-
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You’re shifting the claim.
I am not? Read again
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
pathogens
cant be sensed, dont exist, tell me about one actual pathogen that ever made you sick
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
radiation
Radiation can easily be sensed.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
gravity
Gravity can easily be sensed.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
electricity
Can easily be sensed also.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
Proof in biology is repeatable causal prediction. When you're isolating, removing, adding, or altering a specific fatty acid reliably changes membrane fluidity, inflammation markers, neural signalling, and development in the same direction every time, you’re no longer talking about vague "elements like Lego" you’re referring to a specific functional entity. Call it omega-3 or call it X, the structure - function relationship still holds.
And todays sponsor of this knowledge has been the gouvernment.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
Saying "there are a million other explanations" without naming a single one that makes equally precise predictions is not you being skeptical, you're refusing to explain further. You don’t get to reject molecular models while still making dietary claims, because those claims depend on differential effects of food. If nothing specific exists, then raw meat can’t be considered "good" either, it’s just your reaction
You can come up with any theory on the spot. Its just like writing a book, any story.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
"Eat less O6 and more O3" can be argued against on oxidation, sourcing, processing, or context but denying the category entirely while relying on its effects is simply incoherent. You’re not rejecting models you’re using them selectively while larping not to
You talk about science, explanation and proof but cant proof your own believe?
@Rabbi said in This forum is already GG:
at least you have place to discuss, without getting shut down and made fun of instantly.
At least we have a functioning website, reddit such an actual cancerous experience to browse.
@Swansven said in This forum is already GG:
I mean what do you even want me to say to this? You're shaky on whether or not molecules are real but believe in demons and spirits. And then you go and say that you believe everything is made of tiny elements. You don't believe in science, as a whole? You say that aajonus was a reptilian freemason because he suggested juicing vegetables. You're entitled to those opinions, I suppose. I don't think you should have any takes on scientific matters, though.
What I said was really clear. Pay more attention while reading. You can literally see Aajonus Slit eyes in some pictures, his father was a real freemason, you can read that on Jewipedia. His name reads as "Eye on us" Von der Planet (of the planet)". If you dont believe in spirits and spells, well ok.
@love You are not engaging with the argument. you’re ignoring all standards of knowledge and then pretending it’s skepticism.
Your criterion is "direct human sensation." That’s not epistemology, it’s solipsism. By that rule, pathogens, electrons, genes, anaesthesia, neurotransmitters, and ultrasound are all unknowable unless they announce themselves to your senses. Yet they produce repeatable, independent, causal effects. That’s the standard. Not just vibes or authority.
Saying “a pathogen never made me sick” is irrelevant. Individual anecdote doesn’t negate population-level causality... That’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because you personally didn’t fall over today.
"Government-sponsored knowledge" is not a valid rebuttal. You're creating an excuse to avoid specifying an alternative mechanism. If omega-3 effects are just "stories" then name one competing explanation that predicts the same directional changes across membranes, inflammation, development, and neurology. You don't. And you won't. Because you can’t.
You also contradict yourself repeatedly:
You deny molecules as knowable
Then assert “tiny elements rearranged like Lego”
Then make dietary claims about “good” vs “bad” foods
Those claims require differential structure/function effects. You can’t reject models while freeloading on their conclusions.
You’re free to hold metaphysical beliefs. But once you start making claims about health, diet, or causality, you’ve entered the explanatory domain, whether you like it or not. At that point, "it’s all unknowable" isn’t depth or intelligence. You've resigned and you're hiding behind a lack of cohesive knowledge.
This isn’t anti-science vs pro-nature argument. It’s coherence vs incoherence argument. You are the latter.
-
@love You are not engaging with the argument. you’re ignoring all standards of knowledge and then pretending it’s skepticism.
Your criterion is "direct human sensation." That’s not epistemology, it’s solipsism. By that rule, pathogens, electrons, genes, anaesthesia, neurotransmitters, and ultrasound are all unknowable unless they announce themselves to your senses. Yet they produce repeatable, independent, causal effects. That’s the standard. Not just vibes or authority.
Saying “a pathogen never made me sick” is irrelevant. Individual anecdote doesn’t negate population-level causality... That’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because you personally didn’t fall over today.
"Government-sponsored knowledge" is not a valid rebuttal. You're creating an excuse to avoid specifying an alternative mechanism. If omega-3 effects are just "stories" then name one competing explanation that predicts the same directional changes across membranes, inflammation, development, and neurology. You don't. And you won't. Because you can’t.
You also contradict yourself repeatedly:
You deny molecules as knowable
Then assert “tiny elements rearranged like Lego”
Then make dietary claims about “good” vs “bad” foods
Those claims require differential structure/function effects. You can’t reject models while freeloading on their conclusions.
