If ever there was a demonstration that one should look for evidence before making an assumption, I'd suggest this is it. Can you point to ANY comment I've made in ANY of my postings that suggests I am anti-vegan? I would also ask the moderators to please also do the same and, if any such comment is found, to remove my account.
I, like
@beancounter, thought you were assuming me working in animal agriculture based on a feeling I might have a vested interest. I did not imagine you suspected me of being a troll. Now, I'm afraid, it's my turn to use
@beancounter's comment; if you have to accuse someone of being a troll simply because they disagree with you, your argument is weak.
A film is, by its very nature, an attempt to put across a particular message. It's intended to make people think, not act as a point of reference. If you want to point me towards something scientifically reliable, try some printed medical studies referred to in the film (Lösch S, Moghaddam N, Grossschmidt K, Risser DU, Kanz F. Stable isotope and trace element studies on gladiators and contemporary Romans from Ephesus (Turkey, 2nd and 3rd Ct. AD) — Implications for differences in diet. and Longo UG, Spiezia F, Maffulli N, Denaro V. The Best Athletes in Ancient Rome were Vegetarian).
Or, like me, you could admit (as I have stated several times before) that the implications are compelling enough to carry out further research and to wait for his next published and peer-reviewed report based on properly conducted and scientifically reliable tests. Pointing at an observed effect and suggesting it also proves the opposite is dodgy reasoning to say the least, hence the need to follow up the observation with a valid test. Time and again you are making leaps of faith and stating them as plain fact without evidence to back it up. Many of these leaps of faith are likely to turn out to be true in the fullness of time, but some won't. We can't sort out which are which until someone with reliable scientific process actually does some testing.
Not in the slightest. The assertions in the bible cannot be evidenced. Only believing something if it is written in the bible is like only believing something that has been mentioned in The Game Changers (2019).
The problem with requiring a study proving the details of everything is that it takes time. However, having taken that time, it provides a stable foundation of knowledge on which to build further studies and therefore advance the sum of human knowledge. If you can't provide evidence to support your statements, you can't demonstrate others are wrong in disagreeing and you will find yourself arguing ad infinitum without ever having any prospect of swaying either your or the other viewpoint.
Quite agree. There is also a huge industry based on health foods with a vested interest in making all kinds of unfounded health claims. Ditto the cosmetics industry. Vested interests are nothing new, and making implications based on little or no evidence is called marketing.
The best weapon against marketing is to take the scientific approach you seem to dislike. If a company suggests or implies that eating meat makes a man manly, look for evidence. If there is none, discount the message. If the company doesn't suggest or imply it but instead claims it, ask them for evidence and if they can't provide it then report them to whichever advertising standards authority has jurisdiction. See? Requiring evidence is useful sometimes.
Yes, you've made that suggestion several times. In fact, it suggests you're assuming I haven't. And yet you haven't asked.
Oh, and before you do so, I won't be providing an answer; I have no intention of becoming part of a wider study. Any understanding I have about me and my body is necessarily wrapped up in a wider very personal context and so will remain private. Nonetheless, you really shouldn't assume.
