Stroggoz New Zealand. Sep 17 2017 00:54. Posts 5360
loco I think you mean the is/ought fallacy, not the naturalistic fallacy. bit of nitpicking here but if you read the book where the naturalistic fallacy originated from, ethica principia, it is different in meaning to what many contemporary philosophers represent the naturalistic fallacy as.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On September 16 2017 23:21 Loco wrote:
god, you've had nearly two weeks to think of a better response than that. you fall back to the naturalistic fallacy + a sv3rige propaganda video.... which we have just spent two pages mocking.
nice to see you're still consistent with choosing the advice of fat diet gurus at least.
Lol I didn't spend two weeks and for all of your 'fallacy' arguments you are one of the worst at it him being fat doesn't mean anything and I can assure you he didn't get fat from animal fat because he would not be able to overeat it it's a combination of grains, sugar and fleisch. So I can't make any arguments based on history and nature? what kind of stupid rule is that this is about humans and nature.
"The bottom line: while eggs may not be the optimal breakfast choice, they are certainly not the worst, falling somewhere in the middle on the spectrum food choice and heart disease risk." Less risk than we previously thought is not rehabilitation. This is taken straight from Harvard, and they're not even taking into account the latest research on TMAO, which is very likely going to change this recommendation in the near future. They're also talking about one egg or less per day, which is not typically how people eat eggs. They also make it explicit that this doesn't apply to everyone, some people are considered high risk and would benefit from avoiding eggs entirely. So when people start throwing words around like "eggs have been rehabilitated!" without qualifying that statement, it's pretty dangerous.
"Erm, there was definitely a shift from 'actual experts' in whether sugar or fat was the primary source of obesity?"
No, there has been no such thing. These are the "experts" you don't want to be listening to. The world is rife with binary thinking and oversimplifications and the nutrition world isn't exempt of it (quite the opposite). Too many calories in the form of highly palatable food, whether those calories are coming from sugar or fat, is what fuels the obesity epidemic. This message has been consistent for a long time. Responsible dietitians never put the blame on a particular macronutrient. I've already debunked the idea that it is sugar that was largely responsible in my post to Vandermeyde.
"I also don't see any reason to complicate stuff beyond say"
Evidently, because you come at it from a "what's in it for me?" perspective. My veganism is an ethical stance, don't confuse it with health goals. I do believe based on the data however that a 95% to 100% plant-based diet is ideal for human health, at this point in time, given the diversity of plant foods available. I can't find any disadvantage to it and the longest living populations around the world all have this pattern in common. That's my version of not complicating things.
I think if someone is only 85% plant-based and they mostly just eat fish in the animal kingdom, especially those lower on the food chain, they're likely going to do just great. I've never debated that. But the data points in the direction that there is still room for improvement up to at least 95%. If you don't think that this is the case, it is because those institutions you listen to are patronizing and they're not in the business of telling you what's ideal. What they advise is always a compromise between the good and the realistic. A perfect example of that is Frank Sacks and the DASH diet -- he has admitted as much. It's important for people to realize that so they can make their own informed decisions on how far they are willing to go.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On September 16 2017 23:54 Stroggoz wrote:
loco I think you mean the is/ought fallacy, not the naturalistic fallacy. bit of nitpicking here but if you read the book where the naturalistic fallacy originated from, ethica principia, it is different in meaning to what many contemporary philosophers represent the naturalistic fallacy as.
I meant that it was an appeal to nature. The terms have become somewhat interchangeable.
"The term "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" may also be used to characterize inferences of the form "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality, environmentalism, and veganism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On September 16 2017 23:21 Loco wrote:
god, you've had nearly two weeks to think of a better response than that. you fall back to the naturalistic fallacy + a sv3rige propaganda video.... which we have just spent two pages mocking.
nice to see you're still consistent with choosing the advice of fat diet gurus at least.
Lol I didn't spend two weeks and for all of your 'fallacy' arguments you are one of the worst at it him being fat doesn't mean anything and I can assure you he didn't get fat from animal fat because he would not be able to overeat it it's a combination of grains, sugar and fleisch. So I can't make any arguments based on history and nature? what kind of stupid rule is that this is about humans and nature.
