To Thulyblu, the AHA's position

[brimstoneSalad]

+TheVeganAtheist "the link to AHA wasn't to suggest that AHA has a no meat stance, which they clearly do not."

But that is exactly what this sentence in the video suggests (6:53)

"It's not only the American Heart Association that agrees that the consumption of meat is a major factor in the development of heart disease."

This is somewhat of a semantic quibble. I agree it risks coming off as an overgeneralization, but both the caller and Matt were generalizing in the show, and it would have been complicated to try to break down various types of meat.

Generally, if you take the sum total of meat consumption (Adding in the effects of beef, pork, chicken, fish), that sum total of net consumption is a major factor in the development of heart disease.
That said, some meats are worse than others, and certain aquatic meats contain EPA and DHA, which have conditionally protective factors for people who are consuming too much Omega 6 fatty acid (which is common in the S.A.D.).

It's much the same as saying the consumption of vegetables is cancer preventative. It is, on average. The generalization to the human practice of consuming vegetables is correct.
There are also some few vegetables that are toxic and probably carcinogenic, and which some people eat. That doesn't negate the truth of the generalization, since the consumption of healthy cancer preventative vegetables and the contribution thereof far outweighs the effects of the bad ones.

The AHA is correct in recommending fish as a replacement for other meat in the S.A.D.
It's also true that the consumption of meat (generally) is a major factor in the development of heart disease.
As it was a general statement in reply to general statements, it seemed safe to assume we were making a generalization and speaking toward average practice.

And this is one of your major points, that the consensus is (also based on the AHA) that meat in general is bad for you,

Yes, meat in general is bad for you. It's a generalization which is generally true, as true generalizations generally are. There are occasional exceptions. The AHA would like to encourage people to switch to the less damaging meats, and to eat fish which is likely protective in small amounts in the context of diets overly rich in Omega 6 fatty acids.

therefore Matt is a hypocrite because he apparently ignores it when he rejects the claim of the caller that meat in general is bad for you... (which Matt has just shown to be wrong in case of the AHA and you admitted which makes this main point a moot one)

The caller didn't say all meats are bad for you in all situations. The generalization, however, was correct. Matt didn't seem to be interested in letting the caller elaborate.

But Matt responded with a generalization of his own, if you'll remember.
Matt's argument suggested he was saying ALL meat (all "natural" meat) was healthy because we evolved eating it. This argument was false.
To be fair, his argument didn't suggest that cured/processed meats were healthy, since those are not meats that we evolved eating.
But, to be equally fair, we also didn't evolve eating much fish, if any at all, which is the only meaningful exception the AHA makes and the meat that Matt's argument fails to include.

You also asked to have pointed out where you insult Matt, you do that at 5:30 when you call him a hypocrite (which is an insult). You claim he is attempting do debunk nutritional science at 5:36, even though he did no such thing in the video, he simply stated his (non expert) opinion on the matter and for that you compare him to creationist con men like Kent Hovind (whom you show a picture of next to Matt) which you know full well know must be very insulting for a person like Matt.

The two are related. If the latter is true, the former is true. He may not like being called hypocritical, but it's true. Is pointing out a fact insulting?

Regarding the latter point, he was trying to debunk a consensus of nutritional science with his one word quip. He's arguing in favor, instead, of a pseudoscience of paleodiet based nutrition.
Do you disagree that Creationists are trying to debunk evolutionary science when they deny facts by citing thermodynamics, and then offer up their alternative of intelligent design?

These things are extremely close parallels. You couldn't ask for a more accurate analogy to what Matt was doing.
Maybe he misspoke? Well fine, if that is not in fact what he was trying to do, he should correct himself. The video acknowledged that it was an old position, upon which discussion by Matt was hard to come by.

You imply at 4:14 that he doesn't admit that he is no expert, even though he frequently does exactly that on the show (on other calls).

On other calls, on other subjects. He was very sure of himself on this one word checkmate of "evolution" against nutritional science.
It was uncharacteristically arrogant of Matt to dismiss an argument like that, or to abuse science so.
He was called out. He can correct himself, and it would be as simple as that.

[brimstoneSalad]

Of course, nobody told Thulyblu this thread existed I bet.
It's like when you say "Somebody call 911" and nobody does it because they assume somebody else will.

TheVeganAtheist, can you please link Thulyblu to this? I don't use the Youtubes.

[miniboes]

Of course, nobody told Thulyblu this thread existed I bet.
It's like when you say "Somebody call 911" and nobody does it because they assume somebody else will.

