r/FacebookScience • u/Hot-Manager-2789 • Sep 07 '26
Casually ignoring all dietary science.
57
u/wolschou Sep 07 '26
Citations needed.
For literally every singe sentence. Including the second one .
33
u/Singing_Wolf Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
I was thinking the same thing! After each sentence I just kept hearing Wil Wheaton's voice from when he narrated Randall Munroe's book, "What If?"
I can practically hear Wil’s dry pause after every clause:
“Humans are frugivores.”
- Citation needed.
“I’m literally a biologist.”
- That is not a citation.
“The Bible actually promotes a vegan lifestyle”
- Citation very much needed.
“Animal agriculture is the cause of 90% of global deforestation”
- Citation needed.
“the leading cause of climate change”
- Citation needed.
“and the main cause of species extinction.”
- Citation needed.
“Would you like studies? I have over 50,000.”
…You have fifty thousand studies...
- So many citation needed.
And, really? THE BIBLE is some kind of vegan manifesto? A whole lot of sacrificial lambs would like a word.
I mean, sure, there's some broad ideas buried in there are actually defensible of they weren't so iff the rails. Yes animal agriculture certainly has major environmental impacts, and vegan diets can have environmental benefits. There are some perfectly reasonable arguments sitting right there, raising their hands politely, while this guy just sprints past them yelling, “I HAVE 50,000 STUDIES.”
That is not how anybody who has actually done a literature review talks. Also, I'm pretty sure this guy's "studies" are just other idiots' Facebook posts.
Bonkers.
25
u/Hot-Manager-2789 Sep 07 '26
“I am a biologist”
That is not a citation indeed. In fact, that is a lie.Also, looking on their Facebook page: they are anti zoo, claim humans aren’t omnivores, claim having pets is animal abuse. Yep, definitely a PETA member.
6
u/BigWhiteDog Sep 07 '26
You mean PETA the pet killers? I've run into this type of 🤡 before. Self-righteous, mentally ill assholes
3
9
u/MarcieDeeHope Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 08 '26
They may actually have citations - but are betting no one will check them.
A few years ago there was someone making some wild claims about climate change in another subreddt and also claiming they had a long list of citations - they even shared the list and it had about 200 links or article titles. I randomly pulled up about 20 of them and actually read them. Half of them were looking at very specific things with very small data sets that had nothing to do with the person's point beyond using some of the same words in the abstract, some of them were decades old, a few of them were just blog posts, and the rest all directly contradicted what this person was saying.
People like this have "done their research" by reading headlines or Google summaries and never actually read any of their sources and they count on no one else reading them either.
6
u/BigWhiteDog Sep 07 '26
I like the ones where they read another whack-job's post with bad cites that neither of them actually read, then use those claims as their own.
4
u/Strict_Rock_1917 Sep 07 '26
These people use a citation Gish gallop, where they spam 10-20 papers, none of them related to the actual point they are trying to make, knowing the time sink is too great just to refute some idiot on Facebook. If they put 50% of the effort they use to eristically argue online into actual learning they probably would be a biologist by now.
1
u/kaylee_kat_42 Sep 09 '26
That reminds me of looking up why some people are anti milk. They made the claim that drinking milk increased your chance of developing osteoporosis. They even linked to a paper backing them up. They obviously didn’t read the paper. The researchers did see a correlation between osteoporosis and increased milk consumption. They stated that you couldn’t say that the milk caused the osteoporosis because they didn’t take into account people drinking more milk because they have osteoporosis and are trying to keep it from getting worse.
5
22
u/EverydaySexyPhotog Sep 07 '26
You can make the point that industrial scale animal agriculture is bad for the environment without lying.
8
14
10
u/hyute Sep 07 '26
- Humans are omnivores.
- Maybe this clown is a biologist, but so what?
- The Bible is not a science book.
- You also need to cut down forests to grow crops.
This person chooses to forego eating meat, which is fine, but let's not get so bossy and bullshitty about it.
6
u/Miktieuner Sep 07 '26
Idd omnivores. But our dietary lifestyle has significantly increased in amount of animal-based proteins we eat compared to 100k years ago. So imo the discussion is not to necessarily stop eating meat, but to downscale it to reasonable levels we were evolved to consume (would result in less obesity and better health)
8
u/hyute Sep 07 '26
I don't think obesity comes from eating more meat specifically. The modern food industry has created endless varieties of addictive products with high calories and low nutritional value to drive their marketing goals. They care about shelf life, not YOUR life.
Eating less in general leads to better health.
1
u/SonnyChamerlain Sep 08 '26
You need far far less land and water to grow crops than you do for animal agriculture, just to be nitpicky.
5
2
3
u/sonerec725 Sep 07 '26
Didnt god literally send a flock of birds to the Israelites in the desert just for them to eat after they got tired of mana?
1
1
u/BigWhiteDog Sep 07 '26
They've never actually read their byble, the Bronze-Age Goat Herder's Guide To The Galaxy For Dummies! 🤣
1
u/Karma_1969 Sep 07 '26
50,000? The plural of anecdote isn't data. Just give us the best one...oh wait, they didn't even do that.
1
1
1
1
u/solrua Sep 08 '26
Do they know that chimps will eat bugs and also kill and eat other animals? The way we run animal agriculture is really bad for the environment, I'm not denying that, but humans can't survive on a fruit only diet.
1
1
u/BustaCon Sep 09 '26
Would you like studies? yes, I want that 50,001 study forward to me immediately as soon as you invent it in your raving little mind.
1
u/Esquin87 Sep 11 '26
I can give the bible lie a pass here. Its the least terrible bible lie ive heard in a long time
1
u/Soggy-Mistake8910 Sep 07 '26
Animal agriculture responsible for 90% of global deforestation? No one cuts down trees to farm corn or wheat or Soya? Ffs
2
2
u/Fluffynator69 Sep 07 '26
They absolutely do tho. Specifically South America
-1
u/Soggy-Mistake8910 Sep 07 '26
So all the global deforestation is happening in South America
1
u/theroguex Sep 07 '26
Well, considering the Amazon is the single most important forest on Earth..
0
1
u/Wallcatlibrarian Sep 08 '26
Most of the soy is grown as feed for animal agriculture, so indirectly yeah.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 07 '26
Hello newcomers to /r/FacebookScience! The OP is not promoting anything, it has been posted here to point and laugh at it. Reporting it as spam or misinformation is a waste of time. This is not a science debate sub, it is a make fun of bad science sub, so attempts to argue in favor of pseudoscience or against science will fall on deaf ears. But above all, Be excellent to each other.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.