Vegan is an Identity Disorder

[BlueOak]

26 minutes ago, integral said:

@BlueOak you realize I don't want to have a conversation about veganism. I've had this conversation 100 times, there's no need to talk about veganism to me or your epistemology or what's your Paradigm is.

Want me to level up after I said I don't want to do this? After I'm being attacked non-stop by everyone who doesn't even want to address the actual topic? I have not seen a single person actually understand the topic. 

Really blunt and narrow then:
Thread about the identity of vegans -> Don't want to talk about veganism.
Result: ??????

More broadly; You don't want to talk about X, Y related to it, just the definition you've given, in the way you've made it. 
Result: Life never works that way.

*BTW you already have leveled up as you called it, you don't want to talk about identity anymore, because arguing identity is like kicking yourself over and over in the shins. It's painful, you don't get very far and you often fall over. Trying to lighten the mood, you can always call me out on my need/love to debate :D.

Edited July 16 by BlueOak

[integral]

On 7/15/2024 at 9:51 AM, integral said:

Also if someone is over 50 and they’re in perfect health condition, with good skin no health problems then they should continue on that path, changing your diet is extremely dangerous in practice, for 50 years the body adapted to a specific diet and You just want to change it and assume that you’re making healthier choices? it’s far more complicated than any naïve approach. Genetics play a huge role in what you should be eating or not eating and that’s the last thing anyone thinks about when they read a book on nutrition and it tells you the perfect diet to follow. If something work for 50 years don’t change it. Don’t go crazy learning about every super food and trying to incorporate every trend into your diet, you’re going to create a world of problems for your body.

I said the above and you responded below with-

22 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Talking generally here, not about veganism: Changing your diet is not dangerous; people do it all the time. Putting fear into people for trying to make healthy choices is unwarranted. Healthy choices require you to pay attention to your body and focus on it, if you are not doing that they are not healthy choices.

First you misrepresented what I said, we can make healthy choices up to a certain level, I'm talking about going beyond that, to cut out meat completely, to do something purely 100% Keto, I think it's dangerous. Paradigm versus paradigm. Now you're going to ask for evidence that you deem worthy as evidence. It's not that there's no evidence in my Paradigm it's that you want evidence that suits your way of making sense of the world. I don't agree with your way of making sense of the world so the whole conversation just is pointless. we cannot focus on content we have to focus entirely on epistemology here. Which is what I've done I'm trying to explain that with certain life experiences you're going to start doing research beyond what you're currently fixated on.

[integral]

I've seen people destroy themselves changing diets for over 10 years this is an extremely common pattern widespread and Society and you're not addressing this statement so what conversation are we really having here? And I knew this was going to happen so I focused only on the epistemology and how your your perspective is going to shift on its own through life experiences and through consuming more of life, so I do not want to have an evidence-based conversation here that just goes nowhere.

Edited July 16 by integral

[BlueOak]

3 minutes ago, integral said:

I said the above and you responded below with-

First you misrepresented what I said, we can make healthy choices up to a certain level, I'm talking about going beyond that, to cut out meat completely, to do something purely 100% Keto, I think it's dangerous. Paradigm versus paradigm. Now you're going to ask for evidence that you deem worthy as evidence. It's not that there's no evidence in my Paradigm it's that you want evidence that suits your way of making sense of the world. I don't agree with your way of making sense of the world so the whole conversation just is pointless. we cannot focus on content we have to focus entirely on epistemology here. Which is what I've done I'm trying to explain that with certain life experiences you're going to start doing research beyond what you're currently fixated on.

My way of making sense of the world is to take the information I've been given and then fact-check it. If it holds up, I reconsider my position. I look for the best I can find and then cross reference. Then I try to bring in as many factors as possible to form a well rounded conclusion. I do use personal experiential experience as well but only as a starting point to learn more.

If you are unwilling to indulge that or our ways of dealing with information are incompatible I understand.

[BlueOak]

9 minutes ago, integral said:

I've seen people destroy themselves changing diets for over 10 years this is an extremely common pattern widespread and Society and you're not addressing this statement so what conversation are we really having here? And I knew this was going to happen so I focused only on the epistemology and how your your perspective is going to shift on its own through life experiences and through consuming more of life, so I do not want to have an evidence-based conversation here that just goes nowhere.

Well, let's break it down.

You don't want an evidence-based conversation.
You don't want a non-evidence experiential conversation. (if it doesn't align with you)

You want to just make your point and have people agree with you when they don't. How can I address the point when the two methods of doing so you don't want to see? 

I know I am being hard on you and a part of me feels sorry about it, but if someone doesn't bluntly say this to you, you'll never see it.

