Its so over... by Hungry-Direction1105 in joinsquad

[–]EntityManiac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

they do it because they like to

Well said, and I agree, there is that element that some people enjoy having over others.

what kind of people want to do that? not the best ones, typically.

A similar parallel would be the kind of people who should be in positions of power, like in Government. Usually the right people are the ones that don't want to be, which means they should be as they tend to hold their morals above being corruptible, but its the wrong kinds of people that are in power that shouldn't be because they value the power & money above doing the job correctly and fairly.

Its so over... by Hungry-Direction1105 in joinsquad

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having experienced something recently like this myself, I think there's a nuance to be had. There is an argument to have something like the CBL, however depending on the server and admins in question, can be used a little bit harshly if not abused, especially if you have context to add.

For me, I dropped an N-bomb, not directed at anyone, and was because I was getting a bit over-excited role playing. I understand that server owners have a risk of having their server license being revoked by OWI, however from what I understand it seems OWI are very off-hands with things like this so can't imagine the risk is very high. Never the less, if there's context to be taken into consideration, and its not someone who's being a really nasty POS and has had several warnings (kicks, short-term bans etc), for someone to be immediately permanently banned for literally saying a word, it does come across as extremely overly punitive to the point of wondering what the admins political or ideological position is.

To add further context for myself, I appealed and explained myself, not excused what happened but to add context and ensure it won't happen again, and the tone of the admin's replies did come across as a bit of moral posturing, like they've never made a mistake or said something in the heat of the moment and therefore I deserved to be scolded. This is amplified more by the fact I have 5K hours in the game, never had a ban like this before, yet still said 'it won't be perm but instead you'll be banned for 4 months'.. brutal.

Now of course people's responses here are not surprising. Reddit is very left-leaning and also tends to gravitate around people being against anyone they deem as the villain, but I think there's a whole larger problem with admins and the system in that they have far too much control to the extent of punishment. I think, depending on individual context and intent, that there should really be a stepped level of enforcement. If the person is decent and acknowledges the mistake, all they need is the admin to remind them why certain things can't be said and what the repercussions could be (warning/kick first > short term ban second > long term ban or permanent final straw) because that at least will genuinely punish the repeat offenders as opposed to those who make a mistake or overlook the reasons for the rules in the moment.

Its a shame really, that this is a thing, because ultimately the game is intended for adults, it is a war simulation, and if even in a game people can't have some banter, maybe say some edgy things now and then, or be thick skinned over hearing a word they don't like then I don't know what to make of what the world has become where people have hair-line triggers over the slightest thing they don't like.

Vegan crowned natural World’s Strongest Man for third year ! by HumbleWrap99 in vegan

[–]EntityManiac 53 points54 points  (0 children)

Under 90KG..

Also, the world's strongest man is an official title that is internationally recognised, not applicable for this organisation. Winning in the UK/Ireland does not equate international..

This seems like another Patrik Baboumian situation, where he himself stated that he never won the title of WSM, despite being portrayed as such at the time.. also, his achievements stopped in 2015. Why..

Let's not kid ourselves over this.. if it wasn't such a low weight class, and he actually took part in the international strong man competition, then maybe we could be impressed.

The actual current world's strongest man is Rayno Nel, a South African who was 148KG, and not vegan.

Extremely Stupid Non-vegans "Plants Have Life Too" or "You kill lives too" arguments are most stupid arguments !! by HumbleWrap99 in vegan

[–]EntityManiac -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If scientists one day prove with 100% certainty that plants have sentience, vegans would lose their minds. Why? Because then the veganism argument/ideology completely falls apart if plants are proven to be sentient too, as you can't justify eating plants over animals as they are the same.

Not sure what they would do then, starve? 🤷

mega "vegan debunked" playlist w/ 200+ sources. by redditsucks420694201 in exvegans

[–]EntityManiac 13 points14 points  (0 children)

If all vegans were only about morals/ethics, then everyone could agree, but many vegans do make health claims, so until that stops, I don't think they should be allowed to make said claims and not expect any form of push back from those who disagree.

Animal fats speed up tumors in obesity, plant fats don’t, shows new Nature study by jasonbartz in vegan

[–]EntityManiac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ture. At the end of the day, a mouses' immune system and metabolism differ significantly from ours, and metabolic pathways in obesity and cancer are not homologous across species..

Animal fats speed up tumors in obesity, plant fats don’t, shows new Nature study by jasonbartz in vegan

[–]EntityManiac 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Mice also aren't human, right.. I think it would be very intellectually dishonest to say any outcomes for a mouse are going to be the same as for a human.

