Emerald

I've seen this pattern really often that children who feel like they need to be responsible at such a young age can tend to develop a few main patterns (sometimes all of them and sometimes just a few of them)... Taking on responsibility for things outside of the scope of their control/responsibility Avoiding responsibilities that are inside of the scope of their control/responsibility Self-rebellion and self-sabotage when setting goals and routines Hyper-independence Submissive sexual fantasies as a means of seeking release from responsibility and the ability to soften Not reaching out for help with things as an extension of the hyper-independence God Complex (a sense that one is responsible for everything) Feeling chronically drained and exhausted Having periods of intense hard work and then period of extreme laziness Lack of trust in self and others Difficulty delegating tasks to others and a sense that "If it's going to get done right, I have to do it myself." @Nemra If you don't mind my asking, do you relate strongly to many of these patterns?

Not necessarily so, as the neural pathways would still be there. So, you'll likely always be able to enjoy that... even if you totally resolved that need. But getting that need met sexually may shift in terms of importance, if you were able to meet that need through other outlets as well. There's a person I met at an Ayahuasca ceremony who was sharing about some shifts that he made with plant medicine. He said used to have a strong fetish since he was a small child. But after he participated in an earlier Ayahuasca ceremony and experienced some shifts... he still enjoyed that kink. But it doesn't feel as important to him as it was prior to that in his life. And this particular fetish was one that was making him feel both wanted and also like he was harmless due to incapacitation of certain abilities... which related back to certain insecurities he had from childhood around feeling disconnected and fearing that he was harmful in some way. So, he could still enjoy that... but it became less necessary and less of a focus for him intimately.

@AION @SwiftQuill It's unwise to succumb to victim's mentality. And the narrative in this video just takes men's insecurities and feeds them right into a victim's mentality narrative, where these insecurities can never be properly resolved. With victim's mentality, a person scapegoats and villainizes an individual or group (in this case, the scapegoated group is women) and blames them for their problems. This enables the person in victim's mentality to avoid taking personal responsibility for their own issues by giving them a person or group to blame and shovel off responsibility onto. But it also enables them to engage in the "drama triangle story" (of victim, hero, villain), where they play the role of victim and cast the scapegoat (in this case women) as the villain. And then, they crusade as the hero by doing villainous things to try to harm or defeat the scapegoat/villain. And people who don't like engaging in drama will notice this going on and will be intuitively repelled from the person who's engaging in the victim narrative.

I'm a woman, and that was my response to it. And I don't necessarily buy that Audrey Marcus or his wife are more conscious than the average person who's into spirituality. They are just a bit insightful, attractive, and well-branded to fit a certain model of it. But regardless of how insightful a person might be, it doesn't mean that they can't consciously or unconsciously manipulate their partner into an open relationship by reframing it in a spiritual rationale. Personally, I'm fine with people being polyamorous, if they're really upfront about it and every partner they're with is truly on board. Just don't reframe it as something else to trick your partner and the world into thinking it's something totally different.

The difference is that you were making claims that weren't backed by evidence and stating them as the truth. And I was pushing back on you for doing that because there is no evidence for them. There is scientific evidence that plant-based diets are associated with lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality compared to omnivorous diets. And that is why I personally believe the Vegan diet is the healthiest, because I define health in terms of longevity and the minimization of the risk of the biggest killers. So, my extrapolation based in my personal definition of "healthy" (which is not itself a scientific claim) directly relates back to the evidence that exists. But there is no scientific evidence that suggests that there's significant degrees of dietary diversity, such that a sizable percentage of the population can't go Vegan without compromising their health (which is your extrapolation). That is just a guess that is based in your own ideas that you came up with in your mind. It isn't extrapolated from actual evidence... but from anecdotes and hypotheses you hold about the topic of dietary diversity. Actual evidence that would support this claim would be like if a sizable percentage of people were shown in studies and meta-analyses to not be able to extract nutrients from plants... or there was evidence in studies and meta-analyses that supplementation with B12 didn't work in a sizable percentage of people. But no such evidence exists. The best evidence you gave for your claim is that a sizable percentages of Vegans were deficient in a particular nutrient in certain studies. But that only supports the claim that "A sizable percentage of people approach the Vegan diet improperly." It doesn't support the claim that, "A sizable percentage of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health because of dietary diversity." And that's why I'm pushing back and giving counter-arguments on what you've been claiming... as your extrapolations about dietary diversity preventing a large percentage of people from going Vegan aren't based in any evidence.

