vegan youtube drama

[Chikiwing]

I don’t think googling to find a quote is really enough to discredit PCRM, who have such well qualified doctors as Dr McDougall and Dr Barnard at the helm, with all of their experience and knowledge.

So let's take PCRM as a expert information source on this issue for a moment. It is still like 99 to 1 in favor of expert opinion that animal reasearch saves lives. Do you have any other expert groups besides PCRM or is that it?

Also, I have heard Dr McDougall say he eats a small piece of turkey occasionally on Thanksgiving. I have heard him say if a person has a piece of cake on their birthday it won't kill them. So Dr McDougall is definately NOT a vegan and is not promoting that ideology. Some vegans here seem to think he is and does but I don't see it.

[Thrasymachus]

This is actually what he claims:

Newsletter: ”Vegan,” “Plant-Based,” “Starchivore”: What Do You Call Yourself?
...

I am Not a “Veg” Anything

Don’t call me a “vegetarian” or a “vegan doctor,” even though, for all practical purposes, I am one. To avoid misnomers, I claim to eat a thinly sliced two-inch-square piece of turkey every other Thanksgiving. Whether or not this is true, or on which Thanksgiving I eat this ceremonious bird, I will never reveal. Until the day comes when thin vegans out number the fat ones, the turkey and I will continue our biannual sacrifice.

...

There are lots of health only people who claim people only do things for selfish motivations(like in that disturbing Jeff Nelson video on the Vegan Society cited before https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F12iCJOKLIA ) who like to claim McDougall is not on team vegan. But other points and history belie that. Since I already covered that in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44490&p=468693&hilit=thanksgiving#p468693

There is no reason to go further offtopic for a habitual pot stirrer.

[OneLeggedPig]

Also, I have heard Dr McDougall say he eats a small piece of turkey occasionally on Thanksgiving. I have heard him say if a person has a piece of cake on their birthday it won't kill them. So Dr McDougall is definately NOT a vegan and is not promoting that ideology. Some vegans here seem to think he is and does but I don't see it.

I haven't claimed he is a vegan, although he does express concerns for animals and the environment as well as health. In any case, if people went from eating meat everyday to once a year, as a vegan I'd be pretty delighted. I don't see that if Doctor M has turkey on thanksgiving or not is significant.

So let's take PCRM as a expert information source on this issue for a moment. It is still like 99 to 1 in favor of expert opinion that animal reasearch saves lives. Do you have any other expert groups besides PCRM or is that it?

As stated in the statement I provided from PCRM, there are various reasons why a lot of scientists would be in favour of animal testing, not all of them are good reasons. No, PCRM aren’t the only experts against it, but I don’t think comparing numbers for and against is really going to get the root of the issue anyway. I don’t doubt that more scientists are in favour. But I believe there is a bigger picture that it might be hard for some scientists, specialists as they are and deeply focused on their own work as they are, to see.

I’m interested that you didn’t address any of my other points, again.

[Chikiwing]

Also, I have heard Dr McDougall say he eats a small piece of turkey occasionally on Thanksgiving. I have heard him say if a person has a piece of cake on their birthday it won't kill them. So Dr McDougall is definately NOT a vegan and is not promoting that ideology. Some vegans here seem to think he is and does but I don't see it.

I haven't claimed he is a vegan, although he does express concerns for animals and the environment as well as health. In any case, if people went from eating meat everyday to once a year, as a vegan I'd be pretty delighted. I don't see that if Doctor M has turkey on thanksgiving or not is significant.

So let's take PCRM as a expert information source on this issue for a moment. It is still like 99 to 1 in favor of expert opinion that animal reasearch saves lives. Do you have any other expert groups besides PCRM or is that it?

As stated in the statement I provided from PCRM, there are various reasons why a lot of scientists would be in favour of animal testing, not all of them are good reasons. No, PCRM aren’t the only experts against it, but I don’t think comparing numbers for and against is really going to get the root of the issue anyway. I don’t doubt that more scientists are in favour. But I believe there is a bigger picture that it might be hard for some scientists, specialists as they are and deeply focused on their own work as they are, to see.

I’m interested that you didn’t address any of my other points, again.

My understanding of veganism is, that an animals life is equal to a humans life. Having an animal killed and eating it, even a small piece of it once a year is completely out of the question. I could be wrong about that but that's my understanding of it. You seem like a pretty lenient vegan to me from what I've seen and read.

On the animal research issue, I'm not an expert on this. I don't have the knowledge, at all. I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I know what the hell I'm talking about regarding animal reaearch. That means I have to rely on the experts and their opinions. From what I see and hear it seems cut and dry. Animal reasearch saves lives. I understand your position, I get the position. I just don't agree with it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[OneLeggedPig]

My understanding of veganism is, that an animals life is equal to a humans life. Having an animal killed and eating it, even a small piece of it once a year is completely out of the question. I could be wrong about that but that's my understanding of it. You seem like a pretty lenient vegan to me from what I've seen and read.