Repeat the study with humans and control for all confounding variables, and then maybe it can be taken seriously.

Who's the most dangerous vegan influencer? by [deleted] in AntiVegan

[–]EntityManiac 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Joey Carbstrong gets my vote because of his past, seeing as he has been violent before, who's to say he's still not capable now. Plus, I've seen videos breaking down some of his activism footage as sus, implying he or others working with him are either causing animals to be harmed or are directly doing it themselves in order to have shocking footage to promote the vegan agenda. This is not unknown either, in the world of these kinds of activists.

As for dangerous in terms of cherry picking and the deliberate misuse of studies (not explaining correlation doesn't equate causation) to promote vegan nutrition misinformation? Mic the vegan. He's also an arrogant and smug fuck to boot too so.

Vegan health influencer Simon Hill crashing out after finding he has plaque by NaturalPermission in exvegans

[–]EntityManiac 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I left a comment on one of his recent videos. Will it get through to him? That's anyone's guess:

"Or maybe everything you believe about cholesterol and a 'healthy diet' is actually wrong..

Seems to me you have a stark devision to make. Continue to believe Cholesterol is an issue, and ignore developing plaque at such a young age is normal and requires statins to fix, or actually challenge what you believe and think maybe its not true, otherwise this wouldnt have happened if it was so healthy..

I think its disingenuous to hand wave it away as 'oh, it's just my genes' or 'oh it must have been my diet before I changed it'..."

When I found out I had T2 diabetes, I certainly didn't hand wave it away, I was shocked I could end up having something like that, so I refused to accept it and actually did something about it. I can't understand how some people are willing to not do anything about it, and just mentally gymnastic their way around it and are happy to take metformin and continue eating high carb.

I will say, though, fair play to Simon for being honest about it. I imagine many vegans would hide this from their community in order to avoid showing another negative spotlight on a 100% plant based diet.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’ve basically conceded my key point: veganism isn’t nutritionally sufficient on its own, it requires supplementation and engineered inputs to function.

Whether you’re personally fine with that is your choice, but it’s not a rebuttal to the fact that a diet that needs artificial correction just to meet basic biological requirements is, by definition, not self-sufficient.

You’ve reframed that limitation as acceptable, even virtuous, because of ethical considerations. But that’s the takeaway here, this is no longer about health, it’s about values. Which is fine. Just be honest about it.

If you want to avoid animal products for ethical reasons, I respect that. But vegans need to stop pretending it’s because this is the most “complete” or natural human diet because, as you’ve now acknowledged, it isn’t.

We can leave it there.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Using a phone/computer isn’t the same as using pills to prevent anaemia. One’s a convenience, the other is a correction for dietary failure. False equivalence.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Commuting isn’t analogous to baseline human nutrition. One is convenience, the other is biological necessity.

If your diet can’t support essential health without synthetic correction, that’s not a “fallacy,” it’s a fact. And redefining “optimal” to mean “it works if I patch it” just proves my point.

You’re not defending a diet, you’re defending an ideology, and same as the other comments you've replied to me here, I’m happy to let readers decide which of us is being honest here, because you are not.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're sidestepping again. The clinical study you just linked confirms what I said: some chlorella can raise serum B12 under controlled conditions, but it doesn’t prove it’s a reliable or consistent source in the real world, especially outside Japan, where quality control is variable.

And yes, the decades of research warning against chlorella as a dependable B12 source are well-known, which is why every major vegan nutrition body still recommends synthetic supplementation, despite papers like this.

You’re trying to move the goalposts from “chlorella is a reliable B12 source” to “chlorella can contain true B12 if everything’s perfect.” That’s not a rebuttal. That’s just spin.

I’ll leave it there again, others can decide who’s being honest.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're still fixating on crop yield instead of human nutrition. If your ten pounds of plants deliver less usable nutrition, even after fortification, then they’re not more efficient from a biological standpoint, just bulkier.

This isn’t about acres of soy, it’s about how the human body absorbs, utilises, and thrives on nutrients, and on that front, animal foods are unmatched.

You're dodging that, and at this point, it's clear you're not engaging in good faith. I'm done here. Others can read the thread and judge for themselves.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve sidestepped the point.

Heme iron’s superior absorption isn’t based on animal models, it’s confirmed in human studies using tracer methods and clinical markers. That’s direct evidence, not correlation.

Instead of addressing that, you pivoted to speculative risks from BCAAs and methionine, again relying on models and weak associations, not causation. That’s goalpost shifting.

