I love my cats, but I’d rather my neighborhood have birds.

IF you got wide feet, Lems and Zero do pretty good. Lems I know goes to 15, but I’m just a 12

That was Plato and Socrates’s secret

If Plato is accurate then I don’t know if he didn’t talk out of his ass.

What’s the threshold?

Everyone’s different. A Diabetic can have less soda than a non-diabetic. Your body will tell you if you’ve had too much because you’ll feel sick, just like with the steaks. It also depends on caffeinated versus non-caffeinated and regular versus sugar free. It very much is a “listen to your body” situation.

You are inadvertently correct, although I understand that you are being facetious

Yes I’m being facetious. I’m using a logical fallacy called “Reductio ad absurdum” it’s what the guy in the video did. The point isn’t to be a logical disproof it’s to push a logical premise to an extreme example to make the base premise seem absurd. He did a worse job at it since he stopped comparing apples to apples and started comparing apples to genocide, which was crazy. I was still listening at Heroin, but boy did that escalate.

I wanted to stay within the realm of things considered treatment of the self for which the saying applies. People don’t eat genocide. We don’t do genocide in a way it only affects our selves. That’s a completely different philosophical discussion we can have. It would be weird if you want to, but, hell I’m weird too. That said, this was clearly a move done to shock and upset the viewer. a Reductio ad absurdum ad absurdum if you will. It was not an argument against moderation, it was emotional manipulation (I can’t be too mad about this, all rhetoric is that his was just tactless).

Why don’t you give this a try? You’ll find that in fact your body knows exactly how many steaks you can eat a day, and you’ll find it impossible to over eat steaks.

It’s impossible to over eat steaks? If you’re not paying attention to your body or flat ignoring it then yes you can. I’ve eaten several thousand calories of steak in a single sitting and felt terrible afterwards. I don’t do that regularly so it’s fine, but that’s in moderation.

“Everything in moderation” being a falsehood isn’t the same as “good things should not be done in moderation.”

What do you mean by this? I haven’t seen anything that proves or is convincing that EIM is a falsehood and I don’t why it wouldn’t apply to the second premise there since it hasn’t been disproven in the realm of human food.

Anything in excess is bad is almost a fundamental truth for me and this applies to more than just food. So, why shouldn’t I be moderate in even good things since there is also no such thing as a completely good thing. There’s nothing in this world that we can have in excess that doesn’t come with a drawback. Getting an education is good, but you lose time to yourself and your family. Working out is good, but too much and you can permanently injure yourself. Eating steak is good, but eating too many too regularly will make you fat.

Damn that’s a pretty good explanation actually

If I enjoy it, yes.

I drink wine and beer in moderation because it tastes good or interesting (I’ve tried to like hard liquor, but its just not as appealing to me). Its a ritual implement to unwind with. A human art that’s been practiced for thousands of years. Its bad for me, we know that, but its enjoyable.

The point of “everything in moderation” is to show that foods we consume for pleasure don’t generally cause problems unless consumed regularly or excessively. Obviously when you extend the phrase ad absurdum it will fall apart because its now being applied to absurd things. Hell, it could be applied to healthy things.

A soda a day is not good for you but that’s such a low amount of sugar and acid that the body can generally handle it. In fact, ive known a great many hills folk well into their 80’s -90’s who drink zero sugar mountain dew daily who i can only hope I will be as active as them at that age.

Fifty sodas a day is obviously not good for you because that’s more than what the body can adjust for and will probably damage livers and kidneys over time.

I could do the same about carnivore since the reasonable assumption from his attack on moderation is that I should never do things in moderation. So if carnivore is healthy, more carnivore is more healthy. Instead of one steak a day, I should eat two Tomahawk steaks and I can’t forget my fat so I drink a gallon of bone broth mixed with 50% beef tallow every day. Surely that’s healthy.

Exercise is good for me so why do it in moderation? I should work out as hard as I can every single day until I pass out from exhaustion.

Water is good for me? I should drink 3 gallons as quickly as I can, get water poisoning, and die.

Yeah, but I can’t really fix algorithmic headlines from the short end of a super niche community. I post the actual papers here too. I even change headlines to make them more factual when I can (especially the testimonial videos).

And genuinely, I deeply appreciate the work that you have done to try and rectify the clickbait aspects. It has made the content more approachable for me. I admit I’m kinda of a pain when I get curious cause I wanna fight a little when its challenging to what I know and a lot of this is pretty challenging. You’ve been a wonderful ambassador for this lifestyle of yours.

And genuinely, I don’t know what I want you and your community to do about the algorithm gaming. The examples posted here haven’t been egregious, I’m just annoyingly sensitive to it. They mostly seem to be real scientists with real science to push, but are forced to play the algo game for reach.

Maybe I just wanted y’all to be aware of it? Maybe I wanted to be aware of it? That this is part of this strange conditioning we have thanks to reddit brain to want to immediately get upset about something kinda dumb to be mad about. I don’t really know.

Hopefully you got something out of our interactions because I got a lot.

Still not an ad hominem.

Do you want me to compile examples? I’m trying to explain my miss givings with carnivore content creators and there is employment of these tactics in their promotion of content.

