Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

You're forgetting about this that was BEFORE that message. You gonna concede your argument to me first?

That changes nothing. You made a claim going way beyond mechanisms, said you could provide over 6 sources, and then were unable to provide anything.

There are tons of unknowns without eating the diet we're supposed to eat. There was so many issues in studies where they gave animals all the things they thought animals needed but without meat.

Yet millions of vegans around the world live and eat just fine.

Whining about the use of supplements and fortified foods, even though they're readily available and harmless, is inane.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Also, it's theorized that meat is the reason humans became smart and have the reasoning we do have.

That's one possible explanation, but it's considered a fairly weak one. The more likely reason is fire.

But if this is wrong and meat did allow for increased human intelligence, then all that prooves is that meat was an integral part of the diet of earlier hominids like homo erectus. Homo sapiens have had access to fire for their entire evolutionary history. One consequence of this is that we have relatively weak stomach acid and can't even eat raw meat safely because our stomachs won't kill the bacteria that give us food poisoning. But fire doesn't just kill the dangerous bacteria in meat, it also greatly increases the nutritional benefit of vegetables relative to the energy expended in digestion, which means it's entirely possible to support the caloric requirements of a modern human body using only vegetables.

The only real limitation to a vegan diet is vitamin B12. B12 deficiency is responsible for almost all of the health problems associated with veganism, but can be entirely mitigated in most cases with supplements. It's also worth noting that a significant proportion of the human population lacks the ability to metabolize sufficient B12 from food regardless of what they eat. We don't notice in most cases because, unless it actually gets bad, it's just one of the many stresses that the human body is able to tolerate.

Humans are "supposed" to eat sugar. It's the only taste that is innately appealing to humans from birth.

 

[McElroy]

B12 deficiency is responsible for almost all of the health problems associated with veganism

Iron deficiency is a much bigger issue, because B12 is easy to supplement and more importantly it's easy to communicate the need for it. Vitamin D is of course recommended for everyone, but obviously vegans have no chance to eat two servings of fish per week that could alleviate the need for supplementation on that front.

 

[Satinavian]

There are a couple of potential pitfalls with a pure vegan diet and i personally know people who ruined their health with it.
That said, non-vegan diets are not automatically healthy either. It is always in the specifics.

The more likely reason is fire.

Indeed. Especially as it allowed for a bigger brain by way of smaller jaw and teeth.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That changes nothing. You made a claim going way beyond mechanisms, said you could provide over 6 sources, and then were unable to provide anything.



Yet millions of vegans around the world live and eat just fine.

Whining about the use of supplements and fortified foods, even though they're readily available and harmless, is inane.

Are you gonna concede your argument about mechanisms? That was the earlier argument.

And how many switch back to eating meat? Also, you cut out the important part about the animal studies and how the animal itself didn't have too many issues but it was the later generations that did.

That's one possible explanation, but it's considered a fairly weak one. The more likely reason is fire.

But if this is wrong and meat did allow for increased human intelligence, then all that prooves is that meat was an integral part of the diet of earlier hominids like homo erectus. Homo sapiens have had access to fire for their entire evolutionary history. One consequence of this is that we have relatively weak stomach acid and can't even eat raw meat safely because our stomachs won't kill the bacteria that give us food poisoning. But fire doesn't just kill the dangerous bacteria in meat, it also greatly increases the nutritional benefit of vegetables relative to the energy expended in digestion, which means it's entirely possible to support the caloric requirements of a modern human body using only vegetables.

The only real limitation to a vegan diet is vitamin B12. B12 deficiency is responsible for almost all of the health problems associated with veganism, but can be entirely mitigated in most cases with supplements. It's also worth noting that a significant proportion of the human population lacks the ability to metabolize sufficient B12 from food regardless of what they eat. We don't notice in most cases because, unless it actually gets bad, it's just one of the many stresses that the human body is able to tolerate.

Humans are "supposed" to eat sugar. It's the only taste that is innately appealing to humans from birth.

As I said above, there's most likely more issues with a vegan diet than we know per the animal studies. And sugar exists in nature with a certain ratio of fiber like sugar cane has tons of sugar but also tons of fiber whereas an orange has much less sugar with less fiber. We massively broke that ratio over the past hundred or so years.