TheVeganAtheist, can you please link Thulyblu to this? I don't use the Youtubes.

I linked it to him.

[Thulyblu]

It would of course be better if not I would argue here, but Matt Dillahunty, but I will try to give my understanding of his points and how I view your interpretation of those. I suppose I can give the perspective of a meat-eating atheist subscriber to the Vegan Atheist Youtube channel who also used to watch the Atheist Experience a few years ago...

...it would have been complicated to try to break down various types of meat.

Are you really saying that it would have been too complicated to add the word "red" in front of "meat"?
Because that would have been a correct/better way to represent the stance of the AHA.
If you add this reservation, however, it would be a hint that the AHA actually does not advise against the consumption of all animal products which would weaken your point. Leaving it out seems very convenient for your argument...

When listeners hear sentences like yours about the AHA from a vegan, of course they assume that it supports the vegan stance, which does not allow the consumption of any animal products, but the AHA even recommends the consumption of some forms of meat, like fish.
You make this statement in favor of veganism when the AHA explicitly does not have a vegan stance. How is this still an honest representation of the AHA?

If you knew that I was hypothetically an advocate against eating anything at all, and I would say this:
"It's not only the American Heart Association that agrees that the consumption of anything in general is a major factor in the development of heart disease."
Would you agree that I honestly represented the AHA? After all, I was talking about anything 'in general' and red meats are a subset of something.
I don't think so... hence your defense by claiming that 'in general' means that you don't have to specify the subset is not convincing.

The caller didn't say all meats are bad for you in all situations.

The caller phrased his argument in a similar way "if you look on the American Heart Association's website, they have numerous instances where they list that diets that contain meat are more unhealthy than plant based diets." Since he is arguing for the vegan cause that implies that he means that the AHA has evidence for why all meat is unhealthy. And Matt Dillahunty didn't buy that.
His justification why he doesn't believe it based on evolution however is weak, as you have explained in the video.
In fact he keeps arguing along the lines of (paraphrasing) 'just because in our first world we have the ability and nutritious supplements that enable us to go vegan doesn't mean that it is equally healthy or better' ... but the caller just gave him an argument for why it is better based on the AHA, which means that Matt didn't address the callers argument, but rather dug his own grave there. This is a live call-in-show. It is to be expected that the arguments aren't perfectly worked out and sometimes fail to address the point when you have yammered on for so long that you don't remember what the point of the caller was in the first place. So you compare a spontaneously uttered (flawed) argument with the well thought out lies about evolution from a convicted criminal creationist who made a living off of spreading misinformation called Kent Hovind. It is already a real stretch to call Matt a science denialist based on one sentence where he is skeptical of one scientific health claim (which btw don't have a good record of being accurate because there are so many factors) but putting him in direct comparison with Kent Hovind for that is a really really really big stretch.

He may not like being called hypocritical, but it's true. Is pointing out a fact insulting?

Hypocrite is a strong word, it is insulting also (maybe even especially) if it is true. Of course you can use it if you have established that it's an accurate label. Your arguments against Dillahunty are kind of a stretch, though... not what I would call a smoking gun... So you went for confrontation instead of friendly debate... OK, fine, but don't expect people not to feel insulted when you insult them. Just saying.

I could have called you liars for misrepresenting the AHA, but I don't want to, liar is also a strong word and an insult. I can well imagine that you simply made a mistake or you really didn't realize that the phrasing you used has these implications and that it was just luck/badLuck that it happens to support your point when you phrase it in the way you did. Maybe we argue back and forth and I see that I made a mistake in judgement there... if I call you a liar or hypocrite and I turn out to be wrong, I am kind of a douche in the end, if I turn out to be right, you are the lying douche... once an insulting accusation is made, there can't be a friendly reconciliation anymore, one of the parties will turn out to be the douche... so I recommend using such words only when you are really sure you are correct and you really don't like the other party and you aren't interested in reconciliation.

He was very sure of himself on this one word checkmate of "evolution" against nutritional science.

He is the host of the show, it is his job to defend his position, no matter how bad it is. (Yeah... I don't like that it works like this, either ... it's TV...xD)

It was uncharacteristically arrogant of Matt to dismiss an argument like that...

Oh no, I think he is always this arrogant . Maybe even more arrogant in a lot of cases, he just cuts off callers in the middle of the sentence all the time or just disconnects if he had enough.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hi Thulyblu, thanks for popping in.

