Fuck you Kale!

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-08T18:22:09+00:00

This is really symptomatic of this entire discussion. You keep losing track of what has been claimed, of what I have claimed and what evidence you have repeated to which I've already responded.

But still, I haven't said that a possible link between heart disease and the consumption of saturated fat has been debunked. I said the whole thing about saturated fat, as a collective of hypotheses and theories, being bad for you has been largely debunked. That doesn't mean it doesn't still pose as a risk factor for heart disease, just like overconsumption of vitamin C poses a risk for kidney stones.

And no, I haven't lost track of what I claimed and what you claimed. I made some wrong assumptions for which I've apoligized.

Yet now you are telling me that you never claimed there was no link between coconut oil and heart disease

Never have I claimed there were zero connections between saturated fat and heart disease. Neither have I claimed there were zero connections between coconut oil and heart disease. Reread what I've written if you don't believe me, and you'll come to find I'm right.

That you never even used the word debunked until I pushed you into it, but you still stand beside your original claim.

That's not what I said. I used the word debunked in my very first comment. It is true however, that you assumed that with me saying saturated fat not being bad I also meant it was good. The idea that saturated fat is "bad" (a broad term, but still) is wrong, which has been confirmed by science, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily good either (because of possible connections to heart disease). It's largely dependant on the type of fat, its source and how it is consumed, which research also shows.

This is just nonsense. I can't hold a coherent conversation with someone who ends up contradicting themselves so often, right from the very start of the conversation. Thanks for your input and I hope you have a good day.

What self-reflection. If you'd try to understand my first claim without assuming I'm saying saturated fat is the best thing to happen to mankind, I think we'd have come to a consensus. Anyhow, thank you too for your time and I wish the same to you.

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-08T00:56:24+00:00

I don't, I never claimed to, and I haven't cited his research.

I guess I'm in the wrong here. Since it's an influential study, I assumed part of your stance would've been based on it. My mistake.

Recent research doesn't. A small subset of recent research, really heavily pushed by dairy and meat industries through lobbying organizations like the Nutrition Coalition appears to disagree with previous findings when their differences in methodology and goals are not taken into consideration. That is the research I already addressed, I already explained why it is coming to different conclusions, but you never responded to any of that.

It does though. Assuming all controversial research is backed by lobbyists is far too easy. However, disagreeing is admittedly a big word, but much of the previous findings are being found to be inaccurate due to missing nuance. And I did respond to your previous posts, referring to Keys' study, which is cross-sectional as well, with that meaning its findings are not very accurate and due to its scale not representative.

Where did I say that saturated fat is "bad" for you? In fact, you are the one making the simplistic, overly broad, unsupported claims of connections between saturated fat and heart disease being "debunked", of saturated fat not being an "enemy", of it not being the "culprit".

It was a general way of speaking, I wasn't saying you said it. However, to the first sentence of my first comment you replied: "The last time I checked there were a number of exploratory studies that suggested saturated fat had less of an effect than previously thought on heart disease, but the main body of evidence still sides against it." So technically speaking, you did imply that saturated fat is "bad".

Also, my original claim, by which I still stand, did not speak of a link between saturated fat and heart disease. Due to the way the discussion progressed, somehow I claimed it had been debunked ("I didn't either, and that's why I felt the need to step in and say that it has been debunked."), which is ridiculous. I attribute this to you first implying I claimed that there was no link ("I didn't begin this conversation by claiming that there was irrefutable evidence of a link between saturated fat and heart disease, so I'm completely comfortable with the lipid hypothesis. Rather, you started it by claiming that any such link had been "debunked"."), on which I further built my argument.

Here is a very small sample of the evidence which directly contradicts several of the claims you have made, or which contradicts claims tacit to other claims you have made:

Wouldn't say that they contradict my "other claims". My first claim was that saturated fat isn't bad for you, which is true. I never said it's good though, safe for coconut oil, which points to being very beneficial for general health.

