Obesity "Fat" acceptance movement in the U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

A number of interesting points.


And this is getting seriously off topic. Should we just start a new one?


Trueish, but I despise Fat Acceptance so I am arguing that knowledge of Vegan topics obviates the claims of the Fat Acceptance movement, so in that way it is completely on topic. I second the Z thing, whatever your thoughts may be about obesity, it is not funny to those who are obese. Best to treat that situation very carefully.

Humans are not omnivores, humans are hyperherbivores with some adaptations to animal products (some genes for lactose metabolism throughout life {for some people} and a killer immune system to fight the pathogenic load that comes with living in the dirty environments humans have inhabited). It is not scientifically correct to claim humans are omnivores. It is possible to feed deer hamburger. It will not kill them; do it enough and it will do to them what it does to us, aka, make them fat and sick. The argument that omnivores are omnivores because of what they can eat is silly and false. Each vore comes with specific biological adaptations.

True omnivores and carnivores don't get sick from eating meat; humans do get sick from eating meat because of obesity, heart disease, etc... ergo, humans are not omnivores or carnivores. You have been lied to. The scientists of the world do not agree with your assessment, and between me and you, I think we should listen to them and not your down home good knowledge.

You ever have a bunny in front of you, and then you think, "Oh, I would love to take my teeth and go right for it's throat and suffocate it; then I would like tear it apart and drink its blood. Then, then I want it to just sit there for a while until it starts to decompose a bit, to get that beautiful smell of putrescine and cadavarine. Yummy." No, that would make you a scat loving psychopath instead of the hyperherbavore with a meat addiction, which you are. You pet a bunny because you are like the bunny, an herbivore. Still don't believe me?

Magna, Vegans take B12 supplements because water is treated to get rid of microbes that make that compound. Cobalamine (vitamin B12) comes from microbes. In nature this would not be an issue, but we don't want cholera or whatever, so you gotta take B12. Btw, most meat-eaters (I don't say omnivore, because even if your diet is omnivorous that does not mean biologically you are best adapted to an omnivorous diet) don't get enough B12, from what I remember. It is actually a non-argument because the only reason meat-eaters get enough B12 is because they feed it to the cattle. You could reverse the argument, "How do you get your B12 if you don't get it through supplements because of the water? Oh, you first pass it through an animal... how gross and wasteful!"

I am not saying that it's obsessing over nothing, just that many people are dangerously obsessed about it. For example, here we have some politicans who think it'd be okay to just force everyone to go vegan. While we need to seriously think about these things due to climate change and such, attacking people like that is not okay. Also, economy and self sustaining need to be taken in to account as well. For examble, where I'm from we have lots of land that isn't really suitable for raising eatable plants for people, but is suitable for raising food for animals. If raising animals for food stopped, those lands couldn't be used to their full potential and the country wouldn't be able to support itself by producing it's own food the way it used to, which would lead to more debt and the people's lives worsening. And while we could probably somehow buy what's needed from abroad normally, what would happen if a war broke out? We might no longer get food. Or if the crops are bad where the food is made? The priority will obviously be the locals, so what if there isn't enough for us? Completely destroying cattle industry would damage countries and areas where raising many plants is difficult, and that is the main reason I don't support the world going vegan. Sure, lessening the amount of meat eaten is good and should be done, but the world stopping completely would harm too many people in the places mentioned before... or do you think it'd be okay to sacrifice them for the rest of the world's sake?

This part about drives me crazy. Let me be clear, if I could push a magic button that eliminated every human on the planet who is not Vegan after presenting them with the relevant data and giving them the free choice, I would be sorely tested not too. Humans are freaking monsters and our collective survival is on the line. But hey, let's not obssess about it or anything...?!?

I am not an idiot though. No matter how much pain and suffering and stupidity comes out of peoples actions about this, I know that eventually humans will extinct themself or get better at not being a monster on their own. Anything I have to do about it is likely to make zero difference.

Can you guys though just wake the hell up please???

This is not my understanding at all. I don't know where you live, but I'm sure you're aware that many people, like myself, do not live with a municipal water supply. Well water. No treatment for microbes. No need.

