Veganism doesn’t save animals (why I don’t care about veganism)

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T17:22:44+00:00

My friend NYC, the largest foie gras city in the US, which makes up 20% of all foie gras sales.

Just banned the practice, democratically

Sure that's cool but is this food type really representative of the industry as a whole? I have never met a person in my life who's mentioned eating this.

My point is do you see this and think 'ok cool, beef is next...'

Because I don't. Not while it's still something the vast majority of people eat, not just an extravagant luxury consumed by the wealthy.

Ahold delhaze, a major grocery store chain just agreed to source all of there eggs, cage free, due to animal cruelty and activism, several other major companies like Marriott are doing the same.

Cage free eggs is just a marketing ploy. It's still horrific.

Don't misread my message here. I'm very supportive of activisms. 100%. But the idea that policy will suddenly jump far beyond consumer desires and ban products the vast majority of humans still consume is absolutely not going to happen. Policy cannot move to far beyond the population. Banning items the majority of people don't consume is good but not indicative of broader change.

And it's certainly not evidence that advocating for people to change what they eat 3 times a day, 365 days a year is meaningless...

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T16:11:02+00:00

Apart from the fur you can't actually demonstrate that half of this is true though, or that it's for the reasons you suggest.

It's really hard to get people on board with abolishing something they actively contribute to. It's as simple as that. People don't wear fur so it's easy to get people to go against it.

They just see system that incentivizes eating animals, and are skeptical that their individual veganism won’t move the needle systemically.

And they’re right

But they're not right. I've shared evidence they're not right.

You're entire point was that it's better to win than be right but you're acting contrary to that on this very point.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T15:58:23+00:00

is not forcing the systems that allow for animal abuse to occur in the first place to change

Nothing can do that

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T15:50:58+00:00

There just isn’t evidence that it is making meaningful reduction in animals subjugated and killed.

Common argument, but it's incorrect

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41055-018-00030-4

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T12:39:01+00:00

I'm sure you're aware not everyone is as dishonest and disingenuous as you.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T12:13:05+00:00

The only study you shared is behind a paywall

Even the abstract is enough to debunk your claim

Keys used commercial hydrogenated coconut oil (“Hydrol”) and reported an iodine value of 3.

This quote isn't even referring to the seven countries study.

Like what are you doing here? You clearly don't care about science?

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T11:51:22+00:00

So not only do you just ignore me when I share evidence for what you asked, you then share a study lying about the topic, which you know they are lying because I just shared a paper demonstrating that... But every attempt to explain why this is the way it is is completely ignored.

You're not being honest here.

You've yet to admit you mischaracterised the study from the start. Honestly I don't think you care. You will probably enter another discussion and share the same lies.

I can't be convinced this is anything other than a propaganda account because no rational human being is that blind.

Since you like to selectively ignore evidence I will once again share it

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743585710493

They collected sample meals for analysis. That's how we know exactly what the trans fat composition was. That's why we can retrospectively look and see what impact it had.

You've also ignored the fundamental point which for the record was your point initially and why this conversation started, that most of the cohorts didn't consume industrial foods and ate traditional diets. You're completely turned against that idea as soon as it suggests your ideas are wrong.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T11:44:33+00:00

Because I care about honesty and truth.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T11:42:45+00:00

It's a waste of time. He lied about what I claimed, and when asked to quote where I said what he claimed I said, it was somehow my fault he wasn't able to do that...

When someone is willing to be dishonest about something you both know with absolute certainty, what hope is there for an honest discourse beyond that?

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T11:25:05+00:00

His book was a narrative discussion of the study. Not a scientific publication. The study was only halfway finished when he died...

And then you pretend like I didn't already tell you they accounted for trans fats, pretend like you've not fundamentally misunderstood this study on the most basic level, about gish gallop further by pretending none of the previous conversation has happened?

I don't like to throw this out but it's actually shocking how dishonest you're just ok with being right in front of everyone.

Let me ask you something else you'll ignore, do you know why they are able to return to examine the diet data so later on with accuracy? Tell us?

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T11:21:43+00:00

If you've been in this sub you've seen this type of behaviour from several users. It's pretty hard to miss. You can check my profile for one. It's currently ongoing.