Again, I'm not making any sweeping claims about Veganism other than what's represented in the current scientific literature... which associates lower risk of heart disease and stroke with plant-based diets. But I'm sure that processed Vegan food causes health problems in the same way that processed food does in other contexts. Either way, I'm not making health claims... just debunking health claims that have no evidence.

Coming back to my 4 claims... I made no such extrapolation jump. So, you are arguing against a strawman of my position, which you keep doing. Stick to arguing against my ACTUAL claims. My claims are... People lie to themselves to justify their choices when those choices are out of integrity with their values. Anecdotes aren't scientific evidence. A diet that minimizes animal product intake is associated with a lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality. There is no evidence that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health." And if that were true, it would be represented in the evidence that exists... and the WHO and ADA would not deem well-planned Vegan diets as nutritionally adequate without. You have to actually argue against the points that I'm making... as opposed to assuming my point and arguing with that. Keep in mind, I have engaged in this argument, not to make my own claims of truth... but to push back on you making wide-sweeping evidence-less claims about Vegan diets like "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health" or "Vegan diets are nutrient deficient." But you keep arguing with me as though I'm making claims about something I am not... as though I am the one that began making claims like "Vegan diets are the superior diet," which I do personally believe is true because of its association with longevity, but never claimed or argued as that would also be a wides-sweeping claim about a diet that doesn't involve real scientific statistics. Instead the reality is that Vegan diets are associated with lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, lowers risk of heart disease and stroke, and lower risk of all-cause mortality. And this is why I personally believe that Veganism is the superior diet. But I would never claim "Veganism is the superior diet" because that is just an extrapolation from the evidence about heart disease and stroke. So, in this context, I have never claimed that Veganism is the best diet or anything like that. I was just pushing back on your claims, which are evidence-less. I was not making a health claims about Veganism beyond the fact that it is associated with greater longevity compared to animal-product-based diets... but I was pushing back on your lack of evidence as you were saying things that aren't true about Veganism. My main point is and has always been that, "Non-Vegans who have Vegan values who eat animals for pleasure and convenience tend to go into cognitive dissonance to hide their true motives from themselves and to avoid facing with the reality that their actions don't match their values." And unsubstantiated health claims like "Veganism is a nutrient deficient diet" is one of the defenses that non-Vegans with Vegan values tend to use to explain away their own actions to themselves to assuage that cognitive dissonance. That's why I'm simply making counter-claims to your arguments... as I do operate from the assumption that you personally need to believe that Vegan diets are nutrient deficient to explain to yourself why you're currently eating meat and dairy when you (if you're not dealing with food scarcity) don't need to in order to survive. But of course, that's just an assumption based on what I know about human nature. And people who have been Vegan before tend to hold the tightest to their defenses because they have become aware of their values enough to make a big change earlier on.

The issue is that these kinds of "be more masculine" types of advice and alarmist "society is going to hell in a hand-basket because men aren't men anymore!" narratives, tend to add to men's difficulty with adjusting socially... as it is a bunch of neurotic guys trying to intellectualize what it is to be Masculine... as opposed to simply operating from their own sense of sovereignty. It's like so many men are trying to compete to be the same exact guy as opposed to just being themselves. And it scares women away because a lot of these guys start adopting narratives that over-emphasize the gender difference in their own minds and treating women like mysterious aliens from another planet.... which adds more to the neuroticism. I notice over the past 10 years since all these narratives have gone online is that young women generally have soured more and more on men because of the proliferation of all the Manosphere nonsense. And interacting with a guy who isn't brainwashed by it is refreshing. Even I, as a woman in my mid-thirties, can feel a bit put off... despite having tons of friendships with plenty of normal guys and having had relationships with guys who are normal with regard to their relationship to their Masculinity. Like honestly, what kind of woman do you think would be interested in a guy who believes he should "treat her like a child?" And whether that is spoken or not, there are always tells. And they betray the immaturity of the guy in question. If I look at the most socially adjusted guys who have the healthiest relationships with women, it's men who don't over-focus on trying to be Masculine. But the loneliest and least socially well-adjusted guys tend to over-focus on it. And you'd be wise to avoid taking advice from men who don't have the type of relationship with women that you want to have. Like, Leo has learned a lot about the attraction phase to get over the challenges of being a late bloomer (which makes him relatable to men who struggle with initiating attraction with women)... but he doesn't have much relationship experience and doesn't have many insights about how to interact with woman on a human-to-human level. And the frameworks he operates off of will likely prevent him from being able to sustain a longterm relationship because of how he views the relationship between men and women.