Bottom line based on what I've read is that a vegan who does not take a B12 supplement will not be able to remain healthy regardless of whether they're drinking treated water or non-treated water. Also, I'm assuming you know that there are many humans that eat meat in addition to fruits and vegetables who are neither obese nor do they have heart disease. I am such a person. I quit caffeine recently because I was taking in too much of it to the point that I thought I was having chest pains. I was given a cardiac stress test, an echocardiogram and a cardiac calcium score test. The three tests showed that my heart is very healthy and astonishingly I have zero arterial plaque.

One of the things I have done for over twenty years is minimize the amount of processed foods I eat. Also, I've probably eaten at 'fast food' restaurants six times or less in the last twenty years. Also, I do not eat meat produced in 'factory farms'/conventionally raised.

In regard to the cervids and their diets: No one is force feeding them small animals. They're choosing to eat such things in addition to vegetable matter on their own.

This is not my understanding at all. I don't know where you live, but I'm sure you're aware that many people, like myself, do not live with a municipal water supply. Well water. No treatment for microbes. No need.

Let me be clear, people who use Municipal water, or treated water, do not have those microbes that make Cobalamine (Vitamin B12) in the water, because the water is treated, which is what that phrase means; so they should supplement. If they are Vegan, they must make sure to supplement even more so because they can not get it second-hand from dead animal corpses.

Your well water is probably not as "clean" of microbes as Municipal water is. Not that it is bad water at all, or at least how would I know? It is just that your water does not come with processing steps that gets rid of microbes; you just ladle it up with a bucket, or what have you, right?

So, no need for your previous statements.


Bottom line based on what I've read is that a vegan who does not take a B12 supplement will not be able to remain healthy regardless of whether they're drinking treated water or non-treated water. Also, I'm assuming you know that there are many humans that eat meat in addition to fruits and vegetables who are neither obese nor do they have heart disease. I am such a person. I quit caffeine recently because I was taking in too much of it to the point that I thought I was having chest pains. I was given a cardiac stress test, an echocardiogram and a cardiac calcium score test. The three tests showed that my heart is very healthy and astonishingly I have zero arterial plaque.


Untreated water has B12 in it from microbes. Why would having water with the vitamin in it still not be enough to handle the trace requirements the human body needs for the substance? Can you show your sources.

How old are you, what is your diet and why should I care about your anecdote? If you were part of a study involving multiple persons with controls and some degree of rigor, maybe this would be interesting, but as it is, this just shows there are outliers in any population.

Look around though. There are a significant number of people in the world who are now obese and don't have your luck, if that is what it is. There are plenty of what they call "skinny fat" people out there too. If you are young enough or have a high enough metabolism, maybe you can be one such. How would I know?

One thing I think I know is that statistically speaking most people who eat meat in developed countries have some degree of heart disease. Many such persons are obese. Obesity is not a natural condition. It is a food-borne illness.


One of the things I have done for over twenty years is minimize the amount of processed foods I eat. Also, I've probably eaten at 'fast food' restaurants six times or less in the last twenty years. Also, I do not eat meat produced in 'factory farms'/conventionally raised.


Many of your choices are commendable. It does not make horribly that much difference though both ethically, biologically to you, and environmentally, if you go factory or pasture raised. You are still involved with the killing of a cow to get a taste that you don't need which destroys your body and the environment.

I do not find it a credible the idea that meat has not left some form of detectable damage to your body. Dead Vietnam GI's and children were autopsied in a study I remember hearing about. The study found that by the age of ten most people develop arterial streaks. You can be streaked up and look young, but then your first sign you have a problem is the heart attack that kills you.

Are you willing to play those odds for taste? With the survival of humanity?
[[[ ... Dirty Hairy quote not aired, so fill in with your own mind.... ]]]


In regard to the cervids and their diets: No one is force feeding them small animals. They're choosing to eat such things in addition to vegetable matter on their own.


It is well known by biologists that many species of animal have a complex diet. Cats eat plants from time to time. Cows lick rocks. So what. We are sentient in a way they are not so we can chose to follow a diet based on the greatest possible outcome.

What determines if a species is Herbivore, Omnivore or Carnivore are the main anatomical adaptations in that species. Herbivores have weaker stomach acid than Omnivores and Carnivores. Omni and Carni both have shorter digestive tracts than Herbi's because of putrifaction. Then there are teeth, and other factors. Humans have every distinguishing characteristic that biologists have found herbivores have.

