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..

[bennyboy]

Have you seen the size of Korean people? Not to mention that the average penis size for South Koreans is 3.8" (link) which is at the bottom of the Asian demographic, and Asia as a whole has the smallest compared with the rest of the world!

I live in Korea. Among young students, the average height is comparable to anywhere else-- I'm a pretty average 5'10", and I'd say around half of male high school students are taller than I am. They are certainly less bulky than western boys though-- they'd be better at volleyball and basketball than American football.

As for penis size-- I wasn't aware that was a dietary issue. Please, enlighten me more.

[KichigaiNeko]

Oh, be aware that the bakery section of Woolies or Coles do not bake "fresh bread" from scratch. You may find a better alternative from Baker's Delight. They seem to put less soy and additives into their bread. This is from a Master Baker I know over here who worked at both Coles and Woolies bakeries.

So, you are thirty? I really wouldn't get too hung up about food mate. For me (like yourself) I have always been conscious of the link to good food and good health. As many others have argued, it really depends on the individual and what works best for them. What IS clear is that excessive amounts of anything will and can have detrimental affects to your overall long term health. Even being excessively underweight. What is not clear is any link to being over 45 and putting on weight for no real reason, or conversely being over 70 and losing weight for no apparent reason; dietary habits and exercise remaining the same.

[Aractus]

Oh, be aware that the bakery section of Woolies or Coles do not bake "fresh bread" from scratch. You may find a better alternative from Baker's Delight. They seem to put less soy and additives into their bread. This is from a Master Baker I know over here who worked at both Coles and Woolies bakeries.

Neither does Subway. The Turkish Halal Pide House Yarralumla bakes their bread fresh, that's what makes their kebabs so great. There's a bakery next-door to them, there's a baker's delight close to where I live, there's other bakeries I sometimes go to as well.

So, you are thirty? I really wouldn't get too hung up about food mate. For me (like yourself) I have always been conscious of the link to good food and good health. As many others have argued, it really depends on the individual and what works best for them. What IS clear is that excessive amounts of anything will and can have detrimental affects to your overall long term health. Even being excessively underweight. What is not clear is any link to being over 45 and putting on weight for no real reason, or conversely being over 70 and losing weight for no apparent reason; dietary habits and exercise remaining the same.

Yes and my brother wasn't looking so good last time I saw him - he's 28, and usually underweight (but not by a lot).

---

QT I put my entire response to you in hide tags, enjoy.

---

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

Yes, and I backed up most of them.

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

Then you didn't read Dan Buettner's article "How To Live To 100 - Nine Healthy Habits" based on his research into the regions with high proportions of centenarians, or listen to his TED talk on the same subject - link. Dan Buettner's research says you can't slow or stop your aging, however you can accelerate it, and the capacity of the human body is about 90 years. Also, the areas he looked at were not people who were popping multivitamins or taking other supplements as so many in the western world seem to do. I see ads on TV advertising multivitamins for children, I think that's appalling how anyone thinks that advertising multivitamins for children is ethical.

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.

His first post addressed to you was: not a straw man. You claimed that that fruit, veg and grains are the 'best foods nutritionally' (your words), and he called that an unfounded assertion especially to do with grains.

You're the one who came in here crying "straw man". You're actually really great at making straw man arguments (FYI that doesn't make it ironic, but it does make you a hypocrit).

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.

This is not a thread about religion - last post I taught you the definition of straw man, this post I'm going to teach you the definition of trolling. That bullshit above is called trolling.

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.

Who told you I "won't go over the negatives of meat"? Or is this another one of your assumptions? So you don't bring up a subject, and then conclude that because I didn't bring it up already that I refuse to talk about it?

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.

LOL, @ that last sentence. For someone who cries straw man so often I can't understand how you are not more careful with what you say. I didn't ever say that "red meat is the best food nutritionally", I said it's the most nutrient dense food. Grains like Soy are in fact also very dense in "nutrients", however not the nutrients that humans need.

Lierre Keith, author of "The Vegetarian Myth" is the one who I quoted as saying red meat is the most nutrient dense. Notice that I have a reference, I already provided it, and that you don't.

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.

