Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you just shifted the goal posts, huh? First you cared about killing a sentient being, now you care about their suffering . And why is this any better? You only care about animal suffering because you are an animal who can suffer yourself. Your ideology remains selfish an self-centered. You don't care about killing a potato because the potato doesn't bleed and try to run away. You're still only thinking about yours…
> So you just shifted the goal posts, huh? First you cared about killing a sentient being, now you care about their suffering. FYI, the definition of suffering is: "to endure death, pain, or distress". So if you kill an animal, it will suffer. And why do you keep comparing animals to potatoes? As noted before, it's a scientific fact that plants are not the same as animals. They don't have pain receptors or a central…
Really? According to whom? According to you who came up with it just now, so you can justify moving the goalposts? Haha. Nice try.
Nah, actually, not a nice try. Just even more typical vegan dishonesty and trying to win an argument by peddling lies.
> It says most vegans have no problems.
Nope. It says most vegans aren't clinically deficient. But it says very clearly that most vegans also have low homocysteine levels that put them at risk of heart disease, stroke and pregnancy complications.
> Look, I get that your identity seems to be tied heavily to food - I mean your user name 'cheese_goddess' gives a clue.
That's calling the kettle black, coming from a vegan (I mean, assuming you are vegan). My handle, which seems to trigger vegans on HN, is chosen because I'm an amateur cheesemaker and I had thought when I created it that I could contribute to discussions with my empirical knowledge of cheesemaking and some little things I know about dairy science and technology.
But it just so happens that any HN thread on anything to do with food is immediately invaded by hungry vegans keen on spreading their ideology. So I keep getting embroiled in these silly little internet arguments with people like you, who care nothing about anything but getting people to agree that eating meat is bad.
I don't even eat that much meat. I eat it maybe ... once a week? Every two weeks? It's not like I'm keeping count. I eat beef maybe once every five years, because I don't like it. I grew up on a Mediterrannean diet and I still cook and eat that way. I find the people who say we should eat only meat about as mad as vegans, and about as unhealthy.
So no, it's nothing to do with identity. It's just that all that stuff you say is mad. That we should eat only plants is as mad as saying we should eat only meat. It is mad people saying mad stuff on the mad internet. Mad mad mad.
> Your statement goes against many nutrition experts
It doesn't. What goes against those physicians you list is research that consistently finds that vegans are lacking in basic nutrients, that older vegans have more health issues, and that children fed vegan diets by their parents end up stunted, or dead. I linked to a bunch of those above and further down this sorry excuse for a thread.
Why are all those physicians contradicting common research findings? Well, I have no clue. But I know who I'm siding with. The 17,000 "physicians" saying that it's fine to cut out a major food group from your diet? Or the researchers who say that if you do, you're in risk of malnutrition? Guess which one makes more sense.