In fact, Humans are Hyperherbivores because Vitamin C is a vitamin. In other animals it is not a vitamin because they can make it internally. We were such plant eaters at one time that we lost the ability to make Vitamin C when that gene went atavistic. There are not that many species for which that has happened.

For cats it is Vitamin Carnitine. They ate so much meat in the past that that gene was made atavistic. Why make something and keep gene regulation going when you can just get it from your food directly, right.

Plus, did you click on the link and watch those two videos? If not, I really don't want to hear from you in a way. You've got explaining to do relative to those videos alone. Add in IPCC, etc, etc, I am sorry, I will come back a million times over if need be.

Or maybe I shouldn't... Oh well, I am hooked. Even though in many ways I have heard all of this before and then some. Who is going to ask me about protein next?

Be the terms what they might, a reasonable amount of meat won't cause any too bad damage. Unreasonable amounts will, but so will, say, unreasonable amount of carrots. People should simply stay to reasonable amounts of different types of food and remember that with some foods, the "reasonable" amount is very different than with some others.
Also, obesity isn't automatically a problem caused by meat. Anyone can become obese if they eat more than they spend, including vegans. It's less likely though.



That's a very black and white view you have. There are people who fit between that crazy description of yours and vegans. I'm one of those people.
Also, if one pets the bunny because they are like the bunny, why do we pet cats and dogs? They need meat, which reminds me that you ignored my question about the pets. Please answer it.

Why aren't you answering my questions? The fact is that the world going vegan out of the blue would affect the economy of entire countries and areas very negatively, thus making the lives of people living in these areas a lot harder too. Is this okay? Do you think it'd be okay to sacrifice these people for the sake of the rest? If the answer is yes, then I think our conversation is done for there is no way we could see eye to eye.

Be the terms what they might,

which is a way of admitting that I am correct in calling humans herbivores, and am probably correct in my usage of the other vore terms, but you don't want to admit it... cool.

a reasonable amount of meat won't cause any too bad damage. Unreasonable amounts will, but so will, say, unreasonable amount of carrots.

Strawman. How much. Quantify? For instance, how much do scientists recommend we get of transfat from food? The amount I heard is exactly, zero. Any amount of transfat does the body irreperable long term harm. All meat has transfat. How much do scientists recommend of cholesterol we should intake? The answer is zero. Our body makes all the cholesterol it needs to and ingesting any leads to excess cholesterol in the system, mucking up the blood. Oh shoot, I just disproved your quaint logic using evidence. My bad.

People should simply stay to reasonable amounts of different types of food and remember that with some foods, the "reasonable" amount is very different than with some others.
Also, obesity isn't automatically a problem caused by meat. Anyone can become obese if they eat more than they spend, including vegans. It's less likely though.

So you put qualifiers on it with, "isn't automatically a problem", and then fill in.

It isn't automatically a problem that I stole from a bank and the police will eventually get me...
It isn't automatically a problem that the world is baking due to animal agriculture...
It isn't automatically a problem, until it is a problem, then it sucks.

Excuses, excuses...

If you eat the diet your body is best adapted to eat, which is to say, a diet full of fresh veggies and fruit, there is about zero chance you will get obese. So many people have discovered this. They were overweight and lost the weight permanently and easily on a plant strong Vegan diet. Why should that be the case, unless the animal products were not the cause of the initial obesity in the first place?

Just because you are lucky enough to have a body that seemingly mostly fights off the ravages of eating meat, that does not mean much for the rest of us, sorry.

Earlier quote of mine for context:

You ever have a bunny in front of you, and then you think, "Oh, I would love to take my teeth and go right for it's throat and suffocate it; then I would like tear it apart and drink its blood. Then, then I want it to just sit there for a while until it starts to decompose a bit, to get that beautiful smell of putrescine and cadavarine. Yummy." No, that would make you a scat loving psychopath instead of the hyperherbavore with a meat addiction, which you are. You pet a bunny because you are like the bunny, an herbivore. Still don't believe me?

That's a very black and white view you have. There are people who fit between that crazy description of yours and vegans. I'm one of those people.

So you crave killing small furry animals? You are one of those strange humans who just loves the smell of rotting meat, right? Do your eyes see in multiple colors to make out the best fruit and veggies, or are you like 1/2 between us and dogs and cats that see in less color but have better motion detection? It must be interesting being a hybrid herbi/carni chimeric creation. Like, did God make you on the 8th day, or something?