Too much intellectual fodder here about how men and women ought to be that doesn't reflect the way that real men and women relate to each other in the world. But the intellectualization is just there in lieu of actual human-to-human connection... and it gives the sense that Masculinity and Femininity are under attack. But these energies are subtle to begin with. The discomfort just comes from people who get attached to the notion of Masculine and Feminine expressions being stark and extreme... as opposed to subtle and woven into a very ordinary fabric. People want extremes... but the reality is not extreme. I think everyone should just stop trying to be Masculine or Feminine and just allow whatever happens to be there to be there. These are innate essences that come together in unique ways in individuals... and they come through much more potently if you stop trying. And the more your mind constructs an image of the "the way that men ought to be", you will try to shove yourself in that box and stunt yourself... and stop the synergy between your Masculine and Feminine side. I notice that it's the men who worry the most about "being Masculine", tend to have the shakiest relationship with their Masculine side. Whereas more mature guys tend to give off a more effortless subtle essence of their unique Masculine and Feminine combination. And in naturally Masculine men, it comes through as mostly Masculine with a little bit of Feminine... a little bit like how a pinch of salt draws emphasis to the sweetness of a dessert. But that isn't something the mind can do through trying to match up to arbitrary ideas of Masculinity.

It's fine to use anecdotes as personal inspiration to inform your own decisions. I personally get really inspired when a person adopts a whole food plant based diet and experiences better health outcomes and bloodwork. But that doesn't constitute proof if I were trying to make wide sweeping claims about the health of plant-based diets... like if I were to claim, "Veganism is the healthiest diet." To have valid proof for the overall health of diet, you really have to look at studies and meta-analyses... because you can never account for all personal anecdotes that exist on the planet. And if you try to use personal anecdotes as evidence to claims about the health of any diet (or lack-there-of), there is a de facto cherry picking because you simply cannot view every single anecdote that exists. And the vast majority of the time, people are naturally going to try to find anecdotes that support their own claims and ignore the ones that don't. And even in the minority of times when someone is trying to be even-handed and pick from a wide variety of anecdotes, they still aren't going to get any valid evidence of the overall health of a diet that way because there are SOO many anecdotes that exist that weren't examined. But with something like remote viewing, if it does exist, I don't necessarily believe that it could be studied with the scientific method since it is tied to the subjective experience of a particular person. With things like that, I prefer to remain agnostic and open-minded. Like, I've experienced out of body experiences, since I was 13 years old. And I've sometimes been able to go places in these experiences. And I would imagine that remote viewing has to do with that. So, I know that it's possible phenomenologically as an experience that people are capable of having. What I don't know (and don't believe I will ever know) about my out of body experiences is... 1. If I was perceiving something that exists in some objective consensus reality of its own. OR 2. If it is an objective consensus reality.... whether or not it's the one that I typically inhabit or if it's some other dimensional aspect of this reality. OR 3. If it's just a really real feeling experience that happens purely in my own mind. So, I don't know. And I don't believe that I'll ever know the truth of whether remote viewing is real or not. But I remain open-minded because of the experiences that I've had. Either way, I don't believe that science can study it. So, I don't expect any scientific evidence to the effect. So, the only choice is to go off of personal anecdotes because there is no objective empirically observable evidence. But you won't find me making any claims of truth or falsehood, because I have no evidence to verify nor falsify the possibility of remote viewing. Also, I like the picture. I reminds me of the Wizard of Oz... with the scarecrow and the Emerald city and some Wicked Witch of the West vibes about the outfit I'm wearing.

