4

votes

[meta] Non-paleo viewpoints

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created September 10, 2010 at 2:47 AM

We occasionally get some non-paleo trolls round here like Freelea of fruitarian fame or those just interested in knocking the paleo diet. These are not curious people who are non-paleo or non-paleos (like WAPFers) interested in paleo subjects, they are explicitly anti-paleo. So, what say ye? Delete, ban, or leave up and just let the votes speak for themselves?

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

Paleo vegan, while difficult and possibly unhealthy, can be done. One reason to be a paleo vegan is if you believe meat is murder. Thus, it is closer to a paleo hack then you might think, although only if is actually discusses diet.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 11, 2010
at 02:54 AM

Stabbing my enemies with a spear may also be very paleo, but that doesn't necesarily mean it is a good idea..

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 11, 2010
at 02:51 AM

I am sometimes mad. But all the idiots around me refuse to admit that I am a genius! (which also makes me mad) I think they are all just jealous of my brilliance! ;-P

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 11, 2010
at 02:49 AM

Yes, I think any forum is dependent on the good judgement of a few leaders. We've been lucky to have that here..

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on September 10, 2010
at 10:02 PM

It's not the view, it's the attitude that's a problem.

A68f24168bc0de414a038037e287b581

(4896)

on September 10, 2010
at 07:36 PM

exactly. it's for people who already are positive about the paleo, and then want to learn more and debate details. Nothing wrong if we want to keep it that way.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:54 PM

Are there any mad geniuses on here? If so, I want to read their contrarian posts.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:52 PM

Best part of paleo becoming mainstream: eventually there will be a calendar of scantily-clad paleogirls. (*or dudes, depending)

D0a103cafaf4768c6dc69b1772a55877

(421)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:46 PM

Couldn't agree more.

D0a103cafaf4768c6dc69b1772a55877

(421)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:45 PM

OMG- Best comments thread ever once hottness entered in:-)! LOL!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:14 PM

True, but Freelee has the disadvantage of eating a stupid diet. For a stupid diet eater, she looks good.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 05:00 PM

I'm not sure that we are the "mass of society" here. That would be pretty awesome if we were though. No more fried tofu patties in school lunches...

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 04:59 PM

That's a valid "paleo hack": since it's an opinion with the goal to make eating paleo better. "MEAT IS MURDER" is not a valid paleo hack.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 04:37 PM

Angela Jolie >>>> Freelee. Freelee isn't ugly, but she isn't extraordinary either. Turn on an Girls Gone Wild and there are at least 30 girls that look like her. Plus Jolie and I could enjoy a good delicious meal together: "I joke that a big juicy steak is my beauty secret"

8e75344356f4a455185ee52da0b90bf2

on September 10, 2010
at 04:37 PM

Ditto this ^^^^

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 04:34 PM

This is "paleo hacks" after all...not "Paleo argue." I think the central premise of this site is that we are hacking our paleo diets to improve our health. It's not about whether or not the paleo diet is a bad diet or a good diet.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:53 PM

Good point about the drama thing. Sometimes/often trying to squelch something ends up causing more distruption, drama, and histrionics than just responding logically or ignoring. What trolls are looking for is drama and ammunition for drama. Apathy can be the best weapon in defense. I think that's why voting also works nicely. You can vote to disagree but at the same time, there is nothing for them to rail against in response. They can't reverse the vote and they can't respond angrily if there is not statement to respond towards.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:47 PM

Stancel, I agree we need to be wary of becoming too dogmatic. I am not sure about the fat eating. Wild game is indeed lower in fat, but on the flip side, huntergatherers target the fat containing areas much more than typical American eaters, including bone marrow, organ meats, brain, etc. I plan to avoid brain because of mad cow, but that wasn't the case in the past. I suspect that good hunters in a rich environment would have had access to a fair amount of fat which would have been eaten preferentially. The inuit give the muscle meat to their dogs..

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:00 PM

Are you joking!! Although I'd let Gina Carano gogoplata me any day...

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on September 10, 2010
at 02:56 PM

If you think she is quite hot, this makes me sad. Google Annie Thorrisdotir or Jodi Bainbridge... or Gina Carano.

F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on September 10, 2010
at 01:12 PM

I think it's more tribalistic. Very paleo if you ask me ;-)

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 10, 2010
at 09:57 AM

I agree, the definition of paleo does seem to be getting unnecessarily limited lately. Different perspectives can be good even if you disagree with them.

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on September 10, 2010
at 06:48 AM

I agree, and would have answered similar

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 05:06 AM

One of the reasons as a mod based on a list the system has to close a question is "subjective and argumentative."

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 04:36 AM

And I hate myself for saying this, but Freelee of fruitarian fame is quite hot, and my primal self doesn't mind her illogical posts as much because of it.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:14 AM

Nicely put. I'm fairly democratic socialist, but capitalism works well on forums like this. Unsupported ideas will not thrive. I think.

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

13 Answers

8
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:01 AM

I'd say, SO FAR, they don't seem to be causing much trouble. THey get voted down, they don't come around much, irritation level on my part has been minimal. I'd say use the minimum level of force necesary to maintain order. If the problem becomes worse in the future, you can always revisit the issue and perhaps increase the level of counterforce.

Also, I'd prefer to error on the level of openmindedness than to be overly closeminded. Also, even the most negative comments can serve a purpose like educating me as to what and how others think and what rumors and data (even if false) happen to be circulating in other circles. I don't like to become overly insulated from what is happening and being talked about elsewhere. I think even diehard vegans have much to teach me as far types of mindsets to be wary of as well as what kind of research is out there that might not be fully supportive of my current theories. THe best way to find holes in my theories is to let them out there and let others have at em. If my theories are strong, than I have nothing to fear, and if my theories are weak, then the naysayers are doing me a favor by attacking them and exposing that weakness. Hopefully, I and we are wise enough to tell which is which.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:14 AM

Nicely put. I'm fairly democratic socialist, but capitalism works well on forums like this. Unsupported ideas will not thrive. I think.

4
8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c

(2581)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:47 AM

I think paleo could appreciate some different perspectives. Now I see it seems like high-fat, low-carb is now the standard of the paleo community. Maybe they should consider that wild game and pastured meat has much less fat.[1]

[1] http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 10, 2010
at 09:57 AM

I agree, the definition of paleo does seem to be getting unnecessarily limited lately. Different perspectives can be good even if you disagree with them.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

Paleo vegan, while difficult and possibly unhealthy, can be done. One reason to be a paleo vegan is if you believe meat is murder. Thus, it is closer to a paleo hack then you might think, although only if is actually discusses diet.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 04:59 PM

That's a valid "paleo hack": since it's an opinion with the goal to make eating paleo better. "MEAT IS MURDER" is not a valid paleo hack.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:47 PM

Stancel, I agree we need to be wary of becoming too dogmatic. I am not sure about the fat eating. Wild game is indeed lower in fat, but on the flip side, huntergatherers target the fat containing areas much more than typical American eaters, including bone marrow, organ meats, brain, etc. I plan to avoid brain because of mad cow, but that wasn't the case in the past. I suspect that good hunters in a rich environment would have had access to a fair amount of fat which would have been eaten preferentially. The inuit give the muscle meat to their dogs..

