• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Why Vegan?

arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Vego said:
Message to moderators/editors: ...

Is there anything in this long post that doesn't amount to 'nyeh nyeh no you!' or ironic condescension?

If anyone's read it and wants to point to the substance, I will address it... but the first page of half-baked self-pleasuring argument for the sake of arguing doesn't really inspire me to bother addressing yet another substance free pile of dross.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
*SD* said:
Vego said:
You obviously have no idea what I am arguing, and then you are going to do just like SD and accuse me of moving the goalpost when all this time you have been mistaken about my position.

That's because it's exactly what you did. Over and over again.

I stopped replying to you MONTHS ago so why are you bringing me into this?

Here's here to tussle with the heathen.

It's virtuous to argue every word, dontcha know?

*SD* said:
I was, still am, and will remain completely clear on your position. You have been refuted again and again by at least 3 different people in this thread alone. You can keep pretending it isn't so, but that won't change anything.

Rather than refute, I would say that his spiel has been deobfuscated. His case doesn't hold water, his rebuttals routinely degrade into confusion he manufactures apparently so he feels he's done something useful even though they're just evasions, but most importantly of all, the virtue-signalling: it keeps creeping out.

*SD* said:
Whilst I don't control what you post here, nor do I wish to, it would be courteous of you to not reference me unless you're actually addressing me - and if you want to do that then you'll need to set up a debate between us as that's the only way I'm willing to interact with you further. You can do that here, or on another platform, but if you have no intention of doing so then kindly leave me out of your shenanigans.

It would need to be heavily moderated because there seems to me to be an unwillingness to actually address substantive points in preference for generating confusing storms in absurd teacups.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Because what some dude said on Youtube appears to be the requisite bar of discussion here (who needs schmienze journals anyway?)



Note I haven't watched it!

Why?

Well, I already explained why, but there's no point in me doing so again when I think it's clear already whatever I write will be ignored in favour of what Vego would prefer me to have said or meant by what I wrote.

So why put it here?

Another of the great problems facing humanity today is our lack of training in ascertaining the value of sources. Time and time again, I see people proferring sources to support their arguments or beliefs which indicate a woefully poor degree of support and actually undermine any trust in the validity of that position - or at least as to why that particular person holds that position.

So yeah, over to Vego to virtue-signal about the implicit prejudice and vicious assumptions in the paragraph above.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
This one I did actually watch because it was such a train-wreck throughout so it was hard to turn away.



This is a genuine doctor arguing for a keto / carnivore diet.

Vego - I bet you can readily spot errors in the arguments, flaws in the reasoning, atrocious scientific practices...

But the only reason you can do that is because it's your ideological enemy, so you're primed to be skeptical of it. Have the same guy offer the same poor reasons in favour of your preferred dietary ideology, and you'd be fucking lapping it up.
 
arg-fallbackName="Vego"/>
What I will address in this post (among other things):
- I show that your opinion about the status of veganism as a philosophical belief is wrong (update on the case);
- I provide evidence that three contributors in this thread have said or implied that veganism is not possible or too difficult;
- I explain some of the issues with the links that you provided regarding Inuit diet.


A. Belief

Sparhafoc said:
I am not mistaken simply because I disagree with you.
When I think that you are mistaken, I generally try to explain why.
Sparhafoc said:
You repeated an error.
No. You believe that I made an error because you don't understand what I am saying and you refuse to accept that.
Sparhafoc said:
Religious belief is not equivalent to belief in gravity.
I agree and I never said it was. What I did imply is that it is possible to hold a strong belief in gravity in the same way that it is possible to hold a strong belief in religion (or anything else). A belief may we weak or strong, and it may be justified or not. Belief in gravity is strong and well-justified. Belief in religion can be strong but is not (to my knowledge) well-justified.
Sparhafoc said:
I explained why it's a flawed concept.
You said "No, what you did was attempt to conflate a religious belief with an acceptance of empirical facts."

For me, if the belief can be shown to be true, then it is an empirical fact.
Sparhafoc said:
Then they're NOT the same thing, are they?
Not all beliefs are equivalent. So what?
Sparhafoc said:
Then it's an equivocation, isn't it?
Only if you think that a belief must be unjustified (I don't).
Sparhafoc said:
you're unwilling to engage in counters to it
I am obviously willing to engage, otherwise I wouldn't reply to you at all.
Sparhafoc said:
Vego said:
That is only because Christian beliefs are probably false. If they were true, then it would be just like gravity (that is the Christian god would exist even if no one believed in it).
No, it's because they are not the same category of belief.
And what distinguishes the categories that you speak of?
Sparhafoc said:
As I've told you many times already - the limitations of the language in terms of appropriate vocabulary is not a shelter to hide in from factual distinctions made between distinct sets of meaning. Yes, banks and rivers. Yes, you ignored it each time.
I don't ignore what you are saying, I just think that you are mistaken, and I keep trying to explain why. The only vocabulary issue that I see is that the word 'belief' by itself does not convey information about strength and justification.
Sparhafoc said:
Yes, entirely superfluous when it comes to scientific topics.
Of course not. Science is filled with beliefs, they are just generally better justified.
Sparhafoc said:
Evidence is not belief.
Yes it is. There is a whole world of assumptions and logical arguments that are required before accepting something as evidence. For example, I generally trust that the authors of a paper are honest and that they don't just make up the numbers. Sadly, scientific dishonesty is a thing so this trust cannot be unlimited.
Sparhafoc said:
Belief in gravity is superfluous. Stop believing all you like, but there it remains.
Gravity as an objective concept is what it is. What we believe about gravity is the scientific theory of gravity.
Sparhafoc said:
It's not ambiguous, it's just wrong.
Are you saying that a belief is necessarily wrong?
Sparhafoc said:
I've shown that you are misapplying the concept of belief
How do you know that you are not the one doing that?
Sparhafoc said:
The law does not have a mind-reading device.
What?
Sparhafoc said:
I don't believe you are wrong, you are just wrong.
So you really think that your beliefs are facts...
Sparhafoc said:
over-confident in your comprehension
This is projection because:
- I claim that I don't understand what you are saying.
- you claim that you do understand what I am saying.
(in other words, this is not "tu quoque", this is you accusing me of something that you are doing and that I am not doing, or at least not to the same extent)
Sparhafoc said:
you got yourself twisted in knots
Please provide an example.
Sparhafoc said:
Yes, so you want to have your cake and eat it, just like the chap in the article.
Your quote tags are messed up, so I am not sure what you are addressing here.
Sparhafoc said:
What you're arguing isn't understandable because it's fundamentally nonsensical.
I am arguing that a belief can be justified. How is that fundamentally nonsensical?


