Carnivore diet been doing great

[integral]

2 hours ago, manuel bon said:

Well if health comes first then don't eat meat every day, the one we buy in the supermarkets harms the body 

Unbalanced perspective 

[integral]

The guy posted saying eating meat has made him feel fantastic and you vegans are so ideological You literally cannot take this basic perspective into account into your larger worldview.

Consider why you can’t understand why eating meat could’ve produced a positive benefit to his life

@Emerald

Edited May 18 by integral

[manuel bon]

2 hours ago, integral said:

Unbalanced perspective 

Why is that?

[manuel bon]

2 hours ago, integral said:

The guy posted saying eating meat has made him feel fantastic and you vegans are so ideological You literally cannot take this basic perspective into account into your larger worldview.

Consider why you can’t understand why eating meat could’ve produced a positive benefit to his life

I have never been vegan, idk why you would assume my ideologies and what I can understand or not. I see his point, but the fact that eating meat every day makes him feel good it doesn't mean that is a healthy diet.

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, integral said:

The guy posted saying eating meat has made him feel fantastic and you vegans are so ideological You literally cannot take this basic perspective into account into your larger worldview.

Consider why you can’t understand why eating meat could’ve produced a positive benefit to his life

@Emerald

My claim isn't that eating meat can never produce a positive benefit in someone's life. So, that is a strawman of my argument.

People with Epilepsy or people with certain auto-immune issues where eating plants cause an auto-immune reaction might find it easier to eat an elimination diet with only meat. 

Also, if a person who wants to lose weight switches over to a keto or carnivore diet, they probably will lose weight because their body will be in ketosis. Perhaps it's not the healthiest way to lose weight, but a person would undoubtedly experience "a benefit" if that is their goal.

And clearly if someone is starving to death, eating anything that the human body can metabolize will produce a positive benefit.

So, don't strawman my argument and say I was making arguments that I wasn't.

Here are my ACTUAL claims that I've made in the previous thread...

1. A lot of people (maybe even the majority of people) have Vegan values where they don't want animals to suffer and die a premature death... and don't agree that human pleasure is more important than an animal's life and well-being. But people who live a non-Vegan lifestyle who consume animals for pleasure (who have Vegan values) have to lie to themselves and go into cognitive dissonance and defense mode to defend their own choices in their own eyes. And they do so by invalidating the choices of Vegans because Vegans are the ones who are walking their own talk... and it makes these non-Vegans with Vegan values feel uncomfortable with the incongruence between their actions and values.

2. Statistically, plant-based diets are associated with better health outcomes in terms of longevity and lower risk of heart disease and stroke because meat, dairy, and eggs are linked with greater instances of atherosclerosis, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure... which means the person eating these animal products have a higher risk of heart disease and stroke. Basically, the more animal products you consume is statistically correlated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality according to many studies and meta-analyses. So, even if a person experiences a short-term benefit from going carnivore (like weight loss), it is a trade-off for having a greater risk of stroke, heart disease, and an earlier death. 

 

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, manuel bon said:

I have never been vegan, idk why you would assume my ideologies and what I can understand or not. I see his point, but the fact that eating meat every day makes him feel good it doesn't mean that is a healthy diet.

I am the Vegan in question. He's trying to use your personal anecdote about going Carnivore as a way to challenge my perspective.

He isn't saying that you're a Vegan.

Edit: Nevermind. He is assuming you're a Vegan. He just threw me in on the reply. 

Edited May 18 by Emerald

[Basman]

Isn't that mad expensive though?

Also, two of your steaks are green dude.

[integral]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

My claim isn't that eating meat can never produce a positive benefit in someone's life. So, that is a strawman of my argument.

Fair enough.

People with Epilepsy or people with certain auto-immune issues where eating plants cause an auto-immune reaction might find it easier to eat an elimination diet with only meat. 

Also, if a person who wants to lose weight switches over to a keto or carnivore diet, they probably will lose weight because their body will be in ketosis. Perhaps it's not the healthiest way to lose weight, but a person would undoubtedly experience "a benefit" if that is their goal.

People lose weight on any healthy diet.

And clearly if someone is starving to death, eating anything that the human body can metabolize will produce a positive benefit.

So, don't strawman my argument and say I was making arguments that I wasn't.

Here are my ACTUAL claims that I've made in the previous thread...