I will admit my use of circle jerk was crass and for that I’m sorry, but I’m genuinely wanting to talk about what I perceive to be a bad mark on your community.

I’ve made no ad hominem attacks so far as I can tell.

I’m criticizing rhetorical style and listing my reasons why.

The closest I can see to ad hominem was putting “Dr.” In quotes, but that was just for emphasis on the title since I didn’t know if asterix would work e.g. Dr.

Also, my apologies for any confusion as I do have 2 accounts. I promise I’m not tying to ban evade or anything. I just forgot I switched at some point.

I did watch the full lecture you linked, but I did notice it was different from the short clip.

Its a good talk and well cited. It also matches sources I had found independently with the help of my fiance who has a degree in chemistry and in nursing (alas, I am just a history fan who likes to argue).

But I’d like to point out I did say

It’s fundamentally a bad line of reasoning that only means something to people deep in the weeds of carnivore food science.

Does my original point make sense?

I do think there’s interesting science here and I honestly and truly don’t want you guys getting caught in grifter style clip farming, rage baiting, circle jerkings. Dr. Mason seems to be a pretty good source, but his newer content is slipping into this sensationalist format of communication.

A lot of his newer stuff has lines like “what mainstream medicine doesn’t want you to know!” “Are you smarter than you’re doctor?” Which I admittedly haven’t seen those videos yet, but that’s a red flag that a lot of carnivore content seems to lean on.

I get it, that’s how the algorithm works, but I think good information can thrive by just being packaged well.

Sorry, you have a scale that can measure your water content?

That, the relationship to mysticism, giving sermons in Greek instead of Latin, translation disagreements with the bible

It was a few things, but I also want to believe it was the bread.

Also I was raised by Catholics but in hindsight the eastern Orthodox seems much more based and I say they were in the right

I’m finishing Phillip Pullman’s “The Book of Dust” trilogy with “The Rosefield”

I heavily recommend the series to anyone interested in Magic, Consciousness, Fairies, and fighting a corrupt and evil Christian Church.

Pullman 's writing is flowing and subtle. Every pay off feels earned and all his foreshadowing is there enough that it feels like a mystery the reader can solve.

My favorite details are when details of events we’ve experienced in the book are mid remembered to other characters. Its often inconsequential, but I just love it when I know a character sounds so dumb for being wrong but they couldn’t know!

To add to this, I personally recommend “Did Jesus Exist” as the Dr. Ehrman follow up.

It has the same vibe as Dr. McClellan’s book while also being an incredibly useful popular academic book. Just as accessible and covers the second most important part of Christianity to understand, the origin as opposed to the current discourse.

“How Jesus became God” being a natural progression.

I finished the book a while back and I reference it often.

Its really good. All of the book is formatted as long form responses with citations and solid academic reason without being inaccessible.

What jargon there is is fully explained in the intro or in the text.

It was in fact a wonderful resource for a modern interpretation for the bible and a resource on modern discourse around it if you’re not religious like myself.

Its good enough that I keep a spare copy to give to friends if they’re interested in interpretations of stories inspired by or from Dan.

Do you see how “perhaps” is different from “just asking questions?”

No. Its the same rhetorical move its just different from the more aggressive “just asking questions”

Please don’t misrepresent the content in this community.

I’m trying not to, but this is a short clip without any context or further readings.

I want you guys to have better educational materials.

This guy says a lot of things with coincidental or anecdotal evidence at best and that’s not good evidence when also trying to position oneself as an academic expert e.g. “Dr.” In the name. Dr. Mason should know better if the Dr. Is worth anything.

Take the criticism or don’t, but this is a relatively small push back to the carnivore idea.

If there’s more, better science on these claims, then they should be included, referenced within the talk. Something! Maybe this is just an out of context clip, but that doesn’t make the argument better. It’s fundamentally a bad line of reasoning that only means something to people deep in the weeds of carnivore food science. How was I, an outsider, supposed to know about the paper you’re citing? How can I know he knows about it?

“Perhaps vitamin D synthesis in the skin maybe one of those functions.”

This isn’t a sentence from a place of evidence backed science, this is a string of probably connected things that Dr. Mason should know isn’t the same as a proven idea. In fact he says its anecdotal, but he is presenting it in a way that the listener can come to the conclusion that cholesterol makes vitamin D without having to site anything.

If this were a scientifically backed idea he could have said but didn’t would follow.

1. “The Keys survey showed people with higher vitamin D had lower cholesterol.”

2. “A second study was done and found X and Y”

3. “Thus confirming that cholesterol is used to make vitamin D”

But that isn’t what he said. He only cited part of what sounds like a much larger study and is then extrapolating based vaguely on anecdote.

Could it also be possible that people who spend a lot of time in the sun simply consume food with higher vitamin D content and they’re in the sum all day because they’re mostly agrarian or some sort of labor economy so they’re working out which lowers cholesterol levels with a normal diet? Yes, but we don’t know more than that based on this talk.

If he’s honest, then this is an interesting start point to do science, but as it stands he’s just using human psychology to convince people of his position without needing good evidence.

Removed by mod

How am I supposed to avoid this as an American?

They don’t report what they fed the animals.

Also, are there effects on me if I eat meat from an animal fed this. That’s unclear.