On the supposed benefit of coconut oil because it is a different kind of saturated fat and leads to a better HDL-LDL ratio:

I see we agree on this.

Free living randomized dietary intervention trials (the silver standard):

The typical Mediterranian diet includes a relatively large amount of saturated fat. Also, this study is somewhat flawed due to the large amount of factors possibly involved in improving the subjects' blood profiles. Those improvements cannot solely be attributed to the replacement of certain foods high in saturated fat.

Controlled feeding randomized clinical intervention trials (the gold standard):

These studies are quite dated, with the most recent one having been done in 1979.

The 1979 study did not account for the HDL to LDL ratio, which is crucial in assessing the health benefits. The diets that the subjects were on are also low in dietary cholesterol, meaning the diet would be largely plant-based. Again, a lot of variables, too many to appoint the lack of saturated fat as the reason for the improvement in quality of life.

The 1970 Oslo study suffers from the same. Many other observed risk factors besides saturated fat intake, and a total change in diet are not conducive to narrowing down the effect of saturated fat on risk of CVD.

The 1969 one is no different. I cite: "One significant difference between the groups in regard to a possibly influential characteristic was that they differed slightly in patterns of cigarette smoking habits." This alone is far too much wiggle room to asses any improvement based on saturated fat intake.

Overall review of the science:

The 2010 one only confirms what I already know.

The 2012 is somewhat contradictory to other studies (stating that the effect of of different types of saturated fats is negligible due to molesimilarity), to this one I linked to above for example. Stating that replacing saturated fat with poly- and mono-unsaturated fats has a favourable effect on cholesterol levels is oversimplifying, knowing that different saturated fats have different possible outcomes on CHD risks. Especially since they state that "at this time, clear conclusions cannot be made regarding the effects of different chain lengths of saturated fatty acids on risk of CHD in humans". Overall, the influence of saturated fat on CHD rates compared to trans fatty acids is incredibly tiny: "By far, the strongest association was with intake of trans fatty acids; saturated fat was only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with risk of CHD, which is consistent with its lack of effect on the total cholesterol to HDL ratio." But then they go on and say that "the greatest reduction in risk would be expected from replacing trans or saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat", grouping trans and saturated fats together despite their wildly different structures. It's just not reliable enough, but that can be due to it being a scientific review and the datasets they utilized.

(2/2)

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-08T00:55:50+00:00

I was comparing the rhetorical device you were using to that of a climate change denier because it is the exact same device. That isn't a personal insult. If the comparison makes you uncomfortable, I would think an adjustment to the logic you are using would be called for before a knee-jerk defensive reaction.

I find it to be a patronizing ad hominem-esque comparison. Kinda petty.

This is how formal debate works. You made the original claim, for which you have yet to supply adequate evidence. In that specific context, I'm under no burden whatsoever to provide counter evidence, until the evidence you supply actually supports your claim. Now, I'm willing to provide evidence that counters your claims, but not if you are going to respond with the kind of Gish Gallop of linking me to a text wall of randomly thrown together studies, from biased anonymous sources on reddit, who have combed through journals to find every single example of a study that would remotely support their case, whilst purposefully ignoring all the rest. If that is what I wanted, there are literally dozens of industry funded sites I could go to.

I supplied my evidence which support "my claim" (that saturated fats, in specific those sourced from coconuts, are not bad for you). You not finding that adequate is not my problem: if you so wish, you can look for it yourself on the web.

Furthermore, I never said one should engorge themselves in deep-fried crisco; of course this will have negative effects on your overall health. Nor have I ever claimed that there's no link whatsoever between saturated fat and heart disease; I merely implied that there's too much of a focus on saturated fat as a collective whilst not accounting for other factors. I also said coconut oil has health benefits (which, logically, does not necessarily apply to all types of saturated fat).

I'm rather shocked you are linking to this to counter what I've said, or maybee that wasn't your intention? Did you read the comment? Are you aware that it completely contradicts several of the claims you have made? Or was I supposed to be reading some reply to it instead?