I didn't say it was the "best meat". In fact in my last post I said that people don't need to eat any red meat if they don't want to. I really wish you could learn to recognize your own straw man arguments. You clearly know the word because someone on another forum kept accusing you of making them!

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.

Here you go again, deliberately twisting what I said. Some people consume too much red meat, that's true, but many more people consume too much added sugar in western countries like Australia and the USA.

There are examples of people that over consume just about anything including water.

As to your constant statement that plenty of people live healthily on "mostly green diets" - so what? That's actually proven by Dan Buettner's research, a reference which I already provided. But they still eat dairy every day, most of them actually did eat meat/fish every day as well. However there's no evidence that, say, everyone should eat meat once a week just because it works for some people.

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

What is it with trying to put words into my mouth? Some people do very well with getting 60% of their calories from meat/fish, some people do very well with getting 30% of their calories from meat/fish. I'm not advocating extremes.

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.

Yes, you think you're very smart don't you.

Let's take Seals as an example. Europe doesn't have the problem of having to deal with that pest species so they're completely detached from the reality of what Canada has to face. If Canadians didn't cull Seals then their fish stocks would be depleted. It is a necessary thing. Same thing here, in Australia, with Kangaroos. We have batshit-crazy far-left people that protest it, but we need to cull roos for the good of the environment.

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.

Of course I'm in favour of sustainable hunting and fishing. No one is forcing you to eat whales if you don't want to. With that said, I'm not in favour of their dolphin hunting that is where I would draw the line. And look at that - you got all worked up about whales and did not even say a single thing about Southern Bluefin Tuna.

...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've been saying the whole time that there's no one diet that's right for everyone...

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..

Since you don't know what irony means, I will also teach you the definition of irony, and then perhaps you can use the word correctly in the future.

Here is the way you used irony 'a religious person crying unfounded claim, oh the irony'. Irony is doing or saying the exact opposite to what you are supposed to do or say. I'll give you an example to illustrate this for you. An ambulance driver gets in an accident while driving an ambulance: not irony. An ambulance driver gets to the accident scene and does not know what to do next and has to ask bystanders what to do: ironic. I'll give you another example: a marriage counsellor getting a divorce from his wife: not irony. A marriage counsellor driving an otherwise happy couple to divorce: irony.

Now that you know what this word means, please use it correctly.

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).

Do you really believe you've made zero straw man arguments? I believe the word for that is: delusion.

Especially when you claimed that "whatever answer you gave me I would call it a straw man"

Which you did.

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.

And yet more evidence that you try to win arguments with insults and needless trolling rather than substance.

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..

Right, so asking you for a reference for the umpteenth time, and for the umpteenth time you still refuse.

---

---

They are certainly less bulky than western boys though-- they'd be better at volleyball and basketball than American football.

That's my point, their diet has altered their bulk over centuries. If you eat like a Korean, it doesn't mean that you'll become like one, but it would mean that if the whole world did it that over centuries you'd shrink down man even more - which is probably not what we want to do!

---

What is not clear is any link to being over 45 and putting on weight for no real reason, or conversely being over 70 and losing weight for no apparent reason; dietary habits and exercise remaining the same.

Use the BMR calculator, your calorie needs stay pretty constant 30-40, but once you reach 40 or 45 it does drop down by a significant amount, thus why you should be eating about 200 calories less on average after 40 than before. I just did a calculation on the site, and it says that I would need to eat about 150 calories a day less than I need now if I was 45.

[Aractus]

You know, I got so caught up in explaining to QT what "straw man" and "ironic" mean I completely forgot to ask:

Does anyone else here, besides QT, think that I habitually make straw man arguments?

[KichigaiNeko]

BMR =1251.6

Guessing that this would explain just why Zen and I eat so little yet out activities remain the same.

[Aractus]

Yeah so you multiply that by your activity level ie 1251.6 * 1.375 for "lightly active" = 1721 calories per day, but if you're more active then you need more calories - of course.

---

I am also thinking that the new member Mark, has some interesting anecdotes to offer.

Who's Mark - or did you mean Mike?

[Silver]

but if you're more active then you need more calories - of course.

Unless one is attempting to lose weight. :p

[MJ the Skeptical]

Can't believe this guy keeps typing back.

