I'd tell ya why I did it, but it's much more fun to listen to you pop off at the mouth. Do tell exactly what your experience has been and why you concluded it's a donk move.

I’ve never cut off my leg but I feel qualified to say it would be a donk move with no such experience

So, you think I'd be healthier leaner? I think I'm good, but okay.

Okay, so now you think being out of shape is better? Good thing I didn't try that vegan diet you were recommending, then.

In case anyone had trouble with the link: here

What if the goal is to become a double-amputee? Donk move or not?

Lol at banning him and then asking him questions.

He'll be back tomorrow. This will give him time to think of his reply.

I just cant imagine anyone with half a brain ever going raw vegan.

I mean I would stare at the greatest food of all time (the lentil) and just say WTF. WTF. I would then google raw lentils and see that i am supposed to soak it for a while and then eat it. WTF. WTF.

I am not being very imaginative here but the only way raw vegan makes sense is if I was stranded on an island and i couldnt get a fire going so i subsist off berries and cocunuts. Then i become friends with my volleyball Wilson due to my lack of calories and nutrients. But i will be ripped to the bone, thats Fosho.

Lol at eating raw soaked lentils. That's dangerous, donk.

It's also important to keep in mind the central role cooking had in human development. Would humanity even exist without cooked food?

That does not mean we have to cook food today, of course. But, it does mean humans are uniquely adapted to cooked food.

I'm so far behind this thread now lol. Had company that came to town I had to tend to. There's a lot of posts I wanna respond to over the next so many weeks. Doubt I'll get to them all. I guess I'll start chronologically with this post.

It's all about whether you attach your morality to suffering or not. Some people don't. For some people morality is a list of rules in some archaic book. For others it's what their culture says. IMO the only rational form of morality is one hinged to suffering. If something you do causes suffering to other beings who have the capacity to suffer then it's wrong, period. Morality based on superstition, culture norms, etc is an irrational form of morality that's not worth taking seriously.

That being said, causing suffering to other sentient beings and eating them is not inherently wrong. We can all imagine extreme scenarios where it would be justified, and we know many humans are in some of those extreme scenarios right now. So what I'm really saying is--assuming one is willing to accept a rational form of morality based on minimizing suffering--if one wants to advocate for anything that causes suffering to others the burden of proof is on them. Meaning they have to make their case. If their case is compelling then maybe we accept it. If not then we reject it. The default position is don't cause/minimize suffering.

A similar idea is with pacifism. I'm a pacifist but that doesn't mean I'm against violence. It just means that those advocating violence have a burden of proof to meet. Non-violence is the default. It doesn't have to be justified.
If they can meet that burden of proof in whatever particular situation they're talking about than I'll join team violence. For example, I doubt pacifism would've solved the Hitler problem.

Same with anarchism. Philosophically I'm an anarchist--even tho I'm a massive hypocrite in real life--which means the burden of proof are on those advocating authority. They have to make the case. I don't. If they can meet that burden of proof then I'll accept the authority they are advocating in whatever situation they are addressing.

Typically one cannot meet that burden of proof whether one is advocating for violence, authority or the suffering/eating of animals, and then we reject their case and move on, but there's always exceptions. Back to the eating animals moral argument. If one is not willing to accept a rational form of morality. If their morality is not based on minimizing suffering then I simply wont have a discussion with them. What's the point. We're now speaking differing languages.

The idea that vegans are low in protein is a myth. Pretty much anyone not starving eats way more protein than they need:

Source.

The problem is that the people who claim everyone eats too much protein often have an agenda and usually look like they could use more protein (not talking about you ILP).

If you Google 'vegan bodybuilders', you'll find plenty of muscular people. I'm not saying anything different. The failing comes in how the average person practices it, which I do think is important. Veganism is harder to execute than eating the crap average people eat.

We should all be iron deficient when it comes to the iron from animals, aka heme iron and instead get our iron from plants, non-heme iron. According to the IARC heme iron contributes to the cancer-causing mechanism.

As the 2015-16 president of the College of Cardiology noted, heme iron is toxic (1:11:08--1:12:28)

BTW it's easy to get all the iron one needs on a plant-based diet. Anybody going WFPB will see that the instant they plug what they eat into cronometer. Iron is not a problem.

