Vegan Death Cult

sabat

I'd say a lot of those people have eating disorders for which veganism provides a cover.

gozunda

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Agree completely that its been done to death. There is an awful lot of uninformed hate for a diet. Its actually not worth reading these threads once you've seen one.

Aggreed its the amount of absolute ****e being pushed as fact which has been done to death.

As for the 'hate' .... easy to see which group is pushing that despite the usual screaming and claims to the contrary

Interesting that you would comment on vegans being attacked in this thread and when that is done to other posters for no other reason than aggression - they get a thanks from you and others. But hey well done

DeeblesMcBeebles, SaintLeibowitz, seamus, Unearthly & etc

You are great bunch of lads for sure!

Deebles McBeebles

Johanna Helpful Backstroke wrote: »

Great this is now another generic veganism after hours thread.

Need a "Talking sh!t about veganism" subforum.

Or just a blog by Gozunda called 'I ****ing hate vegans, the loudmouthed pricks'.

I assume thats the post you're talking about ^^^

gozunda wrote: »

Aggreed its the amount of absolute ****e being pushed as fact which has been done to death.

Interesting that you would comment on vegans being attacked in this thread and when that is done to other posters for no other reason than aggression - they get a thanks from you and others. But hey well done CQD, Deebles McBeebles & seamus. You are great bunch of lads for sure!

I thanked it for the first 2 lines, which is made clear in my response. I'm not on your side of the argument as such but I haven't attacked you. If you feel attacked by one post imagine how vegans feel reading 90% of these threads.

Unearthly

sabat wrote: »

I'd say a lot of those people have eating disorders for which veganism provides a cover.

I am getting close to winning the vegan myth bingo

Just need someone to say where do they get their protein

gozunda

mathie wrote: »

It's not just soy that's used to feed livestock though.

The ratios below are the crux of the issue.

Yes you are correct it's not just left over soy meal - this from the FAO again.

A new study by FAO and published in Global Food Security found that livestock rely primarily on forages, crop residues and by-products that are not edible to humans and that certain production systems contribute directly to global food security, as they produce more highly valuable nutrients for humans, such as proteins, than they consume.

“I came to realize that people are continually exposed to incorrect information about livestock and the environment that is repeated without being challenged, in particular about livestock feed,” ...

This study determines that 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption. If not consumed by livestock, crop residues and by-products could quickly become an environmental burden as the human population grows and consumes more and more processed food.

Boulevardier

I would love to see a campaign for restaurants to advertise themselves as "vegan free."

They could ensure that all their dishes, including sides, have some sort of animal produce in them be it butter, egg or honey.

Thelonious Monk

Boulevardier wrote: »

I would love to see a campaign for restaurants to advertise themselves as "vegan free."

They could ensure that all their dishes, including sides, have some sort of animal produce in them be it butter, egg or honey.

Why?

Effects

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what rubs people up the wrong way about the vegans is the self righteous pontification aspect of it..

Yet these threads are full of meat eaters, spouting mistruths, and frothing at the mouth just because some people have a different diet to them.

sabat

Unearthly wrote: »

I am getting close to winning the vegan myth bingo

Just need someone to say where do they get their protein

Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? I said those people.

Sandor Clegane

All the fad diets are stupid, keto, Vegan, Carnivore etc...

gozunda

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I assume thats the post you're talking about ^^^

I thanked it for the first 2 lines, which is made clear in my response. I'm not on your side of the argument as such but I haven't attacked you. If you feel attacked by one post imagine how vegans feel reading 90% of these threads.

Sure. I'll buy that... :rolleyes: The fact is its nearly always the same few who do that ****e and the same few who scream blue murder. That's why claims to the contrary do not wash.

If anyone imagines that presenting actual facts about agriculture is an attack (see post thanked for details) then vegans have bigger problems than simply what a few people think about them .

Unearthly

sabat wrote: »

Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? I said those people.

Apologies. Could have been interpreted you meant all vegans as 'those people'

MMXX

I actually feel really sorry for vegans, (I know you may be reading this thinking 'you don't need to feel sorry for me you ignorant fool.') - and that's OK.

They're trying to do the right thing, for very noble reasons - but it is my strongly held belief, that their poor bodies will eventually pay the price for their mind's overrul-...ance - of their bodies.

That's just my opinion though, I'm not trying to change anyone else's.

Deebles McBeebles

gozunda wrote: »

Sure. I'll buy that... :rolleyes:

If only you had left out your favourite passive aggressive emoji I might have bought that.

I don't care what you or anyone else eats, I have no vested interest in it. I do see far more condescending and uninformed remarks coming from what you like to call the "omnivores" though.

Assetbacked

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

All the fad diets are stupid, keto, Vegan, Carnivore etc...

I think both sides can agree that keto is a load of tripe. A diet made up as a joke for people to be able to diet but eat what they want (e.g. cheese covered, bacon-wrapped steak - "is that keto? If it is, I can eat it").