Iron deficiency is a much bigger issue, because B12 is easy to supplement and more importantly it's easy to communicate the need for it. Vitamin D is of course recommended for everyone, but obviously vegans have no chance to eat two servings of fish per week that could alleviate the need for supplementation on that front.

It's hard to get decent vitamin d without getting from the sun though.

 

[McElroy]

It's hard to get decent vitamin d without getting from the sun though.

Hard is relative here. People in the northern latitudes used to fish a lot more.

 

[Silvanus]

Are you gonna concede your argument about mechanisms? That was the earlier argument.

I made no claims about mechanisms that turned out to be wrong. You asked for a causal link between obesity and type 2 diabetes. I provided that. Then you responded with more amateur analysis of insulin resistance to dispute it.

You made an enormous claim going well beyond mechanisms, for which you claimed to be able to provide plenty of sources, but you couldn't provide a single one.

And how many switch back to eating meat? Also, you cut out the important part about the animal studies and how the animal itself didn't have too many issues but it was the later generations that did.

So, in short, more speculation. Those animals weren't getting the nutrients they needed. Vegan humans can-- from readily-available supplements and fortified foods.

 

[Cicada 5]

Anyone who thinks sexual objectification didn't exist in the 1800s needs to go back to school. At the kindergarten level.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Hard is relative here. People in the northern latitudes used to fish a lot more.

Lots of areas in northern latitudes don't have access to readily available fish, especially in times before the modern world. Even with fish, I very much doubt you can get ideal levels, the minimum you need though and probably a bit more.

I made no claims about mechanisms that turned out to be wrong. You asked for a causal link between obesity and type 2 diabetes. I provided that. Then you responded with more amateur analysis of insulin resistance to dispute it.

You made an enormous claim going well beyond mechanisms, for which you claimed to be able to provide plenty of sources, but you couldn't provide a single one.



So, in short, more speculation. Those animals weren't getting the nutrients they needed. Vegan humans can-- from readily-available supplements and fortified foods.

Yeah you did.
Listen. You explicitly said that a mechanism between obesity and diabetes has not been established. I've now provided a direct, explicit academic source pointing to the mechanism.

I debunked that and you haven't acknowledged that. Or remember that time I explained exactly how the Trump ballot case would go down and you said I don't have a basic framework of the legal system?

The studies were about giving the animals everything we thought they needed. That is exactly what vegans do now, get everything they think they need, there's tons of unknowns in nutrition.

 

[Silvanus]

I debunked that and you haven't acknowledged that.

Because you didn't "debunk" shit. You just offered more amateur analysis of your own: nothing authoritative or meaningful. I don't value your opinion, so none of that is compelling.

Fact remains: you said you could provide "over 6 sources" for your claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. You have provided absolutely none. And you keep expecting people to just trust your amateur analysis instead.

All you're doing now is trying to deflect from that.

The studies were about giving the animals everything we thought they needed. That is exactly what vegans do now, get everything they think they need, there's tons of unknowns in nutrition.

So all you have is speculation, then. Good talk.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because you didn't "debunk" shit. You just offered more amateur analysis of your own: nothing authoritative or meaningful. I don't value your opinion, so none of that is compelling.

Fact remains: you said you could provide "over 6 sources" for your claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. You have provided absolutely none. And you keep expecting people to just trust your amateur analysis instead.

All you're doing now is trying to deflect from that.



So all you have is speculation, then. Good talk.

I showed you with actual science that fat around organs isn't required. You know like doing a study with the scientific method, testing your hypothesis, and they actually found their hypothesis to be wrong. I don't know how many times I have to say this, it's not my opinion, I didn't do the research or anything. You haven't admitted your were wrong about that. Or the Trump ballot case, it wasn't my opinion, just basic understanding of how rules work and interact.

What's your addiction to authority? You do realize "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, right? It doesn't prove anything.

You don't understand that nutrition is a rather young science and we don't know that much and to act like we do it's great hubris. Just completely changing you diet to something unknown isn't a smart idea. Something will be discovered that you're missing that you don't know like with the animal studies.

 

[Silvanus]

I showed you with actual science that fat around organs isn't required.

No, you offered amateur analysis. I don't care what you've concluded from amateur analysis.

What's your addiction to authority? You do realize "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, right? It doesn't prove anything.