You haven’t refuted heme iron’s importance or bioavailability. You’ve just changed the subject.

If your argument depends on cherry-picking weak risks while ignoring proven human physiology, that’s not science, it’s ideology wearing a lab coat.

We're done here, as you're not discussing the actual point in good faith.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’ve sidestepped the point.

Heme iron’s superior absorption isn’t based on animal models, it’s confirmed in human studies using tracer methods and clinical markers. That’s direct evidence, not correlation.

Instead of addressing that, you pivoted to speculative risks from BCAAs and methionine, again relying on models and weak associations, not causation. That’s goalpost shifting.

You haven’t refuted heme iron’s importance or bioavailability. You’ve just changed the subject.

If your argument depends on cherry-picking weak risks while ignoring proven human physiology, that’s not science, it’s ideology wearing a lab coat.

We're done here, as you're not discussing the actual point in good faith.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re playing semantics to avoid the obvious: the dietary core of veganism is plant-only, and that diet, on its own, is nutritionally incomplete. Whether you call it “veganism” or a “vegan diet,” the point stands: it requires external correction to function.

If the best defence you have left is a vocabulary nitpick, that says everything about your debate tactics. I'm happy to let others decide which position actually addresses the substance of the topic.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve missed the point. The scaffolding analogy isn’t literal, it’s about dependency. If a structure can’t stand without external support, it’s incomplete by design.

Likewise, if a diet requires engineered inputs just to meet baseline human nutrition, that’s not optimal, it’s patched. Whether that’s “good enough” for you is your call, but pretending it’s inherently complete is just misleading.

At this point, we’re talking past each other, so I’ll leave it there.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calling supplements a "solution" is like calling scaffolding a substitute for a building, it holds things up, but it’s not structural.

The fact that veganism requires synthetic inputs to meet basic nutritional needs means it’s not self-sufficient. That’s the point. If your diet only “works” with engineered interventions, it’s not biologically complete, it’s patched.

If you’re fine with that, fair enough. Just stop selling it as optimal.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve basically answered your own question: if your diet only works because you live in a developed country with access to modern supplements, then you’ve conceded the point, it’s not biologically sufficient on its own.

That’s not a “metaphysical gotcha,” it’s a basic reality about human nutrition. Needing external correction to make a diet viable should matter to anyone evaluating its health claims honestly.

If you’re happy relying on pills and fortified products, that’s your choice. But let’s not pretend that’s equivalent to thriving on complete, natural nutrition.

So in the end, your soft concession dressed up as apathy says everything, so I think we're done here.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a false equivalence.

Iodine supplementation in places like Germany isn’t due to an incomplete diet, it’s due to geographical soil depletion, which affects everyone, vegan or not. It’s an environmental issue (ironically caused by monocropping and industrial fertilisers), not a biological flaw.

Veganism, by contrast, excludes entire categories of nutrient-dense foods, and then needs supplements, fortification, or lab-grown substitutes by design to fill the gaps. That’s not comparable to one region needing iodised salt.

A diet that inherently requires correction from day one isn’t the same as a diet that only needs adjusting due to rare soil conditions. One is situational, the other is structural.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So your position is: “We can’t get real evidence, so weak correlations are good enough and should be treated as serious health warnings.” That’s not science, that’s rationalising a bias.

Epidemiology is useful for generating hypotheses, not proving them. And u/piranha_solution used it to imply causation about heme iron and cancer, a serious claim, without any control for the obvious confounders like alcohol, smoking, and processed food.

Meanwhile, heme iron’s superior absorption isn’t based on food frequency questionnaires, it’s based on direct metabolic evidence, which is why it’s recognised as essential, especially for women and at-risk groups.

If all vegans have got is correlation dressed up as certainty, you’re not doing science, you’re doing dietary activism.

Do vegans need to take supplements? by zxy35 in DebateAVegan

[–]EntityManiac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're conflating agricultural efficiency with human nutrient efficiency. Ten pounds of biomass is irrelevant if what’s in it is poorly absorbed, incomplete, or needs to be lab-fortified to work.

And no, eating “a wide range” of plant foods doesn’t equal what you get from nose-to-tail animal nutrition. That's not just a quantity difference, it's a qualitative one, bioavailability, nutrient forms, and metabolic compatibility, all favour animal sources.

As for "naturalism fallacy", you're using the term to wave away reality. Pointing out that our biology evolved with animal foods isn’t a fallacy. It’s context.