It's not a fallacy though. It's like if you were to recommend to take the advice of a broke poker player on bankroll management and I pointed to the fact that he's broke as evidence that you shouldn't take his advice. It's not 100% foolproof because there is a possibility that the guy got fucked over by life somehow and he actually had good bankroll management, but it's reasonable to assume close to 99 times out of 100.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I pointed out the sickly looking vegans and you seemed to have issue with it. If he is fat or not has nothing to do with the actual arguments that he makes or that sv3rige translated it you are constantly saying that I'm being fallacious etc. but you do it all the time. This lie that vegans constantly say we can just eat the animal grains is not true because it is literally inedible most of it and not to mention grass.
For all your talk about longevity I consider fertility to be more important something vegans struggle with. I don't want to be a burden sitting there at 100 years old in old norse culture it was considered shameful and they would kill themselves or try and die in war if they could'nt contribute. Are you above nature? We have already identified that you can't get b12, dha-epa without those things your kind will not survive 5 generations I'll shape my worldview on nature and her wisdom and not paid shills from the US naturalistic fallacy be damned.
I have a problem with excessive meat consumption from an ethical point of view also. But only excessive, I don't have a problem with eating free range chicken, but the kfc style factory farm is terrible. This applies to both animal welfare (I don't mind sheep ranging out in the wilderness living regular sheep lives and then being killed for food, but I have issues with caged animals never seeing sunlight) and ecology (where I subscribe more to a 'we should all sacrifice something' rather than a 'other people aren't sacrificing enough so I'll try to make up for them' mentality) You can certainly find individual stories of norwegian farms mistreating their animals (but overall they're actually pretty good) and I haven't tried to calculate how much meat I can consume to stay within the 1 biological footprint unit (I don't have a car or even a driver's licence and I try not to fly too much, but it seems extremely hard to actually manage this living in Norway, even if I did go full vegan).
I'm only addressing the health aspects because those are the ones you usually write about. I mostly agree with you on the ethics (mostly on the health too, tbh), but I'm not willing to sacrifice as much as you apparently are. I also consider tasty food one of the best things in life and I think especially dairy products are completely impossible to replicate, taste wise, so it might actually be that going full vegan would be a considerably bigger sacrifice for me than it is for you.
On September 17 2017 00:46 Mortensen8 wrote:
I pointed out the sickly looking vegans and you seemed to have issue with it. If he is fat or not has nothing to do with the actual arguments that he makes or that sv3rige translated it you are constantly saying that I'm being fallacious etc. but you do it all the time. This lie that vegans constantly say we can just eat the animal grains is not true because it is literally inedible most of it and not to mention grass.
For all your talk about longevity I consider fertility to be more important something vegans struggle with. I don't want to be a burden sitting there at 100 years old in old norse culture it was considered shameful and they would kill themselves or try and die in war if they could'nt contribute. Are you above nature? We have already identified that you can't get b12, dha-epa without those things your kind will not survive 5 generations I'll shape my worldview on nature and her wisdom and not paid shills from the US naturalistic fallacy be damned.
I can't be bothered taking some fat dude's advice on diet or tackling his arguments, especially when it comes from sv3rige's channel, sorry to disappoint you. Speaking of sickly looking people, did you keep your eyes closed all the way through the video of his meeting with his anti-vegan buddies that I posted? Not a single one of them looks healthy and fit. Ironically, the healthiest looking was sv3rige, who is clearly clinically insane. You can cherry-pick unhealthy looking vegans all you want, but I never claimed that veganism was healthy. It's an ethical stance and plenty of vegans have unhealthy diets.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
mortensen, you realize that out of the pretty small percentage of people from the 'old norse culture' who went viking and looked for a glorious death so they could spend afterlife in valhalla also went on raids where they killed men, pillaged villages, raped all the women they could find and took slaves, right? It might not be a culture worthy of your adoration or emulation. And old people too weak and sickly to contribute at the farm sure as hell didn't board the first ship to go fighting, wtf. And the idea that they willingly killed themselves if too old to work, the historical consensus there is that this is a fabrication based on one fable from iceland. There are no actual historical sources backing up the idea that this was something people did.
On September 17 2017 01:07 Mortensen8 wrote:
One plant monoculture vegan products are very destructive for the soil and will soon die out.
This is like arguing that water is not good -- that it is, in fact, destructive -- because you can drown in it.