Then you didn't read Dan Buettner's article "How To Live To 100 - Nine Healthy Habits" based on his research into the regions with high proportions of centenarians, or listen to his TED talk on the same subject

Then you're a fucking idiot because no diet can guarantee you a long life. Glad you typed back to get owned some more.

Dan Buettner's research says you can't slow or stop your aging, however you can accelerate it

..Which can't guarantee you a long life what with all the variables in life, which was my original comment on that.

and the capacity of the human body is about 90 years.

Right, because anyone who lives past 90 is going past their capacity lol. You idiot. Time to do more research because the human body is built for about 200 years, we just can't get there because of internal and external factors.

Also, the areas he looked at were not people who were popping multivitamins or taking other supplements as so many in the western world seem to do. I see ads on TV advertising multivitamins for children, I think that's appalling how anyone thinks that advertising multivitamins for children is ethical.

What was the point of this?

His first post addressed to you was: not a straw man. You claimed that that fruit, veg and grains are the 'best foods nutritionally' (your words), and he called that an unfounded assertion especially to do with grains.

Yeah what I said was a fact and you're too stupid to realize it. Because there are more food groups so by definition since my comment encompassed many food groups over just one food group, could you be more dense?

You're just as stupid as frodo if you didn't see that, and I'm not surprised you didn't. Keep failing though, I'm having fun.

You're the one who came in here crying "straw man". You're actually really great at making straw man arguments (FYI that doesn't make it ironic, but it does make you a hypocrit).

Whatever helps you sleep at night. It's ironic because you're the one actually making them. It would be ironic for you if I was making them but I'm not making them so it's clearly not ironic for you to hear that from me. Case closed, another fail.

This is not a thread about religion

Nobody said it was, I'm trying to get you to add something relevant about your worldview, which includes your archaic religious views.

last post I taught you the definition of straw man

As I said, the one making them hardly has any ground to be so pompously arrogant claiming someone else is doing it.

this post I'm going to teach you the definition of trolling. That bullshit above is called trolling.

You didn't write a definition. Guess you're still full of shit.

Who told you I "won't go over the negatives of meat"? Or is this another one of your assumptions? So you don't bring up a subject, and then conclude that because I didn't bring it up already that I refuse to talk about it?

The point wasn't that you said you were going to explain the negatives. The point was that you are talking up meat pretty high and not talking about the negatives. Higher than anyone I've ever talked to, seeing as how you started an argument over nothing like a fucking idiot. Now you care about keeping things relevant? even after line after line of irrelevant bullshit in your past posts. What a joke you are.

I didn't ever say that "red meat is the best food nutritionally", I said it's the most nutrient dense food. Grains like Soy are in fact also very dense in "nutrients", however not the nutrients that humans need.

Split more hairs. It's the same fucking thing.

Lierre Keith, author of "The Vegetarian Myth" is the one who I quoted as saying red meat is the most nutrient dense. Notice that I have a reference, I already provided it, and that you don't.

Holy shit.

You keep bringing up veganism as if it's relevant. Don't hurt your brain trying to hard to argue with people for nothing.

I didn't say it was the "best meat". In fact in my last post I said that people don't need to eat any red meat if they don't want to. I really wish you could learn to recognize your own straw man arguments.

"the most nutrient dense food is red meat"

You clearly know the word because someone on another forum kept accusing you of making them!

What forum site would that be? one you just made up in your head? Fail.

Here you go again, deliberately twisting what I said.

There's that irony again of projecting what you're doing onto me.

Some people consume too much red meat, that's true, but many more people consume too much added sugar in western countries like Australia and the USA.

How is this relevant to what you quoted? oh yeah, it's not, you're a fuckwit.

There are examples of people that over consume just about anything including water.

Herp Derp.

As to your constant statement that plenty of people live healthily on "mostly green diets" - so what?

Thank you very much for another concession.

However there's no evidence that, say, everyone should eat meat once a week just because it works for some people.

Yawn. More irrelevant yammering, how many times have I asked for relevance here.

What is it with trying to put words into my mouth? Some people do very well with getting 60% of their calories from meat/fish, some people do very well with getting 30% of their calories from meat/fish. I'm not advocating extremes.

An educated guess based on context clues, qualified with "it seems" is putting words in your mouth... swing and a miss...

Yes, you think you're very smart don't you.