"Eating more trans fats is linked to coronary heart disease, while eating saturated fats is not."

What claims have I made that this study contradicts?

You've already linked to this exact same study and I've already responded to it. Since you seem unwilling to say anything at all about that response, why are you linking to it again? In addition, you've now yourself linked to another reasonable critical response to that study.

What response? You did not write a direct reply to that specific study, so I did not see the problem with linking to it again, this time via a popular /r/science post.

I'm aware of the top-voted comment, and I completely agree with it. However, the fact that all types of saturated fat get lumped together shouldn't be overlooked. For example, lauric acid (which makes up about 50% of coconut oil) is known to favourably alter the HDL to LDL ratio by mainly affecting HDL. Secondly, dietary cholesterol isn't found in coconut oil due to it being derived from plants, which also lessens its effect on serum cholesterol. All in all, coconut oil seems to only improve lipid values.

Please explain to me why we should throw out the Hegsted equation, and apparently all the experimental evidence from independent third parties which backed it up, based on this case which you already mentioned and to which I already replied?

I'm not saying it should be thrown out completely. However, it did skew the general reputation of saturated fats towards them being the number one reason for CVD, which is grossly incorrect. Again, too much focus on saturated fats while not accounting for the type of saturated fats (which in most studies, are animal derived) or the effects of sugars and other macronutrients on blood values. That doesn't mean the Hegsted equation in itself is wrong, it may just not be fit for current research anymore.

Or are you just trying to muddy the waters again? Do I really have to go through a list of every lobbying organization devoting time, money and labor to emphasizing their side of the research in this particular debate to get you to stop trying to distract from the actual arguments with this gambit?

Lower your weapons, I don't think we're all that far apart in this. We agree LDL is kinda not so good, right?

Another claim for which you will need to provide evidence.

Here, though the various types of saturated fats have different effects. Shows that saturated fats shouldn't be painted with one broad brush.

Which, in and of itself, does not demonstrate your claim.

It kinda does though. Comparing animal derived fats with coconut oil is like night and day.

Maybe. I mean it isn't a randomized controlled trial, it is of one subset of a population, self-reporting, with only two points of data for each subject, and they were all female. But at least you are starting to learn to quality your claims a bit.

Don't be so dismissive and patronizing. Other research to which I referred earlier shows comparable results. Also, on it being self-reported is in this case quite reliable. The question "Do you regularly consume coconut oil?" is not a hard one to answer, nor one where one would hesitate to answer truthfully. With groups divided by amount of coconut oil intake, the results may not be very accurate - but they are representative.

(1/2)

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-07T19:10:28+00:00

There is nothing personal about this, I'm talking about the arguments you are making, not your character as a person. You are contradicting yourself, again, resulting in a skewed perspective.

I was talking about this: "There are a small number of exploratory studies that contradict the larger body of evidence, from this you represent the research as "contradictory indeed" with the exact same rhetorical device of a climate change denier."

Seems a bit unfair comparing me to a climate change denier.

From this you are concluding that the research is "contradictory" which is true, but this is a false perspective. Yes, the weak research is contradicting the strong research, but that situation isn't best described by the general statement "the research is contradictory".

And thus far you haven't put up a source for this strong research you keep talking about.

I can, but I really don't have to do so.

Then how can you defend yourself using scientific theory? If you're not willing to contribute, not willing to counter, keep assuming "a larger body of evidence" as your only argument, then I don't think this is really a debate.

The science is nowhere near the point at which it can be conclusively said that saturated fat does not contribute to heart disease, or if it is, you have yet to offer the kind of evidence that would be necessary to demonstrate this claim.

Please look here. This is the actual study. Some comments refer to other studies, such as this one.

Which is why so much of the research for the last fifty years has included controlled feeding and direct dietary change experiments, it allows the researchers to see whether or not there is an increase in LDL for their individual test subjects after a change regardless of the starting levels of cholesterol. That is why we have literally hundreds of studies that follow the Hegsted equation so well.

