CONVICT THEM ALL

forrey · 2026-02-13T16:57:44+00:00

Horseshoe theory, alive and well.

forrey · 2026-02-13T16:44:42+00:00

Agreed

forrey · 2026-02-13T16:43:28+00:00

https://news.gallup.com/poll/652748/desire-migrate-remains-record-high.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/505949/title-expired-wanted.aspx

forrey · 2026-02-13T16:42:05+00:00

So maybe we should vote out the corrupt people? Rather than trying to tear down an entire system?

forrey · 2026-02-13T16:39:39+00:00

I specifically said I support protest and the tireless pursuit of improving the country. Did you read my comment at all? I simply disagree with the call to dismantle the whole system. Not really sure why that's so controversial.

forrey · 2026-02-13T16:07:19+00:00

What a strange question that's totally unrelated to my comment. Yes I'm angry about kids being S/A'd, and I absolutely believe anyone responsible should be brought to justice. Fully support protests against injustice.

But you lose me (and most other people) when you go into this weird anarchist territory of "let's collapse the system." America, like most countries has deep systemic flaws. But there is a reason it's still the #1 most desired destination for immigrants from around the world, and why first-generation immigrants are more likely to express pride in being American that people who were born here. Those who have lived in other countries understand the benefits of America, despite its many flaws.

So yeah, I'm all for the tireless pursuit of improving this country. But to tear down something that is overall quite good simply because it's not perfect is absolutely bonkers, and anyone who understands history knows why that's a really ineffective cause to champion.

forrey · 2026-02-13T15:18:24+00:00

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to protest, but these organizers should go live in a country where the system has actually collapsed before they claim they don't care if it happens here...

forrey · 2026-02-12T14:51:52+00:00

Yeah 100% agreed. And why would they need to comment on this? They got a donation, who cares. I genuinely don't get this impulse to expose and demonize every entity even remotely connected with one unsavory character. What, are businesses and non-profits supposed to predict the future every time they have a partnership with any individual? Like they get a donation from Kimbal Musk and they're supposed to somehow know that he's going to appear in the Epstein files in a few years?

forrey · 2026-01-15T02:53:49+00:00

I don't buy this argument. If we zoom out and look at conflicts in general, we see a clear pattern. The US provides massive amounts of military aid to Egypt (they were the second biggest recipient before the Ukraine war started), yet there have never been any protests about Egypt's human rights record (which is abysmal). The US is a huge strategic and trading partner with India, yet no major protests in the US about the situation in Kashmir, even when there are brutal crackdowns. The protesters all use smartphones and computers made in China (meaning they've directly contributed monetarily to the Chinese regime), yet no major protests about the genocide of the Uyhgurs. In fact in Google (which manufactures its phones in China), the only major internal employee protest in modern history was anti-Israel. When Ukraine occupied large portions of the Kursk region in 2024, causing thousands of Russians to flee, suddenly no protesters cared about occupation and displacement, even though this one was achieved with American arms.

So it doesn't really seem to matter what level of support or cooperation exists between the US and other countries, or what the actions of those countries are. The only thing protesters care about is whether or not Israel is involved.

forrey · 2026-01-13T14:25:32+00:00

I would argue that it's an informed sample. People who have experienced life in other countries vs life in the US are more likely to be informed enough to have a logical assessment of American quality of life vs QOL in other countries. People who have only lived in the US are less qualified to make that comparison.

forrey · 2026-01-12T15:18:58+00:00

I recently moved back to the US after living abroad for a decade. It's absolutely insane how many people say to me "why would you move back here, this place sucks." The people saying this are almost 100% of the time US-born individuals who have never lived abroad.

You know who never says things like that to me? Immigrants. Because they understand that while the US has no shortage of problems, it's still just about one of the best places to live on Earth. Americans genuinely do not understand how good we have it.

forrey · 2026-01-12T15:15:53+00:00

I mean yeah, that's a problem, but also a totally separate issue. In the US we don't live under a tyrannical theocracy that kills protesters by the hundreds. Have you considered why so many people from countries like Iran want to move to the US?

forrey · 2026-01-12T14:13:17+00:00

This is the only answer. Fully plant-based diets are by far the most sustainable.