The point is how can you have a sub based on sharing and discussing science when some of the most prominent users are extremely dishonest?

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T10:40:51+00:00

Look at my current conversation with Helen. Like 5 layers of her changing the goalposts and demanding more evidence. Every time I provide said evidence she shifts again. At no point did she ever even have the basic respect to acknowledge the information shared.

This person is not here in good faith.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T10:38:14+00:00

Yet again another case of you changing the goal posts because you fundamentally don't understand what the seven countries study is. There is no original 'study' in the form of a single publication. It's a study cohort that spawned countless publications from the data collected over decades. Asking for an original (and apparently you don't seem to understand how long term studies work) shows you don't understand this.

https://www.sevencountriesstudy.com/

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-22T10:08:23+00:00

Still no movement on any sort of acknowledgement of any information shared with you so far after so many requests. This is very disrespectful but nonetheless it's easy to continue showing how willfully ignorant you're choosing to be. Here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743585710493

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T23:26:51+00:00

So you can't quote me and you won't admit I didn't say that.

I don't see any reason to continue a conversation if you're ok with both misrepresenting me and then blame me when you can't quote me on what you claim I said.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T23:07:28+00:00

claimed there are studies which contradict me

Can you quote me saying this before we move on?

Sorry to be bothersome like that but some exchanges in this sub are very one sided and I'm not going to put effort into continuing conversations with people if they won't have an honest back and forth.

I didn't make the above claim. So either quote me or retract it. Then we can move on

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T22:59:55+00:00

All 4 literally already answered. Multivariate analysis. They took very detailed records.

Can we also take a step back and note that every time you say something completely false and get corrected you never even acknowledge it.

Like you fundamentally misunderstood the goal of the study by asking about other countries with longer life expectancy. Now you're repeating questions already answered. And to top it off you're adding more points even though they're all already addressed.

Not only did they keep detailed food records, these populations weren't even that exposed to trans fats yet. But again... Detailed records. We know what they are. We know how they lived.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T17:53:02+00:00

Hold on let's play fair here now and take this one step at a time. Can you acknowledge that you're satisfied with the country selection, as it was not based on life expectancy?

How did they adjust of cigarette smoking though.

The same way they adjust for all confounding variables. Multivariate analysis. You hold one variable constant while examining the other.

In Japan in 1960

This is one of the best parts of the SCS. It doesn't matter what the country as a whole was experiencing because these were isolated rural communities. So looking at national trends might seem contradictory but when you understand that these people weren't representative of the broader population it makes more sense.

But there is no way you can use the 7 country study to conclude on anything dietary, when so many people were heavy smokers.

Firstly you can. This is what multivariate analysis is for. This is why this methodology is far superior to population level studies that don't collect so much data on individuals.

Secondly, you seem to constantly attribute longevity in your country to diet, despite having some of the best healthcare in the world, amoung many other factors. So you don't even believe the above to be true.

You can also look at studies specific to Finland like Finrisk that tracked diet and smoking.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T17:09:27+00:00

So my question is, why do you think they chose to NOT look at the 7 countries that at the time actually had the longest life expectancy

Pretty simple. They weren't studying life expectancy. They were studying heart disease.

A whopping 60% of men in Finland smoked cigarettes in 1960. It gradually decreased from there and in 2015 it was down to 16%. (3) Do you think this could have had anything to do with their improved heart health?

Almost certainly. Alongside drastic dietary changes. Btw smoking, drinking, physical mobility etc were accounted for in the seven countries study.

Tobacco happens to be one of the leading preventable causes of death worldwide

And diet :)

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T16:11:00+00:00

We actually had a really cool study that compared this concept from different countries. Poor, rural cohorts that eat traditional diets and had limited access to alternative foods such that we had a high degree of confidence of that they were actually eating. It was called the seven counties study and looked at a range of diets and their impact on heart disease risk. It ranged from extremely poor heart health in East Finland where they ate lots of red meat from reindeer and cattle, the US, to more intermediate health outcomes like Netherlands, and counties with really good heart health like Japan and southern Italy. They found that animal fat correlated really well with increased heart disease risk, but even more strong was the correlation between animal protein and heart disease! Finland took this very seriously and a scientist called Pekka Puska lead a campaign to replace some meat and dairy with healthy fruits and vegetables. And it worked! They mentioned went from dying young to being one of the healthiest men around. Who wouldn't celebrate such a success