I just want everyone itt to feel free to say anything. I could care less if they are trolling or not. If one suspects others of trolling they can simply ignore them. Nobody should be reporting others itt either. That's weaksauce man.

EVEN IF vegans/vegetarians were eating "lower quality protein" they would still NOT be at risk for sarcopenia since "on average, vegetarians and vegans get 70% more protein than they need every day."

This "lower quality protein" thing is kind of a sick joke though. It's really the opposite. Protein coming from food sources that increase our rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc and shorten our lives, should be viewed as the "lower quality protein" and protein coming from food sources that prevent/fight disease and lengthen our lives should be viewed as the high quality protein.

Source.

Come on bro. You can't extrapolate from one individual. I mean shiiiiiiiit I can play that game too. The GOAT tennis player, Novak Djokovic, is plant-based therefore a plant-based diet is optimal. The GOAT women's basketball player, Diana Taurasi, aka the white mamba, is plant-based, therefore a plant-based diet is optimal. Arguably the GOAT nba point guard, Chris Paul is plant-based therefore a plant-based diet is optimal. These arguments are fun but they are not convincing.

What we put in our mouths appears to be more important than exercise:(59:29--1:00:03)

But like I said before, arguing over what's more important kinda misses the point. Like what's more important? Getting good sleep or eating healthy? Who cares, the answer is do both!

Nobody understands sentience at some super deep level. We kinda know it when we see it. Like if I light a squirrel on fire I can tell he is suffering. If I accidently step on a dog's leg his yelp tells me he didn't appreciate that. This isn't hard. We don't need a double blind placebo controlled experiment to figure out that cows, pigs, chickens suffer. Not that we need it but we can always appeal to expert testimony, I.E. "a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists":

When those guys say plants suffer, then we'll talk. For now we can rely on common sense that plants, having no central nervous system and no ability to generate consciousness, do not suffer. And evolutionarily speaking it would be super strange for a lifeform to evolve the capacity to suffer and also be stuck in one place and thus have no way to avoid that suffering.

This is like eating the bare minimum of plants to make sure we don't get scurvy. We can do better than that. We should eat to thrive not just to stay alive. And btw the official minimum is now 9, not 5: "The official federal recommendation for the minimum number of servings of fruits and veggies is now up to nine a day. Minimum! And iceberg lettuce doesn’t count towards that total. And neither do fruit juice, Fruit Loops, ketchup, or white potatoes."



And let me reiterate, 9 servings a day is the minimum, like if you suck at life at least get 9 servings a day. Someone who eats WFPB doesn't even think in terms of servings. They're eating plants all day. What really matters is variety, I.E. how many different plant species we are eating per week. The more the better, at least eat 30 different plants per week. On a WFPB diet, it shouldn't be hard to eat 30 in a day.

"The #1 predictor of a healthy gut microbiome is the diversity of plants within your diet."

Animal protein is the ultimate processed junk. It's just recycled plant protein stripped of the fiber, antioxidants, and other disease fighting phytochemicals.

True story, recently I was playing poker at the Orleans and there was a guy at the table along with me who was vegan. He was very outspoken, you could tell he was ready for every argument lol. When the obese dealer found out there was two vegans at the table he said, "I bet they are tired all the time" and the vegan struck back and said, "Why would you say that? You're the one eating 2nd hand protein, we get it directly from the source!" It's funny, the waitress serving our table was also vegan (she was actually too skinny imo, not good propaganda for the vegan movement!). Of course me, the vegan guy and the waitress were the only people at that table who weren't overweight/obese. So predictable. Murica.

My new gf keeps telling me all the time how I lack in empathy. Maybe she's an empath too. Either way, I hate that word and hope to never see it again. I highly doubt using the word empath will help further the vegan movement. Just saying.

Well, some people really enjoy the virtue signaling part of it.

I've found that people who eat meat don't just happen to mention it in passing. I can't remember a single instance of someone who eats meat mentioning it in a conversation.

Lol. No, they don't mention it like vegans do, but it's more like this: "Hey, Ricki Jo Ricki, I was down at Hillbilly Jack's yesterday and had that amazing barbecue pork you recommended last week..."