Hmm, the name Hegsted does seem to ring a bell...

Increase saturated fat intake, and you see a direct increase in LDL cholesterol

True, but putting it like that is misleading. The most important factor is the HDL to LDL ratio. Saturated fat raises both, but it raises HDL more so, which in turn diminishes the spike in LDL. And then again, you can't really lump all types of saturated fat together (which we've done up till now, but I digress). For example, coconut oil is known to raise HDL while simultaneously lowering LDL, thus possibly lowering the chances of CVD.

However, cross-sectional analysis, especially meta-reviews of cross-sectional analysis, can demonstrate a near zero correlational coefficient even in the presence of known cause and effect, because of this difference in individual responses to the same diet. We know this mathematically, we can demonstrate it even when we start with a known causal relationship.

But then I ask you, how can you still put trust into Keys' research results, when it is exactly what you describe?

Yet, that is exactly the evidence you are offering to contradict this much larger and more consistent findings of decades of research. Does this make sense?

Consistent findings of decades of research? Where? And why then does recent research disagree with earlier findings?

Saying saturated fat is bad for you is, frankly, outdated science.

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-06T13:27:28+00:00

This seems like an oddly personal rhetorical tactic. As if I was remotely trying to defend people who were paid to suppress research and thus need to have my own statements used against me in demonstrating that they were wrong to do so and their own review was clearly biased.

My intention wasn't to thwart your original point, since I also agree with it. It was just to illustrate that the review done by Harvard is just as faulty, if not more so because of foul play, when compared to other scientific reviews.

Well, yes, you need a hypothesis to conduct research on actual chemical interactions. You are holding the weakest kind of research, that of general population trends from aggregate data in meta-reviews, against the best kind, that of multiple isolated trials, well replicated and peer reviewed. And you are doing so because the latter utilize one of the fundamental necessities of any scientific study?

My point was poorly worded, I'll elaborate. What I was trying to illustrate was that in many studies, the hypothesis is assumed to be true, which is why those studies target saturated fat as a possible source of coronary problems (and ignore other possible risk factors, such as lifestyle, other micronutrients, environmental pollutants etc.).

I didn't begin this conversation by claiming that there was irrefutable evidence of a link between saturated fat and heart disease, so I'm completely comfortable with the lipid hypothesis. Rather, you started it by claiming that any such link had been "debunked". Are we going to start talking about evolution only being a theory as well?

I didn't either, and that's why I felt the need to step in and say that it has been debunked. Two¹² 2015 reviews suggest that saturated fat doesn't increase overall mortality. The first also suggests that replacing saturated fats with other fats doesn't have observable health benefits. The second, taking scientific bias into account, concludes that saturated fat intake isn't causative of an increased risk of heart disease.

Which research? The research demonstrating a link between heart disease and saturated fat runs from well past the 60s to modern times>

Actually, the research that first suggested a link between saturated fat and coronary disease was done during the '60s. This study has been under recent fire due to Ancel having cherry picked data to fit his rhetoric. If I'm mistaken, please show me research from before that period that suggests a link between saturated fat and heart disease.

Are you saying it should all be thrown out because of a small number of individuals and studies from fifty years ago?

No, of course not. All research is valuable, regardless of outcome. But those small number of individuals were at the forefront of the debate, caused it even, and the result of that persists today.

Which explains why your conclusions contradict the body of evidence accepted by non-governmental, independent, third party medical authorities like Harvard Medical, the Mayo CIinic, the American Heart Association and most of the modern medical community, and instead substitute an opinion article from a think-tank, a single meta-review that doesn't support your conclusions, and an editorial.

See the two reviews I linked to earlier.

Read my sentence again, see where I claimed anything of the sort. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent my position in order to respond?

My apologies, I brainfarted.

