sirdorius

Maybe it wasn’t clear in my above comment, but I am not in favor of the status quo. My example was just to show how our current view is limited and we should very much strive for progress, since we don’t know what is possible.

Did peasants in the middle ages believe in a constitutional democracy? And yes, I’m aware we don’t live in a perfect democracy, but it would still seem like utopia to people from a few centuries ago.

Look I’m not telling anyone what they NEED, I said that they can consider a vegan diet because X, Y, Z reasons. You keep twisting my words and offering zero interesting arguments. But since you seem to be a little insecure little troll on an anti vegan campaign judging by your post history, I will not waste any more time responding to you.

So it was the same position since '87 to '21 through 5 renewals, but since there isn’t a new one since 2021 it’s not valid anymore? Did they state this position was not valid anymore?

This is the exact same thing I linked in the post above. What is your point?

Of course. I have a friend who is allergic to most vegetable protein. She would be in ER if she ate a tomato. Of course she can never be vegan. But most people have no health risks of the sorts. I don’t have any data on this, but I would bet on 90% of the population having absolutely no issue with a vegan diet. The “not all people can” argument is moot.

The AND paper from 2016 doesn’t seem expired, just removed from some site redesign: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ The fact that the position hasn’t changed in more than 13 years should be an indication that it still holds. You don’t need to prove that water is wet every few years to make sure it’s still a valid stance.

The NHS respects your life choices, and makes recommendations for nutrients based on those choices.

Any talk about nutrition will be prefaced about getting certain nutrients. If omnivore diets had no risk of deficiencies we wouldn’t need dietitians. Any talk about an omnivore diet will be prefaced with fiber, which is easier to be lacking in that diet.

I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I was just challenging the outdated notion that you NEED to be an omnivore to have a healthy diet.

Vystopia is just a side effect. If I had a cent for every depressing thing in life I would be a millionaire. Dealing with depressing shit is just part of life. Suggesting that someone shouldn’t become vegan because they might get depressed is ridiculous. The same could be said about politics, gay rights, abortion rights etc, etc. Just live in a monastery, don’t care about anything worldly and you won’t be depressed. And veganism isn’t just about being depressed. There is a complementary effect of happiness from feeling connected to and respecting every living being in the world.

• https://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(17)30260-0/fulltext
• https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/
• https://www.jandonline.org/article/S0002-8223%2803%2900294-3/fulltext
• https://web.archive.org/web/20190708160222/https://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx

And many more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Positions_of_dietetic_and_government_associations

But you’re probably not going to read any of that and were just hoping for some gotcha moment

Wow, looks amazing. Can’t wait to get my new desktop and play this!

I do also make compelling rational discourse on the matter most of the time. Other times I make emotional ones out of frustration. Like all humans, I/we are a balance of rationality and emotion. One is not better than the other, they are complementary. You know, the whole apollonian vs dionysian thing.

On the contrary, I would argue that non vegans dim their emotional response, thus throwing away the very thing that makes them human.

Thank goodness for these “animal lovers” that are okay with killing and eating more than 10 land animals per year + god knows how many sea creatures. But hey, they bought some incestuous pure breed dog from a breeder for thousands of euros so they can pretend they care.

GDP is not a good indicator for quality of life for a bunch of different factors. You need to get your theory right before you try to look for high numbers

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?locations=FR

I don’t understand if you’re dumb or just trolling at this point

That part was from the original Times article that the author is criticizing. It’s hard to get, because the author doesn’t understand how to use quotes properly. But the fact that a liberal can even read and write is already an achievement, so let’s not ask too much.

“Socialist economies also banned independent trade unions and, often, resorted to slave labour.”

The author’s inability to understand socialism is baffling. By the very definition of socialism, states that do this are not socialist. He is basically picking at capitalist economies that call themselves socialist for populist acceptance.

I thought it was some dumb clickbait, but it’s just dumb Elon

Vegan diets have been confirmed to be as good as omnivore diets, even better in some aspects, multiple and multiple times by research, so this point is moot.

We are not attacking you, though your defensiveness speaks volumes. We simply want a better world where billions of animals aren’t tortured and killed every year for a diet that is unnecessary, for the profit of shady corporations and that is contributing to our unsustainable lifestyle.

No vegan is triggered by this argument. It is simply the naturalistic fallacy.

Cats and dogs have no metacognition. They can barely recognize themselves in the mirror. We do. We have the ability to think about our actions, assign them moral value and better ourselves. That ability is completely wasted if you hold yourself to the same standard as a dog or cat. Is it ok to sniff random people’s buttholes because dogs do it? To eat your own children because some wild animals do it?

So in German the phrase would go like “You prove, that I can’t fly” so I’m guessing the author omitted ‘that’ for brevity

/end over analysis