Meat is good for you and safe but wait...

[Sylvandoh]

Okay, let's set the record straight: if you eat meat, you're a monster. Period.

Now you're allowed to be a monster if you wish. Be know that people have a right to slap it right back into your face, and remind you that you are the cause of this world going to hell.

But you're definitely allowed to be a monster, as I would be one as well if I tried to prevent your heart from its selfish desires of destroying our ecosystem. I'm not a monster, so I'll reluctantly allow it.

[Calfredd]

Okay, let's set the record straight: if you eat meat, you're a monster. Period.

Now you're allowed to be a monster if you wish. Be know that people have a right to slap it right back into your face, and remind you that you are the cause of this world going to hell.

But you're definitely allowed to be a monster, as I would be one as well if I tried to prevent your heart from its selfish desires of destroying our ecosystem. I'm not a monster, so I'll reluctantly allow it.

Humans are omnivorous and so can eat and process both meat and vegetation as well as fruits and nuts. So saying meat-eating= monster is woefully ill-informed as well as naive. The only issues with meat-eating is the horribly unsustainability of the meat industry.

[Sylvandoh]

Humans are omnivorous and so can eat and process both meat and vegetation as well as fruits and nuts. So saying meat-eating= monster is woefully ill-informed as well as naive. The only issues with meat-eating is the horribly unsustainability of the meat industry.

Can does not mean should!

[Calfredd]

Can does not mean should!

So bears need to stop eating small animals and fish? What about gorillas and orangutans?

[Sylvandoh]

So bears need to stop eating small animals and fish? What about gorillas and orangutans?

Apples to oranges. We're talking about humans eating meat when they clearly should not.

[Calfredd]

Apples to oranges. We're talking about humans eating meat when they clearly should not.

Except we evolved as omnivores so why should we stop?

[Sylvandoh]

Except we evolved as omnivores so why should we stop?

Why should we keep going?

[Lodreh]

This poll is telling and I feel it's the same BS that causes anti-vaccination.

Generally Yes, Unless I have reason not to - I trust most scientific research because it has to be tested, verified, repeatable, verified, independently tested again, and verified.

No, I am always suspicious and I do my own research - I'm sure online you can find someone pushing an agenda stating what you want to hear. That is not independent research Karen... vaccinate your damn kids.

I don't really know some say this others say that - If you have to trust someone trust in accredited science and not what a soccer mom says on the internet.

I don't know and don't care, I have given up. (Too Political) - Sadly this apathy has lead us here. If you don't denounce 'junk science' and 'opinion as fact' then that's what you are going to be bombarded with.

[Sylvandoh]

Because lab meat is happening.

Okay, lab meat is something I could get behind. I'll give credit where credit is due.

The tables are going to turn soon... with people blaming vegans/vegetarians for harming the environment because of all the land needed to grow their foods.

Imagine vegetation being a root cause for environmental issues.

[Lane]

Meat is only unhealthy if you prepare it wrong. Look at a potato for example, which if you eat baked is it unhealthy? Now fry the potato into French Fries, will it still be healthy? Turns out a French Fry has as many Carcinogens as any other fried meat. If you broil meat with a lot of water then you're fine. If you steam or boil meat, you're even safer. The water helps prevent the creation of Carcinogens because it boils before it burns the meat. Just like anything else you don't want something to be burnt.

You're only taking acrylamides into account.

The tables are going to turn soon... with people blaming vegans/vegetarians for harming the environment because of all the land needed to grow their foods.

The fact that anyone believes this never ceases to astound me. The vast majority of agricultural land is used to grow feed for livestock. Not to mention that there isn't any food that's exclusive to vegetarians/vegans.

[unbound]

Has science just been reduced to a political tool or buzzword and gimmick?

Or

Does it really not matter the possible motives of those we rely on when it comes to research findings?

So this is a logical fallacy called False Dilemma. There are actually a lot more than just 2 options here...in fact, there are a lot more options due to quite a few pieces of context that are needed.

Yes, there are some scientific studies that are heavily leveraged for political reasons. They can be done for financial reasons (e.g. origin of the modern anti-vaxxer movement involves Andrew Wakefield). They can be done to support a corporations bad actions or impacts (e.g. initial pushbacks against smoking causing cancer and oil impact to environment involve corporations hiring scientists).

Yes, motives can be important as they can impact research. So can hidden bias. So can a bad understanding of statistics (current problem with most dietary studies).

Certain areas of science are much more rock solid than others. Physics involves hard core math, so other than a bit of speculation regarding details of quantum things, that area of science should very rarely be questioned. Climate science, contrary to some idiots around here, is actually pretty solid as well. Psychology gets more iffy. I would put the majority of dietary science closer to psychology as most of it relies to heavily on statistics (and generally done badly at that).

And the majority of studies are actually pretty good (some areas of science better than others as mentioned).

The thing with this kind of questioning of science is that it doesn't really get down the core of science. Science is a methodology to try to get to the truth and avoid fooling ourselves. If you want pure speculation, we already have religion.

And, as a methodology, science is always checking itself. Science never actually says, "This is the truth"...it always says, "This is the truth to the best of knowledge as best as we can verify it". I don't see anything wrong with that. It is certainly better than any other alternative provided. And that needs to be the key to the conversation...what do you propose to replace science with? Everyone just guesses? Religion like response where someone arbitrarily says, "I have the answer!"?

Science isn't easy, and isn't without a lot of work and challenges, but it is by far the best method we've come up to accurately understand reality.

[Pony Soldier]

The only science I listen to is what my personal doctor tells me. Other than that those "scientists" can go fuck themselves.

Every year it's "don't eat that it causes cancer, don't use this it causes cancer, don't do that it causes cancer" then they'll go "Oh eating/drinking this is actually good for you" after they said it causes cancer so it's like which is it? Should we eat/drink it or not? So because of that bullshit I just do/eat/drink whatever the hell I want but in moderation.

Life is confusing and frustrating enough. I don't need some supposed "scientist" to tell me how to live.

[Pony Soldier]

Doctors don’t really get any training in nutrition. They read the same shit that’s introduced to us and make their own recommendations on what they think is best.

Then...fuck him too!