Oh no, I think he is always this arrogant . Maybe even more arrogant in a lot of cases, he just cuts off callers in the middle of the sentence all the time or just disconnects if he had enough.

OK, you may have a point there. More specifically, I think I would say it was uncharacteristically arrogant regarding a scientific topic.
For example, when somebody makes certain claims about physics, Matt tends to get a lot more reserved and kind of thinks out loud more, quoting or paraphrasing others, and will look to other people on the set (like off camera) to confirm some points.

He is the host of the show, it is his job to defend his position, no matter how bad it is. (Yeah... I don't like that it works like this, either ... it's TV...xD)

It would have been great to be able to have a private discussion about it, but there have been no updated views that we can find in public, and he has a tendency to ignore and not reply to e-mails on this subject. Another commenter on youtube mentioned that.

Either openly on the internet, or here, you're right that these exchanges rather compel people to be defensive as a matter of practice.
I'm disappointed in how Matt is defensive, though. He should have at least recognized the flaw in his "evolution" argument, if not concede the point about health.

I appreciate that you recognize that Matt's "evolution" argument was bad.

So, this discussion will probably be about 50% semantic, and 50% about health, particularly regarding Fish.

Are you really saying that it would have been too complicated to add the word "red" in front of "meat"?
Because that would have been a correct/better way to represent the stance of the AHA.
If you add this reservation, however, it would be a hint that the AHA actually does not advise against the consumption of all animal products which would weaken your point. Leaving it out seems very convenient for your argument...

Well, as long as we're talking about the AHA, they frequently don't:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHe ... rticle.jsp

Meat, Poultry, and Fish.

Wait, what?

This is actually a bit of a contentious issue in English. Is fish meat? Is chicken Meat? Or what's the difference between Meat, Poultry, and Fish? Why are the latter two not meat?

"Meat" is often synonymous with "red meat" and frequently, at least in some common usage, excludes poultry, and even more often excludes Fish.

While I consider Fish and Poultry to be forms of meat, let's be clear here: Nobody's really being 100% consistent on the point. So, if your issue is semantic, you might want to take that up with the AHA too, which frequently confuses the issue.

That aside (granting that meat includes fish and poultry):

The AHA advises against more than the consumption of red meat; they advise against saturated fat and cholesterol in general. This is the consensus.
In doing so, they recommend meats that are the lesser of evils, from a cardiovascular perspective.

Simply adding "red" may have made the statement less contentious, but as you said it would have weakened the argument (unnecessarily, as I will explain), OR required several minutes of explanation.

Was it a generalization? Yes, absolutely. But the nuances of the generalization weren't relevant to the argument Matt actually made. That's why we didn't take the time to clarify. I hope you will appreciate the fact that we were just trying to stay on point.

We weren't actually trying to claim that ALL meat is unhealthy in ALL circumstances and in ALL dietary contexts, just that it generally was.

I would have loved to see a several hours long video, but I feel like that would have been hard to watch. There were so many points that could be clarified and elaborated upon. You have to choose your battles, and that means making generalizations sometimes.

When listeners hear sentences like yours about the AHA from a vegan, of course they assume that it supports the vegan stance, which does not allow the consumption of any animal products, but the AHA even recommends the consumption of some forms of meat, like fish.

Well, some vegans are unreasonable in their health claims, but that should not be assumed. Heart disease is a gradient of risk. There are many things that promote heart disease, not just animal products, but plant saturated fats, and a deficiency of Omega 3 relative to Omega 6 as well.

This last point (Omega 6) is actually a point which the AHA takes a very weak position on:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHe ... rticle.jsp

They have a tendency to insist that Omega 6 is healthy. And yet, it's only healthy in certain contexts.
AHA makes crazy generalizations. And there's a reason for that: They're speaking to the average American diet and consumer. They have to generalize, otherwise they'd be writing a book, and nobody would read their recommendations.

Incidentally, there's another example of their usage of "meat", and generalizing it just as we did.
I hope you can concede that point. But moving on:

"Whole" animal products which have not been isolated to have saturated fat and cholesterol removed are a risk factor.
That includes chicken and fish (which I will cover in a moment), just to lower and substantially lower degrees respectively (particularly for some kinds of fish).
Generally, the less of them you eat, the lower your risk (none does not mean zero risk), and the more of them you eat, the greater your risk. There are exceptions, but that's why it's a generalization.

