Maggie's Farm

11 servings of carbs/day? Nobody could do that.

You eat three 9-course meals a day, bd?

At least seven hundred studies prove your generalization wrong.

Incorrect. All those studies supported not the ketonic diet - which although an alternative to the American mixed diet, which is killing people, is itself dangerous - but the plant-based diet. All of them.

This apparently bears no consequence for, as you put it, your expectations. For bias, reality generally follows them and not the other way around.

You haven't made a point to prove, Guy, except that if you stand on one foot and squint just so, you can see things the way you see things. I'd agree. To accuse the other guy of that bias is kinda self-contradictory.

Look, there are hundreds of studies, clinical evidence in tow, that flat out support the effects and benefits of the plant diet. Not the ketogenic diet, not the pyramid diet, and especially not the American mixed killer diet.

Now you can reframe that while accusing me of reframing but that's be bullshit. I'm not citing studies that support my bias; I'm citing studies. You don't even know which they are and already you're an expert on them.

Either stick to generalizing and keep keep killing what you only think you're on about or become logical.

Interesting set of fallacies, Guy, Not. Here's a primer for you:

Guy: There is no objective reality. Anything goes. We all have our opinions. Health and diet are downright postmodern where evidence goes and I say that absolutely.

Meh: Yup, we certainly have our opinions but they don't change the fact that science - you do remember science, right, because the ketogenic carnist food faddists think they're all about "science" - completely refutes your assertion. The plant diet wins, hands-down. By the studies. By the evidence. There are reams.

Guy: There is no objective reality. Anything goes. We all have our opinions.

Meh: Yeah, you said that. Problem for you is that you're factually wrong and your argument, such as it is, is obviously fallacious. But I'd predict that you're going to go right on by that.

Guy: Selectivist! I call bias! You're parsing the data! Faddist! Fraud!

Meh: Looks like you went right by that. But what data is this, Guy, the data that simply affirms what it affirms? How's that me being biased? I'm just reading the stuff. Have you? Can you say what I've researched when you haven't even asked what it is? Dude.

Guy: Oh, so you're into Whole Foods? What kind of communist faddist twig-eater are you anyway? You expect to actually use science to disprove my flagrant bias? This is an outrage! Besides, I'm going to outlive Gramps. See???

Meh:

Guy:

Meh: Is there more or shall we just have you stand pat on that?

Guy: You're a Democrat or something!!! Americans eat real food!!!

You write like a Progressive, expecting that any narrative you spin is immune from reason and that it'll stand simply because you said it.

I ask again, dishonest virtual progg: What data is this I refer to, the data you now shift your fallacious argument to not question but tacitly accuse me of never mentioning? The data that produced your first fallacious protest? The data that simply affirms what it affirms? Either it exists - you accusing me of cherry-picking it - or it does not - you lying to say, like some robot, that I'd said nothing.

What I obviously said, you lying progg, was that hundreds and hundreds of studies prove the plant diet to be the most healthful. What I said was that this was scientific evidence.

What I also said and even predicted was that "science" of your manufacturer kind was something that faddist ketosis carnists always drag out (in the form of some regurgitated press release written by a special interest) to support their fanboism for a Rippetoe or a dead Adkins.

How's that me being biased? I'm just reading the stuff. Have you read the stuff, you dishonest writer of simple-minded narratives? No, you have not read the scientific evidence, you dishonest narrative writer, because it does not serve your narrative, the narrative that does, however, serve your biases and from which you draw your progg-like dishonesty.

Can you say you're researched when you haven't even asked what this data is? No you cannot so now you revert to some bullshit about seafood alergies and some bullshit about since Grandma smoked three packs a day and hydrated with Jim beam for fifty years she's the anecdotal outlier that proves that hundreds and hundreds of scientific studies are outright false and that you, the dishonest, fallacious writer of such narratives, have no need to see this data because of your fallacious, circular appeals to your own anecdotal bullshit.

Stop digging, would be my advice, pal, because I'm not the fallacy-spinner. You know I know this about your intellectual dishonesty because like a progressive narratives-spinner, by now you're just reflexively spitting back words I've given you, expecting that the noise and smoke will cover your retreat.

Points of fact; points in evidence:

1. The plant diet is scientifically proved to facilitate health and longevity. Hundreds of studies, including the largest in human history. Blah blah blah, it is what it is and you certainly don't have to accept a word of it. That's your prerogative. No argument there and sure enough, you've presented none.

2. The ketogenic, carnist diet is a somewhat reactionary, strongly rightist cultural affectation that, while it solves some of the problems of the third category, is unhealthy, even self-evidently so and at times, willfully and pridefully too. It employs vivid appeals to lifestyle, identity, and class; appeals to popularity or conventional wisdom, anecdote, tradition, and family; plus denial and naturally, the derision that arises in zealots whose biases eventually become cognitive. Eventually the inevitable clash occurs and people act out.

3. The unhealthful mixed American diet is known to both groups. Relatively, it kills.

4. The second group, being culturally evangelical and highly identity-based, is immune to reason and some degree of embarrassment. It demands knowledge it does not possess but will eventually reject if it appears, wrongly presuming that it's fodder to feed those biases. This behavior constitutes a whole set of evident fallacies, not least of them deflecting the word back against the interlocutor in some transparent attempt to divert and conceal.

5. Realizing all this, I do not play into the ruse. I don't care if faddists want to subsist on Oreos and burned, carcinogenic animal or if they willfully fail to educate themselves. I expect it and even predict it. I ask them to do it so they can see how weak their putative position is. In your case, I don't care if you comport yourself like an intellectual playgrounder with your same-to-you-but-more-of-it childishness. I'm happily indifferent to your racket because it only affects you. You're free to do as you wish.

Nevertheless, it's this style that most identifies you as not much more, um, progressed in your thoughts than the average deflecting, projecting, splitting, fallacy-writing, capital-P Progressive. You can try and flip that too - the same way you reverse everything like some childish robot - but we both know, as I said, what you are.

Anyway, #1 is real. Do with it as you wish ... just like you have been doing, true to form, expectation, and prediction. It's boring.