are comparative to veganism. In large scale studies.

Edited Wednesday at 04:28 AM by integral

[integral]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@integral OK this is honestly turning into such an eye-sore. 

Please lock this thread .

Thanks 🙏 

lol what’s the problem? 😂

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, integral said:

lol what’s the problem? 😂

She is just ..umm..how do I say .."pure" ?.."innocent"?..a good person maybe..she is not aware that you are doing this with her basically:

 

 

[integral]

29 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

Logical fallacy

Adequate FOR SOME PEOPLE. SOME not ALL. Not 99%.

it is not saying 99% adequate for all people that’s literally not what studies are saying.

Edited Wednesday at 04:40 AM by integral

[Someone here]

@integral lock the thread or I'm going to tell your mom you've used your mobile for 16 hrs today .

[integral]

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@integral lock the thread or I'm going to tell your mom you've used your mobile for 16 hrs today .

Lmfaoooooo the conversation is coming to an end shortly so there’s no need to lock it

But I learned exactly how to avoid the ping-pong effect that just happened in this conversation

So it wasn’t useless.

I didn’t expect to enter into a scientific appeal to authority debate. I thought there was gonna be a wider discussion so what I really had to do was just narrow in on hard science and not even attempt anything else.

Not that I strictly use hard science to figure out what is true in isolation, it’s just what some people force you to do in the conversation

Edited Wednesday at 04:51 AM by integral

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

I really don't want to debate this issue but I'm curious to what you would say when asked how you view the issue of mother nature sending her wrath with hurricanes, floods and tsunamis and all the animals in the way gets killed. What is the difference with that and people killing animals when it comes to how you feel and do you see it differently.

While I cannot answer for @ExploringReality - I see the difference as:

1) I choose kill animals to eat - my personal will and conduct is involved. We are defined by our actions.

2) Natural disaster kills animals - my personal will is not involved. I took no action. 

Both are sad, but one carries the weight of moral conduct.

Edited Wednesday at 06:29 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[ExploringReality]

@Princess Arabia

It seems to be a difference between natural phenomena and our conscious intentions. When a hurricane or tsunami happens, it’s impersonal, it isn't egotistical. Nature  includes both creation and destruction. I think In that sense it's immoral or amoral. But when we kill animals it usually comes from our conscious choice, out of necessity, okay fine but a lot of times it's out of convenience. This is where ethics and awareness comes in. Nature may seem cruel or fucked up but we as conscious beings are able to examine our motives and responsibilities. Part of our journey of self Actualization involves not just raising the quality of our consciousness, but raising the quality of our hearts. 

What are your thoughts on this?

Edited Wednesday at 07:13 AM by ExploringReality

[Norbert Somogyi]

Scienfitic debate and ethical conduct aside, a vegan diet is not exactly a sustainable practice in all parts of the world. I've been thinking about how the biosphere can be affected by the large-scale transportation of plant-based food to locations where crops don't grow throughout the year (EU and the US for example). However, I instead asked DeepSeek to provide numerous effects, because I was certain I couldn't account for them all. Allow me to copy & paste it

Quote

 

• The international transportation of plant-based food to countries with non-producible winter crops affects the biosphere through multiple interconnected pathways:
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
    • Transport (ships, planes, trucks) emits CO₂ and other gases, exacerbating climate change. This disrupts ecosystems by altering temperature and precipitation patterns, affecting species distributions, migration, and phenology (e.g., flowering times, breeding cycles).
  • Land-Use Changes:
    • Exporting regions may convert forests, grasslands, or wetlands into cropland, causing habitat loss, biodiversity decline, and reduced carbon sequestration. For example, deforestation for soy or palm oil plantations in tropical regions threatens endemic species.
  • Water Resource Strain:
    • Irrigation-intensive crops (e.g., almonds, avocados) in water-scarce regions deplete aquifers and rivers, harming aquatic ecosystems and species dependent on these water sources. Over-extraction can lead to desertification.
  • Agrochemical Pollution:
    • Fertilizers and pesticides runoff into waterways, causing eutrophication (algal blooms, dead zones) and toxicity in aquatic life. This impacts fish populations, coral reefs, and other marine organisms.
  • Invasive Species:
    • Transported goods may carry pests, pathogens, or seeds (e.g., invasive weeds), which can destabilize local ecosystems by outcompeting native species or introducing diseases.
  • Monoculture Impacts:
    • Large-scale monocultures reduce genetic diversity and ecosystem resilience, making crops vulnerable to pests/diseases. Surrounding natural areas may suffer from pesticide drift or habitat homogenization.
  • Refrigeration and Packaging:
    • Energy-intensive refrigeration increases fossil fuel dependence, while plastic packaging contributes to microplastic pollution, harming terrestrial and marine life.
  • Soil Degradation:
    • Intensive farming erodes topsoil and depletes nutrients, reducing land productivity and releasing stored carbon, further impacting climate and adjacent ecosystems.
  • Indirect Socioeconomic Effects:
    • Export-oriented agriculture may displace subsistence farming, leading to food insecurity and increased pressure on local wild resources (e.g., overhunting, illegal logging).
    • Mitigation Opportunities:
    • Shift to low-carbon transport (electric vehicles, optimized shipping routes).
    • Promote regenerative agriculture and agroecology in exporting regions.
    • Strengthen biosecurity to prevent invasive species.
    • Reduce food waste and improve cold-chain efficiency.
    • Support local seasonal production (e.g., greenhouses) in importing countries.
• These interconnected impacts highlight the need for sustainable trade practices and policies that prioritize ecosystem health alongside food security.

 

These are second and third-order effects which are understandably beyond the scope of individual sensitivity, and of course this accounts for the transportation of animal products as well. The only way I can think of where you can sustainably detach yourself from the supply chain and still provide yourself the conditions to maintain your vegan diet - is to grow your own food with regenerative practices at places with climates that allow you to grow plants throughout the year. Not an easy feat for most.

This is where the synergy of the Mind and the Heart is required, so that you can evaluate the extended and long-term effects of your individual choices. Beyond what you are sensitive to when you are heart-centered.

P.S: I don't agree with all of the solutions suggested by the AI, nor am I growing my own food - but that's another topic.

Edited Wednesday at 08:40 AM by Norbert Somogyi
Typo corrections

[AION]

When 3D meat comes out it won’t be vegan. It is just alive as a cow but it won’t have the sentience.