Go back and take a look at our conversation. I've been quite consistent and reasonable in my arguments. My reason for arguing with you initially is because you were making some broad-sweeping claims about the health of Vegan diets that were unsupported by the evidence that exists. The claims were... Vegan diets are not nutritionally sufficient. 40%+ people can't go Vegan without compromising their health (which you later walked back) The way that bell-curves generally work is evidence that supports the idea that "40% of people can't go Vegan." And I was telling you that there is no such evidence... and that you're pulling those claims out of thin air. And at a certain point, you were arguing that personal anecdotes are a viable form of evidence that are on equal ground to studies and meta-analyses. And claiming that I was engaging in scientific dogma and being "radical" and not being holistic enough in my epistemology for not seeing anecdotes as real evidence. And of course, I couldn't let you get away with that. My claims have been quite simple. And I've been very consistent about them. Non-Vegans who care about animals and who don't agree that human pleasure/convenience is more important than an animal's life, often use a variety of different defenses to assuage the cognitive dissonance they have around taking actions that aren't aligned with their own values. And they often don't even truly believe the defenses they're giving. Personal anecdotes don't constitute valid evidence for sweeping claims about a the health of a diet or lack-there-of because you could collect just as many positive personal anecdotes that support any diet and just as many negative personal anecdotes to discredit any diet. The consumption of fewer animal products and more plants is associated with lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality according to thousands of studies and cross-referenced into many meta-analyses. If it were true that 40% (or even a much smaller percentage) of people couldn't go Vegan without compromising their health, there would be evidence to that effect... and the WHO and ADA would not have deemed a well-planned Vegan diet as an adequate diet for all phases of life if people were at such a great risk for malnutrition on a Vegan diet. Those are literally the only claims of truth that I've made in this whole thread. And there is nothing radical about them. And #2 and #4 are indisputable facts. And #1 is a common observation that I've seen with regard to how others and myself have rationalized animal product consumption. And #4 is a logical extrapolation based on what I know about how health organizations operate (with their priority being general public health) and the evidence that's currently on record regarding the human diet. And my whole reason why I'm arguing these things is to keep people honest, by pointing out when they're using selective science denial mental gymnastics to hide from their real motives for eating animal products from themselves.

100% All the people on this thread that want to provide personal anecdote videos as proof of the claim that "Veganism is unhealthy" would not be consistent if I produced the same (or greater) number of personal anecdote videos about people having great results and clearing up health problems on a Vegan diet or of people having health problems on Carnivore, Keto, or the omnivorous diet. And it's extra frustrating that they're gloating and believe they're slam dunking the argument with their anecdotes... and doing mental gymnastics that "real holistic thinkers recognize the value of anecdotes."

It's a pretty basic component of human nature to go into cognitive dissonance whenever one takes actions that are against their own values. And people who care about animals but also contribute to their suffering and death through their lifestyle choices on a purely voluntary basis, have a variety of different ways to deal with that cognitive dissonance... which involves coming up with all sorts of defenses... often ones that they don't believe in themselves. And they will quickly abandon a defense once it doesn't work and try to find another to hide behind. Here are some common defenses that non-Vegans with Vegan values give to square the circle in their own mind... "Veganism is unhealthy." "But plants are also alive! And yet, you're fine with eating them! So, Vegans are hypocrites." "Existing as a human being harms the environment. So, going Vegan is self-negation tantamount to suicide." "Some people need to eat meat to survive because of food scarcity!" (employed by people who aren't dealing with food scarcity) "Veganism is an insult to traditional culture." "But how will we grow enough plants to feed everyone?" (This one is my favorite because 80% of crops are grown to feed livestock... and it takes 16 lbs of grain to produce one pound of beef. And as soon as people realize that this argument is in favor of Veganism because Veganism requires fewer crops to be grown compared to an omnivorous diet), they immediately ditch their concern about "How will we grow enough plants.") "The Bible says it's okay to eat meat." "It's unnatural not to eat animals." "Human beings are superior to animals, so eating them is justified." "Animals shouldn't have the exact same rights as humans." (when the argument is that animal life should be prioritized over human pleasure... not that animals should have the same rights) "The same number of animals will die whether I eat them or not." (This appeal to futility was my justification prior to going Vegan.) "But what about field deaths?" (when more field deaths happen because 80% of crops are grown to feed livestock) "Domesticated animals would go extinct if we didn't breed them for food." "Domesticated animals would over-populate if we didn't kill them for food." "Humans are at the top of the food chain. And animals' purpose for existence is to be eaten by humans." "Other animals, like lions, also eat meat. So, why don't you have a problem with lions eating meat when you do have a problem with humans eating meat." "I only eat grass-fed livestock. So, I'm not being cruel." "I only eat halal meat. So, I'm not being cruel." "Vegans are just trying to virtue signal and be superior. So, Veganism isn't anything to be taken seriously." "Veganism is for rich people." "You will never save all the animals. So, what's the point in trying?" "One person going Vegan won't make a difference." These are really common anti-Vegan arguments that all Vegans hear ad-infinitum. The trick is to realize that the people who are arguing with you don't disagree with you.... they disagree with their own actions. And they're scrambling to find a good defense to quiet the cognitive dissonance. If you were really interested in questioning the philosophy of Veganism, then you should at least understand how people react to it.

