Emerald

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.

I watched the first few minutes of the video, so I didn't get the full context. They are framing it like it's some new *higher consciousness* relationship thing. But it seems like something that's been done a million times before with other explanations applied to it. But isn't that just describing a throuple? Or perhaps an open relationship where they occasionally bring the other woman in?

Fair enough. I know he's all about the idea that we're in a civil war. But I'm wondering if he knows he's bullshitting about the president using this unofficial civil war that he perceives as a justification to take away rights.

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.