B. Equality Act

Sparhafoc said:
the judges use the same terms, the law itself uses the same terms.
This is false. The law and the judges use the expression "philosophical beliefs" to distinguish them from religious beliefs
Sparhafoc said:
you've done everything you can to pretend that everyone else is trying to smear veganism
Not everyone, just Dragan Glas, SD and you (details below).
Sparhafoc said:
if you were obliged to cite anything I've said which does so
You have said repeatedly that it is like a religion, and that vegan beliefs are religious beliefs (I provide a quote below when you ask me for one). To be fair, some people probably think highly of religion but I don't, so to me it is a smear.
Sparhafoc said:
I can cite dozens of passages where I've written the exact contrary to the notion that I hold veganism in poor regard.
Please cite one (I am not saying that you didn't, but I am curious as to what you call contrary to poor regard).
Sparhafoc said:
Because you've accused everyone else concerned of trying to smear veganism?
Not everyone.
Sparhafoc said:
Whereas, factually the guy in question is attempting to garner protection offered to religions for his beliefs about the consumption of animal products.
Yes and this protection is also offered to non-religious beliefs.
Sparhafoc said:
it's clickbait and manipulative just because you don't want it to be true.
What don't I want to be true?
Sparhafoc said:
And not in the article.
What? I quoted the judge quoted in the article.
Sparhafoc said:
Aren't you supposed to be responding here to why you're accusing the journalist of mendacity?
Saying that belief in climate change is akin to religion is clickbait because it is a scientific question and the link to religion is not obvious without context, which is given in the article. This is a simple tactic to get people to click (and to be clear, just because I think the title is potentially misleading doesn't mean that I think that the author is generally untrustworthy).
Sparhafoc said:
Previously you accused the journalist of manipulation and deceit
Is there any way for you to accept that my position is somewhere between 'the journalist is perfect' and 'the journalist is a total fraud'? Clickbait titles are common online, they are just as manipulative as advertising or any other form of communication that is designed to get people to do something. You are making it sound like I am accusing journalists of committing some crime, and that is not the case at all.
Sparhafoc said:
Is there a chance, perhaps, you didn't read anything other than the title before this?
I made a specific claim by replying to you (that belief in climate change could be considered a protected belief), and this Guardian article justifies this claim in the text (but not in the title). Do you acknowledge that?
Sparhafoc said:
I didn't make the words up.
That is a completely unhelpful answer as I didn't ask you for dictionary definitions.
Sparhafoc said:
No, it stays the same forever unless it specifically notes an update.
Well, last time I checked, it did specifically note an update, which is why I mentioned it.
Sparhafoc said:
Now cite the criteria as you were asked.
As I said, I already did that in my first reply to you here.
Sparhafoc said:
Just as you are free to pretend that you are recapitulating the position of legal experts and I am contradicting them. Of course, anyone with a passable reading grade will note that's not the case.
Are you saying that you think that veganism probably fits the criteria? Because if you do then we are in agreement.
Sparhafoc said:
Problem is that it's only obvious to you.
It is obvious to me because, for example, you said that I am contradicting myself "by saying that veganism should be a protected belief, whereas you said the opposite at the outset." Although I am more open to the first option (because it seems to make sense), I did not say or imply "the opposite", that is to say that veganism should not be a protected belief. In other words, you (wrongly) claim that I said/implied that veganism should not be a protected belief: where is your justification for this claim?
Sparhafoc said:
If everyone is mistaken about your position, perhaps - just perhaps - the onus is on you to better explain your position.
Not everyone (only 2-3 people so far), and I am trying to explain. Notice also that Dragan Glas acknowledged more than once that he misrepresented me, so it's not just me making it up.
Sparhafoc said:
Of course, there is no actual confusion on my part, and I know exactly what your position is, and I've already given you a response to that.
Then please justify your claim above (about my position on veganism and protected belief) if you haven't done so already.
Sparhafoc said:
perhaps I should say that this useful distraction on your part labeling everyone who disagrees with you as being 'mistaken about your position' is an evasion so you feel you've replied even when you haven't bothered to engage in the points they raised.
Then, just like SD, you would be accusing me of being dishonest. What would you expect me to say under the hypothesis that you are indeed mistaken about my position?
Sparhafoc said:
Do you even know what you're arguing?
Yes.
Sparhafoc said:
Funny that, because it also looks similar to what I said in my earlier posts but which you disputed.
Please provide some quotes here (what did you say and what was my reply).
Sparhafoc said:
It's funny how often you suddenly get puzzled whenever it's a point you don't appear to want to address.
It's not funny that you keep avoiding the question. I was asking you for an explanation of something that you said. As I understand, it is not true that only religious beliefs are protected (this has been justified many times already).
Sparhafoc said:
Bullshit artist.
You told me yourself that you didn't read my post. If you don't read me, you can't claim that I don't offer evidence. Ad hominems won't help you there: you are wrong.
Sparhafoc said:
According to your opinion, my interpretation of the law isn't consistent with what the lawyers are saying
Yes.
Sparhafoc said:
(which you've just called irrelevant anyway)
Are you claiming that I have just called "what the lawyers are saying" "irrelevant"?
Sparhafoc said:
According to your opinion, they say exactly what you are saying
Yes because I read documents written by legal scholars on the Equality Act before adopting their views.
Sparhafoc said:
even though you seem unable to write 2 posts without contradicting yourself.
If you want to claim that I am contradicting myself, you have to show me saying or implying two contradictory things. I quoted you making such a claim above, but you haven't provided a justification.
Sparhafoc said:
Religion is a philosophical belief.
If it fits the criteria then maybe (I don't know if there is a special procedure for religions). But being a (subset of) philosophical belief doesn't mean that both are the same thing.
Sparhafoc said:
How can we judge whether a philosophical belief is to be protected? By how similarly it is held by its believer comparative to religious beliefs.
Please quote the law or a legal expert saying that. As I understand, it's more about passing the criteria.
Sparhafoc said:
the point you have now accused everyone concerned of mendaciously manipulating for their sordid anti-vegan agenda
The Guardian article is not about veganism, although it does note that "Camilla Palmer, of Leigh Day and Co, said it opened doors for an even wider category of deeply held beliefs, such as feminism, vegetarianism or humanism."

And I don't know whether the BBC article is anti-vegan. It could be that the editors simply wanted to create a buzz and get views, in which they probably succeeded.
Sparhafoc said:
If it's held like a religious belief
The correct wording would be 'if it's held genuinely' ("genuinely" is the official wording, and as I understand it means that the belief must be strong/not a joke).
Sparhafoc said:
you're contradicting yourself
You keep repeating that, but you still haven't provided a justification.
Sparhafoc said:
Of course, you also said you don't think that a vegan belief is akin to a religious belief.
Please quote me saying that with the proper context.
Sparhafoc said:
That's a function of cognitive bias; the contradictions are frequent, both implicit and explicit.
And yet you are unable to justify even one.
Sparhafoc said:
I have literally NEVER called vegan beliefs religious
You said "just what the vegan chap is asking the tribunal to enact on behalf of his religious beliefs." You didn't say 'his beliefs akin to religious beliefs', you said simply "religious beliefs". Which "religious beliefs" are you talking about?
Sparhafoc said:
in fact, it is diametrically OPPOSITE to what I'm saying.
So you are saying that vegan beliefs are not religious beliefs?
Sparhafoc said:
which just goes to show who it is that's 'mistaken' and who doesn't understand whose argument
I am not pretending that I understand everything that you say, quite the contrary.
Sparhafoc said:
I am saying that vegan beliefs are NOT equivalent to religiously held beliefs
Now you got me confused again. You said earlier that "The Judge rules that his belief in climate change is EQUIVALENT TO A RELIGIOUS BELIEF." I was under the impression that you accepted this ruling, with the understanding that the equivalence in question is a legal matter (that is to say, belief in climate change is not a religious belief). In this (legal) context, if you can accept that belief in climate change can be "equivalent" (legally) to a religious belief, then what is you objection when it comes to veganism?
Sparhafoc said:
and therefore shouldn't be lent the same protection under the law.
You have no ground to use "therefore" here. The BBC article (and the text of the law) talks about philosophical beliefs, which is what Casamitjana and his lawyer are arguing for. The earlier (Guardian) article about climate change predicted that "vegetarianism" could be covered. That makes at least two legal experts offering a favorable opinion, and all you have so far is your personal not-a-lawyer opinion.

Anyway, this is moot now because an official decision has been taken (more below).
Sparhafoc said:
Remarkable how you think you're doing such a solid job while being so factually contrary to what is actually happening.
Are you claiming that legal experts are actually saying that veganism cannot be protected as a philosophical belief? (you might want to read what I say later before replying)
Sparhafoc said:
who is running under a biased modus operandi
If you are trying to say that I have a pro-vegan bias: yes, that is true (did I ever say or imply that I am unbiased?).
Sparhafoc said:
Note that you've come here solely to proselytize your vegan beliefs at people who don't share those beliefs
I want people to make informed decisions, and I believe that veganism is the right decision. Consequently, I also believe that, on some specific points, people who don't share my beliefs are likely to be mistaken. I have already said all that.
Sparhafoc said:
at every opportunity you've tried to employ the notion that we're all unthinking little automatons running solely on prejudice.
Please provide a justification for that. While I did accuse you personally of prejudice a long time ago, almost everything in your sentence is false.
Sparhafoc said:
Perhaps I did actually pose the question and wait for your answer which is allegedly in this post?
You did pose the question in a rhetorical way, but you didn't wait for my answer, you just assumed what my position would be.
Sparhafoc said:
Morton's Demon convinces its sufferer that everyone else is a victim of projection.
I read this description but it doesn't seem to match your definition. Anyway, your definition doesn't apply to me because I am not talking about "everyone else", only you.
Sparhafoc said:
I also suggested already that you should actually find out what psychological projection is because you are routinely misusing the concept whenever you want to deflect criticism.
What I mean is that you are accusing me of doing something that you are doing but I am not (or at least not to the same extent).
Sparhafoc said:
Just so you understand: every time you reply with the word 'projection' it should properly be read as 'nyeh nyeh, no you!' - that's the actual value of your reply.
So you are saying that you don't reflect at all on what you are doing? I take the criticism that you throw at me seriously, and I do my best to see if there is anything that should stick. But your habit of making claims about what I said or didn't say without justification generally leads me to dismiss your claims.
Sparhafoc said:
And the detailed explanation goes on to list how a belief can be evaluated
Are you talking about the explanatory notes?
Sparhafoc said:
the yard-stick is whether the belief is held in the same manner as religious beliefs, i.e. akin to religious beliefs
Can you please quote the exact words? The relevant parts that I see are:
- "This section defines the protected characteristic of religion or religious or philosophical belief, which is stated to include for this purpose a lack of religion or belief" (so apparently atheism would be included).
- "The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are ..." (the rest is what is in the BBC article, which I quoted earlier).
- the text keeps repeating "religion or belief", which (to me) implies a distinction (even if the distinction does not impact the application of the law).
Sparhafoc said:
How about you've had long enough already to substantiate your accusation and you've failed pitifully?
What kind of accusation do you think I am making? Is the concept of crafting an enticing title so extraordinary to you? Honestly I don't really know what justification you expect here: online publishers choose their titles to increase the odds of people clicking on them. Given that titles are limited in size, sometimes they end up being more or less misleading. Everyone does it, including the BBC and the Guardian. Quite frankly, I don't see that as a big problem if the article itself provides clarifications.