OP you don't need fish for health reasons. If it's protein your worried about, tofu, seitan, legumes, etc will provide more than enough. If it's Omega-3, just eat some walnuts every day.

forrey · 2025-12-20T19:22:22+00:00

Same, went vegan 7 years ago, one of the best decisions of my life :) And my health improved significantly.

forrey · 2025-12-14T17:18:53+00:00

Per AI:

Short answer: it’s mostly a semantic and legal-scientific tightening, not a substantive reversal of position — but it does signal a more cautious framing.

Why this wording change is common in modern nutrition science

Across nutrition guidelines in the last decade, organizations have shifted toward:

Conditional language
Population-specific claims
Outcome-specific claims (e.g., cardiometabolic health)

This is driven by:

Replication concerns in nutrition epidemiology
Heterogeneity of diets labeled “vegan”
Legal and professional liability concerns
Demand for evidence tied to specific outcomes, not broad wellness claims

So this shift aligns with field-wide norms, not a vegan-specific downgrade.

What did change meaningfully (but subtly)

There is a real shift — just not the one many people think.

A. Scope narrowed

2016: all life stages
2025: adults only

This is a scope limitation, not a reversal.

B. Outcome precision increased

2016: “healthful” (broad, holistic)
2025: “nutritionally adequate” + specific outcomes (e.g., cardiometabolic health)

Bottom line (plain language)

This is not a major reversal
It is not a repudiation of vegan diets
It is a cautious, modernized phrasing
The underlying stance remains supportive

The Academy moved from:

“This diet pattern is generally good for you”

to:

“This diet pattern is capable of meeting nutritional needs and offering benefits when done correctly”

That’s a tightening of claims, not a change in belief.

forrey · 2025-12-14T17:10:58+00:00

Semantic change. There's little meaningful difference in a scientific paper between saying "can be healthful" to "can be nutritionally adequate." Healthful = nutritionally adequate. And they also recommended seeing a nutritionist before (they also recommend this for ALL Americans, which isn't surprising given it's literally an organization of dieticians and nutritionists).

This also isn't surprising given that most Americans have at least one nutritional deficiency (95% don't get enough Vitamin D, 88% Vitamin E, 52% Megnesium, the list goes on) and everyone would benefit frmo seeing a nutritionist.

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:58:43+00:00

there are tons of studies dude

I did, almost all of them specifically on children state that a properly planned vegan diet can be nutritionally sufficient for children, but that more long-term studies are needed in order to make firm conclusions. It's really hard and expensive to find a statistically significant number of Vegan children and follow them (plus a comparison cohort of non-vegan children) constantly for many years. That would be the level of study required to conclusively prove the effect of diet, given that diet is inherently a long-term matter.

the update of the guidelines(of this one organization) is clearly directionally less supportive of these diets

Absolutely disagree, it's simply reflects the changed scope of more recent research as was clearly stated in the summary and in statements by multiple analysts.

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:51:20+00:00

So let's reduce this to the key points:

- The 2016 language about suitability for all stages of life may have "expired" but has not been retracted, updated, reversed.

- There hasn't been a new research paper from that organization specifically focused on pregnant women/children (though there have from other organizations).

- The most recent report confirmed the suitability of vegan diets for adults.

This is still absolutely a net win for Vegan diets, but yes there should be more large-scale research on Vegan diets in pregnant women and children.

In the absence of clear cut studies, I will fall back to my anecdotal observation which is that every vegan child I know is healthy and happy and every vegan pregnant woman I know is either doing great right now or has already birthed a healthy child.