You’re free to hold metaphysical beliefs. But once you start making claims about health, diet, or causality, you’ve entered the explanatory domain, whether you like it or not. At that point, "it’s all unknowable" isn’t depth or intelligence. You've resigned and you're hiding behind a lack of cohesive knowledge.
This isn’t anti-science vs pro-nature argument. It’s coherence vs incoherence argument. You are the latter.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
Your criterion is "direct human sensation." That’s not epistemology, it’s solipsism. By that rule, pathogens, electrons, genes, anaesthesia, neurotransmitters, and ultrasound are all unknowable unless they announce themselves to your senses. Yet they produce repeatable, independent, causal effects. That’s the standard. Not just vibes or authority.
All of this is speculation, you dont know if any of the things you mentioned exist. You dont know whats the cause for the repeatable observations. I never wrote a pathogen never made me sick btw.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
"Government-sponsored knowledge" is not a valid rebuttal. You're creating an excuse to avoid specifying an alternative mechanism. If omega-3 effects are just "stories" then name one competing explanation that predicts the same directional changes across membranes, inflammation, development, and neurology. You don't. And you won't. Because you can’t.
I didnt only mean that O3s are stories but inflammaiton, neurology etc to be stories as well
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You also contradict yourself repeatedly:
You deny molecules as knowable
Then assert “tiny elements rearranged like Lego”
This doesnt contradict itself
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You’re free to hold metaphysical beliefs. But once you start making claims about health, diet, or causality, you’ve entered the explanatory domain, whether you like it or not. At that point, "it’s all unknowable" isn’t depth or intelligence. You've resigned and you're hiding behind a lack of cohesive knowledge.
Metaphysics is just as explainable as physics
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
This isn’t anti-science vs pro-nature argument. It’s coherence vs incoherence argument. You are the latter.
This claim is based on nothing
-
@love You are not engaging with the argument. you’re ignoring all standards of knowledge and then pretending it’s skepticism.
Your criterion is "direct human sensation." That’s not epistemology, it’s solipsism. By that rule, pathogens, electrons, genes, anaesthesia, neurotransmitters, and ultrasound are all unknowable unless they announce themselves to your senses. Yet they produce repeatable, independent, causal effects. That’s the standard. Not just vibes or authority.
Saying “a pathogen never made me sick” is irrelevant. Individual anecdote doesn’t negate population-level causality... That’s like saying gravity doesn’t exist because you personally didn’t fall over today.
"Government-sponsored knowledge" is not a valid rebuttal. You're creating an excuse to avoid specifying an alternative mechanism. If omega-3 effects are just "stories" then name one competing explanation that predicts the same directional changes across membranes, inflammation, development, and neurology. You don't. And you won't. Because you can’t.
You also contradict yourself repeatedly:
You deny molecules as knowable
Then assert “tiny elements rearranged like Lego”
Then make dietary claims about “good” vs “bad” foods
Those claims require differential structure/function effects. You can’t reject models while freeloading on their conclusions.
You’re free to hold metaphysical beliefs. But once you start making claims about health, diet, or causality, you’ve entered the explanatory domain, whether you like it or not. At that point, "it’s all unknowable" isn’t depth or intelligence. You've resigned and you're hiding behind a lack of cohesive knowledge.
This isn’t anti-science vs pro-nature argument. It’s coherence vs incoherence argument. You are the latter.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You are not engaging with the argument. you’re ignoring all standards of knowledge and then pretending it’s skepticism.
What is the argument you are referring to? Your beloved standards of knowledge are based on the institutions build by jews.
-
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You are not engaging with the argument. you’re ignoring all standards of knowledge and then pretending it’s skepticism.
What is the argument you are referring to? Your beloved standards of knowledge are based on the institutions build by jews.
@love You’re backpedaling now.
You said "pathogens can’t be sensed, don’t exist" and then challenged me to "tell me about one actual pathogen that ever made you sick."
That statement only makes sense if you’re asserting that pathogens have never caused illness. Now you’re pretending you didn’t imply that because you didn’t write the sentence word-for-word. That’s not an argument, it’s word lawyering.Same pattern everywhere in your replies:
You deny that anything can be known.
Then you make strong claims anyway.
When pushed, you retreat to "it’s all unknowable."That’s false skepticism as it's refusal to commit to any position while still attacking others.
Saying “everything is speculation” doesn’t make your view deeper or more natural. It just makes it unfalsifiable.
Under your logic:nothing causes anything,
no food does anything specific,
raw meat isn’t "good" plants aren’t "bad"
and no lifestyle claim can be defended or criticised.Yet you still make those claims.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either:
effects have causes we can compare and reason about, or
everything is unknowable and all diet talk is just personal feeling.If you choose option 2, fine, but then stop pretending your views are truer, more natural, or more aligned with reality than anyone else’s.