The BBC article does provide some clarifications (as I have noted in my first reply) but it also lacks relevant information. For example, The Vegan Society, who support Casamitjana (and were mentioned by the BBC), wrote on this topic (https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/blog/landmark-case-will-argue-veganism-protected-belief) and made it explicit that "The category ‘religion and belief’ provides protection from discrimination for individuals who hold religious or non-religious philosophical beliefs." They also did the work that the BBC should have done but didn't (or chose not to publish), and provide some legal and historical context with opinions from relevant legal experts.
Sparhafoc said:
You can just say 'no, I don't have the entire film' but of course, that would mean giving ground, and you will not give a plank length to the heathen.
If I said that, I would be making an unjustified claim because I genuinely don't know. At most I can tell you that I believe that they recorded more than they showed, as this is probably standard practice. That being said, you are asking me to prove that Casamitjana didn't say something on a hypothetical material to which I don't have access. However, you are the one who has to explain why the reporters would choose to not quote him directly if they have him on record. Instead, they quote him saying something different and then they themselves introduce the concept of religion in their own words.
Sparhafoc said:
Great, because 'what you've seen' is now the yardstick in ascertaining whether someone is guilty of perfidious behavior even though you're prepared to make that accusation
Yes, I can only draw conclusions from the information that I have. I can make a guess as to what I don't have, but here it seems unlikely that Casamitjana expressed himself this way.
Sparhafoc said:
Perhaps there is more material you should have seen prior to making accusations you cannot hope to support?
Where?


I can make my case a bit stronger by looking at other reporting on the topic:
a) This Washington Post contains the sentence "His diet choices are philosophical, he argues, something like a religion." They are implying that he said that, but without actually quoting him.

b) There is a link to a crowdfunding website (https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/help-a-discriminated-ethical-vegan/) where Casamitjana himself gives more details about his circumstances. He describes himself as a "zoologist" (so, a scientist I guess) and a "whistleblower" (an older reporting on his situation by the Guardian talks about whistleblowing). Notice that, without journalistic editorial control, he doesn't say anything about religion.

Incidentally, in the updates to his case, he notes:
- "I have just been notified by my lawyers that the League Against Cruel Sports has formally conceded that my Ethical Veganism is a protected philosophical belief"
- "We believe that it is a matter of public interest to let employers and vegans know that the evidence that ethical veganism qualifies as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 was so overwhelming that in this case the respondent conceded this point once they saw the evidence they had to overcome"

(I don't know for sure what this means in terms of legal precedent)

c) Another reporting on the topic by The Independent (link) that came out about the same time as the BBC article also doesn't try to imply that Casamitjana argues that his ethical/philosophical beliefs are like a religion, and the title is more explicit ("... same anti-discrimination rights as religious people ...").

d) Another by The Telegraph (link) does include comments by a Dr Owen, not a lawyer but relevant because of her past involvement with the Equality Act, albeit in a religious context. Despite the framing of the article (religious interviewee, "akin to religion" in the title), Dr Owen never tries to claim that ethical veganism is a religious belief or like one.

e) This dubious website (one of the first results I got when doing a web search) pushes the envelope with the title "Veganism Could Be Officially Recognized as a Religion in the UK" even though this is completely unsupported.

What I conclude from all of that is that:
- whatever Casamitjana may think about the question of religion (he may or may not be religious himself, I don't know), he doesn't say anything about it when he is free to express hismelf without journalistic interference.
- only journalists use the expression "akin to religion," but never by quoting anyone.
- not all journalists try to push an association with religion, as it is unnecessary in this case.

Additionally, the opposing party conceded that veganism is a protected philosophical belief, and they probably know more about the case and the law than you do.

Sparhafoc said:
You have no evident reasons as to why it should be misleading
The evident reason is that he is not quoted actually saying that. To me the simplest explanation is that he didn't say it.
Sparhafoc said:
certainly not that it is deliberately misleading
Someone had to either:
a) decide to not quote/show Casamitjana making an explicit connection with religion, for some mysterious reason;
b) decide to make an explicit connection with religion even though Casamitjana himself doesn't.

I find b) a lot more likely than a) (and yes, my vegan bias plays a role in my assessment).
Sparhafoc said:
In reality, if you want to accuse someone of manipulative and deceitful editing you'd need to have the entire film they started with before cutting it up in a deceitful manner
Generally no, you are wrong. Potholer54 made a series of videos regarding "TV tricks of the trade" (Youtube) and Al Jazeera did a series of short animated clips to describe some pitfalls with "the media" (link). I am not saying that all these things apply here, I am saying that it is reasonable to be skeptical of what is presented in the news and especially how it is presented (I am not saying that there is no reliable information, but I am saying that almost everything in the news is biased in some way, with various degrees of subtlety).


C. Claims of impossibility

Sparhafoc said:
I judged a book by its content,
No because, by your own claim, you couldn't "be bothered to read any further".
Sparhafoc said:
I can tell that you are failing to engage in substantive criticism of ideas
So the arguments, quotes, links, explanations and questions count for nothing? What exactly would you call "substantive criticism of ideas"?
Sparhafoc said:
Still, you can keep hiding behind the fact that I didn't read ONE of your posts
It was a long post where I addressed many points. That it was just one is not what matters here. Furthermore, you have repeated this pattern of not reading part of my text in a subsequent post where you dismissed one of my points due to the number of words instead of the actual content, so really you are in the wrong here.
Sparhafoc said:
on the grounds that you simply regurgitated the same prior errors
More like what you believe to be error (and I guess that you are going to claim that it is a fact that I am in error, but that is just because you seem unable to cope with the possibility that you might be mistaken).
Sparhafoc said:
a way of pretending that I haven't read anything
You are the one telling me that you didn't read parts of my posts. Where did I pretend that you "haven't read anything"? Do you acknowledge that you are misrepresenting me here?
Sparhafoc said:
don't understand you
Yes, this I claim.
Sparhafoc said:
all the answers are in there.
Not always, and it could be that I don't understand some of your questions (do you think, like SD, that you have never been unclear?).
Sparhafoc said:
It's nice for you to put the onus on me
If you make a claim, then the onus is on you to justify it. I understand that claiming that something isn't there is not easy to justify, but it is not a claim that you can make without reading me, which is a point that you are trying really hard to avoid.
Sparhafoc said:
The obligation is for you to engage in a way that provokes others to read your posts
And what way would that be?
Sparhafoc said:
I am under no obligation whatsoever to read you reassert bullshit for the umpteenth time
Once again:
- if you don't read me, then you don't know what I am asserting or not.
- whether what I am saying is "bullshit" is your personal opinion (with which I disagree).

Sparhafoc said:
The point, of course, is that no one here has ever said 'it's not possible to be a vegan'
Mostly in the previous thread, Dragan Glas argued that veganism was too inconvenient (requiring heavy medical support, thereby making widespread veganism highly impractical) and dangerous for mental health (which would make veganism not possible in the sense that I am arguing).