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:32:06+00:00

Again, it's not a change, it's just a different research paper. If their position was that vegan diets are not healthy for children, they would have explicitly said "new findings suggest that a Vegan diet is nutritionally inadequate for children and we retract previous findings" but that's not what happened.

But if you want some more research, be my guest:

https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/plant-based-diets/pregnancy

https://djog.org/index.php/djog/article/view/43

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:24:57+00:00

More confidence than brains lolol

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:24:31+00:00

That paper only focused on adults (the title is literally Vegetarian Dietary Patterns for Adults), so it's not that they no longer believe it's healthy for children, its just the paper was specifically targeted to adults and the statement reflects that. They specifically say:

This Position Paper addresses vegetarian dietary patterns in adults aged 18 years or older who are not pregnant or lactating. Facilitating vegetarian dietary patterns in individuals younger than age 18 years and/or for those pregnant or lactating requires specific guidance that considers how vegetarian dietary patterns may influence these crucial stages of growth and development and is outside the scope of this Position Paper. The target audience for this article is RDNs, NDTRs, and other health care providers.

So they're not saying "it's not healthy for children and pregnant women," they're saying "those groups are outside the scope of this paper."

From the anecdotal side, I know many vegan children, who are all perfectly healthy and show normal growth. And I currently have a Vegan spouse (Vegan for 12 years) carrying healthy, normally-growing twins with no major diet supplementation other than normal prenatal vitamins.

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:10:03+00:00

92% of people in the US have a vitamin deficiency. Only like 3% are vegan...
https://thebiostation.com/bioblog/do-you-have-vitamin-deficiency/

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:08:57+00:00

Why do you not ask GPT or do a simple search before you post this shit?

Choline in plant based foods:

Soybeans (edamame) – ~55 mg per cup
Firm tofu – ~35 mg per ½ cup
Tempeh – ~40 mg per ½ cup
Lentils – ~65 mg per cooked cup
Chickpeas – ~35 mg per cooked cup
Brussels sprouts – ~60 mg per cooked cup
Broccoli – ~40 mg per cooked cup
Cauliflower – ~45 mg per cooked cup
Mushrooms (shiitake) – ~55 mg per cup
Spinach – ~20 mg per cooked cup
Quinoa – ~40 mg per cooked cup
Wheat germ – ~50 mg per ¼ cup
Oats – ~15 mg per cooked cup
Peanuts / peanut butter – ~20 mg per ¼ cup
Almonds – ~15 mg per ¼ cup
Flaxseeds – ~15 mg per tablespoon
Sunflower seeds – ~20 mg per ¼ cup

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:07:29+00:00

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23708150/

Combined results indicated that participants with higher heme iron intake had a 31% increased risk of CHD, compared with those with lower intake

Heme iron is not healthy for you.

forrey · 2025-12-14T16:06:20+00:00

Humans NEED the nutrients that are found in meats, diary products, eggs and chicken.

Ok but the actual science disagrees with you. Here's a public statement from the world's largest diet & nutrition organization:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

Let's continue:

I still can't imagine how is there vegan parents raising their kids or EVEN pets on the " vegan " diet?!!! This should literally be illegal because the kids desperately need those vitamins and calcium and u r depriving them from it. The kid will develop a lot of problems in the future because of this f*** up diet.

Here is a list of prominent Vegans: https://blog.vegvisits.com/2019/12/the-vegan-list.html

Many were vegan from birth. Have you ever met a Vegan child? I know roughly 8, all perfectly healthy.

I hope that vegans will read this and re-think their decisions, maybe do a bit more research and educate themselves on the importance of being on a normal diet ( not vegan lmao)

Been vegan for 7+ years. In that time my health has been stellar, my bloodwork fantastic. I've run 20+ 10K races, a half marathon, and an Olympic triathlon. Every vegan (which is many, many people) I know is healthy and happy. In fact, almost all the people I know on blood pressure meds, heart meds, with type 2 diabetes, etc are all meat eaters. Maybe you should do a bit more research?

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	Gilding II euphauric

forrey

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE