3 ms·

> Being in an already extremely unhealthy position is not the standard with which we should judge a particular diet. Ok. You judge it how you want, I said ket

> Being in an already extremely unhealthy position is not the standard with which we should judge a particular diet. Ok. You judge it how you want, I said keto was successful for me. I made no universal declarations. > Also, your basic premise that red meat is the only way to lose weight is false. There's no reason that an appropriate weight loss diet that excludes red meat could not be crafted. Well I never said this. I said keto was successful for me. BTW: Equating keto to “red meat” is like saying “vegan = lentils”. You should probably learn more about keto. Edit: added some hard returns to clarify my responses to the quoted items.

colordrops 5y ago
If you aren't implying a universal declaration, isn't your anecdote kind of a non-sequitur response to a comment about the general nature of red meat agriculture?
- kcplate 5y ago
  No, I think your bias towards crop farming is reading more importance into the part of my comment that is actually the least important part to me. The most important part to me is the health benefits my diet provides me. The least important part to me is the environmental impact of producing those components of the diet that I eat. If I was a vegan, and the vegan diet resulted in health benefits for me, but vegan agriculture processes had more environmental impact, I would still eat vegan…because what is most important to me is the health benefit I am receiving. In this case I eat keto and receive health benefits from that diet that I am unwilling to give up just to satisfy the dogmatism of environmentalists who have a problem with pastoral farming.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Fair, makes sense, I understand your thinking now. My response is that one person's dogmatism is another person's recognition of genocide. But I do understand that when you perceive that your life is at stake, the fate of rest of the world may not matter so much to you anymore.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      > you perceive that your life is at stake, the fate of rest of the world may not matter so much to you anymore. This little underhanded slap is hilarious. I love it how you folks always try to frame things in “a single person is responsible for the entire apocalypse” terms. Frankly, it’s why your argument struggles. You devolve into ridiculous moral absolutism. Considering that conservatively almost 90% of the people on this earth eat meat, I’m pretty sure that any global catastrophe that may or may not arise from meat consumption will not fall solely at my feet.
      - colordrops 5y ago
        And that's why these sorts of catastrophes occur. "Everyone else is doing something bad, so why should I stop?"
        kcplate 5y ago
        From my vantage point a catastrophe has not yet occurred and may not occur. What we have are a bunch of apocalyptic predictions from a tiny group of zealous people trying to force a behavior on a very large group of people. Sounds too much like religion to me.

colordrops 5y ago

If you aren't implying a universal declaration, isn't your anecdote kind of a non-sequitur response to a comment about the general nature of red meat agriculture?

kcplate 5y ago
No, I think your bias towards crop farming is reading more importance into the part of my comment that is actually the least important part to me. The most important part to me is the health benefits my diet provides me. The least important part to me is the environmental impact of producing those components of the diet that I eat. If I was a vegan, and the vegan diet resulted in health benefits for me, but vegan agriculture processes had more environmental impact, I would still eat vegan…because what is most important to me is the health benefit I am receiving. In this case I eat keto and receive health benefits from that diet that I am unwilling to give up just to satisfy the dogmatism of environmentalists who have a problem with pastoral farming.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Fair, makes sense, I understand your thinking now. My response is that one person's dogmatism is another person's recognition of genocide. But I do understand that when you perceive that your life is at stake, the fate of rest of the world may not matter so much to you anymore.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    > you perceive that your life is at stake, the fate of rest of the world may not matter so much to you anymore. This little underhanded slap is hilarious. I love it how you folks always try to frame things in “a single person is responsible for the entire apocalypse” terms. Frankly, it’s why your argument struggles. You devolve into ridiculous moral absolutism. Considering that conservatively almost 90% of the people on this earth eat meat, I’m pretty sure that any global catastrophe that may or may not arise from meat consumption will not fall solely at my feet.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      And that's why these sorts of catastrophes occur. "Everyone else is doing something bad, so why should I stop?"
      - kcplate 5y ago
        From my vantage point a catastrophe has not yet occurred and may not occur. What we have are a bunch of apocalyptic predictions from a tiny group of zealous people trying to force a behavior on a very large group of people. Sounds too much like religion to me.