1. A lot of people (maybe even the majority of people) have Vegan values where they don't want animals to suffer and die a premature death... and don't agree that human pleasure is more important than an animal's life and well-being. But people who live a non-Vegan lifestyle who consume animals for pleasure (who have Vegan values) have to lie to themselves and go into cognitive dissonance and defense mode to defend their own choices in their own eyes. And they do so by invalidating the choices of Vegans because Vegans are the ones who are walking their own talk... and it makes these non-Vegans with Vegan values feel uncomfortable with the incongruence between their actions and values.

2. Statistically, plant-based diets are associated with better health outcomes in terms of longevity and lower risk of heart disease and stroke because meat, dairy, and eggs are linked with greater instances of atherosclerosis, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure... which means the person eating these animal products have a higher risk of heart disease and stroke. Basically, the more animal products you consume is statistically correlated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality according to many studies and meta-analyses. So, even if a person experiences a short-term benefit from going carnivore (like weight loss), it is a trade-off for having a greater risk of stroke, heart disease, and an earlier death. 

The problem with the data is that its Cherry Picked for veganism, people eating unhealthy processed diets filled with processed meat Dairy and eggs have a higher risk of cholesterol problems, arthrosis and high blood pressure, and people eating an unhealthy vegan diet are high risk of a million other things. The studies have nothing to do with specific Foods, they are targeting a large portion of the population for eating garbage and creating statistical correlations.

Eating meat and eating cholesterol plays no role whatsoever in clogging your arteries or increasing blood pressure. This is a long-standing myth. The Paleo Community doesn't have this problem, the carnival Community doesn't have this problem, omnivore communities... healthy balanced diets don't have this problem.

People eating a healthy Paleo diet are not dying of heart attacks... Can you see the confirmation bias?

Take 100 people and feed them whatever diet and most of them would be fine and one of them is going to have a ridiculous artery clogging cholesterol problem. Most of the people I know with high cholesterol and high blood pressure are eating perfectly fine yet their problems are ridiculous. People who have these clogged arteries they have predisposition health conditions genetic problems that make their body just build up cholesterol in their arteries that is not one-to-one correlated with their eating. (but it can be greatly improved with better lifestyle).

---

Science does not prove: That veganism works equally well across different genetics, microbiomes, life stages, or health conditions.

Anything trying to claim that is using statistics to prove their ideology, a common trap.

Every diet community uses science and statistics to prove everything they believe.

Quote

Large epidemiological studies (Adventist Health, EPIC-Oxford, etc.) do find:

• Lower LDL
• Lower rates of hypertension, heart disease, type 2 diabetes
• Lower BMI
• Lower all-cause mortality in many cohorts

BUT:

• These studies are observational, not experimental.
• Vegans in these studies tend to be health-conscious, not representative of the average vegan (they’re more likely to exercise, not smoke, etc.).
• It’s hard to isolate the effect of animal products from confounding variables like processed food, alcohol, or sedentary lifestyles.

^^^ conflation

Every healthy diet has the same effect! "It’s not about meat vs plants. It’s about healthy diet and lifestyle vs garbage diet and lifestyle."

Im not anti-vegan. Im anti-ideology disguised as science and I'm in favor of individualized tailored nutrition.

Quote

🔬 1. Nutrient Deficiency Studies in Vegans

These are the most well-documented issues in the literature — they don’t say veganism can’t work, but they show it often doesn't in practice.

✅ B12 Deficiency

Study: Herrmann et al. (2003)

Finding: 52% of vegans were B12 deficient; elevated homocysteine levels increased cardiovascular risk.

Problem: Deficiency is common unless supplemented — and even then, absorption varies.

✅ Omega-3 (EPA/DHA) Deficiency

Study: Rosell et al., EPIC-Oxford (2005)

Finding: Vegans had the lowest plasma levels of EPA/DHA compared to fish-eaters and omnivores.

Risk: Long-term low DHA linked to impaired cognition, depression, and developmental concerns in pregnancy.

✅ Iron & Zinc Status

Study: Hunt (2003)

Finding: Non-heme iron in plant foods has lower bioavailability; vegan women at higher risk of anemia.

Meta-analysis: [Haider et al. (2021)] — vegan men and women had lower iron and ferritin levels overall.