IrishKev

It's quite hilarious to drop into boards every now and then and see the same posters incessantly commenting on how loud and bashful vegans are. If there's a better example of irony I've never heard it

gozunda

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

If only you had left out your favourite passive aggressive emoji I might have bought that.
I don't care what you or anyone else eats, I have no vested interest in it. I do see far more condescending and uninformed remarks coming from what you like to call the "omnivores" though.

Its an emoji - it simply means I dont really believe that. Thanks for the apology though ...

Looking at this thread- I'd say it's a out 50 / 50 for condescending and uninformed remarks

And yes afaik the normal description is omnivore. But the ones screaming blue muder that the kids are being mean aren't generally those.

I dont care what anyone eats either. Its no skin off my nose. It's when misinformation is held up as truth - then that's where things get shown up for being bs..

mathie

MMXX wrote: »

I actually feel really sorry for vegans, (I know you may be reading this thinking 'you don't need to feel sorry for me you ignorant fool.') - and that's OK.

They're trying to do the right thing, for very noble reasons - but it is my strongly held belief, that their poor bodies will eventually pay the price for their mind's overrul-...ance - of their bodies.

That's just my opinion though, I'm not trying to change anyone else's.

Why do you think that?

Effects

Effects wrote: »

Yet these threads are full of meat eaters, spouting mistruths, and frothing at the mouth just because some people have a different diet to them.

Ah shur it's just another of these polarising issues intended to get people on one side or the other, and both sides wound up.. They don't have to think then and can just revert to type..

mathie

gozunda wrote: »

Its an emoji - it simply means I dont really believe that. Thanks for the apology though ...

Looking at this thread- I'd say it's a out 50 / 50 tbh. And yes afaik the normal description is omnivore. But the ones screaming blue muder that the kids are being mean aren't generally those.

I dont care what anyone eats either. Its no skin off my nose. It's when misinformation is held up as truth - then that's where things get shown up for being bs..

What's the misinformation you're talking about?
That soy beans are mostly used for liverstock feed?

Deebles McBeebles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I don't care what you or anyone else eats, I have no vested interest in it. I do see far more condescending and uninformed remarks coming from what you like to call the "omnivores" though.

Actually as someone not invested by trade, subjectivity or personal bias in either side - I generally see misleading remarks coming from both sides in pretty equal measure on these threads.

While some people do like to lie however - I Think the majority of it is to be blamed on simple ignorance - and a bad media - rather than individual malice.

The first problem is that many people do not seem to understand what the research says. We saw one user cite an opinion piece about research rather than bothering to cite the original research for example - before then going on in a later post to simply drop the "Processed meat causes cancer" link which is one of the most over cited - most misrepresented - things in recent history of this discussion - and another broken link to what I think was one of a series of really awful studies on the effects of plant based diets on all cause mortallity. Some people can only read the title alas.

The second problem however is deeper than that though. Nutrition research is simply terrible. We do not - and in some cases can not - do the research we actually need on it. No matter how bad you think it is - it is probably a lot lot worse. And the media do not help with this by over reporting the relevance of findings. Usually by ignoring - usually on purpose because they would not have a story if they did not - the difference between an actual health risk increase and a _relative_ increase.

For example the aforementioned Processed Meats causing cancer issue which the papers fell all over themselves to report. If you wanted to write a news paper story and get clicks - would you report that processed meats can cause a 20% increase in your risks - or would you report that it increases your _overall life time risk_ from and an already existing baseline of 5% to a mere 6% and then _only if eaten daily consistently and in pretty above average amounts_?

gozunda

mathie wrote: »

What's the misinformation you're talking about?
That soy beans are mostly used for liverstock feed?

I presume you must have missed it?

Yes soy is primarily grown for oil. That oil gets extracted from the whole bean and what is left over (the soy meal) gets fed to animals. Thats all types of animals - pets, horses, fish, chickens, pigs and yes some cattle as well.

And I'm not a fan of soy btw. Interestingly whilst the biggest proportion of soy is grown in the United States - I am against it being grown in the Amazon.

MMXX

mathie wrote: »

Why do you think that?

Well... it's not very scientific - but I've seen a LOT of YouTube videos, of ex-vegans, and I've watched them - and listened very carefully to them. And I really do believe them, not because they are telling me to - but because I can see with my own eyes.

mathie

Deleted User wrote: »

We saw one user cite an opinion piece about research rather than bothering to cite the original research for example -

Articles tend to be more palatable than research papers.

Deleted User wrote: »

before then going on in a later post to simply drop the "Processed meat causes cancer" link which is one of the most over cited - most misrepresented - things in recent history of this discussion

Over-cited ... So it can't be referenced?

Deleted User wrote: »

For example the aforementioned Processed Meats causing cancer issue which the papers fell all over themselves to report. If you wanted to write a news paper story and get clicks - would you report that processed meats can cause a 20% increase in your risks - or would you report that it increases your _overall life time risk_ from and an already existing baseline of 5% to a mere 6% and then _only if eaten daily consistently and in pretty above average amounts_?