In this thread, from SD:
*SD* said:
Vego said:
If you reject that we don't have to kill/exploit farm animals, you might as well be saying that ethical veganism is not possible
In a way I am saying that.
(he also said something somewhere about hair falling out or whatnot, again incompatible with what I am arguing)

And from you (it could be that you didn't understand what I meant, but what you are saying there seems to contradict that it is possible to be vegan by avoiding all animal products):
Sparhafoc said:
I do hope you don't mean that eating animals is 'biologically unnecessary for our survival' because that would be a silly contention.
Given how I define "biologically necessary" (which is different from practically necessary), I maintain what I said. Please explain what exactly is silly here (and note that if eating animals is biologically necessary, then dietary veganism is not possible with today's technology).
Sparhafoc said:
I would argue the contrary that people have acknowledged many times it's possible to be a vegan
Then what was SD arguing against when talking about B12, dying from lack of food, and losing hair? And what were you trying to say when talking about poor countries?
Sparhafoc said:
Possibility isn't the grounds on which your vegan screed is being contested
Considering that I am only making two claims (that it is possible the be vegan and that being vegan is better than not), then I guess we can move on.
Sparhafoc said:
If it's not their exact words, then perhaps you are capitulating it erroneously?
Or they they implied it.
Sparhafoc said:
As for 'require meat' - then a context is rather important, isn't it?
Yes. Are you saying that I never gave such context?
Sparhafoc said:
In the modern world, living in a nation with extensive trading, and possessing sufficient affluence to be able to afford supplements and fortified foods, then meat isn't a requirement
I agree, and this is mostly what I have been arguing (my actual claim goes a little bit further as I would also include informed individuals who would know how to get what they need regardless of the state of their nation).
Sparhafoc said:
although probably still should be considered so for children
As far as I am aware, only a German dietitian organization has some reservations regarding children. Wikipedia gives various quotes from other dietitians, and most are saying that, given proper planning and reliable professional advice, it is safe for children (but not infants).
Sparhafoc said:
As for 'require' - as we've already established, the term itself is dependent.
Yes, which is why I generally try to explain what I mean when I use this word in this context.
Sparhafoc said:
Humans can live solely on meat and have full lives
Maybe (I am not convinced, but I can accept it for the sake of moving forward), but this is irrelevant to veganism.
Sparhafoc said:
However, one could say that living a full life in the absence of vegetable matter consumption means you don't "require" vegetable matter.
From what I understand, some type of fiber (not strictly speaking a nutrient) is required, and this is generally absent from animals (I suppose there could be exceptions, but I don't know). Anyway, this is also irrelevant because my claim is not that we have to consume plants, what I defend (mostly ethical veganism) is that we don't have to consume animal products (with all the caveats that have already been mentioned many times in this thread).
Sparhafoc said:
So it does, of course, depend on how rigorous you wish to be.
I wish to be rigorous enough to avoid making false claims, but simple enough for a normal person to understand.
Sparhafoc said:
I think your arguments thrive on a terminal lack of rigour
What are my arguments, and what precisely are their flaws?
Sparhafoc said:
I've given you a straight answer many times.
Please quote your earliest straight answer that doesn't look like a joke. (after having read more of what you say later, I might have an idea of what you mean, but I am not sure)
Sparhafoc said:
When you toss out loaded questions, I will always reject those loaded questions
When you toss out loaded questions, I explain why I think your questions are loaded. Which of my questions do you find loaded and why?
Sparhafoc said:
I will instead tell you why I can't answer your question as posed
Where did that happen?
Sparhafoc said:
As no one here has ever said that it's not possible to be a vegan
Are you going to acknowledge that you are wrong here?
Sparhafoc said:
You will change your question so that it doesn't contain a loaded premise
I will do so happily if you tell me what question you are talking about. Is it the question of possibility?
Sparhafoc said:
I could play asshat with you too ...
Again, this is a personal attack. I did make some jokes here and there, but I have tried to be honest about everything.
Sparhafoc said:
You are rapidly devolving into a slimy little twat.
More insults. Is there a claim or a rebuttal in there? Do you even try to understand what I write? I guess I should have said "my words [in context]" to be clearer, but what are you objecting to this time?
Sparhafoc said:
Why you think it's supposed to be an answer to your question is beyond me.
Because If I ask you to clarify something that I don't understand, I expect a clarification instead of some kind of joke/insult/whatever.
Sparhafoc said:
Or reality, as everyone else calls it.
Who is this "everyone else" you are talking about in this context?
Sparhafoc said:
If you didn't understand it, feel free to say and I will explain more.
This is what I have been doing. I keep asking you for an explanation and instead you just give me things that are not supposed to answer my question.
Sparhafoc said:
Are you sure?
Yes, I have probably said it several times in this thread, to you and others (in this instance it happened in a post that you didn't bother to read).
Sparhafoc said:
I think you told me I am confused.
I don't remember the specific instance, but it is possible, yes. I am not claiming that either of us is in a state of constant confusion, just that punctual confusion is to be expected in an online discussion where one party believes that the other is a "twat".
Sparhafoc said:
As I recall, each time it seemed rather remarkable that a face-value sentence
This appears to be the problem: you think you are making a "face-value sentence" without realizing the difficulties in it.
Sparhafoc said:
As such, these 'requests for clarification' as you put it (I believe you said 'what?') look rather like evasion.
When I say "What?" it means that what you are saying looks so wrong or bizarre that I need a more detailed explanation. I don't know which case you have in mind here, but things would go much more smoothly if you would simply provide an explanation.
Sparhafoc said:
Poll other people whether they get the same sense, if you like. Remember that intersubjective verification?
I don't rely on majority opinion for my lifestyle, I sure won't rely on a handful of individual who refuse to even state what they think my position is. However, if you can show that I am mistaken about something, your opinion is enough for me as long as you actually address my arguments instead of some strawman.
Sparhafoc said:
Says the guy who tells other people in every post that they don't understand, that they're confused, that they don't get it.
I have said many times that I don't understand, that I am confused and that I don't get it whenever my confidence was low. I have also said those things to others whenever my confidence was high. Are you suggesting that I should be in a constant state of confusion about everything, or in a constant state of absolute certainty about everything?
Sparhafoc said:
Yeah, this virtue signalling isn't really going to be very persuasive to anyone who's actually read this thread, I would hazard a guess.
Even if you call it virtue signaling, what I am saying is true. Or are you saying that I never asked for clarification? Or that whenever I said that someone was mistaken, I was wrong every single time? Are you saying that I claimed to never be wrong, or that I never claimed to be wrong?
Sparhafoc said:
Nyeh nyeh no you!
Mocking it doesn't matter if it is true.
Sparhafoc said:
it is utterly perplexing how you've been so adamant in your arguments so far
What do you think my arguments are? And what reasons did I give?
Sparhafoc said:
It makes the way they're being held akin to religious beliefs.
Legally, yes (as I have said several times already, including in my first reply in the context of veganism instead of climate change).
Sparhafoc said:
Given that the text on which you're basing your long-winded arguments contains less words even than a single sentence you've written, I genuinely think you're just reading into it whatever you want.
Is this supposed to be some kind of argument? Honestly, what you are writing here doesn't make any sense to me.
Sparhafoc said:
It's certainly not contained in the text itself.
Since when does an explanation have to be contained in the thing being explained?
Sparhafoc said:
I've asked you cite it so many times
You made the claim "religious beliefs are considered philosophical beliefs." I don't actually to object to that because I don't know whether or not this is true (if there is a part of the text that says or implies that, I am not seeing it or not understanding it).

But that's not the problem here: I don't mind accepting that a religious belief is a (subset of) philosophical belief, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. In fact, since there are philosophical beliefs that are not religious (like belief in climate change), then a philosophical belief is distinct from a religious belief. Whatever the relationship between religious and philosophical beliefs, my point is that there is a distinction. They fall under the same legal category, and it is only in that sense that they are (legally) equivalent. This is a restatement of what I said in my first reply, so if you disagree, please explain precisely where.
Sparhafoc said:
So yeah, it's acknowledgement that you stopped employing a strawman in the guise of a loaded question and asked me an open, honest question I could actually answer.
What loaded question?
Sparhafoc said:
I employ the same format in order to mimic you, suddenly you get it
So you think that I am building loaded questions, and you decide to ask me a loaded question? So you do acknowledge that you asked me a loaded question?