Please, science really needs to look at you.

Also, if one pets the bunny because they are like the bunny, why do we pet cats and dogs? They need meat, which reminds me that you ignored my question about the pets. Please answer it.

Eat, not pet, unless you savagely kill and eat your pet's as prey on the usual, or something, I don't think you understood my original point.

Pets are actually carnivores (cats) and omnivores (dogs), you are not. The question of what to do about pets in Vegan topics is a controversial one. On the one hand, if you have a pet, you better feed it meat. They are meateaters and will get sick if you do not feed them properly, period.

I am not fundamentally an ethics based Vegan. I understand when survival trumps ethics, but what we have in the world today is an infantilizing myopia of how great the old times are. Animal products in the past were a matter of survival, now they are threatening our survival.

Why aren't you answering my questions? The fact is that the world going vegan out of the blue would affect the economy of entire countries and areas very negatively, thus making the lives of people living in these areas a lot harder too. Is this okay?

I didn't answer your question because it is a matter of political will and owning up to a situation. Owning up to reality always comes with costs, and opportunities. I remember a story of a Danish Rancher who switched to growing plants and did quite well, actually.

I know that there are peoples in the world who would be affected, some more than others. In many developed countries though, I don't think there is an excuse. Through trade and technology people in inhospitable environments have options.

Do you think it'd be okay to sacrifice these people for the sake of the rest? If the answer is yes, then I think our conversation is done for there is no way we could see eye to eye.

But for the people who do have an excuse --

The Inuit people's way of life depends upon eating meat. They get very sick for it, having shorter lives and all that, but that is part of their culture. There are people in Northern countries that eat a ton of fish because that is all they can get locally.

In some ways, it feels like the answer would be to set up reserves.

If some people do not want to get with the picture, then let them go to an old-west reserve where they can slowly kill yourselves by unnecessarily causing the torturous pains associated with eating meat. They will not be allowed to have tech on these reserves though, cause honestly, screw them. They want to live in the past, let them live in past.

They don't get new hunting guns with laser sighting, or the newest Carbon fiber fishing rods, or electronic range finders to see where fish are, or snowmachines, etc... That is hypocritical of them. Why should they get tech when they don't want to own up to science? Any tech from steam-age or before that they can make on the reserve they get to keep. Since they want to be against science and the survival of the species, let them go to their stupid reserve and play Cowboys and Indians, or whatever it is they will do. The rest of humanity does not need them.

The rest of us will be developing Warp Technology and living long full lives filled with peace, joy and contentment. That is because we are willing to admit that we should be more like Vulcans and less like barbarians.

Now that I have answered your questions Fireblossom, can you watch the two video links I gave in an earlier post and answer to them? I doubt very seriously you can.

It honestly makes it impossible to take you seriously when you write stuff like this. If you really can't understand what the in between I'm talking about here is, then I don't think there's any sense in talking to you.

Also, I don't believe in god. I was created by my parents.

It honestly makes it impossible to take you seriously when you write stuff like this. If you really can't understand what the in between I'm talking about here is, then I don't think there's any sense in talking to you.

Also, I don't believe in god. I was created by my parents.

I use humor to point out the deeper reality others are unwilling to own up to. This is one of the main uses by people in the past of humor too. Take note, I will do it again. Btw, I answered your questions, you have not really answered any of mine.

For instance, the reality that your biology is all wrong for being an actual meat eater. If you were a cat who is an actual meat eater you would want to kill the bunny and eat it, never pet it. You know this. You know that decaying meat does not smell good to you, but you don't want to own up to the fact that it does to actual carnivores and omnivores.

I don't believe in a personal God either. Makes no difference, I was being metaphorical, which is what you do when joking. I am biting, but it always has a purpose. Wake up! Wake up!

This is only going to get worse in the future. More people like me will become ever more vociferous on this topic as the climate changes for the worse. I guess we will see then as the climate refugees come crawling across the border and you and yours try turn them away, big fat steak in hand, laughing, ahahahahahah, who cares, let me play my fiddle...

Veganism is an imperfect diet. More power to those who wish to practice the ideology. However, I'm curious about those who advocate forced veganism on a planetary basis because I'm willing to bet veganism isn't the only ideology, practice, etc such people would wish to force on others.