✅ Calcium & Bone Health

Study: Appleby et al., EPIC-Oxford (2007)

Finding: Vegans had a 30% higher fracture rate than omnivores — unless calcium intake was ≥525 mg/day.

Conclusion: Vegans often fail to meet calcium needs unless supplementing or eating fortified foods.

✅ Iodine Deficiency

Study: [Leung et al. (2011)]

Finding: Iodine intake in U.S. vegans was far below recommended levels unless seaweed or iodized salt was consumed.

Risk: Thyroid dysfunction, especially in women.

--AI

The idea that veganism works is completely theoretical, they're assuming supplementation is an effective "treatment".

Most studies that report high deficiency rates don’t reliably track supplement use.

The claim that vegan deficiency “it’s reversible with supplementation” is theoretical, based on what should happen biochemically not necessarily what does happen in real people long-term.

There is very little robust, long-term follow-up showing that vegans who correct their nutrient intake via supplements go on to maintain optimal health for 10+ years without new problems emerging.

^^^

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

Guy does veganism 10 years eventually switches back..

Do not think of this as an anecdote, you have to view this as an epistemic clue to combine it all together.

Take the partial truths of every perspective and bring it all together.

It's not that he did it wrong... this is such a toxic mindset... Failing to see differences between people.

It's ironic that vegans tend to be Pro diversity and inclusiveness but not for diet lmao

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

Integral Life Health Plan PDF

Quote

Absolutely — here's a point-by-point summary of the key principles and “laws” from Seth Braun’s Nutrition for the ILP Kit, distilled into a concise, actionable format. Each point can be treated like a "law" or guiding principle for rational, individualized nutrition — and they align closely with your critical perspective.

🧭 1. The Law of Biochemical Individuality

“There is no one right diet for any one person.” (Pg. 3, 8)

Your body has unique needs based on genetics, environment, history, and context.

No dietary philosophy — vegan, carnivore, keto, etc. — works for everyone.

Long-term success depends on honoring your individual biology.

🧭 2. The Law of Personal Experimentation

“The best way to know what works for you is to raise your awareness.” (Pg. 10–11)

Track hunger, cravings, mood, and energy after meals.

Observe direct experience, not just theory.

Keep a food-mood journal to map how different foods affect your body.

🧭 3. The Law of Contextual Nutrition

“Your needs change with season, stress, activity, and geography.” (Pg. 10)

What works in summer may not work in winter.

Climate, work life, stress levels, and physical demands shift nutritional needs.

Your “ideal” diet isn’t fixed — it’s fluid and responsive.

🧭 4. The Law of Digestive Priority

“Digestion is the foundation of nutrition.” (Pg. 7)

It’s not just what you eat — it’s what you digest and absorb.

Chew thoroughly, don’t overeat, and avoid gut-disrupting foods like rancid fats, sugar, or additives.

Poor digestion = nutrient loss, even with a “perfect” diet.

🧭 5. The Law of Whole Foods

“Eat real food. Not processed junk pretending to be healthy.” (Pg. 6, 31)

A banana is a whole food. A muffin is not.

Prioritize organic, seasonal, minimally processed foods.

Even healthy-sounding processed foods (e.g., soy chips, veggie burgers) don’t equal real nourishment.

🧭 6. The Law of Micronutrient Sufficiency

“Superfoods and quality fats help you cover nutritional gaps.” (Pg. 4, 30)

Many modern diets (vegan or otherwise) are micronutrient-poor.

Add superfoods, herbs, and high-quality oils to boost nutrient density.

Supplement if needed — but don’t rely on pills instead of food.

🧭 7. The Law of Energetic Foods

“You become the energy of what you eat.” (Pg. 25–26)

Animal foods carry unique energetic signatures (e.g., nervous chicken vs. grounded bison).

If you eat meat, source it ethically, locally, and consciously.

If you don’t, make sure your plant-based protein sources are properly prepared (soaked, fermented, etc.)

🧭 8. The Law of Ancestral Compatibility

“Eat what your healthy ancestors ate.” (Pg. 9–10)

Look to traditional, robust cultures (Inuit, Swiss, First Nations) for clues.

These diets vary wildly — but each one worked within its context.

Your ancestral heritage may influence what you digest and absorb well.

🧭 9. The Law of Modern Food Caution

“Most modern food is fake, toxic, or both.” (Pg. 31–33)

Avoid GMOs, hydrogenated oils, deep-fried food, aluminum cookware, and most boxed/canned items.