D. Inuit

Sparhafoc said:
On the one hand you've tried pretending that the modern scenario of availability of supplements and fortified foods means that there was never a time when meat proteins were actually necessary
Meat proteins were never biologically necessary because they are just proteins (nothing to do with any "modern scenario").
Sparhafoc said:
there's those 10,000 years you might need to account for if you genuinely wish to hove to the facts here
At this point it looks like you are going to provide me with evidence about things that happened in the last 10,000 years. After having read your documents (or at least what I could access) however, it looks like they are about something else.
Sparhafoc said:
Levine VE. Am J Digest Dis. 1941;8(12):454–463
http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14034940410028398
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/28/9/958/4716477
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157502910537
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40508955?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
Thanks for the links. Before I get into it, I just want to make two things clear:
a) whether or not it is possible to live on meat alone is irrelevant to my defense of veganism. I could accept for the sake of argument that a meat-only diet is optimal for human health and it wouldn't change anything to my case.

b) You probably think that this is all news to me, but these studies and claims are known in the vegan community (specifically (1), (3) and the alleged "paradox" in (6)). I am not an expert but I will do what I can, although others have already addressed these more thoroughly (see for example [link=http://plantpositive.com/blog/2012/3/25/tpns-27-28-the-eskimo-model.html]Plant Positive[/link], the scientific references are in the videos but not in the text, each video is about 6 min long and packed with information relevant to this part of the conversation).

0) Levine VE. Am J Digest Dis. 1941;8(12):454–463

Unfortunately I wasn't able to figure out what this paper is.

1) McClellan and Du Bois (1930) "Prolonged meat diet with a study of kidney function and ketosis"

They claim:
- "Two normal men volunteered to live solely on meat for one year"
- "In these trained subjects, the clinical observations and laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet."

My objections:
- sample size of 2 is quite small
- one year is a bit short to be certain about long-term effects
- There is a bit more to the story (for example carbohydrate tolerance and blood cholesterol)

2) Bjerregaard and others (2004) "Review Article: Indigenous health in the Arctic: an overview of the circumpolar Inuit population"

This paper seems to not fit very well with the others and it doesn't really say much about diet.

The authors talk about general health issues in modern Inuits. I selected a few points that I found relevant (related to "changes in diet, reduction in
physical activity, and exposure to new environmental hazards"):
- "In terms of specific sites, the Inuit have among the world’s highest rates of several cancers that are very rare in most other populations: cancer of the nasopharynx, the salivary glands, and the oesophagus"
- "Diabetes is probably also a new disease among the Inuit."
- "However, compared with 2 – 3 decades earlier, glucose tolerance surveys among Alaskan Eskimos have shown an increase in prevalence" (so glucose tolerance was worse before)
- "Traditionally, the Inuit appeared to have been protected from atherosclerotic diseases and diabetes, the result of a particular genetic endowment and/or their high dietary intake of marine mammals and fish, and vigorous physical activity."
- "Total cardiovascular mortality is higher among the Inuit than in European/North American populations."
- "Mortality from cerebrovascular disease is higher but some studies of ischemic heart disease among the Inuit have showed a reduced mortality compared with European/North American populations. It is, however, possible that this could be the result of diagnostic inaccuracy. Autopsy studies have shown comparable levels of atherosclerosis."

Another more recent review (2014) states:
- "We conducted a literature review to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to support the “Eskimo diet and low CAD” hypothesis. Our conclusion is that this hypothesis lacked a solid foundation"
- "Most studies found that the Greenland Eskimos as well as the Canadian and Alaskan Inuit have CAD as often as the non-Eskimo populations."
- "Notably, in 1940, A. Bertelsen, a Danish doctor that practiced for many years in Greenland, described frequent occurrence of CAD in this Inuit population. Bertelsen’s
report, which was written in Danish and published in a book with limited circulation, was largely ignored."
- "Nevertheless,it seems that most researchers and clinicians have accepted the notion of low prevalence of CAD at face value and continue to refer to the studies of Bang and Dyerberg."
- "The totality of reviewed evidence leads us to the conclusion that Eskimos have a similar prevalence of CAD as non-Eskimo populations, they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, their overall mortality is twice as high as that of non-Eskimo populations and their life expectancy is approximately 10 years shorter than the Danish population."

3) Dyerberg and others (1975) "Fatty acid composition of the plasma lipids in Greenland Eskimos"

This is a well-known flawed study (addressed in your reference (2))

They say "as coronary atherosclerosis seems to occur far less commonly among Eskimos in Greenland than among peoples in industrialized countries"

This is debatable (as your article (2) points out). More precisely, your article (2) references an earlier paper by the same author (Bjerregaard) which states:
- "Bertelsen in his classic 1940 description of the disease and mortality pattern among the Inuit of Greenland stated that ‘arteriosclerosis and degeneration of the
myocardium are quite common conditions among the Inuit, in particular considering the low mean age of the population.’"
- "Despite this historical background, the unreferenced 1975 statement ‘coronary atherosclerosis is almost unknown among these people [the Greenland Eskimos] when living in their own cultural environment’ has attained axiomatic status in the atherosclerosis literature"
- "The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations."

4) Fediuk and others (2002) "Vitamin C in Inuit Traditional Food and Women's Diets"

The abstract:
- states "Vitamin C values for 37 traditional foods (TFs) of the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic and women's intakes from TF and market food (MF) are reported." (apparently the 37 traditional foods include blueberries)
- concludes "While rich sources of vitamin C are present as TF, the primary contemporary dietary sources of this nutrient are fortified MF." (TF=Traditional Food, MF=Market Food)

So ancient Inuits might have had a steady supply of vitamin C and modern Inuit women get most of their vitamin C from fortified food. What exactly am I supposed to conclude from that?

5) Gadsby and Steele (2004) "The Inuit Paradox"

This is from an online science news website. It doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed.

The authors:
- give mostly anecdotal claims
- are not really precise with their sources
- reference Loren Cordain, who is a questionable source of information on nutrition (see the work of Plant Positive regarding this individual).

They claim:
- "No one, not even residents of the northernmost villages on Earth, eats an entirely traditional northern diet anymore." (apparently because "westernization" gives easy access to "processed foods and cheap carbohydrates")

- "On a truly traditional diet, says Draper, recalling his studies in the 1970s, Arctic people had plenty of protein but little carbohydrate, so they often relied on gluconeogenesis. Not only did they have bigger livers to handle the additional work but their urine volumes were also typically larger to get rid of the extra urea."

- "Nonetheless, there appears to be a limit on how much protein the human liver can safely cope with: Too much overwhelms the liver’s waste-disposal system, leading to protein poisoning—nausea, diarrhea, wasting, and death."

- "plenty of evidence shows that hunters through the ages avoided protein excesses, discarding fat-depleted animals even when food was scarce. "

- "[Stefansson] recalled how he and his Eskimo companions had become quite ill after weeks of eating “caribou so skinny that there was no appreciable fat behind the eyes or in the marrow.”" (there are several paragraphs to explain that the meat has to include a lot of fat, it can't be just protein)

- "In the Nunavik villages in northern Quebec, adults over 40 get almost half their calories from native foods, says Dewailly, and they don’t die of heart attacks at nearly the same rates as other Canadians or Americans. Their cardiac death rate is about half of ours, he says." (this is the so-called paradox, presented here as pure anecdote, no evidence, no reference, and debatable according to your article (2) above)

- "Wild-animal fats are different from both farm-animal fats and processed fats" (they argue against grain-fed farm animals)

- "You can be sure, however, that Atkins devotees aren’t routinely eating seal and whale blubber" (they make a case against unsupplemented Atkins diet)

- "Northern diets were a way of life in places too cold for agriculture, where food, whether hunted, fished, or foraged, could not be taken for granted. They were about keeping weight on. This is not to say that people in the Far North were fat: Subsistence living requires exercise—hard physical work"

6) Geraci and Smith (1979) "Vitamin C in the Diet of Inuit Hunters from Holman, Northwest Territories"

The abstract claims "During the spring and summer months the diet of three Inuit families living in a seal hunting camp south of Holman, N.W.T., was studied. A total of 13 food items including the most commonly eaten mammal, bird and plant species were analysed for Vitamin C in both the raw and cooked state"

They claim:
- "Subacute scurvy, attributed to the absence of fresh meat, was noted in 28 of 30 Eskimo children examined in Point Barrow, Alaska (Levine, 1940)." (so the meat must be "fresh")
- "The Holman Inuit seem to enjoy a healthy and robust way of life and it is doubtful that vitamin C deficiency presents a problem, at least not to the extent reported in the large transitional culture settlements, where native foods are either unavailable or not utilized"


