It seemed to me a serious comment, with a Monty Python joke added for emphasis.  The comment indicated it was a Monty Python reference, so not sure how you thought I could miss it, for that matter.

You should look up the definition of a rant, I don't think my comment met the definition.  Someone articulated a world view, so I shared additional information that they might be interested in.

Kevin Smith is a morbidly obese man who has been overweight and has a famously terrible diet of fried chicken, so that's a rather extreme example, not to mention both his parents have a history of similar heart problems and he still didn't believe his doctors when they told him he had a 100% blockage. I doubt there were no symptoms. He's lived his entire life in denial.

Regardless, his problem was through excess. To suggest every person who has meat in their diet is going to die of a heart attack is absurd. Maybe if meat is 90% of their diet or all they eat is fried foods.

Dietary science only appears to constantly change if your primary source of dietary science is the media.  Journalists usually don't understand science and regularly misreport it, or believe it at face value even when it's sketchy in nature.  Just as the tobacco industry did in the 60s through 80s, the food industry is trying to use science to sew doubt amongst the public.  If you look just at independently-funded science (public health agencies, charities, etc.), nutrition science tends to change relatively rarely, and relatively slowly.  Sure, daytime TV shows like Dr. Phil may report on any old study that comes down the pipe.  But it's important to consider who paid for a study, to look at its methods to see if they're credible, to see if the people performing the study have a history of publishing and submitting their work to peer review, etc.  Junk science suggests consuming saturated fat and cholesterol is benign, whereas reputable science says otherwise, for example.  Here's a good video on how vested interests can design a study to fail (and why they might wish to):  https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/

Your link about the neanderthals was interesting, but it's important to note that we're not neanderthals and that neanderthals weren't humans/homo-sapiens.

We have many fossilized turds from around the world, not just one.  :P  We can also analyze hair that has survived, as that gives you months or even years worth of data on how the person lived.  You can tell a lot about what someone has been eating by their hair.  What the evidence suggests is that ancient humans would tend to eat whatever was available, but the evidence suggests that in areas with both animals to hunt but that also had abundant plant foods, that they tended to eat mostly plants.  And that makes sense, since plants don't run away, or fight back, or spoil as quickly.  In places without abundant plant foods year round, they tended to hunt more.  In places with lots of edible plants, early humans tended to gather almost exclusively.

You're right, it would be silly to suggest everyone who eats meat is going to die of a heart attack.  I'm glad I didn't suggest it.  Since neither you nor I suggested it, it doesn't appear to be relevant to the discussion.

I merely said, and the evidence bears this out, that eating meat makes you more likely to get a heart attack, or suffer a stroke, or get diabetes, or get cancer.  I'd add to that the fact that the evidence suggests people who eat meat/dairy/eggs get more neurological conditions (many cases of "Alzheimers" are being re-diagnosed as cholesterol plaque building up in the brain).  We also have now demonstrated that lots of erectile dysfunction is cholesterol plaque building up in the penile artery.

As for Kevin Smith, he had recently started to take his health more seriously and had lost 85 pounds prior to the heart attack.  But sure, let's set him aside, and look at the Adventist and Adventist II studies.  These compared healthy omnivores, vs. healthy vegetarians, vs. healthy vegans.  The participants in the Adventist studies tend to be healthy and active and tend towards eating whole foods.  In these studies, the healthy vegans had the lowest rates of disease, and the least serious diseases.

I didn't think my post was long enough to be a rant.  Either way, I felt I approached the comment in a dispassionate way.  So, yes, I think it fails to meet at least one (if not two) of the criteria for being a rant.  And I chose to be literal about it, because you appeared to use the word "rant" as if to dismiss my post, making my reply fair game (IMO).

I used to eat meat.  The taste of it was the least of my worries by the time I let it go.  And I've now tasted meat alternatives that are for me indistinguishable from the real thing, so I don't even need to go without the taste if I don't want to.  If that's your only reason for not letting go of meat, then I have good news for you: you can go plant-based without giving that up.  Try a Beyond Burger, as one of many examples.

I find the idea that no one should ever be made to feel badly for their choices odd.  I try hard to not make people feel bad as I find it works against the goal of reaching them.  And I used to eat meat, so why should I make them feel bad for something that I myself used to do?  That said, your choices don't just affect you, so the idea that someone affected by your choices should never speak up about your choices is a little bizarre IMO.

Rapists enjoy raping, and they often keep doing it because it feels "SO GOOD" to them.  Ditto serial murderers.  And those aren't even ad hominem comparisons, since animal agriculture involves both rape and murder.

Just food for thought.  Feel free to not care.

For what it's worth, unlike @Bristow9091, I don't think I'm better than you.  I do feel sorry for you that you're basing the decision on the ignorant belief that you can't get plant foods that taste nearly indistinguishable from meat, however, as you are increasingly misinformed.  Unlike all carnivores (and most omnivores), humans can't taste protein.  When you eat meat you're tasting the fats and salts and seasonings (seasoning generally being another word for adding plants to meat to make it taste better).  That makes it easy to create meat alternatives that have the taste and, increasingly, the texture of meat, and billions of dollars are being poured into this (including by people you've probably heard of, like Bill Gates and James Cameron).  They're getting closer to the "real thing" every year.

I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with who is better than whom.  I am, however, very interested in sharing information and perspectives.

Also, protip:  if you don't want anyone to comment on your choices because you don't like people making you feel bad about them, not discussing your perspectives in a public internet forum might be a good first step.

Here's the thing, half a billion less animals killed to eat doesn't eqaute to half a billion animals frolicking free in the fields, it just means less animals are bred for the purpose of meat production.

That's pretty fucked up that you're comparing eating meat to one human raping another.

"Forced pollenation is rape, growing plants for the sole purpose of harvesting is murder, you should stop eating everything entirely."

See how stupid that sounds to you?, well to everyone that eats meat, that's how stupid your rape comparison is.

This one is a "Viking" turd and lots of meat there despite the availability of fruits, nuts and veggies.Granted if you are familiar with the Lloyds bank coprolite he doesn't sound like the healthiest of individuals

This one is early North American but would seem to support your claim and is older than the viking turd.

@bolded

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated

This lends credence to some things you've said while also kind of shredding some other things. for those who don't wish to follow the link here is and excerpt from the end of the article:

Here's what they came up with:

A healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meats; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains.

Additional strong evidence shows that it is not necessary to eliminate food groups or conform to a single dietary pattern to achieve healthy dietary patterns. Rather, individuals can combine foods in a variety of flexible ways to achieve healthy dietary patterns, and these strategies should be tailored to meet the individual’s health needs, dietary preferences and cultural traditions.

Anyone who tells you it's more complicated than that — that particular foods like kale or gluten are killing people — probably isn't speaking from science, because, as you can see now, that science would actually be near impossible to conduct.

It's all a plot by physicists. 

Vegans celebrating fewer chickens in the food chain, Meanwhile, KFC is having supply issues with chickens...

Supply and demand, people.