4
4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

on September 10, 2010
at 03:27 AM

There is no negative to being voted down... Suspend with explanation followed bans if it's not constructive. Anti paleo that's constructive should be left up so that we can learn from it

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on September 10, 2010
at 06:48 AM

I agree, and would have answered similar

8e75344356f4a455185ee52da0b90bf2

on September 10, 2010
at 04:37 PM

Ditto this ^^^^

2
0034e877123279fd4e16347f9829e514

on September 10, 2010
at 04:50 PM

Melissa, I can not remember the philosopher who said it but I hold with the idea that the mass of society is no more justified to silence one man than if one man had the power to silence the masses. Let them vent, alternative hypothesis are necessary and healthy even when presented by a madman.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 11, 2010
at 02:51 AM

I am sometimes mad. But all the idiots around me refuse to admit that I am a genius! (which also makes me mad) I think they are all just jealous of my brilliance! ;-P

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:54 PM

Are there any mad geniuses on here? If so, I want to read their contrarian posts.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 05:00 PM

I'm not sure that we are the "mass of society" here. That would be pretty awesome if we were though. No more fried tofu patties in school lunches...

2
Eedf46c82d0356d1d46dda5f9782ef36

(4464)

on September 10, 2010
at 04:27 PM

I'm a fan of good judgment over inflexible rules. We'll know if/when they start causing more clutter/problems than are worth dealing with. Until then, I say we can benefit from listening to all opinions.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 11, 2010
at 02:49 AM

Yes, I think any forum is dependent on the good judgement of a few leaders. We've been lucky to have that here..

D0a103cafaf4768c6dc69b1772a55877

(421)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:46 PM

Couldn't agree more.

2
691f120a3e7a1a036845d105d86c99a3

(3641)

on September 10, 2010
at 04:49 AM

I just think when the top five questions of the day that crowd the top of the list are all vegan related we need to step up.

I believe voting down has a negative effect on one's points rating?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 05:06 AM

One of the reasons as a mod based on a list the system has to close a question is "subjective and argumentative."

2
F82f7d4dafb6d0ffc4c2ee2a85420786

(484)

on September 10, 2010
at 04:29 AM

It's a little bit totalitarian to ban people because of their views, isn't it? However wrong we think they are.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on September 10, 2010
at 10:02 PM

It's not the view, it's the attitude that's a problem.

F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on September 10, 2010
at 01:12 PM

I think it's more tribalistic. Very paleo if you ask me ;-)

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 11, 2010
at 02:54 AM

Stabbing my enemies with a spear may also be very paleo, but that doesn't necesarily mean it is a good idea..

2
4e71477b1b79dfbe3aa9d6fcbc6aa859

on September 10, 2010
at 03:49 AM

I find that letting non-paleo or anti-paleo people speak is fine because they usually don't have very intelligent arguments or it's the same old same old that has shown repeatedly in "real world" cases NOT to WORK so truthfully, they don't hurt us, they just continue to make the noose around the Food Pyramid's neck a little tighter. As they say the proof is in the pudding...none of us have "pudding" bellies but those on the normal food pyramid diet sure do. We're not obese, sporting diabetes, high blood pressure & every conceivable ailment known, we're the ones finding ourselves freed of most of those, being able to get off medications & treatments due to our diet. They can't say that. Let the votes speak for themselves.

2
21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:00 AM

If the clutter gets too...cluttery?, then delete sounds good. Otherwise, not a huge deal for me personally. Banning often gets very very dramatic.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:53 PM

Good point about the drama thing. Sometimes/often trying to squelch something ends up causing more distruption, drama, and histrionics than just responding logically or ignoring. What trolls are looking for is drama and ammunition for drama. Apathy can be the best weapon in defense. I think that's why voting also works nicely. You can vote to disagree but at the same time, there is nothing for them to rail against in response. They can't reverse the vote and they can't respond angrily if there is not statement to respond towards.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:52 PM

Best part of paleo becoming mainstream: eventually there will be a calendar of scantily-clad paleogirls. (*or dudes, depending)

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:14 PM

True, but Freelee has the disadvantage of eating a stupid diet. For a stupid diet eater, she looks good.

D0a103cafaf4768c6dc69b1772a55877

(421)

on September 10, 2010
at 05:45 PM

OMG- Best comments thread ever once hottness entered in:-)! LOL!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 03:00 PM

Are you joking!! Although I'd let Gina Carano gogoplata me any day...