What kind of response is that? you might as well have not responded.

I just showed why emotional arguments are not necessarily invalid.

Let's take Seals as an example. Europe doesn't have the problem of having to deal with that pest species so they're completely detached from the reality of what Canada has to face.

You can't make a blanket statement about all of Europe that they consider seals a pest, that's a fucking nonsensical fallacy. And like I said, we're a pest to the seals as well. It's a matter of perspective. Could have sworn I wrote that earlier, what a Deja-vu. Under your logic why should we not take people out since we are a pestilence on this planet and are killing it at an alarming rate. I don't think we should kill people, but under the "pest" logic, we should.

If Canadians didn't cull Seals then their fish stocks would be depleted.

Again, what about us? we are depleting resources way more heavily than any other animal and hurt the ecosystem to a far higher degree than any animal ever has. Under your logic we should cull humans? wouldn't the world be a better place under your logic if we just took out every pest of any species? Or do you have some bullshit notion that you can do what you please other animals and this planet. Seeing as how we are a complete pest on this planet and may even destroy ourselves from stupidity.

It is a necessary thing. Same thing here, in Australia, with Kangaroos. We have batshit-crazy far-left people that protest it, but we need to cull roos for the good of the environment.

No, you stupid fuckwit, if you gave a shit about the environment you're first impulse of slaughter wouldn't be your best solution to a bigger problem, there are far bigger problems than animals overpopulating. What you do is make political change like; getting rid of fossil fuels or switching to solar/electric cars etc. Our activity has contributed more damage to our species than any other animal could ever do. The corollary of your example includes humans in this pest theory since you are conveniently leaving out humans in your pest theory of why we should cull other animals but not us. I'm not advocating either one, but under your logic you should be in favor of pest control across the board.

Of course I'm in favour of sustainable hunting and fishing. No one is forcing you to eat whales if you don't want to. With that said, I'm not in favour of their dolphin hunting that is where I would draw the line. And look at that - you got all worked up about whales and did not even say a single thing about Southern Bluefin Tuna.

Tuna aren't sentient like Dolphins or Whales are. Intellectual dishonest turd. It's not about forcing me to eat whale, it's about the ethical conundrum of killing sentient life and destroying the food chain. If you were an abortion hating theist, which I won't assume, then you may be able to understand this from that angle. And I proved you don't understand the structure if you think we should just be able to hunt anything that's not critically endangered, which means only a few hundred left alive.

I've been saying the whole time that there's no one diet that's right for everyone...

What a coincidence, me too. And in my original post, no less. Derp.

What happened to needing meat to gain muscle? guess I refuted that...

Now that you know what this word means, please use it correctly.

Thanks idiot, but I did use it correctly, you've been nothing but ironic crying straw man and making them, that's irony, and I don't need your validation for that fact either. You're just going to have to fucking deal with it.

Do you really believe you've made zero straw man arguments? I believe the word for that is: delusion.

Do you really think you haven't? I believe that's called, brain-dead.

Which you did.

No, because not everything you said was a straw man and I didn't say everything was, so you're still a fucking idiot.

And yet more evidence that you try to win arguments with insults and needless trolling rather than substance.

I'm not trying to win anything you ego-maniac, talk about making a straw man. Why are you making the position for me that I'm trying to win something? oh yeah, you're a fuckwit who doesn't understand the implications of what he says. But in actuality, I am enjoying making you look stupid though. And I do enjoy calling you the necessary insults, because they are valid. I'll say it again proudly, you, are, a, fucking, idiot, and I have pages of irrelevance and distortion out of you to validate that fact. Remember when you tried to equate my arguments with veganism? Of course you don't.

You know, I got so caught up in explaining to QT what "straw man" and "ironic" mean I completely forgot to ask:

Does anyone else here, besides QT, think that I habitually make straw man arguments?

Aren't you the asshole who made the "Seriously, how is anyone dumb enough to be fat?" thread?

Can't believe I wasted time talking to someone so obviously retarded.

[Aractus]

---

Then you didn't read Dan Buettner's article "How To Live To 100 - Nine Healthy Habits" based on his research into the regions with high proportions of centenarians, or listen to his TED talk on the same subject

---

Then you're a fucking idiot because no diet can guarantee you a long life. Glad you typed back to get owned some more.