Edited July 16 by BlueOak

[integral]

4 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

How can I address the point when the two methods of doing so you don't want to see? 

It's not possible to address the point, it's not possible to say anything that can Bridge the paradigm. You're going to say things within your paradigm and then I will say something in my Paradigm and we will always be in conflict. Your evidence is not my evidence so you can't give me evidence your experiences are not my experiences so you can't give me your experiences. 

[BlueOak]

2 minutes ago, integral said:

It's not possible to address the point, it's not possible to say anything that can Bridge the paradigm. You're going to say things within your paradigm and then I will say something in my Paradigm and we will always be in conflict. Your evidence is not my evidence so you can't give me evidence your experiences are not my experiences so you can't give me your experiences. 

Maybe its my flaw that I don't accept that at face value, and that I want to integrate or understand all perspectives, it's something to consider.

[integral]

If your experience is that well if they got sick then they didn't do veganism properly or they should follow all of these protocols to get their microbiome back into health or take all of these tests and do all this work to make vegans work for their bodies. Maybe that's something you're going to say, a holistic approach that should work for the majority of people?

And i think that's wrong you can have a holistic approach but it's not biased to reducing meat, which is a health Paradigm you're in. Some people's genetics should be eating meat some people are more going to thrive on a Mediterranean diet or something else, there's  absolute diversity and you can't force people to shift their bodies to thrive in one specific way that's a mistake in holism.

Are you going to respond by refuting what I said to fit your paradigm?

Edited July 16 by integral

[Schizophonia]

I follow my instinct.

Very simple.

[integral]

Ive seen my sister reduce her body and health to zero on veganism and then after when she realized things weren't working out she scrambled to start taking supplements and get everything back in order and in the end what happened, is she had to go back to meat because of extreme low iron levels and a bunch of digestion problems. And I get it from your perspective she did it wrong she had to carefully take tests every 6 months to make sure everything was okay and then she had to follow a more holistic intelligent protocol. Maybe you're right. Or she could have continued eating meat like the rest of population maybe she could have continued the food she was eating her entire life? Leo didn't even go vegan he just had a bunch of guts and health problems that slowly crept up on him and then now he literally just eats meat. Because he can't fix his gut and it's the only thing that his body can process.

If we were to scale this up the whole population what is it going to look like? 

[Jannes]

@integral Leos gut problems are very unique.

But in general that's the reason why health organizations in many countries dont recommend a vegan diet (often a vegetarian diet though) because they know that general folk isnt as well educated about nutrition and can easily fuck it up.

[BlueOak]

@integral

For what it's worth, I am sorry you've had difficult and painful experiences in the past related to the topic. By talking about them, you can educate and help others find balance. I hope your sister is healed and well.

[HMD]

I have a bachelor's degree in Nutrition, and when the topic of Veganism arose, the prevailing opinion was that while it may be a good spiritual practice, it is considered mediocre at best for meeting the body's nutritional needs.

[integral]

@BlueOak hey man I wanna apologize for these conversations I went way too far. I wasn’t willing to fully commit to this conversation so I acted like a buffoon lol.

You made some good points about my character.

in the past I fully engaged in these kind of conversations but now I’m sort of tired of it and in general there’s a rule now on the form to not debate certain topics and veganism is one of them. lmao

Also I should’ve made the first post more clear. I’ll do that next time.

Edited July 16 by integral

[Thought Art]

3 hours ago, HMD said:

I have a bachelor's degree in Nutrition, and when the topic of Veganism arose, the prevailing opinion was that while it may be a good spiritual practice, it is considered mediocre at best for meeting the body's nutritional needs.

Thanks for sharing that. I don't really know the truth.

I wonder if I put a bunch of people with degrees with nutrition in a room who would agree. The thing is, I've seen people with high levels of education saying many things which conflict with one another. I am not convinced nutrition in the west is a mature science. I think eating balanced is the best approach. I am still exploring what that means for me.

The problem with Veganism is that it is an identity and a belief system. There is also a lot of social pressure as it's a highly social affair. ie approval from other vegans. I also think the bias towards death is something the Vegans should question. 

I've recently been reading a book called Cosmic Nutrition by Mantak Chia. I think it offers a lot of interesting ideas around nutrition. I think there are solid principles to follow, such as seasonal eating, eating balanced, eating the right proportions and balancing Yin and Yang. Meat is fine to eat, but from this model it is considered extreme Yang. I still have to explore what this means in more detail, but I think the way you eat matters and not creating some sort of identity or idealogy around it. I think if you clearly define health as Mantak Chia does in the book you can then work to eat and live accordingly to the principles of effective interaction around health, nutrition, and ecology.

