None. Which is why i didn't try to argue the facts. I just checked to see if any other credible people, who have the qualifications that I lack, agree with him. (Spoiler: they didn't.)...and on that point, what qualifications do you have to be able to contest Dr Mills' work?
It's what the thread is about.
Vegans, IME, argue that killing animals unecessarily is wrong - we don't need meat ergo killing animals for it is unnecessary.
So a hasty google search yielding comments from as yet unnamed "credible people" who didn't agree with him is all the evidence that you needed to conclude that Dr Mills is a mad man. Yeaaaah, ok. Well hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it, and check for myself.
Yes it is. (sortof) ...and it just demonstrates how fickle some people can be. Rather than take the time and do some quality research of their own, they'd rather latch on to the quickest anti-vegan results that google can throw up and use the rather lame (imo) excuse of "vegans behaving badly".
I admire your persistence, but reason rarely prevails against zealotry. Fortunately, in this case, the zealotry is so self-evidently just that, that it's unlikely to pass unnoticed
Basically this guy says things that you want to hear. He is not making 'interesting points' that require 'a well thought out critique' - he's come up with a idea that is not supported by any facts whatever.
tbh, yeah those are grey areas, aren't they? I do find those marginal arguments a bit of a distraction from the fundamental issue tbh.
Honestly, I'm not sure what your issue is. Is it that you don't want to feel "left out" if you have the occaisional slice of bacon? Well, it shouldn't bother you what other people think, you do what you believe to be right, regardless of the opinions of others. Go where your own conscience takes you.
lol @ "your doctor" (no he isn't)
I have no intention of ever eating meat. I havent done for years. But i dont think it makes me a member of a group. You were talking about 'rape free mondays' before and i just cant imagjne getting that worked up about it. And i find those funny labels ('flexitarian'?) Odd.
I couldn't find anyone from the scientific community backing him up. That's all.
I work with a guy who has a humane mousetrap brings them to work and releases them on the carpark 20 miles away from their loved ones, When I discovered mice were getting in the garage I told Mrs Q I would do the same, her response was "have you gone soft in your old age, kill the little sods"
If you don't want to be in a group, I don't think anybody is forcing to be, are they?
Labels and groups are for convenience and are not mandatory, so you're not obliged to be included if you don't want to be. In a way I agree with you, in an ideal world we shouldn't need to use the word "vegan" at all. In the same way there isn't a word for people who abstain from eating human flesh. (as far as I know). Not eating human flesh is the norm so we don't need a group or word for it. Human flesh eaters are not the norm so we have the word cannibal. In our non ideal world eating meat is the norm, but in the future (according to Simon Amstel) hopefully it will become the exception with veganism being the norm and meat eaters having a special word (Carnist?)
Fair enough. If your search terms are inaccurate then perhaps you won't find anything. Also just because he didn't have a paper in your particular search doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about or that you are in any way qualified to call him mad.
Chances are he's put you on ignore after you confounded him yesterday.
Ahhhh, but what you're supposed to do is believe unquestioningly everything that supports PaoloSanchez' view until incontrovertible evidence (whose existence is inconceivable) emerges to the contrary.
He put me on ignore ages ago, when I called him out on his racism.
Oh dear, a bit of selective ripe cherry picking going on there. In response to some of your points...
).This is rather odd, because it was through Dr Mills referencing Nat that I found out about him, and Mic the Vegan included a clip of Nat talking in his video that I posted earlier. Perhaps you are projecting the fact that you yourself haven't watched them onto me. (or you missed those bits while skipping through). I know for sure that initially you ad-hom dismissed him before you watched anything because you couldn't have in the time I posted the original video. So where precisely is the contradiction?
Fucking hell, but you're a patronising cunt!
It's true that some people don't enjoy these types of discussions, but then they're not obliged to participate. There's plenty of other topics in the ocean if one believes this to be a "pointless" endeavour.
FFYFucking hell, but you're a cunt!
I see a flaw in your rebuttal (quelle sur-fucking-prise)... I don't know if you've noticed, but wild animals tend to eat raw mean. We've been cooking ours for quite a while.3:18 "Behaviourally people are plastic and some people eat meat but anatomically I'd say we're not adapted to eating meat AT ALL, our teeth are too big, the enamels too thin, the cusp on our teeth are too short, so we simply don't have the adaptations that you would need to chew meat efficiently. Anyone can look at the teeth of their dog or cat and they can see what teeth should like if you're going to eat meat and our teeth don't match, so you can say that we've evolved a face and a mouth that's for eating something else that's NOT MEAT..."
2) Wait...wasn't dentition one of the things you were using to support your argument earlier? (Canines tho...not heard that one before
Oh dear, a bit of selective ripe cherry picking going on there. In response to some of your points...
1) What Nat actually said (without the spin)... 2:53 "Humans tend to rely FIRST AND FOREMOST on plant foods that they can find in the environment"
3:18 "Behaviourally people are plastic and some people eat meat but anatomically I'd say we're not adapted to eating meat AT ALL, our teeth are too big, the enamels too thin, the cusp on our teeth are too short, so we simply don't have the adaptations that you would need to chew meat efficiently. Anyone can look at the teeth of their dog or cat and they can see what teeth should like if you're going to eat meat and our teeth don't match, so you can say that we've evolved a face and a mouth that's for eating something else that's NOT MEAT..."
2) Wait...wasn't dentition one of the things you were using to support your argument earlier? (Canines tho...not heard that one before
3) We can't digest cellulose? And...? What does that prove? It's a similar red herring to the rumens comment you made earlier. Both irrelevant imo.
Now it could be that you have a different understanding and use of the terms omnivore and herbivore so I will clarify my understanding and use of those terms. I use them, as Nat was in his video, in the anatomical sense rather than the behavioural. A herbivore eats mainly plant material which is a more general use of the term, the common more restrictive use applies only to grazing animals which have special unique adaptations necessary to eat and properly digest grasses and leaves (and the cellulose you mentioned). An anatomical omnivore has adaptations which allow it to catch, kill and eat it's prey which humans do not have (without the use of tools and technology). Our anatomy and biochemistry (ABC) is closer to that of an herbivore than to an anatomical omnivore.
This is rather odd, because it was through Dr Mills referencing Nat that I found out about him, and Mic the Vegan included a clip of Nat talking in his video that I posted earlier. Perhaps you are projecting the fact that you yourself haven't watched them onto me. (or you missed those bits while skipping through). I know for sure that initially you ad-hom dismissed him before you watched anything because you couldn't have in the time I posted the original video. So where precisely is the contradiction?
Even Jeff Robinson, a fellow vegan, is telling him to STFU. That probably says all that needs to be said about his outrageous assertions.