That’s definitely not my understanding of veganism, and I don’t think it’s a common one. I think a more accurate summation is “why harm/exploit sentient beings if you don’t need to?”
But yes I would say that or a vegan one piece a year is out of the question for ethical reasons. On a practical level I think someone who has meat once a year is doing great.

On the animal research issue, I'm not an expert on this. I don't have the knowledge, at all. I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I know what the hell I'm talking about regarding animal reaearch. That means I have to rely on the experts and their opinions. From what I see and hear it seems cut and dry. Animal reasearch saves lives. I understand your position, I get the position. I just don't agree with it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Fair enough and I do understand why lots of people are in favour of animal testing. I don’t know a huge amount about it either.

[vgpedlr]

PCRM focuses on two fronts, health and animal ethics. On the health front, they get NIH funding for research, such as the research that led to Dr. Barnard's popular press book on reversing diabetes. A wikipedia quote is not a definitive assessment of PCRM, but it does show the opinion many hold, which is that animal ethics is their primary focus. A cursory look at their website should clearly show their priorities. Unless you prefer to believe the "front group" accusation. Some disagree with their split position, others applaud it, but to fail to recognize it is unfair.

It’s fine not to agree with ethical veganism but I’m taking issue with the way you are trying to portray ethical vegans- as loons and hypocrites, or veganism as religion, which I think is inaccurate.

Exactly.

@Chkiwing

Stir it up, and kick it. Rile people up on multiple threads. Why not give it a rest? This board is a support forum for folks working to implement a healthy lifestyle.

I'm not feeling supported by threads devoted to characterizing ethical vegans as zealots and lunatics or fat shaming.

[f1jim]

The issues being debated in this thread affect everyone and it's clear from the Jeff Nelson video it affected him.
I do think Dr. McDougall shy's way from using the terms vegetarian and vegan for solid reasons. The baggage they carry can be almost insurmountable when getting people to listen.
I also took away from my reading on the history of the term Vegan that it clearly started as a diet focused term. It has bounced around to include animal rights off and on over the years. Jeff Nelson actually did a creditable job summing it up in his recent video. Many people come to this website with the ethical aspects of not eating meat or using animal products as a primary driving force. Others come only because of health concerns.
I really don't care what got you here. I am just glad you are here. If your world never expands beyond the primary reason for being here that's okay. But I have a sneaky feeling everyones world expands after being exposed to the various points of view.
I would just like it if we could keep the discussions civil and any personal attacks out.
f1jim

[VeggieSue]

The list of speakers for the September ASW just arrived in my mailbox. Jeff Nelson is one of them.

[Chikiwing]

@Chkiwing

Stir it up, and kick it. Rile people up on multiple threads. Why not give it a rest? This board is a support forum for folks working to implement a healthy lifestyle.

I'm not feeling supported by threads devoted to characterizing ethical vegans as zealots and lunatics or fat shaming.

I didn't create this thread and I didn't post the link to Jeff Nelson's video criticising some youtube ethical vegans. But I do feel free to comment on some of the issues that have been raised in both. I found the video fascinating. How what started off as a diet got hijacked by animal rights extremist. A lot of that going around.

The ethical vegans I describe as zealots and lunatics are the type Jeff Nelson talked about in his video. I'm not making a blanket statement on every ethical vegan. I'm sure many ethical vegans are simply doing their thing without being obnoxious tossers to people who ride horses, own a breed dog and use leather weight belts, for example.

I reject the entire "Health at Every Size," "Fat Acceptance," movement and its champions. I really, really, don't like it. If how I express this dislike comes across as "fat shaming," in your opinion, is something I'll have to risk. But the moderators opinions are really the only ones that matters.

I posted this in responce to another forum poster on another thread. Maybe you'll feel supported by this post of mine.

Wow, I think that's great! Congratulations on your success. I have no doubt you'll make it through the little bit of work that is left.

And, if you're 6 feet-tall at 172 pounds while doing weight training in the gym...I think that's really good. It is much better to be 6 feet-tall with some muscles and strength than 6 feet-tall and 160 pounds, weak, skin and bones.

Maybe?

