Veganism and Islam

[Insight]

But we are talking about on average. There are Caucasians and Africans who are small and skinny.

I need sources

[khushal]

That's exactly it though, you're assuming this applies to E. Asians without a marker of what "low muscle mass" is. Even your study admits it has a sampling bias. You're making this to make some evo argument to regarding certain races/ethncities without some concrete metrics as to how this is determined. You can't just rubber stamp things with "evolution", it's much more intricate than that. And on top of that, your reference didn't even relate to that point nor did it really support your counter point....nevermind that it signifies nothing about veganism.


It's all over the place.

Its explained in the other studies, the links are on the right side on the website but I already explained it. Its not all over the place. Now youre going back to your original claim after you back tracked and now Youre back tracking again. Just admit youre wrong on this one and you made a comment without thinking it through. Dont worry, Youre still a smart guy. We all make mistakes.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Its explained in the other studies, the links are on the right side on the website but I already explained it. Its not all over the place. Now youre going back to your original claim after you back tracked and now Youre back tracking again. Just admit youre wrong on this one and you made a comment without thinking it through. Dont worry, Youre still a smart guy. We all make mistakes.

My point is your explanation is very tenuous and poorly/vaguely correlated It's like saying people like Sunny weather vs. Rainy Weather and then showing me a study about how people like "Good things" more than people liking "bad things" and suggest this "naturally" falls within this.

The studies you posted really have nothing to do with each other and even the counterpoints you made don't either. You've taken a set of certain biases you hold, then look for things that you believe affirms those biases and then shoehorn them together to suggest a link. That's exactly the wrong way to demonstrate a position.

[khushal]

My point is your explanation is very tenuous and poorly/vaguely correlated It's like saying people like Sunny weather vs. Rainy Weather and then showing me a study about how people like "Good things" more than people liking "bad things" and suggest this "naturally" falls within this.

The studies you posted really have nothing to do with each other and even the counterpoints you made don't either. You've taken a set of certain biases you hold, then look for things that you believe affirms those biases and then shoehorn them together to suggest a link. That's exactly the wrong way to demonstrate a position.

Dude, are you OK. The whole foundation of evolutionary biology natural selection is based on species choosing better qualities.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Dude, are you OK. The whole foundation of evolutionary biology natural selection is based on species choosing better qualities.

See you're doing it again, you're suggesting one implies the other .....This is nothing more than bait and switch. You're taking one broadly uncontroversional position and associating it with one that is still incredibly more nuanced with more contingent variables that need to be unpacked.


This is just basically false equivalence at this point.

[khushal]

See you're doing it again, you're suggesting one implies the other .....This is nothing more than bait and switch. You're taking one broadly uncontroversional position and associating it with one that is still incredibly more nuanced with more contingent variables that need to be unpacked.


This is just basically false equivalence at this point.

Youre the one who is doing that. Youre comparing weather to species choosing better qualities.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Youre the one who is doing that. Youre comparing weather to species choosing better qualities.

lol That was an analogy of the style of argument you're making, not a comparison of selective mechanisms. lol


But okay.

[khushal]

No. Youre exaggerating about the style of argument Im making. Your diverting from your back tracking back and forth. But whatever.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

You're just making random shots here now lol

And there's no exaggeration; you took something that is pretty broadly accepted; evolutionary selective mechanisms ...to claim because a study with self admitted sampling bias of what a group of Caucasians find attractive that contradicts the evolutionary selection theory implies that East Asian are less masculine because they don't eat as much meat, so therefore Veganism is a bad diet decision in all cases. lol

Dude when it's laid out piece by piece, it's clear you didn't think this through really well. lol

[khushal]

How does it contradict the evolutionary selection theory?

I'll respond to you later...

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

It doesn't "contradict" per se, it just doesn't connect them.

Did you not read my earlier post about making tenuous associations?

Nothing to respond to here; you didn't do your research. Just Googled searched and study and hoped it sufficed.

[khushal]

You said it contradicts it. Your back tracking again. You got nothing again.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The backtrack is all in your head. If anything, you aren't articulating your questions clearly.

the contradiction part I was referring to is the part of the article which suggests that attractiveness is not necessarily reflected in health markers. Which contradicts the predictions of evolutionary selection.

When I wrote "it's not a contradiction per se" was tin relation to the broader scope of your thesis about evolutionary selection theory and its relation between dietary habits like eating. We don't know if it does or doesn't, you're making non-sequittur leaps without giving any rigorous basis for it.

[khushal]

First of all, health markers change depending on the environment. Second, The whole E Asian comment was a response to your comment about Chinese being on par with Pashtuns.

But yeah, I still believe that animal based protein are better quality than plant based protein and the societies with their diets I mentioned are good evidence to go by.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Yes, I would say they are because as far as nutrition is concerned, Most Afghans in rural regions have a similar nutrion and lifettyle as rural Chinese who are the majority of China so they have comparable attributes as far as "masculinity" is concerned. It also just dawned on me Most Pashtuns in the Watan eat a primarily vegetarian diet since meat is harder to produce and thus very expensive and harder to come by due to poverty and drought.

As far as what you're saying about "quality", there are two things to consider bioavailability and completness. While Animal based proteins are more complete and have more micronutrients, so from that angle it is better, but from a perspective of bioavailability ....red meat and chicken are actually not that good because they're harder to breakdown. Milk and Eggs are the best and then plant sources in between.