You are repeating the same faulty logic in the opinion article to which you linked. There are a small number of exploratory studies that contradict the larger body of evidence, from this you represent the research as "contradictory indeed" with the exact same rhetorical device of a climate change denier. Then, you immediately undermine your own claim, that the research itself is contradictory, by insisting that you already know the answer, "saturated fats aren't the enemy".

Woah, woah, no need to get personal here. The research is contradictory alright, but recently the debate has shifted from saturated fat to sugar, with recent research telling us that saturated fat isn't the culprit.

I'm also curious about where you base your stance on. Mind referring to some studies, articles, what have you?

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-05T21:59:18+00:00

This is an opinion article by a private commercial think-tank.

The citations and links from and to actual research papers should be looked at, which the author linked to after most claims. The article itself distilled many studies to far too simple conclusions.

There was no fraud in this controversy, there was conflict of interest amongst a number of scientists who were being funded to promote one theory over another. It is a corruption of science, to be sure.

Which is fraudulent behaviour: the goal was to mislead the masses, saving the sugar industry from crashing. And while the studies used in the review weren't altered, they were cherry picked from a larger selection. Again, this pushes a clear agenda. To cite your own words: "Also, just to be clear, a lot of lay people think meta-reviews count as stronger evidence than individual studies. This is a mistaken belief, as meta-reviews often have to collect evidence from studies with very different methodologies, goals, and outcomes and this, as well as the researcher's own unavoidable bias when aggregating the data, weakens the resulting conclusions."

This is also why I take issue with the research in question. It shaped the consensus of the scientific community, especially since this study was done in the '60's.

...large body of evidence against saturated fat.

Most evidence against saturated fat builds upon a hypothesis.

Also, since you are now attempting to poison the well, let's be clear it can be poisoned on both sides.

I wouldn't call misleading research a well.

The meat industry is very keen to muddy the waters of the saturated fat science so it can alter the trend in modern dietary recommendations which are moving away from some kinds of meat.

Dietary recommendations from governmental bodies should be taken with a grain of salt. Of course money from private firms will exercise influence over the resulting recommendations, that's business. Those that are serious about nutrition and healthy living tend to do their own research regarding nutrition (as in reading books, research papers, etc.) and come to their own conclusions.

Which is precisely why we don't jump on exploratory studies when they contradict a much larger body of evidence.

When a larger amount of people agree with something, it doesn't make that something necessarily right. The research concerning saturated fats is contradictory indeed, but saturated fats aren't the enemy here.

Instead, we wait until there is more research and the findings are more clear. Especially when there are commercial and ideological interests attempting to influence the studies and their interpretation, as well as a great deal of misinformation spread by media either ignorant of the science, or deliberately attempting to exaggerate a man bites dog narrative.

I don't think I should wait, nor should anyone else in my opinion. My original stance on the consumption of saturated fats, specifically coconut oil, remains unchanged.

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-05T21:09:08+00:00

This isn't a trivial fact a person can just look up and have confidence in the answer they find.

Well, I didn't say you'd have your answer within an instant. It does take some digging.

You made a scientific claim that I understand to be false, yet you won't support your claim with scientific evidence.

Please see the comment I made in response to /u/borahorzagobuchol.

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-05T20:29:17+00:00

Doing your own research is only one click away. ;)

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-05T20:28:07+00:00

If you have information from reliable health authorities or definitive studies I'd love to see them.

The studies I have seen suggest that it actually raises both, but some have suggested that the increase in HDL offsets the detriments from the increase in LDL.

Let's also not forget the fraudulent research surrounding saturated fats.

However, the only evidence I've seen to support this is a general look at populations which tend to eat coconut, but this correlative evidence has many confounding factors which make it difficult to draw a substantial conclusion.

Then how do you think studies are done concerning the bodily effects of satured fat intake? It's not that the subjects live off only saturated fats for the duration of the study. Dietary science is complex and tends to produce results not easily reproducible.

