Thank you Harley for stepping out and sharing success and insight.
At 31 minutes into the debate, Durian said, "More is not necessarily better."
So true, more contributes to diseases of affluence. Rich had no answer for that but it deserves to be addressed more.
I was surprised rich claimed there are plenty of youtube videos of people feeding their babies meat...
I liked the response about the real experimenters are the ones who feed their babies meat.
But if you go compare the reactions of babies with fruit and meat intake the first time, you'll see there is a natural preference for fruit. And here are some innocent babies being forced/conditioned to consume unnatural/unhealthy food (meat) for the first time:
In contrast to introduction of apples:
By the 4th minute Cassie is gobbling down peaches/ecstatic by the end:
There are plenty more...
When rich wasn’t clearing his throat of phlegm and coughing he was complaining about his religious background/baggage and perception of vegans being religious (parataxic distortion). Rich seemed gassed toward the end.
Even though I didn't care for some of the questions (I thought there was too much emphasis on questions of appearance during the debate), I would have liked to hear Durian politely point out to Rich that he seemed lethargic and wheezing slightly (half way through the telecast). I wonder if I just noticed it more since I was only listening and not viewing the debaters. Did others notice this?
Richard also brought up the popularity of consuming meat in 'society' (bandwagon fallacy)... And the fact humans 'inhabit all parts of the globe'. But failed to mention they are mostly sick. What does that prove? There was a bit of begging the question when rich just parked at 'humans are omnivores' but then later said, "plant eaters eat bugs too". So in essence rich was saying all animals are 'omnivores' watering down the entire concept and disregarding the correlation of meat intake and diseases among humans just because ppl keep consuming meat (behaving as 'omnivores'). Humans are omnivores because humans act like omnivores is just circular reasoning, especially since humans are mostly sick as a direct result of the meat intake.
Durian responded with the comment that people have been killing people for millions of years to and that doesn't make it natural, either.
“A consensus exists among sociologists and anthropologists that meat symbolizes social power and related values (i.e., inequality; Adams 1990; Fiddes 1991; Heisley 1990; Twigg 1983). Red meat symbolized inequality more than the other food groups, and consumption of red meat was more strongly correlated with social power values than other value domains. (Allen and Ng, 2003).
The social power domain has consistently emerged in cross-cultural studies of values, and people who support social power values exhibit related behaviors, such as pressuring others to go along with their preferences and opinions (Bardi and Schwartz 2003). The Interactive Effect of Cultural Symbols and Human Values on Taste Evaluation, JCR, p. 297, 2008.
In closing Durianrider said, "And get with people who have had success with raw vegan diets, fly with the eagles, etc."
That is also a point that deserves to be addressed since it is easy to give up and find people unsuccessful, especially considering richard seemed to lack experience and advocates cooked fruit and veg along with his meat.
In my biased opinion I thought Durian won the debate. Durian integrated enough facts and results from research along with far more personal experience to provide more useful information and promoted a healthier diet than Rich. Rich did dwell too much on sailing the seven seas, conquering the globe, consuming meat for millions of yrs but ignoring the actual results of it. Durian did point out that the diet rich advocates isn't much different from an atkins diet... Rich didn't defend against this but it just seemed like rich was saying eat cooked and eat whatever...
Any thoughts on the content of the debate?
I thought it was funny Richard saying that Harley being an endurance athlete was not pertinent info, but Harley validly brought it up in response to Rich's comment that Harley had a thin frame.
The most ridiculous thing I heard in the debate was Rich's comments that more fruit-based agriculture would destroy the earth and kill off animals from destroying their habitat. Planting more homes/food/oxygen-producers for animals is more harmful to them than enslaving/torturing/killing them? Hmmm.
The most ridiculous thing I heard in the debate was Rich's comments that more fruit-based agriculture would destroy the earth and kill off animals from destroying their habitat.
evidently, he hasn't gone through any calculations which is why he can make a such a statement. some of these ideas come from people who haven't managed to execute simple arithmetic:
the effort really was richdiculous!
well ryan, part of an initiative is to provide a well-organized fact resource.
there are several that have been started:
but these are in preliminary form right now.
there is some thought going into creating a more interactive 'expert system' interface to this sort of stuff down the road. we will have some heavy artillery eventually.
These were the 2 worst comments as well in my opinion.
Yeah...I thought everyone knew that veganism is more earth friendly than meat eating...even meat eaters. Apparently not.
And the endurance athlete thing. Even if you aren't familiar with it, it makes perfect sense. Why would someone who wants to run ridiculously long ultra marathons and bike build their body to look like a body builder (heavier = slower) and vice versa. Just common sense you would think .
thank you chris for this excellent analysis!
your posts are not only always thoughtful, they provide a wealth of substantiated critical analysis!!