Also, I think it would be best for you, tensordyne, to start a separate thread to debate the merits of forced veganism.

My bad, then. To me it really sounded like you were being serious since the rest of your message was, too. That was also the reason I didn't answer your questions, for I thought that if you saw the world like that there'd be no point anyway.

Hmm, alright, so we're not carnivores or omnivores. But we can still eat meat and get use from it (despite some not so useful aspects as well), so eating meat is natural for humans regardless if we like it or not.



So we can both agree that if you have a pet that needs meat, you must give it meat? Good. But that leads to a question of why should people be allowed to have meat eating pets? Isn't having those also wrong then because the food for them must come from somewhere?



Like I said earlier, in some parts they're still strongly linked to survival.



Yes, but that'd only work when things go well. What if there was some natural catastrophe or a big accident in a place that produced big part of the food meant for the places that can't produce similiar foods on their own? The ideal solution would be that other places would give parts of their shares, but who says they're willing to do it? If that happened, there'd be two options: 1. war over the resources or 2. the suffering of the people who, for no reason of their own, lost their share. Of course, if a way that would ensure that everything was shared equally was put in use and it actually worked, then we'd have no problem, but I don't think that could happen. Thus, it's best that as many places as possible can sustain their people on their own if the need comes.



I could, but I don't wanna since I don't like watching videos. Even with news articles, I tend to skip the videos and just read the text. If you want my comment on something then written form, please.

Hmm, alright, so we're not carnivores or omnivores. But we can still eat meat and get use from it (despite some not so useful aspects as well), so eating meat is natural for humans regardless if we like it or not.

How much biochem do you know? I know you find it surprising that the different vores can eat each others food, but if you understand biochem, it is not all that surprising. When you add in that humans are mammals, and mammals ween on milk, milk being basically muscle in milk form, then it should be even less surprising.

So do you really find it surprising now? Depends also on how you define natural too. Lots of natural things hurt you, are you implying meat does not hurt humans to eat? You have not debated that back, because you know it is true and don't want to own up to it.

So we can both agree that if you have a pet that needs meat, you must give it meat? Good. But that leads to a question of why should people be allowed to have meat eating pets? Isn't having those also wrong then because the food for them must come from somewhere?

Yes, and that is why you brought it up, of course, to find a possible wedge issue. Try looking at the big log in your eye that has to do with the IPCC recommendation for human species survival that we need to go Vegan, before you consider the speck of an issue that is in my eye with pets. That would be nice.

Like I said earlier, in some parts they're still strongly linked to survival.

And we should care? Our survival as a species is on the line, these people need to adapt, or what, should we all stick our heads in the ground because people don't want to own up to reality? Get real man. The planet is burning and an obesity epidemic is raging. You just want us to ignore those realities, just like an addict should.

But of course, we must spare the feelings and livelihood of some peripheral populations for the sake of what, so they can go on the way they were before. Guess what, none of us will be able to go on the way we did before if the planet becomes a desert.

I could, but I don't wanna since I don't like watching videos. Even with news articles, I tend to skip the videos and just read the text. If you want my comment on something then written form, please.

Seriously? You can't watch some videos, because you don't "like it". I guess I could follow some links or something to give you the text form, but this just seems like another lame excuse to me, again. Maybe you don't like to read either, for, after I send you a link, who knew, now you don't like to read too. Is it sensory? Turn down the noise and turn off the monitor display... Just watch the damn videos and get an education, or don't, and live in the sweltering ignorance already on display.

I can not help but think you don't want to watch them because you will get blasted with true messages you don't want to hear. This is my last blast on this. You can go back to your kumbaya excuses now. This is probably a waste of time.

Good luck.

Not enough to be compared to a professional, that's for sure. No idea what you do for a living though.
I am aware that lots of natural things hurt humans and I've also mentioned that I know eating too much meat is a health risk. You say that eating even a little bit of it is and I'm not denying it since I don't know enough about the subject to do so, but if even a small amount of meat was as bad as you say, I'm pretty sure the media would be making more noise about it. So, the good things that come out of eating reasonable amounts of meat are likely to outweight the problems. Or at the very least, the problems are smaller than the problems that stopping meat industry out of the blue would bring.



I don't see an answer here.