Yeah, no shit industrial monoculture isn't good. It's also not existing for vegans, as you know, but almost entirely to feed some 50+ billion factory farmed animals that are killed each year for food.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On September 17 2017 01:07 Mortensen8 wrote:
One plant monoculture vegan products are very destructive for the soil and will soon die out.
This is like arguing that water is not good -- that it is, in fact, destructive -- because you can drown in it.
Yeah, no shit industrial monoculture isn't good. It's also not existing for vegans, as you know, but almost entirely to feed some 50+ billion factory farmed animals that are killed each year for food.
Animals are essential for any natural system aka manure and a lot of land is not suitable for growing.
On September 17 2017 01:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I have a problem with excessive meat consumption from an ethical point of view also. But only excessive, I don't have a problem with eating free range chicken, but the kfc style factory farm is terrible. This applies to both animal welfare (I don't mind sheep ranging out in the wilderness living regular sheep lives and then being killed for food, but I have issues with caged animals never seeing sunlight) and ecology (where I subscribe more to a 'we should all sacrifice something' rather than a 'other people aren't sacrificing enough so I'll try to make up for them' mentality) You can certainly find individual stories of norwegian farms mistreating their animals (but overall they're actually pretty good) and I haven't tried to calculate how much meat I can consume to stay within the 1 biological footprint unit (I don't have a car or even a driver's licence and I try not to fly too much, but it seems extremely hard to actually manage this living in Norway, even if I did go full vegan).
I'm only addressing the health aspects because those are the ones you usually write about. I mostly agree with you on the ethics (mostly on the health too, tbh), but I'm not willing to sacrifice as much as you apparently are. I also consider tasty food one of the best things in life and I think especially dairy products are completely impossible to replicate, taste wise, so it might actually be that going full vegan would be a considerably bigger sacrifice for me than it is for you.
There are no happy farms, especially when it comes to dairy. I don't care where you live, you've been fed a big lie if you think there are. You'd be absolutely shocked to know what passes off as 'humane' by law. A quick read on this: here.
I'm not sacrificing anything to be vegan. I'm healthier, happier and more productive. I've reversed chronic conditions that had ruined my life. I've had no problem with relationships. Montreal is also very vegan friendly, even though most vegan places are unhealthy. I'll certainly grant that community is part of the health puzzle, and it follows that someone who doesn't eat optimally, yet who has a great social life, will be healthier than an isolated vegan who eats perfectly.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
It's not the same in Norway. It really isn't. I know farmers, we have way more small farms, it's less industrial, less efficient, meat is more expensive. Not that transgressions don't happen, but meat production in the US and in Norway are two entirely different beasts.
And well, for me, food wise, going full vegan would be an enormous sacrifice. Cutting down on red meat consumption, absolutely, I've already done that and will continue to do so. But butter is a must for cooking and cheese is incredibly delicious and all the vegan dairy replacements I've tried taste like ass.
On September 17 2017 01:07 Mortensen8 wrote:
One plant monoculture vegan products are very destructive for the soil and will soon die out.
This is like arguing that water is not good -- that it is, in fact, destructive -- because you can drown in it.
Yeah, no shit industrial monoculture isn't good. It's also not existing for vegans, as you know, but almost entirely to feed some 50+ billion factory farmed animals that are killed each year for food.
Animals are essential for any natural system aka manure and a lot of land is not suitable for growing.
On September 17 2017 01:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not the same in Norway. It really isn't. I know farmers, we have way more small farms, it's less industrial, less efficient, meat is more expensive. Not that transgressions don't happen, but meat production in the US and in Norway are two entirely different beasts.
And well, for me, food wise, going full vegan would be an enormous sacrifice. Cutting down on red meat consumption, absolutely, I've already done that and will continue to do so. But butter is a must for cooking and cheese is incredibly delicious and all the vegan dairy replacements I've tried taste like ass.
Which part isn't the same? Be more specific. These horrific practices are intrinsic to the business of exploiting these animals for food. It's not about farmers having malice in their hearts or too many animals to take care of.