First off, these are strawman claims that I am not making... "Meat eaters don't care about animals." "Animals are entitled to the same rights as humans." "Human should negate themselves entirely to save plants and animals." I have never made any of these claims. They are pure strawmen that you're arguing against to give a straw dummy to smack down. STRAWMAN #1 - "Meat eaters don't care about animals." I'm not saying that people who eat meat and dairy don't care about animals. Quite the opposite. Most people who consume an omnivorous diet do care about animals. Like, I always cared about animals, ever since I was a child, but I didn't choose to go Vegan until I was 27. So, I had always had Vegan values... I just wasn't living in alignment with them until I changed my diet and lifestyle to reflect those values. And I had tons of ways of explaining that incongruence of values away. That's also the case for many people who consume meat and other animal products. Most of them also care about animals. And if many of them had to kill the animals themselves, they'd probably just choose not to unless it was a matter of life or death.... and they would just eat something else instead. But because they don't kill the animals themselves and they just purchase indiscriminate pieces of meat from the grocery store, they don't viscerally realize that their actions are misaligned from their values. STRAWMAN #2 - "Animals are entitled to the same rights as humans." I have no problem with human beings having more rights than animals within the context of human society. But I believe that an animal has a right to life and well-being that trumps a human being's right to eat them for pleasure. Like, if the choice is between "Kill this animal" or "Kill this human", I have no problem with humans deciding to save the human and kill the animal. Or if a human needs to eat an animal to sustain their life, I have no problem with that either. And (call me crazy :D) I don't believe that animals should have the right to vote... or due process... or speech... or any of those human rights. So no... I don't believe that animals are entitled to the same rights as humans. And my belief is that sentient beings of any species are allowed to prioritize the life of one of their own species over the life of one of another species... if it's a matter of life or death. I see humans as no different. So, I don't have a problem with human beings dealing with food scarcity who have no choice but to consume animals and animal products to survive... in the same way that I have no problem with a lion eating a gazelle... and in the same way that I don't have a problem with bees swarming another being they perceive as being a danger to their hive. STRAWMAN #3 - "Human should negate themselves entirely to save plants and animals." And you are technically correct that the best way to "save the plants" or to "save the animals" is to stop existing. And the second best way is to go Vegan. And the worst way is to continue eating meat and other animal products. But I am not advocating for people to nullify their existence or anything extreme like that in order to save animals and the environment. Instead, I am advocating for people who are in first world nations and who have access to well-stocked grocery stores... and who aren't dealing with food scarcity and food insecurity to make changes to bring their actions more into alignment with their own values, if they have Vegan values and care about animals. So, I'm not advocating for anything extreme or self-negating. I'm not even asking people to give up pleasure in their diet... but rather to move away from the pleasures of an omnivorous diet to experience the pleasures of a Vegan diet. I am not so extreme as to say, "All humans should stop existing because it's better for the environment. But if those are your values... you could try a "fruit-only" diet where you needn't kill any plants or animals. But I doubt those are your actual values because you just came up with this to defend your own choices from yourself.

If you genuinely see human pleasure, comfort, and convenience as more valuable and important than an animal's life and well-being, it makes sense that you wouldn't be Vegan... as you don't have Vegan values. But people like to lie to themselves and think it's more complicated than, "I like eating meat and its convenient. So, I don't want to stop." Certainly, there are people in the world who are dealing with food scarcity and food insecurity. And their motivations to eat meat and diary are survival-based. But most of the time the reality is simple. People eat meat because they enjoy it. And they (in practice) prioritize that enjoyment over the animals' lives and wellbeing... even if they don't agree with doing so. And it's fine if that's someone's true values are that they don't care about the well-being of animals. But a high number of people (maybe most) don't agree that human pleasure should be prioritized over an animal's life and well-being. But recognizing this incongruence of values is difficult, because it is recognizing an areas where a lack of integrity exists. And allowing one's self to become aware of this lack of integrity feels uncomfortable. Also, with regard to the bolded statement above about 'Veganism relying on destroying plant-life', meat-eaters and animal product consumers indirectly lead to more plant consumption than Vegans do. For example, for every one pound of beef that is produced, cows need to consume 16 lbs of grain to produce that over their lifetime. So, if you want to "save the plants!"... then your best bet is to go Vegan.