To summarize:
0) ?
1) a very small sample size, limited in time, and cherry-picked document
2) Seems to undermine the others, so I don't know why you included it
3) This one is too technical for me, but its main flaw is addressed by the the authors of (2)
4) Seems to be about vitamin C but it is not clear to me what can be concluded
5) Some popular science website article, not peer-reviewed, anecdotes, questionable experts and no clear references
6) Seems to be about vitamin C again

My conclusion: these documents don't really tell me much about the impact on individual health for a normal person and also about the practical aspects of the whole lifestyle associated with the diet (do "Arctic people" have some special biology? Does the meat have to be freshly killed seals and whales? What about parasites from raw foods? Other health issues? How much exercise is required?) and they say nothing at all about scalability (can the whole planet live like that?), environmental impact, and ethical concerns (it looks bad from my perspective).
Sparhafoc said:
As such, it's clearly the case that people are extremely adaptable
I am not sure where you are going with that. If one needs a special genetic adaptation to process the diet, then it would be problematic for the people who do not possess such adaptation.
Sparhafoc said:
The question to someone interested in the facts rather than attempting to stave up their agendas then wouldn't be 'is it possible' because that's not a serious question.
It is a serious question because some people (not just on this forum) claim that it is not possible (or too difficult).
Sparhafoc said:
The question would be 'is it advisable?'.
My answer to that is yes, for the reasons that have been discussed and with the caveats (health/access) already mentioned. But this 'why' requires first establishing that it is possible (which I also justified many posts ago, and the resources are easily accessible from my opening post).
Sparhafoc said:
Therein lies the real point of contention.
I hope so (because then the discussion could move forward).
Sparhafoc said:
Is it advisable to eat a meat only diet? Probably not, even if you have the adaptations accrued over many generations of strict meat diet.
It is not clear to me what you mean by advisable in this context. Are you saying:
- it is not necessary?
- it is will lead in a decrease in quality of life?
- it is necessary only for people with specific genes?
- ...?
Sparhafoc said:
Is it advisable to eat a vegetable only diet? Probably not.
Same as above, I don't know what you are trying to say by "not advisable".
Sparhafoc said:
I defer to the medical sciences which almost universally agree that a balanced diet is preferable, and that diet consists of around 15-20% meat, 50% leafy/root vegetables and the remainder the locally available carbohydrate.
Which studies? I can quote you a recent Lancet study (non-vegan) that claims:
- "Proteins should primarily be sourced from plants where possible" (they also mention animal products, this is not a pro-vegan document)
- "Fats should mostly come from unsaturated plant sources"
- "Carbohydrates should primarily be sourced from whole grains with low intake of refined grains and less than 5% of energy from sugar."
- from the summary (p 9-10) the proportion of animal protein is around 3%, the rest comes from plants (animal milk is separate but optional).
Sparhafoc said:
Thus, for me, can we exist on a diet is not really a practical approach, but rather, what is an ideal diet?
Ideal diet in what sense?
 
arg-fallbackName="Vego"/>
Sparhafoc said:
Now try circumpolar indigenous peoples and show me the evidence of them eating plant matter, winter or not.
It's not just Wikipedia, it's in the documents that you provided me.
Sparhafoc said:
Vego said:
- "the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population." (here)

Even in the articles above, this contention is shown false.
Where?
Sparhafoc said:
Factually, the incidence of mortality, obesity and cancer has raised dramatically with the advent of modern foods supplanting traditional diets.
That's a bit vague. Which "modern foods"?
Sparhafoc said:
Because as we all know, a standard American diet is plant-rich, right?
I don't understand.
Sparhafoc said:
Have you read Morton's Demon yet?
Yes (see previous post)
Sparhafoc said:
And those viitamin and fiber supplements the northern Inuit people were producing in the Bronze Age
I don't know, it seems irrelevant if they have special genetic adaptations. Besides, when you are talking about meat-only diet, do you mean only freshly hunted Beluga and seal (and whatever else can be found in the Arctic)?
Sparhafoc said:
Or tens of thousands of years across multiple generations.
Once again, trying to include people who may have special genetic traits makes this irrelevant.
Sparhafoc said:
Your final clause suggests you don't really know how science operates
How so?
Sparhafoc said:
Om padme, om Siva.
I never claimed to be an expert in human nutrition. Plant Positive convinced me that he is a reliable source (one of the best that I know of) because of all the rational arguments and well-researched justifications. Until someone can demonstrate to me that he is not to be trusted, I see no problem in deferring to his material whenever appropriate.
Sparhafoc said:
Why would I want a technical discussion from someone...
Like I said, Plant Positive is a far better technical source than me. If you don't want to argue with me, and you don't want to look at his material either, then there is nothing to discuss really.
Sparhafoc said:
when I know the fucking primary resources showing the facts that aren't open to discussion
If you are talking about the above documents, they are very much open to discussion. And you are not the only one able to read papers (I am not too good myself, but I also rely on others more qualified).
Sparhafoc said:
ask me what I know and learned over nearly 3 decades of studying humans?
I already asked you many questions, but you keep brushing off some of them so I'm not sure what more you expect here.
Sparhafoc said:
You repeatedly employed the former, I repeatedly dismissed it as a loaded question
So, that's the so-called "loaded question"... Please point to me where you first told me that you thought it was a loaded question or where you first asked me to clarify my question, and what my response was.
Sparhafoc said:
Half the time, I have to explain to you that what you think you said is not what you actually communicated
Do you have a specific example?
Sparhafoc said:
start getting condescending, then I start employing sarcasm
So when I tell you that I don't understand, I am being condescending?
Sparhafoc said:
And in many cases across the millennia, this was probably the case, particularly with respect to infant mortality
This is not relevant to my case in support of veganism, and probably false too unless you can show that well-planned vegan diets have been known and applied without success.
Sparhafoc said:
However, it was never actually a point of contention for anyone else except you.
This is wrong, as I have shown in my previous post.
Sparhafoc said:
Nyeh nyeh no you!
So you are so afraid of examining your own state of mind that you can't even come up with a rational rebuttal?
Sparhafoc said:
I spelled it out for you several times why your question was borked
Once again, please point to me the first time you made a meaningful objection to my question (it is possible that I missed it or misunderstood).
Sparhafoc said:
it could only actually have meant that I thought that vegans were lying or that they didn't actually exist
No, those were not the only options (other options: being delusional, suffering from an eating disorder, possibility limited in time). I did ask if you thought that vegans didn't exist (I have heard worse), but mostly it was an open question where I enumerated a few options.
Sparhafoc said:
It's perplexing that you STILL don't understand why your question is so irreparably borked
Personally, If there is strong scientific evidence to support the claim that it is possible to be vegan (in the way I described), then I would say that it is an empirical fact. And I did provide such strong evidence already.

You recently said "Empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan. You're a vegan. Ergo, it's empirically possible to be a vegan." I swear I can't tell whether this is a joke or not.

Are you telling me that you are serious when you say that? To me this looks like a joke because my claim that I am vegan is an anecdotal claim. For me personally I would count it as an empirical fact in the sense that it is my life so I know what's happening in it, but I would not use this as an argument to convince someone else (that is to say, from your perspective it shouldn't be an empirical fact that I am vegan because you lack the appropriate evidence, you only have my word for it).

This actually raises what looks like a contradiction in your text. You said earlier that "what you did was attempt to conflate a religious belief with an acceptance of empirical facts." Which suggests that you think that gravity is an empirical fact, not just some anecdote. But now you are saying that an anecdote is actually an empirical fact.
Sparhafoc said:
The only significance it could have had would have been to challenge me that I don't think that vegetarians exist
No, that is not the only significance.
Sparhafoc said:
No, you don't.
I did several times earlier in the thread.
Sparhafoc said:
You've ignored scientific evidence contradicting your account
Where? Please point to me where I "ignored" contradicting evidence without a good reason.
Sparhafoc said:
However, the claim that veganism in the abstract is wholly predicated on scientific evidence cannot be snuck in under the formulated question, and if that's what your question means, then I cannot agree because it is nowhere near that simple.
Are we moving back again? From my point of view, the following claims are equivalent:
- it possible to be vegan (with details given previously).
- it is an empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan.
- there is strong scientific evidence that it is possible to be vegan (and I did provide such evidence earlier).

