gregpresley wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...

gregpresley wrote:


I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this
discussion,

Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant
poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in
question but throughout her other books and her
institutional affiliations.


We were discussing her conclusion, based on copious scientific research,
that a diet without meat can satisfy the essential nutritional requirements,

No, we were not, dummy. That conclusion is not
challenged, and is not important; of course one can
meet "essential nutritional requirements" via a diet
that doesn't contain any meat or other animal products.

What we're talking about is her politically motivated
MORAL PRESCRIPTION that we "ought" to follow such a
diet. Get a ****ing clue, will you?

and since she did NOT advocate a VEGAN diet which avoids milk and eggs, but
instead included them, every nutrient is completely covered by her diet.

That's lovely. Now, WHY is she advocating such a diet?

Bob Petersen attacked her as a left-wing kook

Correctly and with full justification. If she wants to
follow such a diet, she is free to do so. For her to
be prescribing it for others is NOT based in science in
any way; it's based in moral prescription, an ENTIRELY
unscientific endeavor. HER prescriptions originate in
her leftist political sentiment.

and you fell right in line,

No, I reached the conclusion years ago.

without ever addressing that conclusion.

The conclusion is trivial, and is not what she is
really on about. You know this; you're dissembling.

A little problem with reading
comprehension here, I fear

No, you know and fear nothing of the kind. Instead,
what you fear is that her moralizing political
prescriptions are being rubbished. You fear that with
good reason: they are, and the basis for rubbishing
them is rock solid.

....since her politics are not at all germane to
her conclusion,

Since her politics is EVERYTHING, and since the
conclusion is scientifically uninteresting...

in spite of your blathering unsupported comments. There is
NO scientific research that contradicts her conclusion,

Strawman.

which, however, you
were too lazy to discover on your own.

No, liar; I did discover it on my own. I also
discovered that it is uninteresting, and not what she
is really all about.

You stupid fat ****: she is taking a scientifically
uninteresting conclusion, and using it as a flimsy
basis for a totalitarian political prescription.


Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling
ignorance.


Cohort: n. 2. A band or group 3. A companion or follower

3.a. is incorrect.