That's just over one sausage.
For some people that's not a pretty above average amount.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well I don't believe you for a second. You posted a Twitter link above from someone where every one of his tweets is anti-plant diet. It's fine, it's your livelihood. It would be nice to get a definitive answer on soy growth once and for all however.

Again you are wrong in your supposition.

But you don't have to believe me Thelonious. In fact I dont think you believe anyone but no matter.

This is the industry source for soy bean production.

https://www.oilseedandgrain.com/soy-facts

And the 'someone' you dont seem to like for some strange reason is Professor of Nutrition (emeritus) University of Illinois. And I've seen no evidence for you bile against him other than he referred to soy oil production in his tweet.

What I see in most in these discussions is that a few who little or nothing about food production expounding on the topic and when someone like Professor Layman is referenced regarding a topic as mundane as soy oil production - they try do a hatchet job on the individual because that person doesn't accord with a particular world view.

But then what's new eh?

Assetbacked

gozunda wrote: »

I presume you must have missed it?

Yes soy is primarily grown for oil. That oil gets extracted from the whole bean and what is left over (the soy meal) gets fed to animals. Thats all types of animals - pets, horses, fish, chickens, pigs and yes some cattle as well.

And I'm not a fan of soy btw. Interestingly whilst the biggest proportion of soy is grown in the United States - I am against it being grown in the Amazon.

The soybean meal "byproduct" of soybean oil extraction is edible though and could be used to feed humans rather than wasting this high protein feed on bulking up animals for the slaughter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein

gozunda

Assetbacked wrote: »

The soybean meal "byproduct" of soybean oil extraction is edible though and could be used to feed humans rather than wasting this high protein feed on bulking up animals for the slaughter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein

True it could. But you know that there is no shortage of food globally?

That where there is hunger it is largely due to corruption and inequality

https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/

Nice that you would suggest that we should use the soy meal from soy beans grown in places like the amazon!

Imo there should be no use of the Amazon for the production of such foods imo for anyone whatever diet is being pushed

The facts are that the US is currently the largest producer of soybeans. Again most of that goes for oil and the what's left gets used for feedstuffs in the US.

Theres nothing stopping food companies buying more soy meal if they wish - the fact is they dont.

In Ireland cattle and other livestock are mainly fed different types of fodder with a very small amount being used as supplementary feed. Most of that comes from the US btw.

And as detailed previously Livestock use large areas of pastures where nothing else could be produced. Yes soy meal does get used more in poultry rearing and pig production - but a huge amount also gets used to make pet food and horse feeds.

El_Duderino 09

seamus wrote: »

I'm sure I could make a compilation of morbidly obese people on scooters and respirators and claim that it's evidence of how dangerous a non-vegan diet is.

It'd be exactly as valid as the video in the op, and exactly as nonsensical.

Kind of odd how people who have a problem with veganism are far louder and more obsessed about it than vegans themselves.

Completely agree. Those people in the video look to have an eating disorder and are vegan. Strictly controlled diets to the point of being unhealthy is a sure sign of an eating disorder.

But, don't let that get in the way of the usual suspects banging on about vegans.

mathie

mathie wrote: »

Articles tend to be more palatable than research papers.

They also tend to be distorted - agenda driven - sensationalised - misleading - and often leave out any mention of the important things in the paper such as controls, limitations, methodology and much more.

mathie wrote: »

Over-cited ... So it can't be referenced?

I never said that. You literally took what I said and changed it to something else entirely.

mathie wrote: »

That's just over one sausage. For some people that's not a pretty above average amount.

What are you citing there? What is one sausage???

Assetbacked

gozunda wrote: »

True it could. But you know that there is no shortage of food globally?

That where there is hunger it is largely due to corruption and inequality

https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/

Nice that you would suggest that we should use the soy meal from soy beans grown in places like the amazon!

Imo there should be no use of the Amazon for the production of such foods imo.

The facts are that the US is currently the largest producer of soybeans. Again most of that goes for oil and the what's left gets used for feedstuffs on the US.

Theres nothing stopping food companies buying soy meal if they wish - the fact is they dont.

In Ireland cattle and other livestock are mainly fed different types of fodder with a very small amount being used as supplementary feed.

And as detailed previously Livestock use large areas of pastures where nothing else could be produced. Yes soy meal does get used more in poultry rearing and pig production - but a huge amount also gets used to make pet food and horse feeds.

This is shifting your position and adding in several different points. Your original position on soy beans was that it was only the byproduct or residue of soybean oil extraction that was being used to feed animals. My point is that soybean meal can be used to feed humans and the animals can and should be taken out of the equation.

You say you don't agree with the Amazon being destroyed for food production but the point being made to you is that this is directly the result of the demand for meat. With populations in developing countries increasing at uncontrollable rates, demands for meat will continue to rise which will lead to more environmental destruction to produce the animals from which the meat is obtained. All of this can be avoided by moving away from meat consumption.