It's not unlike smoking in that regard. You should be able to say, smoking one cigarette a month probably won't kill you -- and it probably won't. Although it does slightly increase risk.
The point is that not smoking at all is better than smoking in moderation.
Not eating meat at all is better than eating meat in moderation, provided at least that it is a balanced diet rich in vegetables.

A low fat vegan diet (eliminating excess Omega 6), has the lowest risk.
As to the caller's claim in particular, you have to read things like this (not their general advise to the average public):

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHe ... rticle.jsp

The AHA, as I have said, doesn't recommend a vegetarian or vegan diet to the public, despite recognizing the health benefits, because they just don't believe that's effective advocacy for heart health. Recommendations are useless if they aren't followed. They're not wrong.

As I explained elsewhere, a good analogy is abstinence only education, in sex ed. Abstinence is the most effective if it's actually practiced, but recommending condoms (and not abstinence) is the most effective form of advocacy.
It's a very important distinction to understand.


As for fish, you are correct that the AHA recommends the average public eat it in moderation (they do not make this recommendation in their comments to vegetarians), once or twice per week in small portions.
This is as a form of supplementation of essential fatty acids, and with DHA and EPA specifically, which decrease risk factors in certain diets most directly (those common in America, with high levels of Omega 6).
Eating a little extra ALA is of limited use when a diet is very high in Omega 6.

They only recommend eating it once or twice per week because that has diminishing returns, and fish actually has other negative health ramifications (including likely on the cardiovascular system in large amounts, but particularly heavy metals).

There are also ways to get the benefits of eating fish without may of the drawbacks (and superior cardiovascular protection in the process).

Decreasing consumption of very high Omega 6 oils is the best way (without replacing them with saturated fats, which are worse). As mentioned earlier, the AHA takes a weak position on this. We can discuss that more if you're interested.

Increasing consumption of Omega 3 is also a good way to reduce risk, and can be done very effectively by consuming flax seed oil (but not by consuming Soybean oil, which has a mediocre ratio -- the AHA is actually wrong on that point in some articles). This has limited efficacy in the context of a diet which is very high in Omega 6 oils.
Replacing other cooking oils with Canola oil is also a great way to do this, and decrease Omega 6 too.

In terms of DHA and EPA, these can also be obtained by supplementation, both vegan and non-vegan supplementation. The AHA mentions this, although doesn't recommend it because supplementation can easily be abused, and may cause harm if used incorrectly. Supplementation also fails to provide the positive health impact of displacing other forms of meat, which fish does.

Here are a couple articles on the topic, a short one, and a longer one.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHe ... rticle.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHe ... rticle.jsp

Let me point out a few things.

For middle-aged and older men and postmenopausal women, the benefits of fish consumption far outweigh the potential risks when the amount of fish are eaten is within the recommendations established by the FDA and Environmental Protection Agency.

As long as you don't eat more than recommended, for the average person on the average American diet, the benefits outweigh the risks.
They do not say there are no risks, and they go into some length about the risks themselves.

It's also a generalization to say that eating fish is healthy, which the AHA makes and then clarifies later to explain that some seafood should be avoided (as the FDA recommends).

Anyway, the AHA is wise to recommend fish for the general public, because it's easier for most people to understand, and it serves two functions: obviating the need to balance Omega 3/6 ratios carefully, and displacing meat (or other meats, if you like) from the diet.

You make this statement in favor of veganism when the AHA explicitly does not have a vegan stance. How is this still an honest representation of the AHA?

Because it was focused only on debunking Matt's generalization, and supporting the caller's generalization, which I hope I have done to your satisfaction above.

If you knew that I was hypothetically an advocate against eating anything at all, and I would say this:
"It's not only the American Heart Association that agrees that the consumption of anything in general is a major factor in the development of heart disease."
Would you agree that I honestly represented the AHA? After all, I was talking about anything 'in general' and red meats are a subset of something.
I don't think so... hence your defense by claiming that 'in general' means that you don't have to specify the subset is not convincing.

First, you being an advocate of not eating or not has nothing to do with the truth of your statement.
This is some kind of genetic fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
It's completely irrelevant. There are not two standards for truth. Either the claim is true, or it isn't.
I don't have to know anything at all about your position.

If you had generalized to "the American diet" that would have been fine and useful.
The claim, either way, is technically true. Food is a major factor in the development of heart disease.

It's a bizarre claim to make, though, and not useful since not eating anything isn't a viable option for most people.
It's very easy to make all kinds of useless generalizations, which categorize things so broadly as to provide no practical information.
This is not a very good analogy. Can you understand why?

