So U think Vegan is healthy?

[MJ the Skeptical]

There's disagreement on a very large issue, the question of whether veganism is healthy long-term or not.

I'm sure there is.

Just like I mentioned about the Fruitarian diets (80/10/10) - it's perfectly fine and healthy to eat just fruit for a week or so, but doing it for even moderate lengths of time is absurdly dangerous.

I would like to just point out you've made many more numerous claims that I ever have here.

Now when it comes to vegan diets, some can be maintained for a number of years without impacting negatively upon a person's health, but so far there's no proof that a person born and raised vegan can thrive for their whole life into their 90's

That's so ridiculously framed. There's literally no diet that can guarantee you 90 years. There are external factors and physiological differences.

let alone that it's a good idea to be adopted by a number of people, and yet vegans make the claim that it is a healthier way of eating for everyone.

I don't really give a shit what they say. You waste so much time.

Um, no, you cried straw man even though you were the first to make straw man arguments. You made a straw man against fr0d0 and then in your next post against me. And in your first post you made this claim:

My first post wasn't even addressed to you or anyone. Imbeciles like frodo and yourself started replying to me. I see you'll gloss over frodo's straw man in his first reply to me.

So what kind of credibility do you have to cry straw man. Especially when this is a theists M.O. to distort as much as possible, and the evidence is in your posts. You've distorted and cherry-picked quotes to make an argument. It's pathetic really.

I've already gone over the negative things about grains quite a bit in this thread - but that doesn't mean that I advocate eating no grains.

But you won't go over the negatives of meat. Which doesn't mean one should advocate the abstinence of meat, and I didn't advocate that.

I've also been over the fact that you're wrong about any of those three containing the most nutrients - the most nutrient dense food is red meat, and specifically cattle liver has the highest density and biggest variety of vitamins and minerals.

And we've been over how stupid it is to think a mostly meat diet is better than a mostly green diet. But, yeah, more assertions above. I'm immediately skeptical that red meat is the best food nutritionally, let alone the best meat nutritionally.

In fact, it's not the best meat from what I've read over the years. And since you've made the claim about red meat, you've still got the burden of proof to show red meat is the best. Which has yet to been seen or recognized by science from what I've seen.

What I'm saying is not news, it's fact. So if you eat more grain then you should also eat more meat, but if you eat less grain and consequently more fruit and veg you can eat the same amount or less meat and still have a balanced diet.

You are time wasting incarnate.

50% of the world gets 50% of their calories from wheat. They can't get enough nutrients for a balanced diet just from fruit and veg if they are that reliant on grain. Now they don't need any red meat, but they do need meat - be it chicken, fish or red meat.

Are you going to get to a point of dissent? or just waste more time...

Are you really telling me I misinterpreted that??

Yes, because I was open to your answer, dipshit, "sounds like bullshit but you may be right" so of course you misinterpreted it. Just keep obfuscating I guess. Just keep going back to old out of context posts instead of dealing with the new ones.

Then see what I wrote above. Your theory is incorrect in the real world for the majority of people; the more we are dependant on grain the more meat we need to eat because it's nutrient dense.

Plenty of people live healthily for years or their entire lives on mostly green diets, with mostly meat diets or entirely meat or entirely green. So what you're saying is just bullshit. You completely ignore in my example the "mostly" connotation.

Both of them are eating the other food groups just some groups more than others, and if you had to choose between the two that was the context. Stop wasting my time and concede that point, disagree, or just fritter away time with someone else.

Put it this way... nutrient density from least to most: 1. grains, 2. fruit & veg, 3. meat & animal products.

So, you would pick the mostly meat diet based on this statement, it seems, so thanks again for finally answering another question.

I know it's hard for theists to give straight answers what with the mental gymnastics one has to do with such archaic religious beliefs poisoning their mind like "soy"

We need meat as much as we need fruit & veg and we need fruit & veg as much as we need meat.

A balanced diet, yep, what I advocated a long time ago.

That's not what a straw man is, and the questions in my response are rhetorical questions.

That's the point genius, I was being sarcastically facetious. It clearly wasn't a straw man.

I was making fun of you by showing you what really happened.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say there.

You claimed emotional argument as if it was a bad thing. I showed it was more than just that, and at the end I just tell you straight up that, even without other arguments, emotional arguments are not necessarily invalid. So I don't see why one would dismiss them off hand like that. Especially when saving other animals is paramount to our species surviving at all. If you don't get that, you're justly hopelessly ignorant and I shouldn't have wasted my time replying.

Minke whales and humpback whales are not endangered, and Japan doesn't hunt any humpbacks anyway.

Did I not just say that anything on that list could be close to endangerment or projected to be endangered? Just because it's not at a critical point of going extinct means we can just fish up whatever we want? no, you obviously don't know any of the implications of whaling. I mean, you're honestly defending whaling? you really are an idiot. You clearly don't understand the structure of the oceanic food chain or the magnificent order whales bring to the ocean. I see you completely ignored that we're killing the ocean and the marine life under the water.

You could start with your claim that "overall the best foods nutritionally are; fruits, grains and veggies", which I believe I've already refuted with my evidence.

...Anyway, I said a mostly green diet was better compared to mostly meat, which was my opinion and a carefully worded opinion at that. Do I have to say "imo" in every opinion post, that's ridiculous. But the bottom line is, my body has reacted better to a mostly green diet (which included meat) and it made me feel better. Because we all react differently to different foods, there is no perfect diet for everyone. I already mentioned that one can munch on any diet and live out a good life, and athletes who go green don't necessarily need meat to gain muscle.

I should have been a prophet - I missed my calling in life. You don't even know what the definition of irony is - since you went ahead and claimed my answer is a straw man - that's not irony I'm sorry to tell you.

You're calling in life was to argue on a forum?

What a shitty prophecy, like the ones you probably believe in like the Resurrection or something. And trust me, the irony of your post here is not lost on me, in fact, it's more ironic now than when I said it before, especially from what you say next..

Also, it's not a straw man, do you even know the definition of straw man? A straw man is if I say your argument is something that it's not, and I didn't do that. Saying that "you'll probably just say such and such" is not the same as misstating your position for you.

You obviously don't know what it means if you think you haven't made more of straw man's than I have made (which is zero). Especially when you claimed that "whatever answer you gave me I would call it a straw man" obviously I wouldn't if you stopped making them, fucking moron. I can't even count one I've made and I've refuted every one you've brought up when you cherry-pick what you want from my posts when I'm replying to your whole post. Dishonest little turd.

Aractus: so I'll simply state what I know to be the facts: some people have allergies to certain foods, eg fish, but I've never heard of anybody being allergic to all meats at the same time

Who fucking said allergic to all meats? fuck, you are infuriating to talk to.

Provide a reference. Having an allergy to wheat is called "gluten intolerance" and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "grain intolerance" or similar to describe it, so provide a reference for saying that an allergy to say fish is indeed an allergy to meat.

This idiot is too much stupid for me..