[f1jim]

There are vegan zealots. There are meat eating zealots. There are Republican zealots. There are Democratic zealots. They don't represent the majority of any of the above mentioned groups. But they do exist. Jeff Nelsons potential market is filled with people that eat no meat. His potential market also contains zealots and lunatics. He knows this and is distancing himself from them. We should be able to relate to this given our eating preferences. Most of us acknowledge the "fringe" element in any group with more than a handful of participants. It's a thin line between active advocacy and lunacy! Maybe many of us run that ragged line more than we think? I think I lean that way at times. After all, isn't the way we eat considered extreme by most people? Isn't the way we eat considered over the top by even our closest acquaintances? We all draw the line somewhere.
f1jim

[OneLeggedPig]

There are vegan zealots. There are meat eating zealots. There are Republican zealots. There are Democratic zealots. They don't represent the majority of any of the above mentioned groups. But they do exist. Jeff Nelsons potential market is filled with people that eat no meat. His potential market also contains zealots and lunatics. He knows this and is distancing himself from them. We should be able to relate to this given our eating preferences. Most of us acknowledge the "fringe" element in any group with more than a handful of participants. It's a thin line between active advocacy and lunacy! Maybe many of us run that ragged line more than we think? I think I lean that way at times. After all, isn't the way we eat considered extreme by most people? Isn't the way we eat considered over the top by even our closest acquaintances? We all draw the line somewhere.
f1jim

[graciezoe]

And other experts, like PCRM, disagree:

I went to wikipedia and looked up the PCRM, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. These are some of the highlights,

"The National Council Against Health Fraud has criticized PCRM as being "a propaganda machine" and the American Medical Association has called PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group" promoting possibly dangerous nutritional advice."

"Barnard has co-signed letters, on PCRM letterhead, with the leader of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an animal-rights group the Department of Justice calls a "domestic terrorist threat." PCRM also has ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. An agency called the Foundation to Support Animal Protection has distributed money from PETA to PCRM in the past and, until very recently, did both groups' books. Barnard and PETA head Ingrid Newkirk are both on the foundation's board."

This is a group obviously being driven by animal rights zealotry and not human welfare. I hope you can understand my dismissal of the PCRM as a reputable source for information on this issue. Do you have anyone else? My mind still looks like this billboard,

Dr. Barnard is a highly qualified Physician and the person I credit for having lost 190 pounds and gaining back my health. You can say what you want but PCRM.org is a wonderful source for health AND animal causes. Just because he and his organization care about animals doesn't exclude him from being a "reputable" source!!!!!!!!!

[f1jim]

Dr. Bernard and the PCRM group are not without controversy. Dr. Esselstyn is not without controversy. Dr. Dean Ornish and his views are controversial. Dr. T. Colin Campbell is controversial. Dr. McDougall is controversial. Is that good or bad? Depends on your perspective. If you are in the beef industry ALL of the above names are going to be reviled.
Controversy is what we make it. It can be a badge of honor or a scarlet letter depending on our perspective.
Pointing out the fact that some organization finds anything these people do as a black mark doesn't bother me. I am an adult, I read their works and I make up my own mind. The fact that Quackwatch calls Dr. McDougall a quack doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

I have heard Dr. Bernard speak 5 times and enjoyed a handful of conversations with him. I have viewed a dozen or so videos he has done. From my perspective he seems honest, genuine, and motivated to a cause I find attractive. From my perspective he rates highly. If someone else finds his words or work offensive that doesn't blur my conclusions of him. In fact, I find him one of the more engaging personalities trumpeting the plant based diet.
I am not sure posting that he or his work is offensive is enough to raise my hackles. I think showing that his work is controversial is fine. It is probably a badge of honor for me.
f1jim

[Thrasymachus]

No doubt, Barnard is controversial and is likely not that respected outside of this forum because he just like others who advocate to eat low fat, plant based, vegan, demand alot like abandoning expected "comfort" foods. At issue is if a notorious poster trying to rile others up should be able in addition to his other past offenses accuse the PCRM of zealotry, prioritizing the lives of lab mice over human children, not being credible, along with the other offensive comments to vegans, toward overweight people, to people who support gun control, etc.

At work, or at home, if I ever got a co-worker or family member to see a Neal Barnard video I would expect disbelief, rolled eyes, sarcasm, stupid counter-claims, jokes everything except acceptance and especially implementation. Should we expect the same here too? In other words should this place also be a diet battlefront of that type.

[f1jim]

I agree. And if this family member or friend ever had the lightbulb come on they might look at the work of Dr. Bernard in a new light. Even still, maybe not. Either way controversy is a part of our lives. We all have our 2 cents on the matter and what you may believe probably shouldn't have a significant impact on my own personal view. We can look at the same information and come up with two different conclusions. That's okay. This website isn't the final arbiter on the actions of any of the plant based leaders. It's here to help those that are investigating or want support to follow this program. If you have issues with this program this will be an uncomfortable place to spend time. If your views of Dr. Bernard or any other nutritional guru differ from even the majority of folks here that isn't germaine to our mission. Only those whose mission is to discredit this program will arouse our ire.
f1jim