The more specific a claim is, the more useful it is -- but also the less general, and held to higher scrutiny.

I know what you're trying to say, but I think you're missing the point of generalizations.

"Glass is fragile"
This is not untrue. Generally speaking, glass is fragile. Not all glass would be considered fragile. Borosilicate glass is pretty durable, and there are aluminum glasses that are pretty amazing too.

And yet, "glass is fragile" is a generally true statement.
It has nothing to do with whether the person saying that is pro or anti-glass.

The caller phrased his argument in a similar way "if you look on the American Heart Association's website, they have numerous instances where they list that diets that contain meat are more unhealthy than plant based diets."

Yes, and that's entirely true.

Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHe ... rticle.jsp

Also, as I have explained, the AHA itself uses the term "meat" inconsistently, and makes frequent generalizations.

Since he is arguing for the vegan cause that implies that he means that the AHA has evidence for why all meat is unhealthy.

Does it really? Because it looked like he was generalizing broad categories of overall diets, which is also what the AHA does on that page, as I quoted above.
As I said, it shouldn't matter what position somebody is advocating. Either a statement is true or it isn't, or it may just be unclear. Conversational context can provide some implications sometimes, but by their nature these are unclear, and if you want to discuss them you have to express them first in an unambiguous way, otherwise you risk building a straw man -- and as we said in the video, we recognize fully that we may be arguing with a straw Matt by now since his positions may have changed (we have no interest in making a straw man fallacy, since it's not conducive to conversation, only rhetoric).
You can't make assumptions about what somebody might be implying, and then call them dishonest when what they actually said was factually accurate but you read into it something they may or may not have meant.

And Matt Dillahunty didn't buy that.

If that's true, he should have asked for clarification, and set the caller up.

Like: 'Do you mean to tell me that all animal products in any amount are inherently unhealthy in any context, or are you just saying in general or on average they're unhealthy?'

Chances are the caller would have gone into how some are more or less unhealthy than others, and certain animal products like fish are among the least unhealthy, but are not representative of the typical pattern of meat consumption.
But maybe he wouldn't have -- that wouldn't have necessarily made Matt right, but it might have provided him at least one leg to stand on.
You really don't know, and you can't assume.

just because in our first world we have the ability and nutritious supplements that enable us to go vegan doesn't mean that it is equally healthy or better

That's true, but that wasn't the caller's argument, nor the argument presented here. It's actually irrelevant.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it's good to do it. So? The reason we should believe plant based diets are healthier and animal products (in general, but not necessarily every single one in every single circumstance) are unhealthy is due to substantial evidence on the matter, and that's what the caller was advocating.

This is a live call-in-show. It is to be expected that the arguments aren't perfectly worked out and sometimes fail to address the point when you have yammered on for so long that you don't remember what the point of the caller was in the first place.

That's fine, and I get it, but Matt has avoided publicly clarifying his position and he doesn't seem to respond to e-mails on this (he may have responded to some we've never heard of).
He said something very wrong, and he got called out on it. All he has to do it correct his position.

So you compare a spontaneously uttered (flawed) argument with the well thought out lies about evolution from a convicted criminal creationist who made a living off of spreading misinformation called Kent Hovind.

Context is really irrelevant to the arguments themselves. You're using an ad hominem argument against Hovind here. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits or lack thereof. And this argument by Matt was absolutely terrible. They are completely comparable (not the people, but the arguments).

That said (your point should be irrelevant), Hovind may or may not actually believe what he's saying (you don't know, you shouldn't call him a liar), and I'm not sure it's so thought out as you claim (do creationists really think?), or that Matt didn't think this one out either.
Matt has had discussions on the subject before, that much is obvious, and I think he has said that (although I may be wrong, because I can't find the quote right now). There's no reason to believe that answer was completely off the cuff. When Matt doesn't know how to respond to something, he doesn't usually respond reflexively like that.
And if he didn't know how to respond to it, and he responded reflexively anyway, he should be equally criticized for that.
You don't get a pass on your comments because they were spur of the moment. You do, however, get to take them back if you disavow them and say you were mistaken. That's all we want Matt to do.

Hypocrite is a strong word, it is insulting also (maybe even especially) if it is true. Of course you can use it if you have established that it's an accurate label. Your arguments against Dillahunty are kind of a stretch, though... not what I would call a smoking gun... So you went for confrontation instead of friendly debate... OK, fine, but don't expect people not to feel insulted when you insult them. Just saying.