When you say "I know these farmers" what you're actually saying is "I have even more reason to be blue pilled". Your warm feelings for these people don't allow you to dig very deep into it all since you obviously have more than one thing to lose.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On September 17 2017 01:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
mortensen, you realize that out of the pretty small percentage of people from the 'old norse culture' who went viking and looked for a glorious death so they could spend afterlife in valhalla also went on raids where they killed men, pillaged villages, raped all the women they could find and took slaves, right? It might not be a culture worthy of your adoration or emulation. And old people too weak and sickly to contribute at the farm sure as hell didn't board the first ship to go fighting, wtf. And the idea that they willingly killed themselves if too old to work, the historical consensus there is that this is a fabrication based on one fable from iceland. There are no actual historical sources backing up the idea that this was something people did.
It actually is a lot more ethical to be in warfare and tribes than it is to be in this modern world you just don't see it because you are thinking short term. War can actually be a very healthy and spiritual the strongest tribes survive making humans healthier in the future. If current trends continue everyone will just get sicker and dumber every generation because of civilization and morality. I'm sure you don't object to indigineous tribes practising inter tribal warfare are you going to tell them that they should be moral and stop it or does it only apply to us? Doesn't even matter because nature corrects it in the end when everyone is sick enough. Valhalla is a central concept of that culture for a reason. The slaves were allowed to have families and the best slave is one that does not even know it that is almost all of us today.
"Particular attention should be paid to adequate protein intake and sources of essential fatty acids, iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamins B12 and D. Supplementation may be required in cases of strict vegetarian diets with no intake of any animal products."
"We report the case of a 7 month-old girl that presented with acute anemia, generalized muscular hypotonia and failure to thrive. Laboratory evaluation revealed cobalamin deficiency, due to a vegan diet of the mother."
Vegetarians and omnivores have similar levels of serum iron, but levels of ferritin—the long-term storage form of iron—are lower in vegetarians than in omnivores. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871479
This is significant, because ferritin depletion is the first stage of iron deficiency. Moreover, although vegetarians often have similar iron intakes to omnivores on paper, it is more common for vegetarians (and particularly vegans) to be iron deficient. For example, this study of 75 vegan women in Germany found that 40% of them were iron deficient, despite average iron intakes that were above the recommended daily allowance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14988640 http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/633S.long
many plant foods that contain zinc also contain phytate, which inhibits zinc absorption. Vegetarian diets tend to reduce zinc absorption by about 35% compared with omniovorous diet. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/633S.long
Thus, even when the diet meets or exceeds the RDA for zinc, deficiency may still occur. One study suggested that vegetarians may require up to 50% more zinc than omnivores for this reason. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/633S.long
Well, my preferred type of meat is lamb. In Norway, sheep are truly free range. They are born, live regular sheep lives largely like they would if there were no people, and then after half a year or so, they are brought back to the farm and slaughtered. Sure, being slaughtered always sucks, but their actual lives are probably better than the average free animal in actual nature (food is plentiful and predators are rare). As for chicken, a majority of chicken and egg production is industrialized and while cages are slightly bigger, it's not that different from in the US. As for dairy production, I'm reading that in the US, one cow produces on average 6-7 gallons of milk per day. That equates to something like 9000 liters per year. In Norway, the average is 6000 liters. I think it's fair to assume that a reduction of 33% equates to considerably better conditions. We've also banned some cattle breeds (like the Belgian Blue) because of animal welfare reasons. Pigs I think generally live in pretty crappy conditions, which sucks as I love pork.
To be fair, we've also started with the milking robots, and our current government has tried to make farms more industrialized and productive (and less concerned with animal welfare), which I think sucks. But we have a long tradition of subsidizing farmers and adding import taxes on meat from other countries so that it will be possible for more ethically minded farms to compete with the bigger factory farms on the european mainland.
Mortensen, a group of 100 armed men going to a tribe and killing all the men and raping and enslaving all the women and children is not ethical, you sick fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you?
That's because they thought they could larp as christcucks and not defend themselves, shows what slave morality gives you nature doesn't give a shit stop it with your phony outrage thats going to be a problem in the future and already is for Scandis such as yourself who are oversocialized happens everytime to civilized people get too comfortable.
Contact Users: 215 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 02:39
I also consider tasty food one of the best things in life and I think especially dairy products are completely impossible to replicate, taste wise, so it might actually be that going full vegan would be a considerably bigger sacrifice for me than it is for you. 