It's not just about them adapting, it's about the fact that the nature around them can't produce all kinds of foods, at least not with the current technology. Perhaps with time it could and that could solve the problem, but right now, it can't. And the areas of the world we're talking about aren't all that small.



In a way yes, it is sensory issue. It's hard to explain but even so, I find it very disturping that someone would belittle sensory issues on an autism forum.



You're free to think as you wish, though I do hope you'd educate yourself a bit more about sensory issues if you plan to stick around on this forum. Not everyone's senses work like yours and if you don't have sensory issues then good for you, but many of us aren't so lucky. But yeah, let's end this here. It was getting very off topic anyway.

Not enough to be compared to a professional, that's for sure. No idea what you do for a living though.
I am aware that lots of natural things hurt humans and I've also mentioned that I know eating too much meat is a health risk. You say that eating even a little bit of it is and I'm not denying it since I don't know enough about the subject to do so, but if even a small amount of meat was as bad as you say, I'm pretty sure the media would be making more noise about it. So, the good things that come out of eating reasonable amounts of meat are likely to outweight the problems. Or at the very least, the problems are smaller than the problems that stopping meat industry out of the blue would bring.

The point is, before you made it sound like it is crazy that humans can eat meat _and_ be herbivores. Now what do you think?

I don't work. The rest of the small biography I am willing to give out is on my info page.

You are pretty sure the media would make a big deal of it? Can I laugh now at your naivete, or will you take offense? I kind of don't care either way, because this is one of the silliest statements I have ever heard in this place. The media are paid by people with vested interests. Those people direct as best they can the public narative. Check out Noam Chomsky if this sounds fantastical to you.

I already know from a later part of the responses that you do not like watching videos for sensory issues, as I had guessed, so that is a major issue. For instance, how would you even know if the media outside of text media is making a big deal of it? I can not then try to argue it to you, one way or the other. Here are some text media links for those who may be interested.

Define reasonable?
Define good things?

I don't see you referrencing outside sources with logic Fireblossom. Plus, your arguments are all plausibility style arguments, which is a very weak kind of argument style.


Yes, and that is why you brought it up, of course, to find a possible wedge issue. Try looking at the big log in your eye that has to do with the IPCC recommendation for human species survival that we need to go Vegan, before you consider the speck of an issue that is in my eye with pets. That would be nice.



I don't see an answer here.


I do. Use Google or whatever search engine you like and go inform yourself in the way that works for you. The keywords are IPCC, Vegan, Dr. McDougall, Climate Change, etc... If you want, I can give you more.


It's not just about them adapting, it's about the fact that the nature around them can't produce all kinds of foods, at least not with the current technology. Perhaps with time it could and that could solve the problem, but right now, it can't. And the areas of the world we're talking about aren't all that small.


I have to take a different tack now. The writing above sounds like policy wonk speak, which is fine by me. In a way, this is probably all pointless honestly, the powers that be (Aristocrazia Negra is my guess, what is yours?) will thin out the hurd of so-called "useless eaters" and institute war to get other global policies in place.

But if you want to talk policy. In Urban Areas and other areas there would need to be mandatory Vegan diet. Call such a zone a Blue Zone. Maybe the other places that are inhospitable will be Red or Orange or whatever... Then work out policies to get everyone in a Blue Zone, or they can go off on their own with First Contact Star Trek rules applied to the population left behind. The population is stabilizing so don't change much in the way of birth policy interestingly.

Unfortunately, people are addicts. Addicts do not change unless they have to, so policy will not work. So it will probably be World War III soon and other horrors and wonders to be unleashed by the followers of the snake. But who knows.

You're free to think as you wish, though I do hope you'd educate yourself a bit more about sensory issues if you plan to stick around on this forum. Not everyone's senses work like yours and if you don't have sensory issues then good for you, but many of us aren't so lucky. But yeah, let's end this here. It was getting very off topic anyway.

Listen up, I am only going to say this once, I am not here to baby you. There is no way I am letting you shame me on this forum bub... forget about it.

I have auditory issues. Most of the time I am fine, but some things mess with me (horror movies, my boyfriend sneezing and noseblowing...). And since you shared with the class, I will share in another way later.

