Can we kill this thread already?
Several here on this forum have tried at length to help this young man. With any luck one or two things may have stuck in that dense brain of yours.
NeilG: This is my swan song to you. Adios.
Zulu -
Haven’t we have had the “circular reasoning” discussion before???
I am quite aware of what it is, thanks though.
I have tried to help and convince Neil on here and via PM. I don’t think it ever worked. I’ll never divulge what was said via PM, but I will say this: Neil thinks that we are dumb for following someone like Berardi, who is almost PhD and Serrano, who is MD. Yet, he will listen to his Dr. and go on some crazy raw fruit and veggie diet for 1 month, and then add mag-10 at the start of normal eating after that. Yet, he still thinks Surge is bad and has trouble taking it because it’s not natural. I will never understand the logic.
I know when I was 18, I asked questions, then did research, then asked more questions. I never professed to be an expert or have knowledge on topics where others knew more. Sure, I knew(know) a lot about baseball and golf, but I would talk about them in a civil manner, not some spiteful “YOU ARE WRONG” type of manner. Neil, I think you need to grow up and realize that Weston A. Price is not the be all end all of research. Pubmed will provide so many more useful, knowledgeable resources than you’ll ever be able to read. Try it, you might like it.
Natural is not always better.
So, something “isn’t unhealthy in infinitessimal amounts… but it is still UNHEALTHY”. Yes, I admit that I’m too dense to see how that can be. If you’re talking absolutes, you’re talking out of your ass. (And you still can’t spell.)
And btw, if you expect someone to prove that ANYTHING, in ANY quantity is unhealthy you won’t succeed. You will have rendered the term ‘unhealthy’ meaningless in daily conversation.
Yes, that’s true. The term “unhealthy” will be rendered meaningless in daily conversation. As it happens, however, the conversation we were having wasn’t “daily”, we were trying to establish something somewhat scientific. In this context, saying something is “healthy” or “unhealthy” without reference to how much of it you’re ingesting really doesn’t have any place. You have to consider the amount.
But hey. You go ahead and have your “daily conversations” if you like. Go talk to someone about toning - that’s pretty “daily”. Of course, it has no real meaning, just like the rest of what you’re arguing above. Go tell people that, oh, arsenic is unhealthy. Conveniently ignore the fact that, as a trace mineral, it actually has some benefit to the body.
And while you’re at it, go ahead and post some more about how “some people” on this forum go in for insulting others rather than having a civilized discussion and debating the points. And then please feel free to call them “morons”, “dense” and whatever else strikes your fancy at the time. Don’t worry about being consistent; after all, your ethical injunctions don’t really apply to you, right?
As for me, I don’t really like dealing with hypocrites. So I’m done with this thread, and done with you.
Ah, the all honeybun diet. Reminds me of when I was 18! Man, I ate some garbage. And I still grew.
Anyone seen the Tao of Steve? It’s like that scene where he’s making, like 20 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
“This is going to be even more successful than my pizza diet.”
“Why?”
“More protein.”
Anyway, the “not harmful” argument comes down to an old Philosophical question (fallacy). If I have one piece of hay, it’s not a pile of hay. If I add another piece of hay, it’s still not a pile of hay. If I add a third piece of hay, I still don’t have a pile of hay. Therefore, I can never have a pile. (Clearly though, this isn’t true, as I can have a “pile”. The term is just not clearly defined.)
Just replace “pile” with “Krispy Kreme”. Or not. You know. Whatever.
Dan
has anyone else noticed that threads started by neil seem to generate more attention than all others?