There is no "loaded question" here. I would have restated/clarified my question at any point had you just asked for it. I am just asking the same thing differently, and now it looks like you keep giving me different answers.
Sparhafoc said:
you refuse to acknowledge that your question is loaded, contrived and inane.
Because it is neither of those things. If you wanted more clarification, you could have just asked.
Sparhafoc said:
I said that there is a vegan festival that lasted one month. That doesn't mean that is the sum of all vegan cultural practices in the country in which I reside.
Thanks for the clarification but that wasn't obvious at all to me. Anyway, my point is that if veganism isn't sustained for most of the year, then it doesn't really count for what I am asking.
Sparhafoc said:
Going without food for several weeks is called 'starving' and it's the antithesis to eating things, so of course, I obviously didn't mean that this is what you meant, which is why I didn't write it, but amusingly you did only to tell me that this is not what you meant!
Blame me for not explaining correctly, but you seem to have completely missed my point here. What I am trying to say is that if you can go for a week without eating, then you can go for a week on a vegan diet. However, it is no more correct to conclude from this that you can go for a year on a vegan diet, than it would be to conclude that you could go for a year without eating. In other words, I am trying to explain why temporary veganism isn't enough for the question that I am asking.
Sparhafoc said:
Then you're only anecdotally claiming to be a vegan
From your perspective, yes.
Sparhafoc said:
Then every vegan is only anecdotally claiming to be a vegan
Yes.
Sparhafoc said:
Then every non vegan is only anecdotally claiming not to be a vegan and so on
Without evidence, anyone could be claiming anything, so yes. I am not saying that anecdotal evidence is useless, I am saying that it is not what I am asking.
Sparhafoc said:
It's a stupid response
It's actually very reasonable, and is the reason why supernatural claims are not empirical facts.
Sparhafoc said:
As for the latter, so?
I explained above.
Sparhafoc said:
Your question didn't entail a particular time-frame anyway - another component you want me to read into your question even when it's manifestly not there?
I don't mind adding the time frame to the question (but the experiments are still ongoing, so I can't give you a precise time frame, only 'decades'), but it was implied. I can't give you an exact and exhaustive definition of "living normally," but it would be strange to say of someone who is being vegan a few months every year that they are living normally as a vegan (because most of the time they wouldn't be vegan).

I could think it's possible to be a vegan while simultaneously thinking that vegan diets are unhealthy and cause all kinds of diseases
Sparhafoc said:
but that wouldn't have been relevant to your question about whether I think it's "possible to be a vegan" because I could think it's possible to be a vegan while simultaneously thinking that vegan diets are unhealthy and cause all kinds of diseases.
This is totally relevant because the last part of what you say is correct. What I mean is, if hypothetically you were thinking that (well-planned) vegan diets were unhealthy, then you would say that it is impossible to be vegan, which is a possible interpretation for one of the clarifying questions that I asked ("Or that veganism is impossible?")
Sparhafoc said:
Perhaps you should either revisit the formulation of your question
I already did try to clarify, but I will never be able to define exactly "living normally" (just like I wouldn't be able to define exactly being healthy). Ultimately the question itself isn't so important, I just built it from the available scientific evidence. If one day it becomes indisputable that veganism can cure some disease (like diabetes or heart disease) then I could just add that to the question. But "living normally" is necessary and sufficient to argue for ethical veganism.
Sparhafoc said:
If your argument resides on you having ultimate authority to make up meaning independent of words
Meaning is actually independent of words, but that's not the point. I am willing to accept that my question could have been expressed better, but it is difficult for me to pick a wording on which we both agree because you keep giving me conflicting answers (not empirical like gravity, empirical like an anecdote, no scientific evidence).
Sparhafoc said:
As I never challenged the notion that it's possible to be a vegan
Doesn't look that way to me, as I previously explained. But, like I said, maybe I misunderstood you. What matters to me is that we agree that it is indeed possible (because there is solid scientific evidence saying that it is possible) and then move on to the next point (is it "advisable" as you say).
Sparhafoc said:
As the notion of whether or not it's possible to be a vegan does not entail health issues...
Huh? What does it entail then? (I did say that veganism doesn't make one disease-proof, but if it were causing a grave disease, that would be a huge problem)
Sparhafoc said:
scientific evidence, anecdotal self-reporting, temporal restraints on consumption or any of these other factors
I don't get it. If you remove all of that, what is left?
Sparhafoc said:
that your question was flawed
If you mean that I wasn't clear enough, then yes, but this also happens with other things that I say (not on purpose).
Sparhafoc said:
As I have been challenging that question from the moment you crapped it out onto the table of discourse, you now know why
So you have been challenging the question but not the notion? No wonder I have difficulties understanding what you are saying.
Sparhafoc said:
Do better next time
I always try to improve.
Sparhafoc said:
At times I am undecided ...
More insults, no self-reflection. What a child.
Sparhafoc said:
See? Lots of alternatives.
Think about that next time you want to claim that there is only one possible interpretation.
Sparhafoc said:
I don't think you represent anything other than 'you'
Yes, I already said that several times in this thread. I only speak for myself (and I guess whoever incidentally happens to agree with me).
Sparhafoc said:
You were wrong
Given your lack of a proper rebuttal to my explanation of you quote, it looks like I was right.
Sparhafoc said:
The reason why it means that to you is because you're being willfully dense.
It means that to me because this is what you wrote.
Sparhafoc said:
What I said is that modern chemical supplements have ensured that a vegan diet is not lacking that critical dietary components, and that as these modern supplements were not available for the majority of human history, that meat was necessary when they weren't available.
I am guessing that the issue here is that you are conflating different types of necessity (I think I mentioned that somewhere before). As far as I can tell, there was never a biological requirement for meat. So you seem to be talking about practical necessity.
Sparhafoc said:
in the absence of chemical supplements, fortified cereals, stable international global trade, and personal affluence, meat may still be considered a dietary necessity.
If by that you mean a practical necessity, then we are probably in agreement.
Sparhafoc said:
we've done this argument and you spent an inordinate amount of effort trying not to understand it before
The question of 'privilege' was discussed in the previous thread and I was upfront about it. You seem to be arguing against a claim that I never made.
Sparhafoc said:
Then your understanding is quirky and unscientific.
Sure, I am not a scientist, but I regularly explain what I mean.
Sparhafoc said:
As if it's only obligate carnivores where meat would be a biological necessity
Is the distinction biological/practical not clear eanough for you?
Sparhafoc said:
I can't help your ignorance if you're unwilling to learn and insist on laying grounds for discussion based on your limited comprehension.
Actually, you can't help my ignorance if you don't even try to understand what I am saying.
Sparhafoc said:
Then it's also the case that if vegetables are the only thing you have to eat in sufficient quantity, then you have to eat vegetables, but if there are alternatives, then you don't have to.
If the only criterion is staying alive, then yes, you don't have to be vegan. That somehow both you and SD (way earlier) think that you are trapping me with such a claim is clear evidence that you don't understand my position.
Sparhafoc said:
Bet you immediately spot the flaws in that sentence while being completely blind to the exact same flaws in your own.
What flaws in that sentence?
Sparhafoc said:
A desirable diet includes more forms of nutrition than just what is necessary not to die from starvation.
Well-planned vegan diets are more than subsistence diets. My claim is that it is possible to live normally (including professional sports), and that includes more than basic survival.
Sparhafoc said:
Meat proteins are unarguably superior to plant based ones when it comes to building muscle mass
Why unarguably?
Sparhafoc said:
if your lifestyle requires muscle mass then meat would be a necessity to continue existing in that lifestyle.
Of course not. There are vegan professional athletes, including vegan bodybuilders. Meat is unnecessary for such lifestyles (unless maybe there is some kind of extreme lifestyle that requires consuming massive amounts of calories everyday, but even then I am not so sure because the energy could come mostly from fat and there are many plant sources of fat).
Sparhafoc said:
supplements which didn't exist until the last few decades
This is irrelevant to my defense of veganism. Biological necessity is different from practical necessity.
Sparhafoc said:
However, people still needed those nutrients prior to the advent of chemical supplements, and thus it's easy then to follow the logic that they needed to eat meat (cos that's where those nutrients are readily available pre-technology) in order to live healthful lives.
This is a problem of practical necessity. As I have repeated many times, my defense of veganism assumes access to whatever is required, so whatever happens when this condition is not met is simply not part of my position. You seem to be arguing against a claim that I never made.
Sparhafoc said:
What's your grounds for questioning it? Ideology, a youtuber said something, and 5 minutes on Wikipedia.
Yes, but the Youtuber (Plant Positive) provides a high quality educational material. Your professional experience is irrelevant to me. I am assuming that Plant Positive is/was an academic (so he is could be no less qualified than you are) but I don't know his exact credentials. What I do know is that when he makes a claim, he can justify it with relevant and meaningful papers. You on the other hand don't seem able to do that given how earlier you just dumped a load of self-contradicting and flawed documents without any word of explanation. And, compared to the scientific evidence for veganism, these documents are very weak regarding sample size, duration and control.




