This isn't about the ethics of veganism. This is entirely about the healthiness of the diet.
I'm aware that veganism, when all the B12 supplements and everything is taken, can be very healthy and I am aware that red meat is bad for us.... but is it really true that veganism is healthier than vegetarianism, that even oily fish like salmon is bad for us, and that chicken has no health benefits?
As far as I am aware oily fish is extremely good for us.
And as it says here in Wikipedia:
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetaria...iderations)
Pesetarianins tend to live longer than vegans.
So this is entirely about health.
What bothers me about veganism, and my vegan family, is the intellectual dishonesty of the confirmation bias and willingness to misrepresent the opponent in debates to support their moral cause. (I linked one article offering a different perspective and was mocked in a 'this so-called "expert" you linked' kind of way when I never said they were an expert. I would rather eat meat and remain intellectually honest and non-condescending. It's one thing to be a vegan for personal and private ethical reasons and it's quite another thing to join a bullshit moral crusading cult. ). I do value moral principles but I could never sacrifice my intellectual honesty for any of it... and I think the preachy vegans who become very condescending and obnoxious and push their entire lifestyle on people, and not simply tell them to stop eating meat and animal products for ethical reasons, and make all these claims that veganism is the healthiest diet--I think those vegans are shooting themselves in the foot.
My mom said 'veganism is like politics' and said that what she meant by that is 'someone mentions the word and suddenly everyone is an expert on it', which, again, I never said I was an expert on it. It's this kind of misrepresenting who you disagree with that I see as an example of the willingness to value moralizing over intellectual honesty... --I think this can be avoided if instead of always valuing all other values over even the truth regarding facts such people asked "In this particular discussion, are we discussing facts or values?" because I wasn't debating the ethics of veganism.
I think i's ironic my mom said 'veganism is like politics'.... because whilist I disagree and simply note that she made a use/mention error ("veganism" is like "politics", veganism is not like politics)--the moral crusading vegans are indeed very like politicans... in that they are more interested in spinning a particular narrative than the facts... and that whilst they most certainly have strongly held policies... it's very evident that such moral crusading vegans (as opposed to the vegans who are less preachy and are fully honest about how they're vegan for primarily ethical reasons and don't claim that eating even salmon is bad for your health).... certainly don't consider honesty to be the best policy. And when it comes to intellectual dishonesty? I think there's nothing worse than that. All moralizing falls apart if one cannot even communicate honestly in a discussion. Moral crusaders misrepresenting people are going to scare people away from ethical veganism rather than towards it... and IMO without the truth and intellectual honesty all other values are worthless. Without intellectual honesty there can be no science, without science there can be no medicine, without science there can be no progress, without science there can be no support for ethical veganism or for anything else--without science we're back in the dark ages. And when vegans say that science is biased? No, just no. Science is all about being un-biased. The scientific method is as close to non-biased as you can get. Individual scientists can be biased (hence why only linking to scientific articles written by vegan scientists isn't exactly helpful) but to throw one's hands up in the air with an "Everything is biased. Even the scientific method isn't perfectly un-biased, so we may as well push our own position in a biased way." is to commit both the Perfect Solution Fallacy and to give up on intellectual honesty just because science isn't perfect. It's just an excuse to engage in more confirmation bias and misrepresenting the opponent.
I would very happily be a vegan if I could afford to for purely ethical reasons... except I'd still eat fish because I don't think they're fully conscious (although I may cut out animal products so I'd essentially be a vegan + fish).... but if my family think that if I become a vegan I'm going to pretend that it's healthier than pescatarianism then they are very mistaken. I'm never going to value moral crusading above intellectual honesty. If I had a soul that would be to sell it.
So my question is twofold...
1. is mainstream science really in favor of vegans? Or is the reason why vegans regularly fail to link to non-partisan sources so often--when arguing for how it's supposedly the healtheist diet, healthier than even pesecatarianism--because they value their moralizing above their intellectual honesty?
and
2. Does all the mainstream hard medical scientific evidence really say that chicken has zero health benefits (I've read that women who eat chicken are less likely to get breast cancer) and--more importantly--is it really really the case that fish like salmon is bad for oneself and veganism is healthier than all forms of vegetarianism? (I sincerely doubt it, the way Wikipedia says that vegans have lower mortality rates than meat eaters but vegetarians have lower mortality rates than vegans seems extremely commonsensical to me... anyone got any better sources?)
Thank you.