Did not once call him a hypocrite. That would be a strong claim. We said his arguments were hypocritical, and what he was doing (particularly, regarding the dismissing scientific consensus) was an unfortunate hypocrisy.

You can see the full text here: https://theveganatheist.com/an-open-let ... illahunty/

We ALL do things that are hypocritical sometimes. It's important to be called out on those inconsistencies when we do.
Would that make us all hypocrites? Maybe, but I don't think so (it's more out habits and the sum of our actions that inform our general characters). But we didn't characterize Matt as a hypocrite; our criticisms were very specific toward those particular claims and actions, not to him as a person, or generally.

I could have called you liars for misrepresenting the AHA, but I don't want to, liar is also a strong word and an insult. I can well imagine that you simply made a mistake or you really didn't realize that the phrasing you used has these implications and that it was just luck/badLuck that it happens to support your point when you phrase it in the way you did. Maybe we argue back and forth and I see that I made a mistake in judgement there... if I call you a liar or hypocrite and I turn out to be wrong, I am kind of a douche in the end, if I turn out to be right, you are the lying douche... once an insulting accusation is made, there can't be a friendly reconciliation anymore, one of the parties will turn out to be the douche... so I recommend using such words only when you are really sure you are correct and you really don't like the other party and you aren't interested in reconciliation.

I agree, which is why the criticism was carefully edited to be specifically directed at his arguments and those specific actions.
I'm very bad at not outright calling people idiots. Miniboes helped a lot at toning down the rhetoric.
It was carefully worded to be a strong censure against those particular bad arguments, and his action of using those arguments (which is in conflict with his stated beliefs, which brings the weight of those beliefs into question), but as much as possible avoiding disparaging his personal character, and also recognizing that the arguments were very old and may not still represent what he believes.

Apparently, Matt has had seven years to set the record straight, and based on his responses he still believes his arguments were good. That's less understandable.
Matt also didn't grant the same courtesy; his tweets have leveled accusations of "flat-out lying".

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... =100#p8666

Interestingly, he calls the implications flat-out lies, which is pretty silly. Implications are not expressed, but must be interpreted by the reader (which makes them highly subject to interpretation and misunderstanding, as Matt should know), and they are anything but direct. An 'implication' can not be a flat-out lie. An implication might be said to be dishonest, but it can't be flat-out anything.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implication

implication[...]
: something that is suggested without being said directly : something that is implied

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flat%20out

flat out[...]
: in a very clear and direct way

My less than charitable interpretation: He wanted to call us all liars SO badly, that he decided it was OK to be dishonest himself in order to do it.
Or maybe he's just being defensive, and typing without thinking. I'll go with that one.

[Thulyblu]

This is some kind of genetic fallacy.

Apparently you did not understand what I was trying to say, so I will have to explain myself better (my fault). I did not say that your claim is false because you are a biased vegan, that would be the genetic fallacy. This is about how the viewers/readers of this open letter will interpret your representation of the AHA's position. The phrasing of this sentence is not unequivocal. There are several legitimate possible interpretations. Let's look at it again:

"It's not only the American Heart Association that agrees that the consumption of meat is a major factor in the development of heart disease."

'consumption of meat' could refer to either consumption of all meat or consumption of meat in general, as you have laid out above.
Both are legitimate interpretations of this sentence. So which of those ways will people interpret it? They know, this is a vegan youtube channel and vegan means that you are opposed to the use of all animal products and this is an argument in favor of the vegan cause against a meat eating advocate. That is the context. And within this context one of those two interpretations is far more reasonable than the other:
that you meant that the AHA has the stance that consumption of all meat is bad.

I guess that is also what Matt Dillahunty means when he said that you lied by implication ('by implication' because there is also an interpretation which is not a misrepresentation so he can't claim a direct lie)
and it is 'flat out' in the sense that the misrepresentative interpretation is obviously the more reasonable one for people to take. You can also confirm that when you look at the upvotes of my youtube comment that you 'slightly misrepresented' the AHA, many people seem to agree, so this is not a claim without evidence. Technically you are correct, of course, that misrepresenting flat out by implication is nonsensical.

Context is really irrelevant to the arguments themselves.

Context is often indispensable for understanding what the argument is.

You're using an ad hominem argument against Hovind here. (...) They are completely comparable (not the people, but the arguments)

I am not trying to debunk one of Hovind's arguments by attacking his character, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.
And you didn't compare just the arguments, but you also compared the people directly by putting pictures of Dillahunty and Hovind next to each other, not their arguments but their faces.