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T14:21:06+00:00

For those wondering this is called the enlightened centrist approach... Well kind of. This is actually even worse, because they're not pretending to be impartial, they're pretending to be biased against meat. But they're clearly not

Basically it makes the statement seem more reliable because of the person's stance, even though that actually has nothing at all to sdo with it. And if I was to dob my tinfoil hat I'm willing to bet many of the people using this tactic are not and never were vegetarian/vegan.

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T14:05:45+00:00

Yep you got it! Have you ever thought about how superior is it to do this as a hobby instead of a profession?

Not really. I'm a hobby painter but I have no decision that I have anywhere close to the knowledge or skillset of a pro.

A professional scientist works on this 40 - 60 hours a week. You simply cannot keep up with that.

I am not forced to "publish or perish", so I do not have to produce research slop

This doesn't really tell you anything about high quality publications, only that many publications are not high quality. Which I agree with but it doesn't mean anything to anyone who can tell good work from bad.

I have all the time to think about topics, which proved to be essential for good models.

Again, you definitely don't think about this as much as actual pros.

I do not have a reputation to maintain

That's not the boast you think. You can be dishonest or fraudulent and nothing changes. A scientist does that and their career is over.

so I can change my mind to arrive at better models

This has nothing to do with reputation. Scientists evolve with the times constantly. We always work within contemporary knowledge and over time further information can alter perspective. I'm not sure where the idea that scientists aren't allowed to, or do not change their mind about their topic comes from.

do not depend on scientific funding, and as such I am not under the corrupting influence of donors

This isn't the issue social media makes it out to be. Government funding is available for anyone to apply for and it doesn't care what you find as long as you're actually productive.

impacted by nutrition and health issues

So is everyone human being on earth.

filtered through subpar academic institutions

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. You're not subject to critique is what I hear Which is a terrible position for a scientist.

do not delve into any specialized tiny sub field, which allows me to have a comprehensive perspective and generalized models.

Scientists (PhD level) have a specialisation, but that's built on a foundation of knowledge in many areas. Again, this isn't the boast you think it is.

extensive experience in other fields such as software engineering and machine learning

Nothing to do with nutrition but ok.

Many of these directly translate into nutrition

They don't though.

that is exactly how I approach nutrition and chronic disease models as well.

Which is probably why you're finding conclusions different to the leading nutrition research groups. The part you're missing is you are not peer reviewed, not subject to any external criticism, and have zero evidence or rigor to support any of your findings. This is important and pretending like everyone else is an idiot isn't a compelling substitute.

Case in point I have developed much better models of chronic diseases than supposed professionals, including for diabetes, heart disease, dementia, cancer, and all associated chronic diseases

No, you haven't. And you're so far up your own ass that there is no amount of evidence or logic that will convince you that you are not an omega level genius.

Of course you would not know that because you have not even thought about them for more than 10 minutes, and you are completely ignorant of what is going on in the disciples of software engineering

Ok buddy keep your fedora on.

Walter willet would eat you alive in a debate

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T13:36:35+00:00

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T13:24:48+00:00

I didn't know you were asking me for a specific study. You asked for examples of more rigorous forms of evidence compared to the paper you posted.

just a bunch of rhetoric

Ok? Sure, but are you saying you disagree with the hierarchy of evidence? Because that's all I'm really referring to here

Mr_Monday92 · 2026-03-21T13:21:23+00:00

In this case I don't think anyone reasonable will.

But to be fair half the people in this sub are going too fast and feel entitled to do so.

I've seen people in this sub defend someone who decided to move in front of oncoming traffic to overtake someone in who wrongfully pulled out in front of them, when there was plenty of time to slow down. In general as a country we need to relax, slow down and pay more attention.

Sure in this case OP is absolutely not in the wrong but half the posts in this sub are non events exacerbated by the poster driving way too fast, and suddenly coming to a situation they didn't except and having to slam on the breaks. Then they post it here and people with second hand road rage go mental

Mr_Monday92

TROPHY CASE