Based on the best evidence we have, a whole food plant based diet is the most healthy diet. Do we have proof? No. Proof is for mathematics. I talked about some of that science in this thread.

Here's what I find extremely compelling. First as I've talked about a million times now, according to the science of the National Academy of Sciences "any intake level above 0% of energy [of]...trans fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol...increased LDL cholesterol concentration." LDL is the #1 risk factor for the #1 reason we and our loved ones are going to die prematurely, heart disease. I.E. ANY intake of trans fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol above 0% energy "increased chronic disease risk."

That finding implies we should eat 0% animal products and processed junk which implies we should be eating something akin to a WFPB diet. That result is staggering and certainly not what those non-vegan scientists wanted to see. But what's even more compelling than this piece of evidence is when you have evidence from disparate sources converging on the same conclusion. For example, you have that Harvard study published in JAMA showing us that if you switch out 3% plant protein for animal protein--doesn't matter what animal--your disease rates go up. What's amazing about that is THIS IS EXACTLY what one would predict after viewing the science of the NAS. In real life you will never get "proof" but the closest thing you'll ever get is a situation like this, when multiple disparate forms of evidence point to the same conclusion. For rational evidenced based people, that is the gold standard. We have the same kind of multiple disparate forms of evidence pointing to the same conclusion for evolutionary theory, and climate change. That's what you wanna see. That's the most compelling form of evidence you'll ever get on this planet. And we don't just have the NAS and the Harvard study, we have the science on the microbiome pointing to the same conclusion:

As one gut health expert put it after reviewing the latest science: "I just don't think there's any role for animal products at all when it comes to the gut microbiome."

Think about that for a second. The idea that eating animal products would promote disease causing microbes in our microbiome and eating plants would promote disease fighting microbes is EXACTLY what one would predict after viewing the science of the NAS. If it's true that any intake of animal products above 0% energy increases chronic disease risk then it pretty much HAS to be the case that eating animal products promotes the growth of disease causing microbes given how inextricably linked our gut microbial health is to our overall health. That's an AMAZING convergence of multiple forms of evidence from very credible sources pointing to the same conclusion. It doesn't get better than that.

Furthermore, this convergence of data officially ends the vegan vs meat evolution argument. Like the vegans have their evolutionary just so story and so do the meat eaters, but that line of argument is unnecessary. We can now say definitively we are not evolved to eat meat. The VERY FACT that eating meat above 0% energy increases chronic disease rates is prima facie evidence we did not evolve to eat meat. The VERY FACT that replacing 3% of plant protein with animal protein increases disease rates prompting the 2015-2016 president of the College of Cardiology to say "There are no safe animal products" is prima facie evidence we did not evolve to eat meat. And the VERY FACT that eating meat promotes the growth of disease causing microbes in our microbiome while plants do the opposite is prima facie evidence we did not evolve to eat meat.

Even tho the best science we have tells us we are clearly not evolved to eat meat that doesn't mean eating meat was not evolutionarily important. For most of human history thriving was not what mattered. Surviving to reproductive age to pass on our genes was the key. Who's more likely to survive to that critical point in an environment where future calories are unpredictable? A vegan or someone who eats meat. Obviously the latter. Access and acquisition to ANY calorically dense junk, meat, human brains, honey, etc would be extremely valuable in such a feast and famine environment. Sure that stuff causes disease later in life, but evolution doesn't give a **** about that. Evolution doesn't care whether you thrive and live long enough to see your great grand kids graduate college. Evolution only cares about survival to reproductive age.

We can even use this kind of logic to solve this riddle: Why are meat eaters so fat? Why is it that vegans are "the only dietary group in North America that’s actually not overweight"? IOW why do we suck at metabolizing animal products? Why do we live in an omnivore society and 90% are overfat. The answer is simple. Think back in deep time. Who is more likely to survive to reproductive age in a feast or famine environment, someone who metabolizes meat very efficiently and stays skinny or someone who metabolizes meat poorly and thus efficiently packs on excess fat/weight? Obviously the fatter person is more likely to make it through the next famine. So the fact that most people do not metabolize animal products well is not some evolutionary paradox or mistake. It's not a bug, it's a feature, quite likely the very reason their DNA made it this far.

lol