Hovind may or may not actually believe what he's saying (you don't know, you shouldn't call him a liar)

Oh I know he is a liar, because for example he claimed to be an expert on evolution and in his presentations bizarrely misrepresented it by including the big bang and abiogenesis and represented evolution as a random process. All this in order to promote creationism. Either his expert claim is a lie or his representations of evolution are lies, I don't need to read his mind in order to determine that. Do you have similar evidence against Dillahunty? For example did he explicitly claim to be an expert?

Did not once call him a hypocrite. (...) We said his arguments were hypocritical, and what he was doing

There is no difference. If I say that your arguments and actions are hypocritical that means you are a hypocrite, that is what this word means.
Similarly when I say that your claims are lies, that means I am calling you a liar. This distinction of accusing the arguments instead of the person doesn't work.
If it worked like that, then as someone who has stolen something, one could also argue to a judge, 'only this action of theft was wrong, but I am not a thief, so let me go' .
You (indirectly) called him a hypocrite, you might as well own it. Maybe it turns out to be true in this instance, I'm not sure what else he claims about this topic and how much expertise he claims to have. But my overall impression of Matt is that he is capable of changing his position when he realizes he is wrong, although it might be a longer process against a stubbornly held opinion, as it so often is (see 25 years staunch theist before becoming an atheist). That said, I sincerely wish you good luck arguing against Matt and some of the bad arguments that he makes/(made back then). It won't be easy.

[brimstoneSalad]

'consumption of meat' could refer to either consumption of all meat or consumption of meat in general, as you have laid out above.
Both are legitimate interpretations of this sentence. So which of those ways will people interpret it? They know, this is a vegan youtube channel and vegan means that you are opposed to the use of all animal products and this is an argument in favor of the vegan cause against a meat eating advocate. That is the context. And within this context one of those two interpretations is far more reasonable than the other:
that you meant that the AHA has the stance that consumption of all meat is bad.

I see your point, and I see why people might assume that. But I hope you'll recognize that they are assuming. I can't predict every possible implication people might draw from what is being said, particularly since it's very difficult to look at one's own writing that uncharitably.
People assuming something doesn't make it dishonest. A lie is deliberate dishonesty, and Matt has no evidence of that.

I don't think it's a more reasonable interpretation, and I think latter statements should have made that more clear (that nutrition is contextual). BUT when people are looking to jump on something, they will not necessarily take the context of the whole into account.

Many people noticed some major differences in this video; e.g. an advocacy of consequentialism, and a criticism of Francione, when TheVeganAtheist has been a big supporter of his in the past.
Most people didn't realize that this was a letter, and a group effort. We didn't think it would necessarily be a video when it was written.

I guess that is also what Matt Dillahunty means when he said that you lied by implication ('by implication' because there is also an interpretation which is not a misrepresentation so he can't claim a direct lie)

That's Matt being Matt, quick to jump to conclusions. But he also thinks the study claimed that chicken is healthy, when it is very clear that it is only being advanced as a replacement for red meat as a less unhealthy meat.

As I explained, fish is being prescribed essentially medicinally, and it's also being done with many caveats.
For people with more serious conditions, they also recommend doctor managed supplements rather than fish, which goes to show that they ARE treating it as a medication.

Without having to go into nauseating detail on the AHA's position, it was the most efficient and reasonable generalization, and also the only one relevant to Matt's evolution comments (the meat he was talking about, which we evolved eating for some time in our history, is specifically the meat the AHA says not to eat, and the only one they prescribe is the thing we didn't evolve eating).

I just didn't think going off on a tangent about certain kinds of fatty fish in the context of certain kinds of modern diets was of any relevance to the conversation at all.

and it is 'flat out' in the sense that the misrepresentative interpretation is obviously the more reasonable one for people to take.

Here you're being a little insulting. It's not obvious to me, obviously.
I'll grant that it may be obvious to people who are expecting dishonesty and looking for anything to call dishonest.

Context is really irrelevant to the arguments themselves.

Context is often indispensable for understanding what the argument is.

Only the more immediate context -- and if that's all people were looking at, they'd see it was addressing Matt's poor argument from evolution.
If you want the full context, you have to recognize that it was a letter not written by TheVeganAtheist, but presented by him (as he said). So, the fact that he has happened to advocate such and such in the past shouldn't be relevant here.
And if you want even more context, you have to also carefully read the AHA's article, as well as other data they've presented, AND the context of their recommendations.