Dude, you're the one who said you could easily provide expert sources, and then failed to do so. Don't whine at me for expecting you to actually cough up.

You don't understand that nutrition is a rather young science and we don't know that much and to act like we do it's great hubris.

Yet here you are proclaiming certain diets "invalid" with your usual arrogant certainty, based on pure speculation.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

What's your addiction to authority? You do realize "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, right? It doesn't prove anything.

Your inane, self-serving rants do not hold the same value as expert opinion. And should we ever enter a time that they do, humanity will be ruined.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you offered amateur analysis. I don't care what you've concluded from amateur analysis.



Dude, you're the one who said you could easily provide expert sources, and then failed to do so. Don't whine at me for expecting you to actually cough up.



Yet here you are proclaiming certain diets "invalid" with your usual arrogant certainty, based on pure speculation.

I copied/pasted what the researchers said and what the study said. How is is it my analysis?

You gonna admit being wrong first? You can't even admit I was right about Trump's bullshit ballot case.

If you ate a vegan diet in any other times but modern times, you'd die. Sounds like a bad diet to me.

Your inane, self-serving rants do not hold the same value as expert opinion. And should we ever enter a time that they do, humanity will be ruined.

I only quote experts. Who are ones voting for and defending political parties that you b!tch endlessly about ruining humanity? Oh yeah, that's you guys. But I'm the one that's ruining humanity by trying to get all the people out of office that you all claim are ruining humanity.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Your inane, self-serving rants do not hold the same value as expert opinion. And should we ever enter a time that they do, humanity will be ruined.

Their rants in particular, or those sort of rants in general? Cause the former has happened on local scales fairly often, and humanity, even locally, survived.

In a more general sense, I think there'd be enough of a kerfuffle when we get towards, but not quite to that point to swing the other way, at least temporarily.

 

[Silvanus]

I copied/pasted what the researchers said and what the study said. How is is it my analysis?

You copied/pasted experts.... saying other things. None of them actually demonstrated what you claimed. None of them corroborated the conclusions you came to. You made the leap between what they did show/say and your own conclusions.

"Fat around the organs isn't required" =/= "no mechanical link between obesity and diabetes".

"Some experts think sugar is a cause of diabetes, others don't, there's lots we don't know" =/= "overeating sugar is definitely the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes".

OK? OK. Enough of this pathetic distraction. You explicitly said you could provide over 6 sources for your claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause. I don't care if you don't value expert opinion: you're the one who claimed you could find those sources. Either provide them, or acknowledge that you can't.

If you ate a vegan diet in any other times but modern times, you'd die. Sounds like a bad diet to me.

...we're in modern times.

 

[Satinavian]

“As fundamental as diet is to health, you need to keep in mind the diet for which we’ve been adapted genetically,“ said James O’Keefe, MD, the study’s lead author and director of preventive cardiology at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute. “Animal-based foods have been an important part of the human diet for at least three million years. Eliminating all animal foods would be like deciding you’re going to feed a tiger tofu and expect that it’s going to be healthy. If you want an organism to thrive, you should feed it the diet for which it’s been genetically adapted via evolution down through the ages.”

That argument is incredibly stupid. They should at least have used an omnivore like a pig or even a chicken instead of a tiger when comparing to human.

That would also be way easier to test considering endangered species and animal rights. (There are certainly no extensive studies of vegan diets for tigers so this whole argument is based in you imagining how bad tofu is for a carnivore. But there sure are studies of varies diets of farm animals and how cheaply they can be fed without impacting health or growth.)

 

[Elijin]

For most of humanity, if you venture out at night, you will be eaten by wolves or die of pneumonia or something. So going out at night is obviously pretty terrible.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For most of humanity, if you venture out at night, you will be eaten by wolves or die of pneumonia or something. So going out at night is obviously pretty terrible.

It's only relatively recently that we've developed fire and tools and unlocked god mode, yeah.

 

[Ag3ma]

You copied/pasted experts.... saying other things. None of them actually demonstrated what you claimed. None of them corroborated the conclusions you came to. You made the leap between what they did show/say and your own conclusions.

And yet even still mechanism has been claimed as sufficient to defend that sugar causes diabetes aone (despite a compelling mechanism being absent anyway), but mechanism is irrelevant to defend the usefulness of masks restricting the spread of covid, which can only be justified by randomised control trial.