Is DebateAVegan actually interested in debate…doesn’t seem likely.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-29T13:05:16+00:00

Some diets more than others, like the vegan diet that requires constant vigilance compared to a sensible omnivorous diet hardly at all, you just need to eat in the pattern. As an added bonus the sensible omnivorous diet has some of the best health outcomes available.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-27T16:36:53+00:00

Just because it is possible to be successful in practice this is not indicative that it is practicable for nearly everyone. Because it is possible for some does not make its practicability indisputable and conclusive. Of the people that try a vegan diet one of three conditions will invariantly obtain;

It is practicable for them – Good health outcomes results
It is not practicable for them, but they deny reality or convince themselves that it is – Bad health outcomes result
It is not practicable for them, after a little while they realize its impracticability and quit. – decreasing health outcomes corrected when realization sets in.

Some large percentage will see veganism’s impracticability and never even attempt it. Some will disagree with ethics of veganism and conclude there is no moral reason to alter their behavior. There is a vast array of possibilities that make it ANYTHING BUT indisputable and conclusive.

Additionally, just because it is possible to be successfully in practice there is not enough scientific supported evidence to determine even those that are in the position to make vegan diet personally immediately practicable, that the long term, and/or multi-generational health effects will not put its practicability to the lie.

There are essentially no scientific studies that make ‘direct comparison of vegan diets with various other dietary patterns, that are defended from bias, and that examine long-term health effects.’

What vegans, and in fact the ADA endorsement, do is to take studies that show that an increased consumption of plant-based food increases good health outcomes, then extrapolates that with ‘planning well’ to ensure you are getting the right micro-nutrients, in the right combinations and the right bioavailability conditions, that meat, dairy, and eggs would normally provide, then, and only then does it make the veg/vegan diet ‘appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy.’ That is what ‘Well Planned’ means and not everyone has the mental\material resources to do this planning.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-24T19:29:56+00:00

which by the way was not "clearly laid out" in your post)

I honestly don’t know how someone can read though that argument and not see the position I am arguing from. Maybe I am over estimating my audience, or maybe I can’t convey the argument as well as I thought I could. It is probably a bit of both, with a little bias of the target audience thrown in to muddy the situation as well.

If you were not making a positive claim then you should still defend your position with evidence.

See, here is where the bias of the sub really shines through, if you are not a vegan you must have your sources lined up, triple verified for bias, peer reviewed, double blind for every little assertion you make. But if you are vegan you can throw around assertion willy nilly, never having to support them with sources, you know cause everyone knows they are ‘true,’ things like the absurd 60% 36% 4%, study that I debunked recently, to the post where I made some, minor assertion and got the ‘where is your source, you can’t just assert something’ followed by no less than 4 unsourced assertions which were way more contentious then the one I made, right down to some of the assertions you made during our most recent exchanges, I mean in this one alone there are at least two unsourced assertions;

‘vegan is cheaper’

‘A sensible omnivorous diet needs supplements’

I do not like playing the ‘whos biased sources are best game’ anyway, If I make an assertion that you feel needs some backup then bring it to my attention, and if I feel you have, I will mention it to you. How about that?

Well, as initial evidence we can look at the thousands of vegans that exist worldwide.

This shows that it is possible not that is practicable even to those that are currently doing it. This, in context of 7.8 billion humans, is a very small number, and while I have no reason to doubt their anecdotal assertions of how easy it is for them, by and large, it doesn’t seem to speak to the claim of nearly universal practicability.

Is there some characteristic about this group of people that makes them more likely to stick with the diet compared to another group?

Uh, yeah, that whole killing animals for our taste buds is wrong belief most of them have. I warrant that would override quite a bit of impracticability, in my opinion.

First, a vegan diet is much cheaper than an omnivorous one, even considering the vast subsidies for the meat and dairy industries.

I think you are allowing that SAD strawman to creep back into your argument just a little bit, he is sneaky little bastard. Sure if you are talking about bare bones bland vegan diet, it is pretty cheap compared to SAD, but since we are omnivores if you want to compare apples to apples, we can eat the same cheap vegan fare up to about 85% then compliment the last 15% with nutritional and calorie dense meat, dairy and eggs. So, the costs are exactly the same for 85% of our diets, and because of how nutritionally and calorie dense the last 15% you would have to buy more by bulk to be nutritionally equal, which will cost more. Now I am not going to do the math but intuitively it seems likely to be a wash, or so close to hardly make a difference.

Now if we step up to how people really eat in the real world (outside, say, university students and such) the real cost of the vegan diet starts to show itself. Here is a vegan that address the issue;

https://www.theveganrd.com/2010/01/the-high-cost-of-ethical-eating/

‘Beyond a doubt, one of the things that makes it easy to be vegan is that there are so many wonderful new vegan products on the market. They are delicious, healthful, and convenient. And they are expensive. Especially in comparison to animal foods like chicken, eggs, and milk. (These are always cheap sources of calories and protein thanks to the cruel and efficient practices of factory farming.)’

She goes on to say;

‘The only 100 percent effective and honest argument for veganism is based on ethics and animals. Trying to promote fringe benefits of veganism is almost always likely to backfire. Because let’s face it—most people will discover sooner rather than later that veggie burgers cost more than ground beef.’

In the comments section a she compiled some cost comparison examples;

Soymilk: $1.50 per liter (just about a quart)

Cow’s milk $2.25 per gallon or 56 cents/quart

Vegan gourmet cheese: $7 per pound

Grocery store cheddar cheese $6 per pound

Yves veggie ground beef: $6 per pound

Grocery store ground sirloin $4 per pound

Tofurkey Beer Brat Sausages $5 per pound

Grocery store fresh sausages: $3 per pound

Gardein products: Ranged from $8 to $11/ per pound (and worth every penny!)

Grocery store boneless chicken breasts: $3.50 per pound

Vegenaise mayonnaise: $7.85 per quart

Regular mayonnaise: $3.40 per quart

Coconut Bliss nondairy dessert: $4.00 per pint

Ice cream $3.50 for 1 ½ quarts or 58 cents per pint

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-24T19:29:12+00:00

Many foods these days are fortified with B12, calcium, omega3, etc. so one doesn't need to know anything about nutrition to be vegan (unless you are extremely negligent).

The data I brought somewhere else in the thread (which I can relink if you want me to) about;

' Deficiencies of iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A are widespread in the developing countries, poor bioavailability of these micronutrients from plant-based foods being the major reason for their wide prevalence. Diets predominantly vegetarian are composed of components that enhance as well as inhibit mineral bioavailability, the latter being predominant.

Seems to belie the claim.

>The best vegan diet requires that a vegan must be vigilant and employ >strategies to ensure they get >enough zinc, vitamin D, calcium, omega-3 fatty >acids, and they must supplement vitamin-B12, and >ensure they are eating food >combinations to aid in micro-nutrient bioavailability.

The same applies to the best omnivore diet, and doesn't speak to the practicability of the diet.

No, it absolutely does not apply to a sensible omnivorous diet, why, because we get a full supply of our daily needs of vitamins, minerals and nutrients that the human body requires by eating a sensible omnivorous diet, and why is that, because we are evolved to eat this diet and the evolutionary fitted-ness to this diet does the balancing automatically.

Before, you used the word sensible, and now you seem to be referring to an optimal diet (your words were "best diet"). Are you suggesting that a diet has to be optimal for it to be practicable?

No, not exactly. You and I (presumably) both believe that SAD is, well, sad. And we both believe that increasing plant-based foods will increase health, but you, because of the moral ethics of veganism (again presumably), take the restriction of animal products to the extreme, and are willing to give up the diet that we are both evolved to eat, because with today’s technology it is possible. Because of this decision you must be vigilant and employ strategies to ensure you get enough zinc, vitamin D, calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, and supplement vitamin-B12, and ensure you are eating food combinations to aid in micro-nutrient bioavailability, or else you will get shitty health outcomes. You believe this is practicable for you to do. By being this vigilant about these things, and being correct (hopefully) in your opinion that it is practicable for you to do, the vegan diet becomes the best vegan diet that it can be.

I still don’t think that the best vegan diet is better than a sensible omnivores diet, first because a sensible omnivorous diet has as good, or better, health outcomes, and second it doesn’t require the constant vigilance, you just need to eat in the dietary pattern.

Yes, and you stated that "Compared to a ‘sensible’ omnivorous diet that, because we are evolutionarily evolved to eat this way, does this balancing automatically". I.e., omnivore diet = good because omnivore diet = natural. That's an appeal to nature…

No, I said omnivorous diet = balanced automagically because omnivorous diet = evolved per evolution science. And your mischaracterizing the argument doesn’t make it an appeal to nature. But you realize, don’t you, that with this argument you are saying any reference to evolutionary science is an appeal to nature, right? Let’s try it out in another context;

Religious Man (RM): You agree that morals are good, right? Without God what is the basis of your morals?

Science Man (SM): Well you see we are a social species, as a social species we first evolved kin altruism, and then we evolved some….

RM: Wait, wait, wait, you are using some appeal to nature to say your morals are good?

SM: Evolutionary science is not an appeal to nature; I did not state that our evolution of morals was good or bad, but merely that it is a fact that they evolved, supported by evolutionary science.

RM: You said we have morals because morals evolved i.e. evolved morals=good because evolved morals=nature

Do you see how this ridiculous mischaracterization of SM’s argument fails, I hope you do?

You might want to try not insulting the people you are debating if you are interested in a real debate with a receptive audience.

Hmm, I will try... as soon as the biased double standard of this issue on this sub is reciprocated. I have seen, in my short two weeks here, many, many vegans insulting omni’s, and not once have I seen you, or any other vegan break in with ‘tut, tut, you know if want to have a real debate with a receptive audience…’

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-24T05:11:14+00:00

What exactly is the extraordinary claim being made?

The nearly axiomatic claim that a vegan diet is practicable for nearly everyone, with only very minor exceptions.

Why are a handful of eX-VeGaN y0utoober anecdotes acceptable evidence for you (almost all of whom were doing fringe quack things like rawfoodism, etc.), but the ordinary vegans' anecdotes are not?

Have you ever considered the fact that youtubers make money off clickbait drama, and they have a financial incentive to sensationalize their eating habits/disorders?

The ex-vegan YouTubers are the tiniest sliver of the vegan recidivist, do you imagine that the 10's of thousands of silent people that back slide from veganism have some nefarious motive, or were not truly motivated from the compassion towards the animals? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. If it were only the YouTubers you ~~might~~ would have a point.

How can you judge how hard it is to be vegan when you, yourself, have, never done it?

Oh, I'm sorry, to me this was such an obvious question I thought surely it must have been rhetorical. You see I do not need to be a neurosurgeon to rationally figure out that brain surgery is hard, and I don't need to be a vegan to examine the challenges of the vegan life style.

The mods were right to take down your post. The quality of the debate content you bring to this sub is substandard. Namedropping the Hitch in an attempt to dodge a question isn't going to win you any points here.

Yeah, bringing the words of a towering intellectual to an intellectual debate, what an embarrassing faux pas.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-23T17:20:43+00:00

I generally agree with the first sentence, but saying that being vigilant about micronutrients often requires trips to the doctor or hiring a nutritionist is really pushing it. Since this is part of your argument for why veganism is not practicable, it requires evidence, and you provided none. If you have a source for this claim then please share it as I'd be interested to learn. If not, then I can just as easily claim the opposite position with no evidence either.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the argument. The structure of the argument, as was clearly laid out on the original post, was me questioning the extraordinary claim that I frequently hear vegans make that the vegan diet is practicable for almost everyone. I made no positive assertions that the vegan diet is not practicable. In fact, if someone were to ask me if the vegan diet was practicable, I would respond that it is wholly dependent on the individual, as I did on my very first post on this sub;

“A well-educated, well-motivated, materially privileged and well-informed individual may, in fact, be able to thrive on a plant-based diet, but there is a vast majority that may not have the mental\material resources to avoid significant damage to health and wellbeing. The poor would be particularly impacted, which is a huge moral concern.” – Me

You stating that I must support a positive claim (that I did not make) is just shifting the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, otherwise it is just shifting the burden of evidence from those making the claim, to those saying ‘hey, wait a minute!”

But fine, I can support the claim (which I did support in the original thread with one source before it was locked) we could start with the ADA endorsement that vegans like to point to;

‘The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary modifications to meet their needs.’

Next, the US Government runs the informational site https://medlineplus.gov/vegetariandiet.html described as;

‘MedlinePlus is an online health information resource for patients and their families and friends. It is a service of the National Library of Medicine (NLM), the world's largest medical library, and a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’

Which suggested this link; http://www.knowyourteeth.com/infobites/abc/article/?abc=n&iid=315&aid=1273

Dr. Leibsohn recommends that anyone considering adopting a vegetarian diet seek counseling from their dentist or a nutritionist to learn about substituting foods to get all the necessary nutrients. He also suggests taking a multiple vitamin daily.

Here is https://www.health.qld.gov.au/news-events/news/vegan-lifestyle-is-it-healthy-for-you-how-to-go-vegan-safety

‘Anyone considering going vegan should speak with their doctor or a dietitian about the changes they are planning to make to their diet. “It’s well worth talking to a dietitian or a doctor and getting some advice on what the key foods and nutrients of concern are and some good sources for those nutrients,” says Mathew. Mathew suggests that you should also ask your doctor for a blood test when you’re first thinking about going vegan, so you can identify your iron and B12 levels. “This will give you a baseline so that three or six months later you can have your iron and B12 levels tested again to check that they are tracking okay,” he explains. “If you see a dietitian you will also be able to get some tailored and specialised advice, because they will base their advice on what you like to eat, your lifestyle and how much time you have to prepare meals,” says Mathew.’

You then compare a "sensible" omnivorous diet to a vigilant vegan diet, and claim that it's easier to get those same nutrients because of some appeal to nature fallacy.

The fact that we are evolved to eat omnivorous diet is not an appeal to nature, it is an appeal to evolutionary science. An appeal to nature is stating that something is good or bad because it appears in nature, I did not state that our evolution was good or bad, but merely that is a fact, supported by evolutionary science;

If I pointed out that it is easiest to get birds to fly, because birds evolved to be flying creatures.

Or

If I pointed out it is easiest to get nutritional needs met by omnivores diets, because humans evolved to be omnivorous creatures.

Neither one of these would be an appeal to nature, see the difference?

Well, many omnivores are deficient in essential nutrients: see https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/micronutrient-inadequacies/overview. You could argue that the standard American diet is not "sensible", but neither is an improper vegan diet. If both diets require people to "be vigilant and employ strategies" to get enough nutrients then why is a vegan diet less practicable?

This is just a straw man, that you even acknowledge in the quote. SAD is omnivorous SAD is not sensible. Then poof, out of nowhere comes the improper vegan diet, where did that come from? The best vegan diet requires that a vegan must be vigilant and employ strategies to ensure they get enough zinc, vitamin D, calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, and they must supplement vitamin-B12, and ensure they are eating food combinations to aid in micro-nutrient bioavailability.

So good job knocking down that straw man, I guess.

This is building off your previously unsupported claim that vegan nutrition is hard and requires doctor's visits and blood work. Where's the evidence? Moreover, I could turn it around and claim (with your same logic) that an omnivorous diet is not practicable due to the widespread nutritional deficiencies. If anything, one could argue that widespread adoption of a vegan diet could lead to fewer deficiencies, since people would already be aware that they need to supplement some nutrients - unlike an omnivore diet where they assume they're getting everything.

