Any vegans on here?

[Abu of York]

i used to be vegan until i broke my femur and the doctor said i needed to eat meat so i can get healthy. that was a while ago. i'm pretty damn close to going back to being Vegan, if not at least vegetarian

 

[MikeMartial]

For those using the argument of sustainability:

Ecologically Friendly Meat At Darwin

 

[E5]

For those using the argument of sustainability:

Ecologically Friendly Meat At Darwin

 

[thedudeman]

This is a good but long read on why it is optimal for humans to eat meat.

Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism

 

[vegan]

that web page is on a mission.

 

[romistrub]

That webpage is friggen wicked!

Vegans, though, don't use the "argument of evolution" (if they do, they're retarded). They use the argument of ethics. Not to say that this makes any more sense, but they look at it as a "next step", not a "returning to our roots".

That being said, this paragraph is awesome:

Observations of modern hunter-gatherers have shown that muscle meats (the leanest part of the animal) are least preferred, sometimes even being thrown away in times of plenty, in preference to the fattier portions. Eaten first are the organs such as brains, eyeballs, tongue, kidneys, bone marrow (high in monounsaturated fat), and storage fat areas such as mesenteric (gut) fat. (Even this gut fat is much less saturated in composition, however, than the kind of marbled fat found in the muscle meat of modern feedlot animals.) There is no reason to believe earlier hunter-gatherers would have been any different in these preferences, since other species of animals who eat other animals for food also follow the same general order of consumption.

 

[vegan]

so that is the diet of all the people here who reverts to the argument that we should eat what we have always been eating?

 

[E5]

That webpage is friggen wicked!

Vegans, though, don't use the "argument of evolution" (if they do, they're retarded). They use the argument of ethics. Not to say that this makes any more sense, but they look at it as a "next step", not a "returning to our roots".

That being said, this paragraph is awesome:

what's the "argument of evolution"?

 

[romistrub]

what's the "argument of evolution"?

in short: that it makes sense, because of human eating habits throughout history, to be a vegan

 

[romistrub]

so that is the diet of all the people here who reverts to the argument that we should eat what we have always been eating?

Er... not that simple, but it's a decent starting point. It's for health reasons, not ethical ones.

 

[E5]

in short: that it makes sense, because of human eating habits throughout history, to be a vegan

yeah, agreed... anyone who does that is retarded.

And not just vegan-related or even diet related... ppl do that crap about all sorts of topics. Isn't it a logical fallacy... similar to an appeal to authority, but like an appeal to old shit?

Lemme post this and I'll wiki it and edit this post if I find out which LF it is.

 

[E5]

found it:

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[romistrub]

found it:

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No no, you've got it wrong. It's not an appeal to the tradition itself that Paleo is doing, but an appeal to science - specifically, how organisms evolve - and the tradition is just what we use as the baseline. If we just said "eat this cuz it's what we've always eaten" with absolutely no scientific reasoning behind it, then yes, Paleo wouldn't make sense.

 

[E5]

No no, you've got it wrong. It's not an appeal to the tradition itself that Paleo is doing, but an appeal to science - specifically, how organisms evolve - and the tradition is just what we use as the baseline. If we just said "eat this cuz it's what we've always eaten" with absolutely no scientific reasoning behind it, then yes, Paleo wouldn't make sense.

ok, I clearly didn't read the article. but it's fucking looooooooooooooong. I'm just so used to most "evolution based" arguments being chock full of logical fallacies, that I assumed he did the same thing.

Similar to the logical fallacy that was presented with the Gerber knife ad - presenting something as the product of evolution (in this case canine teeth in people) then saying that since it is the product of evolution, it's purpose (eating meat) must be "intended by evolution" or optimal for survival. It's a complete misunderstanding of evolution. But again, I didn't actually read the article so disregard my rant against the retarded Gerber ad from like 5 pages back.

 

[romistrub]

ok, I clearly didn't read the article. but it's fucking looooooooooooooong. I'm just so used to most "evolution based" arguments being chock full of logical fallacies, that I assumed he did the same thing.

Similar to the logical fallacy that was presented with the Gerber knife ad - presenting something as the product of evolution (in this case canine teeth in people) then saying that since it is the product of evolution, it's purpose (eating meat) must be "intended by evolution" or optimal for survival. It's a complete misunderstanding of evolution. But again, I didn't actually read the article so disregard my rant against the retarded Gerber ad from like 5 pages back.

True. There are many artifacts of evolution that continue to exist in bodies long after they are needed. There's a word for those, but I don't remember it.

 

[oyaji poi]

The Ecologist - A meaty issue

This article from a recent edition of The Ecologist goes into some more detail about vegetarian vs omnivore food production. It's almost a fluff piece though, but there were references in the print edition.

 

[veganjiujitsu]

Is anyone here in a position where they need to "survive"...?

yeah, this is a pretty key point, to my thinking at least.

It's when we are beyond survival and have entered the realm of surplus and choice that we can better start asking the question of what should we eat. And you can base the should on anything you want--heart healthiness, taste, how the animals are raised, etc.

 

[E5]

True. There are many artifacts of evolution that continue to exist in bodies long after they are needed. There's a word for those, but I don't remember it.

exactly. I forgot the name of it too.

There are even aspects of species that evolve and thrive not because they aid the animal in survival at all or ever have, but just because they aren't a detriment either and have no reason to have gotten killed off.

I remember seeing this preacher on late night tv claim to be able to "disprove" evolution. He said that ants have an ability to detect and avoid potentially harmful microwaves. And that this can be demonstrated by putting them in a microwave oven and noticing that they seek out colder spots where they are safe. He claimed this "disproves" evolution because there is nowhere in the history of the ant where this ability was needed.

Obviously you can spot the logical flaw he is making. He is assuming that species evolve in response to their environments - that all aspects of a species (canine teeth, ability to detect microwaves, long necks, etc) necessarily are there due to a reuirement in their quest for survival. They do not. They are there by genetic "accident" and are then only killed off if the mutation hinders them.

(ie: Giraffes did not develop long necks BECAUSE they needed to reach high leaves. They developed long necks randomly. These long-necked giraffes didn't die off because they were able to eat more and live longer/reproduce longer than short-necked ancestors.)

And even if the mutation does hinder the species it can be along time before the "correction" takes place. It's sorta like a casino. The casino isn't guaranteed to leave every gambler poorer than he was 10 minutes earlier... just that over long periods of time, with many players, the general trend is a a slow but very steady stream of gamblers money to the casions coffers. It is perfectly plausible that even if a genetic defect goes from being an aid to survival to a detriment it can still be around for a looooong time before it is "corrected". Evolution is a process, not a finished product.


Anyway, I'd say this is off topic, but this whole thread is kinda off topic, in an interesting way.

 

[IDRISCKY]

I've never heard that guy say one smart thing about his veganism. He wouldn't do the vegans here any favors.

I was joking.

 

[Sinister]

I know, I just always have to emphasize that about him. Decent Fighter, good athlete, dingbat about nutrition.