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on September 10, 2010
at 02:56 PM

If you think she is quite hot, this makes me sad. Google Annie Thorrisdotir or Jodi Bainbridge... or Gina Carano.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on September 10, 2010
at 04:36 AM

And I hate myself for saying this, but Freelee of fruitarian fame is quite hot, and my primal self doesn't mind her illogical posts as much because of it.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 04:37 PM

Angela Jolie >>>> Freelee. Freelee isn't ugly, but she isn't extraordinary either. Turn on an Girls Gone Wild and there are at least 30 girls that look like her. Plus Jolie and I could enjoy a good delicious meal together: "I joke that a big juicy steak is my beauty secret"

1
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 06, 2011
at 12:28 AM

Melissa, I don't think this is a forum where anti-paleo opinions are going to thrive.

If we try to establish a "constructive" threshold, who's going to decide what's constructive and what isn't? Clearly this community is a "herd of cats" and we do thrive on looking at questions from all angles and then looking at them again.

Yes, I may get annoyed at answers that are clearly off topic but I can down-vote or ignore them. I admit I will try to avoid down-voting very often since I have to give up points to do so. I prefer to just ignore comments that are way out of line and let them fade away in the silence. Anyone who likes to argue with them is free to do so.

Honest disagreement can be very important in the effort to learn; it can also get pretty heated and some viewpoints may be labeled "anti-paleo" and yet have much to offer to open-minded thinkers.

I guess my answer is yes, they are annoying when clearly not offering food for thought. For now, I would leave them up--one person's graffiti is another's art.

If we experience a noticeable increase in such postings in the future, we might need to look at this question again.

1
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 05, 2011
at 11:55 PM

While I'm happy to hear opposing viewpoints, posting off-topic links to opposing viewpoints is a way to get deleted. For example, a poster asked for ways to lean out and someone answered with this:

"Dr. McDougall recently wrote about vegan Steve Jobs in his newsletter. "Steve Jobs gave tacit permission and encouragement for me to write this newsletter article about the medical and nutritional aspects of his life when he commissioned his biographer to tell a true account. ???I wanted my kids to know about me?????? ???Also, when I got sick, I realized other people would write about me if I died, and they wouldn???t know anything. They???d get it all wrong. So I wanted to make sure someone heard what I had to say.???

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/nov/jobs.htm"

What does that have to do with leaning out?

Please propagandate more creatively next time.

1
A68f24168bc0de414a038037e287b581

on September 10, 2010
at 03:52 PM

banning for opposite views doesn't have to be "totalitarian" or evil. It all depends on the motives behind, I think. It's different when someone comes with very different views, but is ready and open to discussion and respects others, and when someone comes with very closed mind and obviously takes pleasure in being argumentative, attacking and disrespectful. There wouldn't be anything wrong in banning someone on, let's say, hunting-lovers forum, someone who constantly attacks and calls all around "murderers!". People gather in interest-related forums for a reason... it's a one thing to be challenged, other to be attacked.

A68f24168bc0de414a038037e287b581

(4896)

on September 10, 2010
at 07:36 PM

exactly. it's for people who already are positive about the paleo, and then want to learn more and debate details. Nothing wrong if we want to keep it that way.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 10, 2010
at 04:34 PM

This is "paleo hacks" after all...not "Paleo argue." I think the central premise of this site is that we are hacking our paleo diets to improve our health. It's not about whether or not the paleo diet is a bad diet or a good diet.

1
Ce0b5fd94b1034e96cf710b6f138c29d

on September 10, 2010
at 03:29 PM

I don't think that we're at the point where we need to take any drastic measures. Free debate and exposure to conflicting viewpoints is IMHO preferable to banning vegan/frutarian/concretearian trolls, and kind of runs counter to the site's educational vocation anyhow...

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!