If you approach argument in certain ways, you can find anybody to be mean. For example, it sounds like you might have responded defensively (in terms of rationaliztion) in the past, and particularly if you referenced bad resources like "authoritynutrition", you could have really frustrated people, and then they respond to that in a not very nice way.
Imagine a Christian arguing with an atheist, and the Christian keeps referencing the Bible as proof of God because the Bible says so. It can be very frustrating. The atheist might not always respond nicely. If you referenced "authoritynutrition" then that's the same kind of thing. It's a bad source, and of course it would frustrate people.
JadeSpeedster17 wrote:Mean, I don't hate vegans, I think that the 'vegan thumpers' of the group tend to get annoying.
Maybe you're mean to people you find annoying too?
When there are two sides arguing, each side may find the other to be mean due to frustration or annoyance.
You can change the way you discuss these things, and you can have more civil discussions. But that also means you have to do more work in researching to find credible sources.
JadeSpeedster17 wrote:I don't know everything I have to search, with what researcher I have done, I don't think I would benefit from a vegan diet and many others feel like me.
What if a Creationist says "I don't think I evolved from monkeys and many others feel like me." is that a good argument?
You aren't an expert in the field of nutrition, right? The same way many people don't know much about evolution. It's very frustrating when somebody tries to argue about something (in science) that they don't know much about and are going based on personal feelings and bad sources.
JadeSpeedster17 wrote:All I said was that 'Not everyone can be vegan so stop trying to force it on me with facts that don't hold up.'
What if somebody said, "Maybe you evolved from Monkeys, and that's good for you, but not everybody evolved from monkeys some of us were created by God and stop trying to force belief in evolution on me with facts that don't hold up!"? Would you find that to be a good argument?
When you said that 'not everyone can be vegan', you were making a claim.
I've never seen any evidence that there are people who physically can not be vegan. There are only people in certain situations where they don't have the means. Human beings need certain nutrients, we do not need certain sources of nutrients. Nobody needs meat unless they have no healthy vegan food to eat.
JadeSpeedster17 wrote:And I was accused of brushing off facts without addressing them when they did the same to me?
You probably didn't present any facts, though, if you were using "authoritynutrition".
Here's a good example of a fact:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
This is a position paper of a body of many thousands of professionals, authored and approved by their top experts.
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence- based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary modifications to meet their needs.
That paper is largely authored by people who eat meat; this is not a biased organization, it's a body of the foremost professionals on human nutrition in the world.
You can see the health claims in that selection. They're fairly modest. Going vegan probably won't cure your cancer, and it won't fix every disease. But it can reduce your risk for many diseases, and if you plan it properly you can get all of your nutrients and be healthy.
Some vegans make exaggerated claims, like if you go vegan you'll never get cancer. That's not true, you'll just have a lower risk. It's like wearing a bullet proof vest won't make it so you'll never get killed by a bullet, it just lowers your risk.
The improved health and lowered risk of certain diseases is a good reason to go vegan. Ethics is an even better one, though.
If you do not need to kill animals to be healthy, why would you want to harm other sentient beings?
JadeSpeedster17 wrote:I'd think that is why some hate vegans. They meet a few who are just horrible and mean, telling them how unethical they are and it gets mean. I've seen this on youtube mostly. If you try and say 'Why not eat like a omnivore, in normal amounts?
"Then tell me oh wise one, what is normal amounts of meat?'
"What's a normal amount?" is a valid question. The amount of meat we require is 0.
It's possible to eat a small amount of meat and for it to be unlikely to kill you (like one serving a week) just like it's possible to smoke a small number of cigarettes (maybe one a week) and for it to be unlikely to give you lung cancer. But we do not
need to eat any meat, and we do not
need to smoke any cigarettes. Particularly as it harms others too, there's no good reason to do it.
See Hank Green on the topic of "why vegetarians are annoying" here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwKrtNr76BM
Unnatural Vegan also responded to it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3G6kyWNauQ
There are some good excuses for eating meat, like "I'm a minor living in a country without good child welfare laws and my parents will beat me if I don't eat it, when I'm older I'll go veg.", or "I'm an adult and I have no job or prospects, and my parents will kick me out if I don't eat it, once I can move out on my own I'll go veg." or "I'm disabled and can't work, I rely on food banks and while I try to get vegetarian things sometimes I have to accept meat to not starve."
There are no particular health conditions that make it impossible to be vegan, particularly if you include ostrovegan in there. The most difficult is a legume allergy, but even people with legume allergies can go vegan. Arguing that you can not be vegan for some nebulous and undefined health reason is only going to frustrate people.
Try to stick with what you know -- your life circumstances -- and ask for help instead of fighting about it, then people can help you learn how to go vegan and be vegan healthfully.