You currently are not defending raw primal living. You are hiding behind "unknowable" to avoid being challenged.
-
@love You’re backpedaling now.
You said "pathogens can’t be sensed, don’t exist" and then challenged me to "tell me about one actual pathogen that ever made you sick."
That statement only makes sense if you’re asserting that pathogens have never caused illness. Now you’re pretending you didn’t imply that because you didn’t write the sentence word-for-word. That’s not an argument, it’s word lawyering.Same pattern everywhere in your replies:
You deny that anything can be known.
Then you make strong claims anyway.
When pushed, you retreat to "it’s all unknowable."That’s false skepticism as it's refusal to commit to any position while still attacking others.
Saying “everything is speculation” doesn’t make your view deeper or more natural. It just makes it unfalsifiable.
Under your logic:nothing causes anything,
no food does anything specific,
raw meat isn’t "good" plants aren’t "bad"
and no lifestyle claim can be defended or criticised.Yet you still make those claims.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either:
effects have causes we can compare and reason about, or
everything is unknowable and all diet talk is just personal feeling.If you choose option 2, fine, but then stop pretending your views are truer, more natural, or more aligned with reality than anyone else’s.
You currently are not defending raw primal living. You are hiding behind "unknowable" to avoid being challenged.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You’re backpedaling now.
"I never wrote a pathogen never made me sick btw." Did I ever say that? Come on, I am backpedalling arent I? Show me where I said that.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You deny that anything can be known.
Then you make strong claims anyway.
When pushed, you retreat to "it’s all unknowable."Not specific, meaningless
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
That’s false skepticism as it's refusal to commit to any position while still attacking others.
My position has been the same from the begnning of this convo, I claim that the molecular model is a theory and cant be proven and because of that shouldnt be used as explanation of things.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
Saying “everything is speculation” doesn’t make your view deeper or more natural. It just makes it unfalsifiable.
Under your logic:nothing causes anything,
no food does anything specific,
raw meat isn’t "good" plants aren’t "bad"
and no lifestyle claim can be defended or criticised.This has nothing to do with anything I said, quote one of my takes and then talk about that specifically like I do
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
effects have causes we can compare and reason about, or
everything is unknowable and all diet talk is just personal feeling.If you choose option 2, fine, but then stop pretending your views are truer, more natural, or more aligned with reality than anyone else’s.
You currently are not defending raw primal living. You are hiding behind "unknowable" to avoid being challenged.
reading comprehension deficit
-
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You’re backpedaling now.
"I never wrote a pathogen never made me sick btw." Did I ever say that? Come on, I am backpedalling arent I? Show me where I said that.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You deny that anything can be known.
Then you make strong claims anyway.
When pushed, you retreat to "it’s all unknowable."Not specific, meaningless
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
That’s false skepticism as it's refusal to commit to any position while still attacking others.
My position has been the same from the begnning of this convo, I claim that the molecular model is a theory and cant be proven and because of that shouldnt be used as explanation of things.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
Saying “everything is speculation” doesn’t make your view deeper or more natural. It just makes it unfalsifiable.
Under your logic:nothing causes anything,
no food does anything specific,
raw meat isn’t "good" plants aren’t "bad"
and no lifestyle claim can be defended or criticised.This has nothing to do with anything I said, quote one of my takes and then talk about that specifically like I do
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
effects have causes we can compare and reason about, or
everything is unknowable and all diet talk is just personal feeling.If you choose option 2, fine, but then stop pretending your views are truer, more natural, or more aligned with reality than anyone else’s.
You currently are not defending raw primal living. You are hiding behind "unknowable" to avoid being challenged.
reading comprehension deficit
@love You’re doing it again
You wrote: "pathogens can’t be sensed, don’t exist, tell me about one actual pathogen that ever made you sick."
That is a direct challenge to the idea that pathogens cause illness. Whether you later say “I never literally wrote that sentence” is irrelevant, the implication is obvious, and now you’re trying to walk it back instead of owning it.This isn’t about me misreading you. It’s about you refusing to stand behind the implications of what you say.
You also claim your position has been consistent: “the molecular model is just a theory and can’t be proven.”
Fine. But then you still make dietary claims, still imply raw meat is superior, still criticize omega-3 talk, still rank ideas as better or worse. Those are causal claims. They require mechanisms, whether you like the word "molecule" or not.
Jokes aside - you don’t get to reject explanations and keep conclusions.
Now you're saying "this wasn’t even about molecules, it was about the spirit of the posts"
That’s a retreat. When your concrete claims fail under scrutiny, you switch to vibes, spirit and offence-taking. That’s not higher thinking, you're trying to escape because your brain is too small.
If the "spirit" is raw primal living, then coherence matters. You can’t argue for natural living while insisting nothing can be known, nothing can be explained, and all models are fake because that logic literally destroys your own position.
