Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ReginaW
It's easy to make declarations such as the above when you believe what you're saying is true, but repeating something again and again does not make it true.
Martin, you're continuing to miss/dismiss things that influence health outcomes when someone adopts a particular dietary approach
that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to.
Now you do like to point to the Inuit as being a population we can learn from, that they eat an animal-based diet and have good health. You like to cite Steffanson, the Bellevue study and other things to support your belief that eating just meat can provide and/or restore good health.
But guess what?
Why am I pointing this out?
and one reason I really think it's irresponsible to make blanket declarations that eating a diet that's just meat (and fat) is beneficial to all.
So....seriously.....think before you make blanket statements!  |
From now on, I will only address impertinent content of your posts. Let it be a lesson on maturity.
It's easy to make ad hominems when we have no clue who we're speaking to or what they know. This says very little about out target but it says a lot about ourselves. It says, for instance, that we are not above using ad hominem to make our point. It says that we only intend to win an argument and not, for example, discuss a topic or even learn about it. It says we don't actually know our subject or that our arguments are weak at best and must resort to fallacious arguments and tactics in order to win the argument. Least but not last, it says that we have no respect for the person we are speaking to. Merit does not apply in any event. Regina, your arguments have no merit.
We can bring something new then claim the arguer should have known about it before (i.e. should give you pause, but doesn't seem). The idea is to establish ignorance of the arguer in order to elevate ourselves by comparison, and establish our own knowledge thereby elevating us further. This tactic is only intended to appease one's ego. Regina, you have an ego that needs appeasing. Please take it up with your husband and leave me alone.
Another tactic is to claim that the arguer missed and dismissed things that should otherwise be considered in our view. The intent is to establish a lack of ability to argue of the arguer. It can't refute the argument nor can it amplify our own argument. We can do this if indeed the arguer lacks ability but we must do it plainly. This way we establish that we want to continue the discussion but with an arguer who knows what he's talking about and not merely win an argument through a fault of the arguer. Regina, you lack the ability to discuss the subject. Take time to learn about it and come back when you're more able.
I'm instruction you in the fallacious argument tactics, Regina. Pay attention please.
One tactic is to claim the arguer makes blanket statements by making a blanket statement ourselves i.e. "you make blanket statements". Regina, you make blanket statements.
Another tactic is to make the arguer responsible for the actions of others after having read the arguer's arguments. As if the arguer had control over the actions of others through his arguments. This is a little contradictory. First, it establishes that the arguer has a lot of power over people. Thank you Regina, I didn't know you held me in such high regard. But then it implies that others i.e. those who read the arguments are somehow stupid. That makes you look bad, Regina.
So seriously, Regina, think twice before posting fallacious arguments. In the end, it only makes you look like an idiot.