3 ms·
It is irrelevant, as it does not automagically make a factual report suddenly false. This is such basic comprehension; I have no idea why some people don't get
by sridca 8y ago
It is irrelevant, as it does not automagically make a factual report suddenly false. This is such basic comprehension; I have no idea why some people don't get it.
- fucking_tragedy 8y agoPlease don't straw man my post. "Conflict of interest" and "complete lack of evidence that so-called practitioners even practice their diet" don't mean that their report is automatically false, it just calls into question their integrity and their report's basis in reality.
- sridca 8y agoYet that is what you are implying. You inject your (presumably agenda-based) disbelief onto their factual reports and then buttress that disbelief by channeling attention into irrelevant matters (thereby suppressing discussion of the therapeutic effects of the diet), instead of opening up a conversation with any modicum of curiosity. Unless a person is lying -- like that notorious vegan did when submitting a deliberately false report to meatheals.com -- one's report is indeed factual. Intelligent people are not stupid enough to blindly believe what others say, instead of taking it at face value in order to establish a prima facie case. Cynicism won't get anyone very far in life.