Is it risky for babies to be vegan?

[DarlBundren]

As far as I can tell, this is what we have:

Yes, a strict vegan diet is adequate for pregnant women

US 1. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:
Vegetarian Diets. J Acad Nutr Diet.
2016;116(12):1970-1980.

Australia 2. National Health and Medical Research Council
(Hg). Eat for health. Australian dietary guidelines.
National Health and Medical Research Council,
2013.

Portugal 3. National Programme for the Promotion of a
Healthy Diet, Direção-Geral da Saúde (Hg). Guidelines
for a healthy vegetarian diet. 2015.
Canada 4. Amit M Vegetarian diets in children and adolescents.
Paediatr Child Health 2010;15(5):303-314
[reaffirmed 2014].

Portugal claims that you should breastfeed until your children are 2 years old. 5. Phillips F. Vegetarian nutrition. Nutrition Bulletin
2005;30(2):132-167.

No, a strict vegan diet is not adequate.

Germany claims that you need to supplement 1. Koletzko B, Bauer CP, Bung P, Cremer M, Flothkötter
M, Hellmers C, Kersting M, Krawinkel M,
Przyrembel H, Rasenack R, Schäfer T, Vetter K,
Wahn U, Weissenborn A, Wöckel A., German
national consensus recommendations on nutrition
and lifestyle in pregnancy by the ‘Healthy
Start - Young Family Network’. Ann Nutr Metab
2013;63(4):311-22.

Germany 2. Richter M, Boeing H., Grünewald-Funk D., Heseker
H., Kroke A., Leschik-Bonnet E., Oberritter
H., Strohm D., Watzl B. Vegan Diet Position of the
German Nutrition Society (DGE) Ernaehrungs Umschau
international 2016;63(4):92-102.

Italy seems to be against it too (I can't find the paper at the moment).

[brimstoneSalad]

Normally, I’d have no problem debating someone who’s values are antithetical to my own, but as with any other science denier, the skills needed to change Carnap’s mind are beyond my own ability.

Sorry.

I meant more on "The repetition of this same thing is what's irritating. At this point you're just spamming the forum with these repeated demands with moving goal posts. It's dishonest, and I think we're done with it at this point." part.

My thought is to forbid him from continuing to spam virtually every advice thread on the forum with these claims.

I would say if he wants to debate epistemology, he should start a new more general thread in the "Other Philosophy Discussion Forum" about the issue of what reasonable standards of evidence are (and arguing there for whatever his unreasonable standards are and what he thinks justifies fear mongering) and stop spamming his claims in response to every thread he can think to respond in.

It always seems to go the same way.

1. Somebody expresses concerns
2. He chimes in about how risky veganism is
3. One of us is compelled to explain that's not consensus among professionals, lest people be misled
4. He claims whatever source we cite isn't credible and alleges a grand vegan conspiracy, and demands impossible standards of evidence
5. We explain we wouldn't expect that standard for anything else and that it's fear mongering based on speculation that could apply to anything.

I think it's played out.

@Red @Jebus Do you agree?
Is @miniboes still around?

[brimstoneSalad]

No, a strict vegan diet is not adequate.

Germany claims that you need to supplement 1. Koletzko B, Bauer CP, Bung P, Cremer M, Flothkötter
M, Hellmers C, Kersting M, Krawinkel M,
Przyrembel H, Rasenack R, Schäfer T, Vetter K,
Wahn U, Weissenborn A, Wöckel A., German
national consensus recommendations on nutrition
and lifestyle in pregnancy by the ‘Healthy
Start - Young Family Network’. Ann Nutr Metab
2013;63(4):311-22.

Germany 2. Richter M, Boeing H., Grünewald-Funk D., Heseker
H., Kroke A., Leschik-Bonnet E., Oberritter
H., Strohm D., Watzl B. Vegan Diet Position of the
German Nutrition Society (DGE) Ernaehrungs Umschau
international 2016;63(4):92-102.

Italy seems to be against it too (I can't find the paper at the moment).