This isn’t me misunderstanding you.
It’s you avoiding commitment while still throwing punches. -
@love You’re doing it again
You wrote: "pathogens can’t be sensed, don’t exist, tell me about one actual pathogen that ever made you sick."
That is a direct challenge to the idea that pathogens cause illness. Whether you later say “I never literally wrote that sentence” is irrelevant, the implication is obvious, and now you’re trying to walk it back instead of owning it.This isn’t about me misreading you. It’s about you refusing to stand behind the implications of what you say.
You also claim your position has been consistent: “the molecular model is just a theory and can’t be proven.”
Fine. But then you still make dietary claims, still imply raw meat is superior, still criticize omega-3 talk, still rank ideas as better or worse. Those are causal claims. They require mechanisms, whether you like the word "molecule" or not.
Jokes aside - you don’t get to reject explanations and keep conclusions.
Now you're saying "this wasn’t even about molecules, it was about the spirit of the posts"
That’s a retreat. When your concrete claims fail under scrutiny, you switch to vibes, spirit and offence-taking. That’s not higher thinking, you're trying to escape because your brain is too small.
If the "spirit" is raw primal living, then coherence matters. You can’t argue for natural living while insisting nothing can be known, nothing can be explained, and all models are fake because that logic literally destroys your own position.
This isn’t me misunderstanding you.
It’s you avoiding commitment while still throwing punches.@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You wrote: "pathogens can’t be sensed, don’t exist, tell me about one actual pathogen that ever made you sick."
That is a direct challenge to the idea that pathogens cause illness. Whether you later say “I never literally wrote that sentence” is irrelevant, the implication is obvious, and now you’re trying to walk it back instead of owning it.Do you not understand that "pathogens can’t be sensed, don’t exist, tell me about one actual pathogen that ever made you sick." and "I never wrote a pathogen never made me sick btw." are not the same? You assumed that I implied later on that pathogens can cause sickness but I never said that
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
It’s about you refusing to stand behind the implications of what you say.
Im still standing behind my claims that pathogens do not exist and bc of that cant cause illness. I never claimed the opposite in this convo.
@leo said in This forum is already GG:
You also claim your position has been consistent: “the molecular model is just a theory and can’t be proven.”
Fine. But then you still make dietary claims, still imply raw meat is superior, still criticize omega-3 talk, still rank ideas as better or worse. Those are causal claims. They require mechanisms, whether you like the word "molecule" or not.I dont need to approve of a molecular model theory to claim that raw meat is healthy and vegetables are poisonous.
And stop the ai posting
-
The first BotB entry is about omega-3s, which, like any other molecule, has never been proven to exist. The high meat guide was actually about true health and nature, but it seems this forum with only normies in it is headed to become a normie forum with normie content. Why did I fool myself? The normie knowing about raw meat doesn't make him any less of a normie. You can take this post in two ways: either get offended or actually extract the spirit I tried to convey.
-
The first BotB entry is about omega-3s, which, like any other molecule, has never been proven to exist. The high meat guide was actually about true health and nature, but it seems this forum with only normies in it is headed to become a normie forum with normie content. Why did I fool myself? The normie knowing about raw meat doesn't make him any less of a normie. You can take this post in two ways: either get offended or actually extract the spirit I tried to convey.
@love said in This forum is already GG:
this forum with only normies in it is headed to become a normie forum with normie content. Why did I fool myself? The normie knowing about raw meat doesn't make him any less of a normie.
thats why only u, ela, rabbi rot on here
-
@love said in This forum is already GG:
this forum with only normies in it is headed to become a normie forum with normie content. Why did I fool myself? The normie knowing about raw meat doesn't make him any less of a normie.
thats why only u, ela, rabbi rot on here
-
@love said in This forum is already GG:
this forum with only normies in it is headed to become a normie forum with normie content. Why did I fool myself? The normie knowing about raw meat doesn't make him any less of a normie.
thats why only u, ela, rabbi rot on here
-
The first BotB entry is about omega-3s, which, like any other molecule, has never been proven to exist. The high meat guide was actually about true health and nature, but it seems this forum with only normies in it is headed to become a normie forum with normie content. Why did I fool myself? The normie knowing about raw meat doesn't make him any less of a normie. You can take this post in two ways: either get offended or actually extract the spirit I tried to convey.
@love sup, normie here. If you dont want normies here then the creators of this site should atleast try to invite people who actually know about this shit. This site was made during a STORM of raw meat "trends" so its not suprising a bunch of unknowing idiots joins
-
@love sup, normie here. If you dont want normies here then the creators of this site should atleast try to invite people who actually know about this shit. This site was made during a STORM of raw meat "trends" so its not suprising a bunch of unknowing idiots joins