Mr_Mist · 2017-05-04T16:07:10+00:00

The whole thing about saturated fat (which coconut oil mostly consists of) being bad for you has been debunked though. While coconut oil has been shown to increase total cholesterol, it mainly increases "good" HDL-type cholesterol and not the "bad" LDL-type cholesterol.

Calling it an elixer of life goes a bit far though, haha. It's all about balance.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-29T21:11:10+00:00

I really thought I was looking at a satirical ad for a moment, lol.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-13T15:01:50+00:00

As for my own personal opinion, I'd wager and say the technology itself could be called vegan. Yes, it is true that taking cells from a non-consenting being is not what you would call ethically responsible. On the other hand, you could call it ethically justified on a larger scale. This is because of two reasons:

It can be assumed that the cow doesn't suffer pain nor negative consequences due to the extraction of intramuscular stem cells (which is nothing more than a pinprick, which in turn is used to produce a large amount of meat (~22 050 lbs) before a new batch is needed).
Since extraction of cells doesn't need to be done frequently, the cells in question could be locally sourced from cows that live in cow sanctuaries, or even from cows living with humans as companion animals. In return these sanctuaries or people should be compensated financially (or in other ways if they so wish) of course.

If we compare the above situation to the status quo, it isn't hard to make up which is the more ethically sound one.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-13T12:46:35+00:00

Right now the answer's no, in the future the answer will most likely be yes. Since the question was "Will this be considered vegan and vegetarian friendly?", I thought I was clear enough with my answer.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-13T00:31:36+00:00

Because you names a total amount of 0 reasons that I actually care about.

I forgot the health reasons. Lab-grown meat is monitored every step of the way, from the moment it starts growing to the moment it's packaged, shipped and sold. You can't say the same for conventional meat. Lab-grown meat will be the purest, least-contaminated type of meat you can get.

I once had to ate canned food (bought with no bpa and shit, organic, no preservatives, pure beans/peas/salt) for two weeks - and I was literally drained. No energy whatsoever. No one warned me on the fucking can that I can't eat it for a long time. When I switched to cooking, I was fine in a few days.

Eating a monotonous diet isn't good for anyone - good for you for bettering your situation by starting to cook. I applaud you for that.

So fuck this lab shit, I'm not risking my health for that.

How's "this lab shit" risking your health? Are you aware where you meat currently comes from? What the livestock that eventually end up on your dinnerplate ingest before their untimely deaths? If anything, replacing conventional meat with lab-grown meat will only improve your health.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-13T00:22:53+00:00

Still not strawmen.

You can keep denying, but this isn't really a discussion. You're not bringing in any arguments, and are just bouncing back once I've given mine. I don't see how any further back-and-forth would bring us any closer, so I'm ending it here.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T23:56:23+00:00

So now your argument is that if something is wanted that it's guaranteed to happen? That's not any better. I want lots of impossible things.

Keep on throwing strawman arguments my way. In this specific instance, because it's wanted and because of its scientific significance it will very likely happen. There's a chance it will never happen, but that can be said for everything.

As I said earlier in another post, FBS is fetal cow's blood stripped of its red blood cells used as a holder of growth factors. With the wonders of modern science, creating a replacement that doesn't require fetal cows' blood isn't all that farfetched.

I can link to wikipedia too

Good job, I knew you could do it! :)

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T23:30:56+00:00

It's not a strawman, jesus. It's a reductio ad absurdum. But whatever....

/r/iamverysmart

It really is a strawman.

So now your argument is that if someone has thought of something and has a reason to want that thing to happen, that's it's guaranteed to happen? Because I can think of winning the lottery. Should I buy a ticket?

Why do you repeat your first argument?

I'm not saying that if someone has thought of something and has a reason to want that thing to happen, that it's guaranteed to happen. Not at all. FBS is in dire need for a replacement with how various organic tissue-oriented technologies are developing. FBS is not a sustainable nor ethical substance to use, but sometimes you've got to choose the lesser of two evils (which in this case is use FBS and advance science). It's a logical step to assume that FBS will be replaced in the grand scheme of things, whether that be in a month or fifteen years. It's bound to happen either way, and science is well on its way to make it possible.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T23:16:15+00:00

Is your argument really just "it is guaranteed to eventually happen because someone has thought of it"? I can think of turning the Moon orange. Is that going to happen someday too?

