Saturated Fat Controversy

[I_am_not_mafia]

I need to make sure to reduce my sat fat every day to as low as possible, and certainly no more than 10g a day. That's because it's known to exacerbate Multiple Sclerosis and cutting it out completely is the most significant thing you can do to stop progression of the disease.

[FlatAssembler]

I need to make sure to reduce my sat fat every day to as low as possible, and certainly no more than 10g a day. That's because it's known to exacerbate Multiple Sclerosis and cutting it out completely is the most significant thing you can do to stop progression of the disease.

This thread was supposed to be about the cranks who claim that saturated fat intake doesn't contribute to heart disease, and whether Michael Greger properly debunked those claims. And Abaddon_ire claimed he didn't because he is supposedly anti-GMO (even though he explicitly said he isn't).
And, after a while, the conversation went on to Gae Bolga and LastPoet claiming that CO2 poisoning (the way animals are increasingly being killed in slaughterhouses today) can be painless if it's done properly, and that it's somehow ethical to eat meat today (even though it's usually not done "properly") because of that.
In my opinion, claiming such things is not much different from the way people argue for creationism. Just throw such an extraordinary claim (or a few of them) which appears to contradict mainstream science at people, show no knowledge of the relevant fields of science, and switch the burden of proof. In fact, it's even worse than creationism, since knowledge needed to prove those things about "painlessly" slaughtering wrong isn't easily acquired: you need to read about things that really aren't confortable to read about. I hope I've managed to change Gae Bolga's mind about that.
But even if I haven't, I don't think it's really my fault. Some people are just too invested in their beliefs. This is much like trying to convince somebody who has programmed an antivirus software that antivirus software doesn't actually make our computers more secure these days. Such people perhaps just need to die out.

[Abaddon_ire]

It's a surrogate religion for you, isn't it?

[FlatAssembler]

It's a surrogate religion for you, isn't it?

Kind of. But unlike most religions or its surrogates (such as communism), it's based on at least some factual content. Christianity has no factual content to it, we have no good reason to think Jesus even existed. Same goes for Buddhism. Islam has very little factual content to it, Mohammed left a few things written, but, curiously, he somehow forgot to mention he flew on a flying horse. As for communism, it's based on the idea (also supposedly mentioned by Jesus) that capitalism will make rich richer and poor poorer, and obviously the exact opposite has happened.
Veganism, on the other hand, is based on the idea that exploitation of animals has bad consequences. And facts apparently support that. Our attempts to exploit the animals more efficiently have led to antibiotic resistance, a threat way more real than global warming. And it has led to people consuming more saturated fat and more calcium, but less vitamin K, and it's a fact that this leads to heart disease. And it has led to people psychotically deny that fact and psychotically claim, among other things, that CO2 poisoning is painless.
So, what compares more to a religion? Accepting science and considering it when making dietary choices, or psychotically attempting to deny it, along with claiming that CO2 poisoning is painless?

[FlatAssembler]

What do you think is the difference between claiming that halal slaughter is painless and claiming that CO2 poisoning is painless? Both claims are rejecting neuroscience in favor of some ideology, aren't they?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're inquiring about the difference between anesthesia and slitting throats, lol.

[FlatAssembler]

You're inquiring about the difference between anesthesia and slitting throats, lol.

Both are forms of "anesthesia" that have been proven not to work.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I see the disconnect. In addition to knowing nothing about agricultural production and pricing, you're bad at words.

I'll just repeat what I've already told you. There are good arguments to be made in favor of vegetarianism, and veganism, or just reducing the amount of meat in a persons diet in general - you just haven't produced them in this thread. That's okay, though, because you don't actually need an argument to decide what you're going to put on your own plate. No one does. It might be healthier, depending on your eating habits, and it might be more comfortable, depending on how you feel about killing animals. It won't reduce the price of food or help to feed the starving multitudes, though. That's okay too. It's not as if we have to save the world over dinner.

Michael Pollans got a great line, covers the whole spectrum. Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables.

[FlatAssembler]

In addition to knowing nothing about agricultural production and pricing, you're bad at words.

Informing yourself about agriculture (or any other topic, for that matter) is very nearly worthless if you refuse to take action about what is indeed known. You don't need to be an expert in agriculture to understand that, by buying meat of birds and mammals in the supermarket, you are supporting the process that leads to antibiotic resistance. You don't need to be an expert in agriculture to realize that, since concentrations of CO2 in the air of around 5% cause pain in humans, and only when the concentration gets to around 40% do people lose consciousness, CO2 poisoning can't be painless for humans, and there is no good reason to assume it's significantly different for pigs. Claiming without evidence that nitrogen poisoning is painless for pigs would hold a bit more merit, since it is indeed painless for humans, although we know that it isn't for some animals more closely related to humans than pigs are, such as moles. You don't need any kind of expertise in agriculture to realize that saturated fat cause heart disease, and that calcium intake is counter-productive if you are deficient in vitamin K or vitamin D, which almost everybody these days is.

Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables.

Does that guy also exaggerate the dangers of gluten?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, informing yourself about agriculture would have been useful to you in this thread, even if it didn't lead to any "action". You'd have avoided crank arguments, lol.

IDK if he does or doesn't, not that it would matter, since the advice in that line is good even if he did..just as his expertise in those matters he addressed is still expertise, even if he did. I mean, personally, I think his stance on GMOs is a bit ridiculous though I do understand his concerns, as an example I'm familiar with...but he acknowledges that bias and we don't have to have the same position on the matter for some other comment on some other matter to be valid or true.

Try again crank.