It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Doesnt this count as intellectual dishonesty? Labelling it misinformation, when it is backed by TONS of scientific data, sure seems like fallacy to me.
i thought that was your source of misinformation. a book written in 1996.
Ummm, ok? I never said a thing about "the most common". You are reaching really hard here to try and discredit this, and doing a poor job of it.
here's a more recent actual scientific study showing type A to have been the most common blood type
ROFL. "Debunking"? That does nothing of the sort, and its pretty obvious you didnt even read what you cite as that is speaking of weight loss on the diet, not health benefits.
and more research debunking the general blood type diet www.webmd.com...
It's hard to tell whether the Blood Type Diet works, because there haven't been any studies directly comparing weight loss and health in people who were on the diet against those who weren't. Only one study has evaluated this kind of diet. It found that people with certain blood types got more of a cholesterol-lowering benefit from eating a low-fat diet. But it didn't prove that the Blood Type Diet works for weight loss.
originally posted by: VoidHawk
originally posted by: rickymouse
Meat has chemistry that calms people. Start taking away the meat from the meat eaters and they will kill all the vegans and maybe eat them.
Huh!!
If thats so then wouldn't the vegans already be ready to kill the meat eaters who were still calm?
As I already said-O types need more protein, and absorb plant proteins at an extremely inefficient rate.
The Blood Type Diet, developed by Dr. Peter D’Adamo, encourages people with type O blood types to eat mostly meat, but avoid grains and dairy foods. However, New York University Langone Medical Center reports altering your diet based on your blood type is not recommended, and is not backed by scientific evidence.
Deflection fallacy. If you can appeal to morals (which are totally and completely subjective), I can CERTAINLY appeal to nature, which is scientific fact.
Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.
Do I need to link to the dozens of articles backing the blood type diet?
Yep, I know who Kimberly Snyder is. Do you know why she is known? Because she continues to attack the blood type diet, even as it is getting backed with more and more data. Thats it. Thats her claim to fame.
Again, typical vegan. "Me perspective is fact. There is no other way". Again, animals ABSOLUTELY matter to me. Nature matters to me as well. It is not fallacy. It is natural order.
Too friggin bad "dude" I like steak, cheeseburgers, pork chops, and the like. It is none of your business what I CHOOSE to eat.
Well, you must have done a lot of research in the last hour to have it debunked. Good on you.
and i'm saying that the only sources i can find that recommend that go back to a single book; and every scientific study i've looked at completely disagrees.
You are now bordering on trolling.
a deflection fallacy is an attempt to change the subject. i'm pointing out that your appeal to nature as a justification is fallacious; i'm not changing the subject. on the natural fallacy:
she's wrong because she attacks the blood type diet? that isn't valid reasoning.
No, you said there was no other way but how you see it. Here, ill quote you, so you remember:
i gave my reason as to why your position is wrong, and your response is "see?! typical vegan. you said i'm wrong again. you must be wrong." define "nature" and "natural order". also google appeal to nature fallacy please.
Problem is, for the third time, this is only your perspective. Thus, my statement holds.
IF animals matter morally (we are animals also, do not forget) then there is but one option.
You can keep throwing this out there all you want. If you can appeal to morals(subjective), then logic dictates I can appeal to nature(factual). Quite simple.
also google appeal to nature fallacy please.
Using personal emotions to dictate what is right and wrong for others, is, likewise, not valid.
originally posted by: Bob Sholtz
Too friggin bad "dude" I like steak, cheeseburgers, pork chops, and the like. It is none of your business what I CHOOSE to eat.
really? what if i choose to eat you?
i like sex, therefore it is none of your business what i choose to have sex with or how i procure it, right?
using personal pleasure as a justification to kill and cause harm isn't valid.
originally posted by: knowwhat
I happen to be a strict vagitarian. I'm not sure it's going to save the planet though but I really don't mind helping out if it does help.
And it's important to point out, as the authors note, that the participants following vegetarian diets also tended to be more highly educated, to drink less alcohol, to smoke less and exercise more compared with the participants who regularly consumed meat.
The best indication of evolution is the ability to avoid your most feared predators. For humans today, the most common cause of death is heart disease or cancer – diseases caused by eating animal products.
Using that logic, diving into a bacon sarnie of a morning is akin to one of our ancestors mooning a sabre tooth tiger to see what the outcome is likely to be.
originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Char-Lee
Not all people can eat the calming foods in the vegetable world. This is well known by some in medicine.
Its the same with home raised beef and poultry (all i eat). The taste difference is palpable, and the digestibility is night and day different.
originally posted by: rockoperawriter
thing is venison tastes so much better than beef. hunt during deer season in washington, idaho and colorado to taste the difference between beef and venison. it kind of makes me wish i could hunt buffalo but our ancestors had to be dicks. but yeah venison, elk, wild animals that have been eating due to preference instead of the metal thing being filled up with food. i have tasted the difference and will get my license to hunt
So, where is your 'scientific data' that states eating animals is immoral?