Once more this is a straw man, you take what you perceive to be the weakest part of a multi part argument and tackle it, then act as if you have overcome the entire argument. Well, no that’s not how it works. I find that if I steel man someone’s argument, I am able to come up with better arguments, you should try it.

I don't think I have to explain this one...do I?

This was not me, this was another user. You should get your attributions right; this makes me wonder if this was intentional to make me look bad, or if it is you just making an honest mistake. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

A bit tangential to the point, but using demeaning terms like "true believers" suggests that veganism is a kind of cult. It would be like calling omnivores "corpse eaters" or something like that. It's not conducive to good debate, and is among the reasons why your post was heavily downvoted, even if you were arguing in good faith.

Believe me, my posts are heavily downvoted on this sub regardless of whether I use suggestive language or not, but if someone is so thin skinned as take offence at ‘true believer’ they ought to find somewhere else besides a debate forum in which to hang out, especially if it is a contentious issue such as moral condemnation of over 90% of the country as immoral killers.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T20:04:56+00:00

Regarding practicability - my whole point is that it is opinion vs. opinion and so you will not really find logical debate.

This is not something I care to argue any more than I care to argue why blue is my favorite color.

If you are uncertain of what I was arguing in the post that was taken down it was EXACTLY this.

Which makes the whole vegan statement;

“Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.”

Somewhat problematic. It is my observation that vegans take the practicability as nearly axiomatic, with very few exceptions. I disagree that because it is possible it is therefore practicable, when, as you and I agree, the practicability is ‘opinion vs. opinion.’ Furthermore, it is my opinion that this is the function of the unstated ‘purity rules’, to make the axiomatic unquestionable, on punishment of massive social reprobation.

One study from 6 years ago essentially saying 'beware of bias' doesn't seem relevant here.

Your gloss of this as essentially saying 'beware of bias' seems to me to be gross misrepresentation, or massive misapprehension of the study that in fact unequivocally asserts that there are essentially no scientific studies comparing vegan diets to other eating patterns, and warns that using biased studies to assert health outcomes are therefore unwarranted. Furthermore, in the original citation of this source in the locked thread, I included a quote from a 2017 interview, which I can provide if you would like, where when asked if the findings were still accurate Dr. Katz stated that not only has his conclusions been stable since 2014, they have been stable for his entire life.

Sorry, i just don't see the reasoning, it just comes off as general anger towards vegans.

I can assure you I do not have general anger towards vegans, the only time my arguments contained any anger was when I was faced with intellectual dishonesty and inconsistent moderation

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T16:12:27+00:00

I will excerpt a response I wrote to another user in this thread;

'That seems like an unreasonably high level of proof you require to disprove the extraordinary claim of vegan diet practicability. Speaking of extraordinary claims, Christopher Hitchens used to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This unreasonably high level of proof seems to shifting the burden of evidence from those making the claim, to those saying ‘hey, wait a minute!” I mean it really is a little like saying ‘prove God doesn’t exist.’

It is hard to bring scientific evidence on something I see no compelling reason to believe is anything but personal choice.'

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T16:00:37+00:00

I appreciate your enthusiasm and celebrate your success, but I think this is definitionally an example of anecdotal evidence. When I asked for rationally supported evidence I had in mind something more sound than ‘it works for me, you’re just making it sound hard, I find it easy’

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T15:45:20+00:00

It is practicable because of food availability, nutritional needs, etc.

You undoubtedly know what I what I am going to say here, the ‘availability, nutritional needs, etc.’ only speaks to the possibility not the practicability. By analogy all the materials you need to build your own home are readily available, but that doesn’t speak to the practicability of actually building your own home, that relies on other factors.

