So U think Vegan is healthy?

[Aractus]

You equated my position with veganism several times, otherwise why bring up such irrelevance about it? I was talking about something very specific and you made a mountain out of a mole-hill. Maybe I could have worded it better to avoid confusion so sorry if I was ambiguous or vague but there's hardly a disagreement from us other than some details.

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

Quantum Theorist: You cry straw man when you aren't even addressing the ones you made, that's why you've been intellectually dishonest with me.

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:

Quantum Theorist: Someone who eats mostly vegan is more healthy than someone who eats mostly meat. One can argue some meat is okay for a balanced diet, but overall the best foods nutritionally are; fruits, grains and veggies.

I asked you to provide an academic reference and you did not. 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, I do however believe that eating more veggies than grains is a great idea. 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.

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.

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.

Quantum Theorist: I'm critically examining myself and the things you consider straw man's and addressing them, meanwhile you haven't addressed one of them. I even ask you if we as humans can't be allergic to meat, because I'm open to learn. You clearly had a misconception of me and it shows in your opening replies.

This is what you wrote:

Quantum Theorist: Really? people can't get allergic to meat? news to me, sounds like bullshit but you may be right.

Are you really telling me I misinterpreted that??

Quantum Theorist: Mostly meat vs. Mostly green (we'll just call it that)
I genuinely want to know the answer from your opinion, it's not a straw man.

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.

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

Quantum Theorist: If you think meat is the most important food group then there's really no helping you here. ...Not a straw man.

We need meat as much as we need fruit & veg and we need fruit & veg as much as we need meat. We don't need grain as much as the preceding three, however it is easy to incorporate grains into a healthy and balanced diet and in fact easier to have a healthy balanced diet with grains than without (paleo), thus all four are important. While I acknowledge that grains are less important, they're also cheap and have the benefit of making balanced diets easier, so besides grains I never said that any of the other three are least or most important.

Quantum Theorist: A question + another question/guess = straw man. Got it.

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

Quantum Theorist: It's also an environmental and economic concern seeing as how we wouldn't be able to survive without other animals other than just for eating them. And we would also save quite a bit of money on the force feeding and constant breeding that goes on. It's far more than just emotional, even though that is a good enough reason by itself.

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

Quantum Theorist: You'd have to be more specific on "Non-endangered" since you could be close to endangered or be projected to be endangered. Perhaps there's more there that hasn't been fully looking into or looked at objectively. Especially if you're talking about Japan with their notoriously brutal reign over the pacific ocean. All that aside, lots of marine lifeforms are closing in on extinction in the ocean because of how shitty we take care of it. I'd say the ocean can't get enough protecting and that's not an emotional or environmental opinion, it's both.

Minke whales and humpback whales are not endangered, and Japan doesn't hunt any humpbacks anyway. Southern Bluefin Tuna is critically endangered - bot we (Australia) and Japan have quotas for fishing Southern Bluefin Tuna, but the UN is against a sustainable quota for hunting whales.

Quantum Theorist: Academic papers for what? Mostly meat diet vs. Mostly veggie/green/vegan/etc. diet?

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.

Quantum Theorist: So a mostly meat diet is better than a mostly green or veggie diet? It's a serious question, just answer it or move on.

There is no one diet that is perfect for everyone. Some people do better with more meat in their diet than others. Because meat is nutrient dense, a person that gets 55% of their overall calories from meat is in fact eating much less meat than fruit and veg. So if the question is can a person get 55% of their calories from meat and have a healthy balanced diet, then the answer is yes - for at least some people, and this kind of diet may be better for some people than for others. If the question is can a person get 90% of their calories from meat and have a healthy balanced diet, then I would say probably not for most people, however anything is possible and that kind of extreme would affect some people differently to others.

Aractus: I'm calling bullshit on you. Whatever way I answer that you're going to claim I'm making a straw man
Quantum Theorist: Actually I do care about what someone says to me, but this^ is another actual straw man, ironically enough.

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. 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.

Quantum Theorist: Are you gonna duck the question again? Can people be allergic to meat or not? it was not as straw man, it's an inquiry.

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

Quantum Theorist: So there are people that can be allergic to meat, even if it's just some kinds of meat. Thanks for finally answering.

Quantum Theorist: I never said all meat. I said there are people who are allergic to meat. Even if it's just one kind of meat, that's still an allergic reaction to the generic word for flesh called meat.

QT, your question was worded thus: "Really? people can't get allergic to meat? news to me, sounds like bullshit but you may be right."

Now, again, I'm asking you to provide a reference. This is your claim:

I never said all meat. I said there are people who are allergic to meat. Even if it's just one kind of meat, that's still an allergic reaction to the generic word for flesh called meat.

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.