Hacker News Reader

Comment by myshpa | Hacker News Reader

> being a Seventh-Day Adventist

Source? The link you've provided doesn't say anything about it.

> While vegan science might have grounds for debate

Scientific disciplines specifically focused on veganism or vegetarianism do not exist.

Edit: It's not about nutrition; it's the ultimate hack to protect biodiversity, which is being driven to extinction by our agricultural practices, and to safeguard our society from collapse. As such, it belongs here. Lately, it seems to me to be more important than the newest JavaScript frameworks. You're welcome to spend some time in my post history and read on.

View on HN

You may benefit from learning about the importance of red meat and dairy in human development. Stringently depriving children from these nutrition sources should probably be considered child abuse alongside childhood obesity.

Think of the children? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

While red meat and dairy can provide certain nutrients, it's important to emphasize that a well-planned plant-based diet can also meet children's nutritional needs.

No adult mammals need milk to be healthy. Children who drink mother's milk are, of course, following a vegan diet.

American Dietetic Association

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

NHS UK

"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age."

British Dietetic Association

"[I]t is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding."

> Source? The link you've provided doesn't say anything about it.

In academia one is supposed to list commercial conflicts of interests, but no one asks to write down the author's religious affiliations. Just search all the organisations Greber is part or founding member of, and notice how many are affiliated with SDA. It is well-known at this point that most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists.

Again, this time I'm not here to discuss the shoddy science of demonising meat and animal fat. I just want to point out that when a theory becomes a tenet of your religion, there is not much scientific discussion to be had.

- Ad Hominem: Attacking the author's religious affiliations instead of addressing the research. No proof of such affiliations, btw. Example: "No one asks to write down the author's religious affiliations."

- Guilt by Association: Associating the individual with a group (SDA) to which they may not belong or identify with is misleading and serves to further discredit the argument, as it’s based on false premises.

- Conspiracy Theory: Suggesting that most vegetarian research is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists without evidence. Example: "Most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."

- Straw Man: The comment misrepresents the argument by suggesting that anyone who supports vegetarianism or has religious affiliations cannot engage in scientific discussion. Example: "When a theory becomes a tenet of your religion, there is not much scientific discussion to be had."

- Generalization: Making a sweeping and unsupported claim about all research related to vegetarianism. Example: "Notice how many are affiliated with SDA."

- Appeal to Motive: Assuming that the author's religious beliefs automatically taint their scientific research. Example: "It is well-known at this point that most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."

In constructive and respectful debates, it's essential to address the actual scientific evidence and arguments rather than resorting to personal attacks, conspiracy theories, or logical fallacies. These tactics detract from the quality of the discussion and hinder productive dialogue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com