Putting disproportionate weight on who is delivering an argument is bad context, if not outright fallacious. And frankly should not be important to understanding the argument, unless it's a very poorly framed argument.

What the argument was about was not unclear. It was about Matt's flat rejection of consensus in favor of his one word checkmate of 'evolution', when he clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

I am not trying to debunk one of Hovind's arguments by attacking his character, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.

Not so much debunk them, as attribute to his arguments the quality of being calculated and deliberate lies, because you perceive Hovind as a liar.
Granted that a lie could accidentally be true, that may be more of a genetic fallacy than an ad hominem fallacy, since you're attributing to the part a quality you attribute to its source. The two are related fallacies, anyway, so they might both be applicable, but you may be right on a technicality there.

But when I compare Matt's arguments to Hovind's arguments (or whoever's), you interpret that I'm saying that Matt's arguments are the same kind of calculated and deliberate lies. Not the case. Just saying it's the same kind of argument.

And you didn't compare just the arguments, but you also compared the people directly by putting pictures of Dillahunty and Hovind next to each other, not their arguments but their faces.

That's a stretch. It's an illustration to show who says those things -- and to emphasize that these are opponents that Matt criticizes for doing the same kind of things.

I don't think either of them are liars, though. I think they're both drinking their own Kool-Aid. That may or may not be the case, but I prefer to give even Hovind the benefit of the doubt.

Oh I know he is a liar, because for example he claimed to be an expert on evolution and in his presentations bizarrely misrepresented it by including the big bang and abiogenesis and represented evolution as a random process. All this in order to promote creationism. Either his expert claim is a lie or his representations of evolution are lies, I don't need to read his mind in order to determine that.

Or he thinks he's an expert, and is delusional.
It's irrelevant, though, unless Matt has never criticized the practice of using one scientific "fact" poorly understood and irresponsibly applied, to debunk another one equally misunderstood.

The arguments are perfect parallels.

You (indirectly) called him a hypocrite, you might as well own it.

If one instance of hypocrisy in a person's life makes them a hypocrite, then we're all hypocrites, and the word and the charge loses all meaning and significance.
If one lie in a person's life makes that person a liar... well, I think you can see where I'm going with this.

I don't agree that one instance of a negative quality being expressed poisons a person's whole character and being for life, and forever labels him or her by those least charitable qualities.

That kind of thinking reminds me of this:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... _person%3F

It's much more useful to look at patterns of behavior that a person exhibits, and degrees to which they express certain kinds of behavior over time and in different regards. A person could have been a frequent or rampant liar when younger, but be mostly or very honest as an adult. People change, they grow, they're inconsistent, messy jumbles of different thoughts and ideas that just barely align long enough for them to tie their shoes.

We all have a tendency to interpret criticism as uncharitably as possible though, don't we?

Maybe it turns out to be true in this instance, I'm not sure what else he claims about this topic and how much expertise he claims to have.

That doesn't really matter, so much as who he has criticized and for what; that is, he has harshly criticized people for abusing science out of ignorance to try to make arguments like that against evolution when they don't personally like what they think evolution teaches us.
That particular act was hypocritical of him.

Again, I reject the idea that such a singular act or idea makes him a career hypocrite, or anything like that. Yes, I suppose he IS a hypocrite, at least in the meaningless sense that we're ALL hypocrites, although even then I would reiterate it is a matter of degree (to what extent are we hypocrites) and that the unqualified charge is meaningless.
An action is hypocritical, but every person is hypocritical only to a particular degree. In the same sense that we're anything to various degrees.
Asserting anything else really sounds like some self loathing Jesus nonsense of, "everybody's a piece of shit", which I unequivocally reject, and I hope you do too.

That said, I sincerely wish you good luck arguing against Matt and some of the bad arguments that he makes/(made back then). It won't be easy.

Thanks. You should stick around.

Also, it would be great if you would look at future letters and point out things people will perhaps read too much into based on (what I consider to be unfair) contexts.
If it's possible to tweak these kinds of things ahead of time without making a huge mess and going way off topic, that's always ideal.

[Jebus]

Hi Thulyblu,

I think you made some excellent points and assuming that you are not a vegan (my apologies if my assumptions are incorrect), I would love to see you defend the merits of the non-vegan position on our forum. If you are up for it, please start a new thread in the Vegan vs. Non-Vegan debates.