So here is the other thing, when I was writing the section you took offense too, it did go off in my head, oh yeah, calling Fireblossom out for not wanting to watch some videos could definitely be douchy. But then it occured to me, you can get on this forum. You can read the text. You can look some of this stuff up on your own if you had some keywords. And then I got angry. The best way to understand this information for most people is through videos, an avenue of information denied. How convenient, or not, how would I know?

Interested, can you not just listen to a video on low as I proposed, or is that being "insensitive"?
For instance, do you live in a bubble world, or is it possible to get other info to you from other sources besides this forum? I am curious.

Here is my deal so the class knows. Extra Credit. It occured to me last night and came as an emotional relief. If I am prickly, there is a reason. I literally hate dumbness. Maybe you can hold that against me, but the thing is, my older brother who hit me, is dumber than I am. He projects his own insecurities on those around him, accusing others of being passive agressive when he is, blah blah blah.

My Mom is Avoident and the Queen of Denial. When NT's make excuses for other groups being provably ignorant, it bothers me. It reminds me of my Mom denying that my older brother is an issue. So if I seem in your face, it is probably to do with something like the above.

I don't know what your situation is Fireblossom, I wish you, and everyone else the very best.
I accept you for exactly who you are, neighbor

In regards to fat acceptance: people living in poverty in first world nations frequently cannot afford sufficient calories to eat a plant based diet. Secondly, a good selection of fresh fruits and vegetables is rarely found in food stores in areas where residents have little money. For these people, a vegan diet is largely unattainable.

If one is looking to make changes in lifestyles, including how much and of what kind of foods are eaten, shaming is likely an ineffective way to go about it.

I am a biologist and find some of the claims here made to fall suspiciously outside of the framework of human biology as I know it. Just to see what might be going on, I googled "what is a carnivore" and "are humans carnivores?" Interestingly the top hits were a PETA article and one from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Googling the latter I learned it is an organization for the research and advocacy of a plant based diet.

Finally, I also don't watch videos, not because of sensory issues, but because I can absorb the relevant points in a fraction of the time it takes someone to give a speech about it. I just cannot stand the wasted time and boredom listening to a video. If you have to refer to a video, you probably don't have the concepts down solidly.

In regards to fat acceptance: people living in poverty in first world nations frequently cannot afford sufficient calories to eat a plant based diet. Secondly, a good selection of fresh fruits and vegetables is rarely found in food stores in areas where residents have little money. For these people, a vegan diet is largely unattainable.

This is illogical. If the cause of obesity and many diseases is eating animal products (which it is) than what you are saying is that the reason we should not recommend everyone go Vegan is because it would currently be difficult. That is looking backwards instead of forwards.

If one is looking to make changes in lifestyles, including how much and of what kind of foods are eaten, shaming is likely an ineffective way to go about it.

True, but I am sooooooo tired of people's excuses. And if it is an addiction, which it has every sign of being, should I sugar coat it for you, with candy sprinkles on top? No, this is an intervention, get used to it.

I am a biologist and find some of the claims here made to fall suspiciously outside of the framework of human biology as I know it. Just to see what might be going on, I googled "what is a carnivore" and "are humans carnivores?" Interestingly the top hits were a PETA article and one from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Googling the latter I learned it is an organization for the research and advocacy of a plant based diet.

Nathaniel Dominy, who as far as I know, does not have any ties to PETA, I gave a link to. There is another biologist lady that has similar but non-overlapping material that comes to the same conclusion.

I used to think like you did too. These people have an agenda that has nothing to do with reality. But what if you are wrong? Then it would make perfect sense to support PETA and The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. So you can't actually use their associations as a judge, because that is being prejudiced, which is what you sound like. Oh no, am I shaming you? Sorry. I call out peoples BS in not so nice ways.

What if they know the facts better than you, hmmm? I am glad you are a biologist. Please let me know what you found off. I would be interested in hearing. Nathaniel Dominy is also a biologist who specializes in Adaptive Morphology of Human and non-Human primates. I listened to his talk. Seemed pretty scientific and all that to me, but what do I know. I am a Physicist more than a Biologist.

So get back to me on the facts. Debate me with reason. Do what you want as far as that goes, I am just not going to play games on this one.

Tensordyne: This is off topic. You've already stated once in this thread that you weren't going to talk about this any longer but you persist. Personally I have nothing wrong with you arguing your viewpoint whatsoever, provided it's.....in a thread you start yourself about the merits of forced veganism.