 

Edited July 16 by Thought Art

[HMD]

During my time in university, I came across various opinions from different teachers, which made it challenging to discern what was right. Over time, I realized that creating a good nutrition plan cannot be entirely generalized. While there are principles to follow, each person has unique physical and mental conditions, leading to individualized needs. This is why we underwent thorough training in conducting assessments. Additionally, we were taught that a balanced diet is a good general recommendation.

I haven’t read that book yet. Sounds interesting though, I’ll give it a read soon. And the problem of identity is huge when it comes to nutrition. Food for some reason is very tightly knit with culture, and subsequently with people and their identities. And I believe we have to respect everyone’s culture, but at the same time helping them make changes they comfortably can. 

[HMD]

44 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Thanks for sharing that. I don't really know the truth.

I wonder if I put a bunch of people with degrees with nutrition in a room who would agree. The thing is, I've seen people with high levels of education saying many things which conflict with one another. I am not convinced nutrition in the west is a mature science. I think eating balanced is the best approach. I am still exploring what that means for me.

The problem with Veganism is that it is an identity and a belief system. There is also a lot of social pressure as it's a highly social affair. ie approval from other vegans. I also think the bias towards death is something the Vegans should question. 

I've recently been reading a book called Cosmic Nutrition by Mantak Chia. I think it offers a lot of interesting ideas around nutrition. I think there are solid principles to follow, such as seasonal eating, eating balanced, eating the right proportions and balancing Yin and Yang. Meat is fine to eat, but from this model it is considered extreme Yang. I still have to explore what this means in more detail, but I think the way you eat matters and not creating some sort of identity or idealogy around it. I think if you clearly define health as Mantak Chia does in the book you can then work to eat and live accordingly to the principles of effective interaction around health, nutrition, and ecology.

 

During my time in university, I came across various opinions from different teachers, which made it challenging to discern what was right. Over time, I realized that creating a good nutrition plan cannot be entirely generalized. While there are principles to follow, each person has unique physical and mental conditions, leading to individualized needs. This is why we underwent thorough training in conducting assessments. Additionally, we were taught that a balanced diet is a good general recommendation.

I haven’t read that book yet. Sounds interesting though, I’ll give it a read soon. And the problem of identity is huge when it comes to nutrition. Food for some reason is very tightly knit with culture, and subsequently with people and their identities. And I believe we have to respect everyone’s culture, but at the same time helping them make changes they comfortably can. 

[Asayake]

5 hours ago, integral said:

Ive seen my sister reduce her body and health to zero on veganism and then after when she realized things weren't working out she scrambled to start taking supplements and get everything back in order and in the end what happened, is she had to go back to meat because of extreme low iron levels and a bunch of digestion problems. And I get it from your perspective she did it wrong she had to carefully take tests every 6 months to make sure everything was okay and then she had to follow a more holistic intelligent protocol. Maybe you're right. Or she could have continued eating meat like the rest of population maybe she could have continued the food she was eating her entire life? Leo didn't even go vegan he just had a bunch of guts and health problems that slowly crept up on him and then now he literally just eats meat. Because he can't fix his gut and it's the only thing that his body can process.

If we were to scale this up the whole population what is it going to look like? 

You clearly have personal negative experience with veganism, which makes you likely to be biased. I have a personal bias of the opposite kind since my dad used to eat a diet high in saturated fat( a keto style diet) and almost died of pulmonary embolism when I was 14. After that my parents started eating more beans & carbohydrates & fish and less meat and they're doing good on that kind of diet. So I think it can vary from individual to individual what works.

But our cases are both anecdotal, you can never know what would have happened if your sister just kept eating meat, you cant even know for certain that veganism caused all her issues, and I can't know for sure that keto caused my dads issues or if my dad would have been better off without keto. Things could have gone both better or worse, life is complex. With that being said modern day science doesn't exactly seem to support veganism as the optimal diet but it does seem to support a diet closer to the vegan diet than most people eat, with less meat and saturated fats, less eggs, butter, bacon & red meat. More fish, legumes, grains, vegetables. Most vegans don't eat close to that but they tend to eat things like fake meats & a lot of processed junk and those diets are not healthy just because they're vegan.

I think it's not entirely fair to call vegan an identity disorder. Veganism is an ideology and any ideology can be latched onto by people with identity crisis, such as I bet many on this forum have latched onto a spiritual identity in an attempt to forge a new indentity and start fresh. If you make the case that being vegan is an identity disorder, then to be coherent I think you have to claim that identification with any belief system whatsoever is an identity disorder. With that being said there are surely people with idenitity disorder who are vegans, but the same can be said for carnivore, keto, or even people who eat a normal diet but define their identiy in other ways, such as being anti-vegan for example.

Edited July 17 by Asayake