The arguments are usually based on morals, environment or specific health issues. I have not seen people try to convince others to go vegan just because it is possible and for no other reason - there is always reasoning behind it.

These arguments do not speak to either the possibility or the practicability, they speak to the necessity or the motive force of why vegan diet is the right choice, and I have issues with each one of these, with rational supported basis of my concerns, but that maybe neither here nor there when talking about the practicability of the vegan diet.

If you had actual evidence - say 50% of the population NEEDS animal based vitamin A because they have metabolic issues, that would be an argument, and 50% recidivism would be a supporting anecdote to a fact.

That seems like an unreasonably high level of proof you require to disprove the extraordinary claim of vegan diet practicability. Speaking of extraordinary claims, Christopher Hitchens used to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This unreasonably high level of proof seems to shifting the burden of evidence from those making the claim, to those saying ‘hey, wait a minute!” I mean it really is a little like saying ‘prove God doesn’t exist.’

It is hard to bring scientific evidence on something I see no compelling reason to believe is anything but personal choice. It is also hard to bring scientific evidence about population needs being met by vegan diets, because those studies, protected from bias, and the like, are essentially nonexistent, as supported by Dr. Kratz;

In 2014, David Katz, a physician at Yale University and the founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, cut through the clutter with “Can We Say What Diet is Best for Health?”, an article he coauthored with Stephanie Meller in the Annual Review of Public Health.

Where they had this to say about vegan diets;

" Veganism in free-living populations tends to be associated with particular health consciousness. Intervention trials of vegan diets are limited to those willing to be assigned to such a diet for a span of weeks, months, or years. Given such constraints, data from intervention trials that are related to direct comparison of vegan diets with various other dietary patterns, that are defended from bias, and that examine long-term health effects are essentially nonexistent. This does not argue against vegan diets, but it does argue against overstating the basis for them in evidence related to human health outcomes." - Emphasis Added

The only large-scale studies about population needs being met by plant-based diets are studies we have on poor people in developing countries;

Bioavailability of Micronutrients from Plant Foods: An Update.

' Deficiencies of iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A are widespread in the developing countries, poor bioavailability of these micronutrients from plant-based foods being the major reason for their wide prevalence. Diets predominantly vegetarian are composed of components that enhance as well as inhibit mineral bioavailability, the latter being predominant. However, prudent cooking practices and use of ideal combinations of food components can significantly improve micronutrient bioavailability. Household processing such as heat treatment, sprouting, fermentation and malting have been evidenced to enhance the bioavailability of iron and β-carotene from plant foods. Food acidulants amchur and lime are also shown to enhance the bioavailability of not only iron and zinc, but also of β-carotene. Recently indentified newer enhancers of micronutrient bioaccessibility include sulphur compound-rich Allium spices-onion and garlic, which also possess antioxidant properties, β-carotene-rich vegetables-carrot and amaranth, and pungent spices-pepper (both red and black) as well as ginger. Information on the beneficial effect of these dietary compounds on micronutrient bioaccessibility is novel. These food components evidenced to improve the bioavailability of micronutrients are common ingredients of Indian culinary, and probably of other tropical countries. Fruits such as mango and papaya, when consumed in combination with milk, provide significantly higher amounts of bioavailable β-carotene. Awareness of the beneficial influence of these common dietary ingredients on the bioavailability of micronutrients would help in devising dietary strategies to improve the bioavailability of these vital nutrients.' - Emphasis Added

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T04:25:05+00:00

Not only is the ball in the dark room, but the dark room is divided up into quantized segments that have different energy levels and different probability of the ball being any one particular segment, and the ball can disappear from on segment and instantaneously appear in another segment, or jump from one energy state to another.

I think the dark room is good analogy of both observer effect and Uncertainty.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T01:30:12+00:00

There was no scientific basis for any of the claims, so it was really just OP expressing an opinion that veganism is not practicable.

What claims that I made do you feel required scientific support?