Sparhafoc said:
If anyone's read it and wants to point to the substance, I will address it... but the first page of half-baked self-pleasuring argument for the sake of arguing doesn't really inspire me to bother addressing yet another substance free pile of dross
Whatever it is that you find condescending in my post, you surpass it by far.




Sparhafoc said:
Because what some dude said on Youtube appears to be the requisite bar of discussion here
I do use more than Youtube and Wikipedia to justify my claims. Also, the Youtube video that I link to often (not always) provide scientific references. Dr Greger and Plant Positive built their channels on extensive quoting, fact-checking and cross-referencing scientific papers.
Sparhafoc said:
Note I haven't watched it!
...?
Sparhafoc said:
Another of the great problems facing humanity today is our lack of training in ascertaining the value of sources
This question has been discussed too. Unless you have a solution to propose, you are not really saying anything new here.
Sparhafoc said:
Time and time again, I see people proferring sources to support their arguments or beliefs which indicate a woefully poor degree of support and actually undermine any trust in the validity of that position
Just like you did (n=2 and no control, that's your gold standard?), and Dragan Glas before you.
Sparhafoc said:
This is a genuine doctor arguing for a keto / carnivore diet.
And most (not all) of my sources are genuine doctors, dietitians and nutritional scientists arguing for well-planned vegan diets. Now what?
Sparhafoc said:
Vego - I bet you can readily spot errors in the arguments, flaws in the reasoning, atrocious scientific practices...
Is this sarcastic? I can more or less do that, but without seeing his sources, I can't say for sure.

What I can say is that his claim that all the lab markers that he cares about are perfect sounds dangerous. His LDL is sky high but he doesn't care. I guess we'll see the result in 10-20 years.
Sparhafoc said:
But the only reason you can do that is because it's your ideological enemy
It's not "the only reason". I also have some basic knowledge about human nutrition and some basic thinking skills.
Sparhafoc said:
so you're primed to be skeptical of it
Yes, this is called a bias. And yes, I do have a pro-vegan bias. I am aware of it, I never tried to deny it (and to be clear: I wasn't born with this bias, I started neutral and then I became convinced).
Sparhafoc said:
Have the same guy offer the same poor reasons in favour of your preferred dietary ideology, and you'd be fucking lapping it up.
Unjustified claim.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Vego said:
you might as well be saying that ethical veganism is not possible

SD said:
In a way I am saying that. But it depends where you want to take the discussion

Mouse batteries ran out when highlighting the quote did they? Or did you just forget I said more than 7 words in my reply?

You just can't help your self can you? It's been noted previously in this thread that your ability to read between the lines and give a charitable interpretation is lacking.

In reality, of course nobody here has contended that veganism is "impossible" right across the board - what we have challenged, successfully, is what veganism is defined as and whether it succeeds at achieving its stated goals.

You referred to ethical veganism - not dietary veganism. If veganism extends no further than not buying big juicy steaks and fois gras when you go shopping, yes you can obviously do that - the issue here is I don't give a fuck. This completely (and conveniently) ignores all the sundry deaths caused by the products you DO buy and is therefore not a thing. The logical extension of wanting to truly minimise animal death and suffering for human nutrition is Jainism - not veganism. As I pointed out before, Jains really really really fucking DO make every possible effort to not kill shit - therefore other than to say "this is dumb and unnecessary" there really isn't much of an argument to have with them. YOU, however, are STILL drawing a line somewhere and that somewhere is necessarily arbitrary in that it is beyond question that such a line could be extended further to reduce animal deaths to an even greater extent. I'm not going to waste further time trying to drum this simple (and not usually that contentious) point into your head, vego. It's bloody obvious to anyone who isn't engaged in a staggering amount of cognitive dissonance.

You also conveniently left out -
Vego said:
No, reality is not that simple. If someone wants to be vegan for one month every year, then that's just what they are. Use another label if you want
SD said:
It is that simple. This is just you wishing it wasn't that simple. Partial vegan is a nonsense term. It's like someone saying they're tee-total except for when they drink alcohol. Yeah they can do that for sure, but what's the point in identifying as tee-total? It's bullshit. You just wish it wasn't.

And -
Vego said:
Essentially you are trying to blame vegans for not being vegan enough
SD said:
That's actually not a bad way to put it. Vegans, and this includes you so stop with the nonsense about "arguing with people who aren't here" or whatever you said up there, DO NOT DO as much as they reasonably can to follow their ideology. I've already said there's no need to go to insane lengths, but the majority (you included) don't do even half what they could realistically do to not fund the deaths of animals. All you're doing is not buying meat and berating others for eating cheese. This is why the whole "vegans are hypocrites" argument comes up as often as it does - because it's true.

And -
SD said:
Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. How long would it take you to nip out and buy some pots and seeds, Vego? This is just another excuse not to do something because you can't be bothered. You can be bothered to sit in front of a screen and write many lengthy posts on the internet arguing with total strangers because they had a milkshake but you can't be bothered to spend a little bit of time making your self less reliant on industrial farming. I do it and I'm not even vegetarian never mind vegan, I eat meat all the damn time.

And -
SD said:
Have you ever even looked into this? Because I know, for certain, I have. I've given citations, so has DG and yet you remain resistant to the point. I'm pretty much convinced by now that you're fighting it because you weren't even aware of it, it got raised and now you feel like a bit of a wally for coming on here bragging about what virtuous motherfuckers vegans are and your nonsense has been exposed for what it really is - a game of pick and choose.

And -
SD said:
Yes, they do. And they also assign you a mentor, which I believe is optional but recommended. Why is a mentor necessary if all you need to do is just buy slightly different stuff? So much for just eat plants.

And -
SD said:
All of this demonstrates to the unbiased eye that veganism is not at all as simple as most would have you believe during the recruiting process.

And -
SD said:
To hell with them then! The point is, unless you're part of an incredibly small minority who do everything they can reasonably do to avoid death/harm/suffering etc you're a hypocrite. If you live in accordance with your ideology, there is no argument for us to have. Chances are you could do more towards that than you're probably doing. I'll guarantee you I fund the killing of LESS animals (pests or otherwise) than you do, and I eat meat every day.

And -
SD said:
The answer depends on how far you take the ethical argument. If you accept that you draw a line somewhere, which I'm going to continue arguing you do, then that line is where you stop caring about ethics. We can talk about moving lines etc later but you haven't yet conceded that you do in fact draw one. Do you care about ethics when it comes to cows but not rabbits? Vegans engage in (or fund) death, harm and suffering all the time, they just declare it's ok for wheat but not for meat.

And -
SD said:
What you mean is you can pick and choose. You can stroll right on by the juicy Rib Eye and feel good about your self safe in the knowledge that you're headed right for the next aisle where only who knows how many creatures had to die so you could have your soy thing instead.


And 47 metric tonnes of other posts which I can't be arsed to go and find. I'm still baffled as to who the fuck you imagine you're fooling here.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Vego said:
I never claimed to be an expert in human nutrition. Plant Positive convinced me that he is a reliable source (one of the best that I know of) because of all the rational arguments and well-researched justifications. Until someone can demonstrate to me that he is not to be trusted, I see no problem in deferring to his material whenever appropriate.

Pahaah!!! Weren't so keen when the sources we cited didn't suit your agenda were you?!

In reference to Vegan Gains / Richard Burgess
SD said:
I can, just off the top of my head without doing any digging at all, point you to some VERY prominent and popular vegan activists who admit to this

Vego said:
You didn't back anything up, you just told me to take it to Vegan Gains

Vego said:
Are you Vegan Gains? I am not interested in a proxy discussion with someone who isn't there.

Vego said:
And we all know that popularity = quality.

Later, in response to Sparhafoc -
Vego said:
Yes, but the Youtuber (Plant Positive) provides a high quality educational material. Your professional experience is irrelevant to me. I am assuming that Plant Positive is/was an academic (so he is could be no less qualified than you are) but I don't know his exact credentials. What I do know is that when he makes a claim, he can justify it with relevant and meaningful papers.

:lol:
 
Back
Top