I never said that you can be guaranteed to live to 100, that's your straw man. I said Dan Buettner's research shows that the capacity of the human body is around 90 years, however life expectancy all over the world is lower. He mentions that research shows that genetics are 10% responsible for longevity and that diet/lifestyle are 90% responsible.

and the capacity of the human body is about 90 years.

Right, because anyone who lives past 90 is going past their capacity lol. You idiot. Time to do more research because the human body is built for about 200 years, we just can't get there because of internal and external factors.

Where is your source the assertion that the human body's capacity is about 200 years?

You're the one who came in here crying "straw man". You're actually really great at making straw man arguments (FYI that doesn't make it ironic, but it does make you a hypocrit).

Whatever helps you sleep at night. It's ironic because you're the one actually making them. It would be ironic for you if I was making them but I'm not making them so it's clearly not ironic for you to hear that from me. Case closed, another fail.

There you go, using the word 'irony' incorrectly again.

I didn't ever say that "red meat is the best food nutritionally", I said it's the most nutrient dense food. Grains like Soy are in fact also very dense in "nutrients", however not the nutrients that humans need.

Split more hairs. It's the same fucking thing.

No, it's two completely different things.

Here you go again, deliberately twisting what I said.

There's that irony again of projecting what you're doing onto me.

It irks me that you continue to use irony incorrectly, even after I took the time to explain it to you.

It is a necessary thing. Same thing here, in Australia, with Kangaroos. We have batshit-crazy far-left people that protest it, but we need to cull roos for the good of the environment.

No, you stupid fuckwit,

You know that it's really pathetic just how much you use labels and insults.

Of course I'm in favour of sustainable hunting and fishing. No one is forcing you to eat whales if you don't want to. With that said, I'm not in favour of their dolphin hunting that is where I would draw the line. And look at that - you got all worked up about whales and did not even say a single thing about Southern Bluefin Tuna.

Tuna aren't sentient like Dolphins or Whales are. Intellectual dishonest turd. It's not about forcing me to eat whale, it's about the ethical conundrum of killing sentient life and destroying the food chain. If you were an abortion hating theist, which I won't assume, then you may be able to understand this from that angle. And I proved you don't understand the structure if you think we should just be able to hunt anything that's not critically endangered, which means only a few hundred left alive.

So what? We eat plenty of other mammals like Cattle, Pigs and Sheep. What makes Whales more special than these?

What happened to needing meat to gain muscle? guess I refuted that...

You did not. Some people need meat for muscle gain, others can gain muscle without meat on a short term basis, but there's no evidence that people can (generally speaking) continue to gain muscle long-term (20-year+) on a vegan diet.

Now that you know what this word means, please use it correctly.

Thanks idiot, but I did use it correctly, you've been nothing but ironic crying straw man and making them, that's irony, and I don't need your validation for that fact either. You're just going to have to fucking deal with it.

No, you use the word a lot but you don't know how to use it properly. Don't feel too stupid, there's plenty of other who don't know what irony means. Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc

Rain on your wedding day: NOT ironic.
Free ride when you've already paid: NOT ironic.
Good advice that you didn't take: Ironic.

Hardly anything in that song can be considered irony. I just googled it for you, so you can read through the list and learn what is and isn't irony.

I'm not being mean, I'm telling you that you're using the word irony wrongly. I have numerous examples of you, now, using the word to mean things it doesn't.

And yet more evidence that you try to win arguments with insults and needless trolling rather than substance.

I'm not trying to win anything you ego-maniac, talk about making a straw man. Why are you making the position for me that I'm trying to win something? oh yeah, you're a fuckwit who doesn't understand the implications of what he says. But in actuality, I am enjoying making you look stupid though. And I do enjoy calling you the necessary insults, because they are valid. I'll say it again proudly, you, are, a, fucking, idiot, and I have pages of irrelevance and distortion out of you to validate that fact. Remember when you tried to equate my arguments with veganism? Of course you don't.

"Equate your arguments with veganism"? See, just about everything you accuse me of is your own invention. Did I accuse you of making every claim that a vegan would make or something? No. Just the one, the one that you did make.

Go read a dictionary, believe it or not there are some Yanks who know the English language, you're just not one of them.