So, you concede that your claim that "40% of people can't to Vegan without compromising their health" is just a conjecture based in how bell-curves generally work... and not actual evidence. None of this supports the actual claims you've made on this thread. It is just an explanation of how "What I said could potentially be true under these circumstances." But it still isn't viable evidence to support your claims about there being a high percentage of people who can't go Vegan. You probably put into AI some kind of prompt like, "Under what circumstances could it possibly be true that dietary diversity (such that some people cannot go Vegan without compromising their health) is under-represented within the repertoire of scientific studies and meta-analyses that exist." Yes, and based on the best data currently available, they have put out a public statement that a well-planned Vegan diet is adequate for all phases of life. And they wouldn't put out this "population guidance" if there was a large number of people who are not capable of going Vegan without compromising their health. Keep in mind that these health organizations are going to be thinking of ways to minimize public harm as much as possible. And if there was evidence that Vegan diets were harmful to to large swaths of the population, these organizations would not take that risk. Once again, I was NOT the one making an overall health claim about diets beyond what is accounted for in the evidence! I made that claim that, "Plant-based diets are associated with lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality." because that is supported by actual evidence. But I never made a claim that "the Vegan diet works for 99% of humans." I was saying that there's NO EVIDENCE that exists that "some people can't go Vegan without compromising their health"... but that I hypothetically concede somewhat to your point that there probably are some edge cases where some people can't go Vegan that aren't currently accounted for in the evidence that exists. I was saying, "Your claim has no evidence. But I'd imagine hypothetically that you're not 100% wrong. There probably are some edge cases where people can't go Vegan without compromising their health." And you keep using my concession to your point as an indication that I'm making broad-sweeping dietary claims... when I am just stating that your dietary claims are baseless and have no evidence to support them. But I never made that claim... it was just a hypothesis. And I never once said "1%" when I made that hypothetical concession. That was you putting those words in my mouth. So, stop strawmanning me and acting like I'm making claims that I'm not actually making! But at least in the bolded line above, you finally admit that there is no basis for your claim that "40% of people can't go Vegan", which is the entire reason I'm arguing with you in the first place. You're pulling random claims of truth out of your hat that are unsubstantiated. And then you're getting up in arms and calling me a radical when I say, "There is no evidence for your claim." None of this proves your claims that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health". Nor does it prove the claim that, "The Vegan diet is unhealthy." or any of the wide-sweeping dietary claims you've made on this thread. It basically indicates that, statistically, if you want greater longevity, your best bet would be to minimize meat intake... but that Vegan diets correlate a 30% higher risk of hip fractures and "some" GI issues in longterm Vegans. But if you aren't going to make the claim, "Omnivorous diets are unhealthy because of a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, and an earlier death." You should be consistent and not make the claim, "Vegan diets are unhealthy because of a higher risk of hip fractures."

"Selective Science Denialism" is very succinct and well-put... and describes so many perspectives on this thread perfectly. Everyone keeps trying to muddy the waters with all kinds of non-evidence and baseless conjectures. And then, my experience is just... "How can I stick to the actual facts in these muddied waters where so many people have a strong motive to try to deny these facts and to maintain their paradigm?"

The difference between my saying, "Sure, hypothetically, you might be correct that there probably are people who can't go Vegan for health reasons." And you saying, "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health"... is that my hypothetical was a concession to your perspective and me being charitable to your position. I wasn't making a claim of truth myself. I was trying to level with you and find a point of agreement. I was saying that (despite there being no evidence) you're probably partially right about your conjecture that "some people can't go Vegan without compromising their health". But you ARE making a claim of truth when you say "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health". And that is a completely baseless argument that is based in no evidence. But you are not framing it as a hypothesis. You are framing it as the truth. And then pretending like my pointing out the lack of evidence is a radical perspective, when it's just an acknowledgment of the facts. There simply is no evidence to that effect. And if your claim that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health were true", there would be evidence (given that the human diet has been studied quite thoroughly) AND the WHO and ADA would not deem well-planned plant-based diets as nutritionally adequate. These organizations would be required to give a health warning about that type of thing if your claim that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health" were true.

The bolded point above is exactly right. Most people don't go Vegan because of the convenience, habit (as an extension of culture), and taste. They want to keep eating meat for pleasure. They just bring up all kinds of unsubstantiated arguments to hide that basic truth from themselves... and they have to pretend that they either don't have a choice... or that their choice is justified in x, y, and z ways. But it's all just a way to avoid the truth of their real motivations.

100%

Very true. You'd hope for different on a forum about developing a more holistic epistemology. It seems like people really misunderstand what it means to think holistically and to develop a robust epistemology. And instead of integrating wisdom of the scientific method into their framework, they want to chuck it out whenever it comes to ideas they want to protect. And then, they just reframe it as holistic thinking and "criticizing science from above", when they are actually criticizing science from below.

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.