I'm aware that veganism, when all the B12 supplements and everything is taken, can be very healthy and I am aware that red meat is bad for us.... but is it really true that veganism is healthier than vegetarianism, that even oily fish like salmon is bad for us, and that chicken has no health benefits?
As far as I am aware oily fish is extremely good for us.
And as it says here in Wikipedia:
Wikipedia Wrote:A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found that in comparison with regular meat-eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 34% lower in pescetarians, 34% lower in ovo-lacto vegetarians, 26% lower in vegans and 20% lower in occasional meat-eaters.
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetaria...iderations)
Pesetarianins tend to live longer than vegans.
So this is entirely about health.
What bothers me about veganism, and my vegan family, is the intellectual dishonesty of the confirmation bias and willingness to misrepresent the opponent in debates to support their moral cause. (I linked one article offering a different perspective and was mocked in a 'this so-called "expert" you linked' kind of way when I never said they were an expert. I would rather eat meat and remain intellectually honest and non-condescending. It's one thing to be a vegan for personal and private ethical reasons and it's quite another thing to join a bullshit moral crusading cult. ). I do value moral principles but I could never sacrifice my intellectual honesty for any of it... and I think the preachy vegans who become very condescending and obnoxious and push their entire lifestyle on people, and not simply tell them to stop eating meat and animal products for ethical reasons, and make all these claims that veganism is the healthiest diet--I think those vegans are shooting themselves in the foot.
My mom said 'veganism is like politics' and said that what she meant by that is 'someone mentions the word and suddenly everyone is an expert on it', which, again, I never said I was an expert on it. It's this kind of misrepresenting who you disagree with that I see as an example of the willingness to value moralizing over intellectual honesty... --I think this can be avoided if instead of always valuing all other values over even the truth regarding facts such people asked "In this particular discussion, are we discussing facts or values?" because I wasn't debating the ethics of veganism.
I think i's ironic my mom said 'veganism is like politics'.... because whilist I disagree and simply note that she made a use/mention error ("veganism" is like "politics", veganism is not like politics)--the moral crusading vegans are indeed very like politicans... in that they are more interested in spinning a particular narrative than the facts... and that whilst they most certainly have strongly held policies... it's very evident that such moral crusading vegans (as opposed to the vegans who are less preachy and are fully honest about how they're vegan for primarily ethical reasons and don't claim that eating even salmon is bad for your health).... certainly don't consider honesty to be the best policy. And when it comes to intellectual dishonesty? I think there's nothing worse than that. All moralizing falls apart if one cannot even communicate honestly in a discussion. Moral crusaders misrepresenting people are going to scare people away from ethical veganism rather than towards it... and IMO without the truth and intellectual honesty all other values are worthless. Without intellectual honesty there can be no science, without science there can be no medicine, without science there can be no progress, without science there can be no support for ethical veganism or for anything else--without science we're back in the dark ages. And when vegans say that science is biased? No, just no. Science is all about being un-biased. The scientific method is as close to non-biased as you can get. Individual scientists can be biased (hence why only linking to scientific articles written by vegan scientists isn't exactly helpful) but to throw one's hands up in the air with an "Everything is biased. Even the scientific method isn't perfectly un-biased, so we may as well push our own position in a biased way." is to commit both the Perfect Solution Fallacy and to give up on intellectual honesty just because science isn't perfect. It's just an excuse to engage in more confirmation bias and misrepresenting the opponent.
I would very happily be a vegan if I could afford to for purely ethical reasons... except I'd still eat fish because I don't think they're fully conscious (although I may cut out animal products so I'd essentially be a vegan + fish).... but if my family think that if I become a vegan I'm going to pretend that it's healthier than pescatarianism then they are very mistaken. I'm never going to value moral crusading above intellectual honesty. If I had a soul that would be to sell it.
So my question is twofold...
1. is mainstream science really in favor of vegans? Or is the reason why vegans regularly fail to link to non-partisan sources so often--when arguing for how it's supposedly the healtheist diet, healthier than even pesecatarianism--because they value their moralizing above their intellectual honesty?
and
2. Does all the mainstream hard medical scientific evidence really say that chicken has zero health benefits (I've read that women who eat chicken are less likely to get breast cancer) and--more importantly--is it really really the case that fish like salmon is bad for oneself and veganism is healthier than all forms of vegetarianism? (I sincerely doubt it, the way Wikipedia says that vegans have lower mortality rates than meat eaters but vegetarians have lower mortality rates than vegans seems extremely commonsensical to me... anyone got any better sources?)
Thank you.