But do they recognize that a supplemented vegan diet is adequate?

wiki/index.php/Adequate_Nutrition#DGE

One apparent exception among credible organizations, often cherry-picked by anti-vegan critics, is the DGE (German Nutrition Society) which released a more critically worded 2016 position paper[3]. An important consideration is the fact that these recommendations are focused on sensitive groups within the context of German culture and food availability: for example, in Germany (due to ill-conceived EU regulations on organic labeling) the overwhelming majority of vegan substitutes like plant milks are not properly fortified with well studied vitamins and minerals, but with unusual forms of plant extracts (See discussion in comments[4]). The position does not state that a vegan diet is inherently inadequate or unhealthy, and to the contrary outlines specifically HOW to get the necessary nutrients in table 2: Potential critical nutrients in a vegan diet and vegetable nutrient sources. The general sentiment of the position paper is that they do not believe that people are competent, and it is necessary that fortified foods and vegan specialty foods and supplements be more reliable and widely available to reduce risk of inadequate nutritional status on a population level. The tendency of German vegans to favor organic and want to avoid all supplements seems also to be a major concern.

That was my takeaway from the English version, but there may be something I'm missing.

[Red]

@Red @Jebus Do you agree?

I agree, he reminds me a lot of teo, shifting the goalposts and not listening to the reasoning and evidence being presented to him (and it's not due to bias from being vegan, which carnap would probably be quick to point out).

Is @miniboes still around?

I see that he's online on Discord a lot. I talk with EquALLity on there a lot too (though not much recently since he had a bit of a disagreement).

[Jebus]

1. Somebody expresses concerns
2. He chimes in about how risky veganism is
3. One of us is compelled to explain that's not consensus among professionals, lest people be misled
4. He claims whatever source we cite isn't credible and alleges a grand vegan conspiracy, and demands impossible standards of evidence
5. We explain we wouldn't expect that standard for anything else and that it's fear mongering based on speculation that could apply to anything.

That's an accurate description. He is clearly educated and somewhat intelligent which makes me think that the stupidity is ill willed and intentional.

[brimstoneSalad]

I see that he's online on Discord a lot. I talk with EquALLity on there a lot too (though not much recently since he had a bit of a disagreement).

I thought EquALLity fell off the internet. If you could their input that would be cool.
I don't want to stifle actual conversation here, but this is getting repetitive and trollish. It's hard to make a judgement call like this.

[Lay Vegan]

My thought is to forbid him from continuing to spam virtually every advice thread on the forum with these claims.

I would say if he wants to debate epistemology, he should start a new more general thread in the "Other Philosophy Discussion Forum" about the issue of what reasonable standards of evidence are (and arguing there for whatever his unreasonable standards are and what he thinks justifies fear mongering) and stop spamming his claims in response to every thread he can think to respond in.

That’s fair.

You might want to make an additional rule discouraging interlocutors from repetitively spamming multiple threads with arguments that have already been addressed. That way it doesn’t look like we’re unfairly targeting carnap.

I thought of this warning you gave a while back:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4156

The point is that any anybody can disagree with a particular moral theory (moral realism isn't a specific moral theory) and do so without any consequences to themselves. That is much different than if someone decided to disagree with mathematics.

No, it's identical; your consequences are contextual either way. I explained this multiple times.

If your disagreement with mathematics results in you miscalculating your profits and saving on taxes, that could be beneficial to you.
Even on a societal level, there may be wrong math systems (which you would not be socially penalized for following, like with wrong moral systems) which could be beneficial (like preventing the development of nuclear weapons).

You keep making this argument, and it's fundamentally wrong. No matter what system, moral or mathematical, you're only socially penalized if you deviate from the social norm, and no matter what system there are systemic effects.

You're forbidden from making this argument again unless you:

1. Make a new thread about it
2. Come up with a new argument to support it.

If you do it again, we're going to have to talk about banning. You're wasting people's time with this asinine claim that you keep repeating and that keeps being debunked.

[Lightningman_42]

It always seems to go the same way.

1. Somebody expresses concerns
2. He chimes in about how risky veganism is
3. One of us is compelled to explain that's not consensus among professionals, lest people be misled
4. He claims whatever source we cite isn't credible and alleges a grand vegan conspiracy, and demands impossible standards of evidence
5. We explain we wouldn't expect that standard for anything else and that it's fear mongering based on speculation that could apply to anything.

I think it's played out.

I've been reading a lot of your interactions with Carnap and I agree with this. Carnap is wasting others' time and patience.

[brimstoneSalad]

OK, updated forum rules. What do you think?
@Lay Vegan @Lightningman_42 @Jebus @Red

[Red]

OK, updated forum rules. What do you think?
@Lay Vegan @Lightningman_42 @Jebus @Red

Like it, much more organized overall, and it elicited a slight chuckle from me when I saw the subtle jabs at Carnap.