"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
[..]

>> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
>> > > >> > nutritious
>> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>
>> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on
>> > > it?
>>
>> > Poor you.
>>
>> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>>
>> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
>> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>
>
> The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.

"Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.

>> > that seems very unlikely to me
>>
>> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>
> I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.

You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
our particular medical circumstances. You are neither qualified nor aware of
the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
ideology.