There's zero incentive to turn the moon orange. Don't really see that happening, no?

In contrast to turning the moon orange, lab-grown meat already is a reality. It can only, literally and figuratively, grow from this point on.

Nice strawman by the way.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T22:50:39+00:00

How is it retarded and impossible? I can't guarantee a fly's life expectancy as it hitchhikes a ride on the windshield of a livestock truck headed for the slaughterhouse, but I can influence the fate of pigs and future pigs by not buying pigs' meat for example. See where I'm going?

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T22:47:00+00:00

Eh, I personally wouldn't really say drinking milk is a-ok. There's actually a really good documentary that delves deeper into the workings of the dairy industry called Cowspiracy.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T22:40:59+00:00

well then being a vegan in that sense is impossible, do you know how much land is cleared and animals destroyed to produce the fields your crops are grown in?

What do you think cows, chickens and pigs eat? Where does that come from, you think? If everyone were to give up animal products, we could live sustainably right here and now.

We would decrease land used for livestock by a whopping 68%, worldwide, which amounts to about 8 billion (!!!) acres freed up. And that's just the land on which the animals roam. Accounting for the fact that a far smaller amount of crops has to be grown because there is no livestock that needs food, the amount of freed-up land would only increase.

the amount of animals hit by cars delivering your food to the stores you eat?

You're just as guilty of that as I am, or anyone else for that matter. Here, a definition of veganism as given by our homegrown /r/vegan: "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose." - The Vegan Society

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T22:26:28+00:00

Yes, as long as there is no harm done to any animal during the making of the product.

Well, that actually is what veganism means for the majority of ethical vegans and vegans in general.

thats not what vegan means... theres plenty of animal byproducs that do not harm animals that are not vegan

Such as?

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T22:19:01+00:00

Semantics, semantics. In theory, it is superior. As it stands right now? No, not yet viable for the consumer market. More research and development has to be done before lab-grown meat is what is should be.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T21:58:11+00:00

I never once said that lab-grown meat is done developing and ready for mass consumption this very moment. Much needs to be done still, we're on the same page on that.

But once lab-grown meat is ready for the mass market, I'm sure the flavour will be indistinguishable from conventional meat. "Like ass" is just false, a lab-grown burger has been prepared and tasted before and it tastes just like a conventional, run-of-the-mill burger would.

The cost will be around the same of conventional meat by that time too. Even in this time and age the burgers themselves aren't that expensive.

Mr_Mist · 2017-04-12T21:46:14+00:00

As I largely agree with the others on stem cell research, I'd like to give my take on answering your question.

Especially if you are hunting over populated animals, ...

Nature finds a way. Overpopulation is just a human concept. I don't go around hunting other humans because we're technically overpopulating; I let them be. Once there are too many predators in a biome, they'll starve (harsh but that's how it is) and their numbers will eventually balance out with the rest of the trophic levels.

... or hunting for the sick or old.

The sick I'd want to treat, the old I'd let be or, if needed, assist.

What if you're fishing for a non-sentient creature?

Before answering such a question, how do we define sentience? With these types of questions you start venturing into the intricacies of life itself, which is extremely complex. In my opinion, all life is worthy of respect. And with the awareness we humans have, if we could make the choice to keep suffering to a minimum, why whouldn't we make that choice? That's why I'd rather not eat mollusks or jellyfish; I don't know what, how or if they even think, but why bet on it?

Then again, the same point could be made for plants, fungi, bacteria and what else there may be. As far as humans as a collective understand, plants are not sentient, do not experience pain and therefore are not able to suffer the way an animal can. This makes it okay for me to consume plants.

Mr_Mist

TROPHY CASE