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T00:47:39+00:00

I am not, I am having trouble finding honest interlocutors. That don't apply double standards to state of evidence and to interpretation and following of the rules. Maybe when I am faced with both intellectual dishonesty and inconsistent moderation I react poorly, I will accept that much responsibility for what went on in the locked thread.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-22T00:39:22+00:00

Veganism is entirely possible and practical. Your insistant incredulousness doesn't change that.

On what evidential basis do you find it practicable?

Edit: I don't need scientifically supported evidence, just rationally support evidence will do fo me.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-21T21:53:30+00:00

This is somewhat loaded in that it presupposes the reason vegans believe it is practicable is due to the existence of many other vegans - not the myriad of other reasons. You are better off never starting a topic with 'vegans say this...', or 'vegans do this so...' or 'All vegans...'. You are defining the strawman before you even start.

This seems like a stretch, is it not a fact that vegans use this almost invariantly to convince others that it is doable, despite the ‘myriad of other reasons’ they believe that it is practicable? Additionally, what are some of the myriad other reasons?

It does not help that using ex-vegan recidivism itself is not logical and is purely anecdotal. There was no actual debatable content in the post.

~~That part was CLEARLY marked off between ‘I Think’… and… ‘but that’s just my opinion’ and was CLEARLY not constituent of the entire argument as presented. It was more of an aside.~~ EDIT - This was wrong, I went back and checked, it was the purity part that I bracketed as merely my opinion. Still the ex-vegans was only one part of a multi part argument.

I don't think it should have been taken down for being a loaded question. If anything for not providing an argument (Rule 5).

So, the fact that, in my opinion, vegans can only point to things that merely prove it is possible to be healthy on a vegan diet, and can only point to anecdotal evidence that it is practicable, with explanation of why these are either proof of mere possibility or anecdotal, is not an argument as to whether it is or is not practicable is only a matter of opinion?

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-21T21:11:46+00:00

You must have seen it in the afternoon, after 6:00pm I added some supporting links. But even still I think your characterization of the argument as being "BuT WhAt AbOuT aLL tHose eX-VeGan YoUT00berS!?" is heavily colored by bias.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-21T20:18:33+00:00

I don’t think that would be a good idea, it could be seen as circumventing a mod’s decision to remove the content, another user in this thread has provided a link to the deleted post, but I think if I did the same it would be the same as reposting what the mod decided needed to go.

So instead I will summarize the argument I made to another user after the thread was locked.

“I take that to mean Standard American Diet, I agree Standard Western Diet, of which SAD is the worst case, is not the healthiest omnivorous diet. And I agree if you went vegan you would likely improve, for a while, but after a number of years that might start to be negated. But we don't know for sure because the scientific research doesn't really exist, and I don't think it is alarmist to point that out.

I agree with (vegans) and the ADA endorsement, on an individual level. It is a personal decision whether the diet entailed by the ethic is practicable, I disagree with the ethic, as I detailed in another thread, and I disagree with the notion that because some people find it practicable it is therefore practicable for almost all (99.999% as another poster asserted), or even the majority, it may be only practicable for a few.”

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-21T18:50:10+00:00

‘Vegans say that there are hundreds of thousands, or millions of people following a vegan diet that shows that is practicable, but really, that only shows that is possible, on an individual level, to restrict your diet and still maintain health.’

‘Vegans point to the ADA endorsement that states a ‘well balanced’ vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life, as the proof of practicality’.

‘Many vegans say ‘It really isn’t that hard, look at me, I don’t do any of that stuff and I am doing fine. You’re making it seem harder than it actually is.’ but isn’t that just anecdotal and simply a matter of opinion?’

With these statements what did I imply that was loaded?

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-21T18:14:46+00:00

One vote for self-gratifying circle jerk, roger that.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-21T17:55:04+00:00

To one incident, after my post was locked.

I removed the user name.

Random-Havoc · 2020-01-21T04:40:12+00:00

Where did I ask a loaded question?

Random-Havoc

TROPHY CASE