Be wary of “natural” labels — read ingredients.

Industrial food systems are often dangerous to both health and ecology.

🧭 10. The Law of Seasonality

“Eat 51% seasonally appropriate food.” (Pg. 37)

In winter: soups, root vegetables, fats, and heavier foods.

In summer: fruits, greens, cooling herbs, and lighter meals.

Align your diet with the seasons — just like nature intended.

🧭 11. The Law of Emotional Integration

“Your beliefs, habits, and emotions influence your food choices.” (Pg. 9)

Many people eat based on guilt, programming, or “shoulds.”

Drop rigid ideologies — even “healthy” ones — if they conflict with your direct experience.

A healthy diet must feel good, not just look good on paper.

🧭 12. The Law of Sacred Eating

“Gratitude, prayer, and pleasure improve digestion and assimilation.” (Pg. 34)

Enjoyment and mindfulness enhance nutrient absorption.

Saying thanks before meals boosts vagal tone, balances hormones, and calms the body.

Rigid, joyless eating is unhealthy — even if technically “perfect.”

🧭 13. The Law of Incremental Practice

“Big change happens through small steps.” (Pg. 35–38)

Today: Chew your food. Add healthy fats.

This week: Shop and cook once. Eat dark greens.

This month: Reduce sugar. Track your food-mood connection.

This year: Eat seasonally. Say thanks. Be present.

🧭 14. The Law of Integration over Ideology

“Truth lives in complexity, not dogma.” (Pg. 42–44)

Integrative nutrition invites everything to the table — then applies discernment.

Avoid “one right way” thinking.

Learn from Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine, Functional Medicine, and Metabolic Typing — then test for yourself.

✅ Conclusion: These are not rules — they’re tools.

Seth Braun’s framework is powerful because it’s:

Non-ideological

Practice-based

Bioindividual

Context-aware

--AI

 

[Emerald]

@integral I'm sorry. If you just provide for me a bunch of anecdotal evidence of people saying "this is why I left Veganism" and a system for thinking about food created by some guy, then that's not going to weigh in heavier to my viewpoints more than actual data gathered through various studies and meta-analyses (some which cross-reference thousands of studies... and many of which do control for healthy user bias)

Also, even if Vegans did have the nutritional deficiencies you mentioned (which is dubious because a Vegan diet can meet all nutritional needs except B12, which is easily supplemented)...

How many people are going to an early grave from these alleged nutrient deficiencies compared to people who are going to an early grave from heart disease and stroke?

So, even if Vegans did have nutrient deficiencies like you say, their health outcomes are still better overall. (Plant-based diets are associated with lower instances of all-cause mortality)

But beyond that, consider this...

Why are you going through so much effort to invalidate Veganism and to convince me that Veganism is an unhealthy diet? Are you trying to convince me to stop being Vegan?

You don't see me going around evangelizing people on their diets, despite having an ethical reason to want to do so. 

Notice how I only ever respond to people who hate on Veganism to call people out on their cognitive biases? And this requires me to swat aside mis-information.

But notice how I never comment on some random person who's posting about their Carnivore or Keto diet and say, "Don't you know your diet is unhealthy and unethical? You should be Vegan!"

That just isn't something I would personally do.

So, why are you trying to persuade Vegans that their diet is bad as a non-Vegan?

*Also, people don't lose weight on any "healthy" diet. People lose weight on any diet that puts them in a calorie deficit whether the diet is healthy or not.

Edited May 19 by Emerald

[integral]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

@integral I'm sorry. If you just provide for me a bunch of anecdotal evidence of people saying "this is why I left Veganism" and a system for thinking about food created by some guy, then that's not going to weigh in heavier to my viewpoints

 I specifically said not to view this as an anecdote, the people that think anecdotes exist don't understand epistemology. It is crucial to understand epistemic Clues that are needed to piece together bigger pictures. You cannot use one epistemic tool to make sense of something it doesn't work in practice, there's a billion perspectives out there on nutrition but you just can't absorb these perspectives because you're epistemology Is fractured into a scientific lens that has already "verified" your agenda (through confirmation bias).

It doesn't matter how many times I tell you that every diet on Earth is verified through science you literally won't listen.

more than actual data gathered through various studies and meta-analyses (some which cross-reference thousands of studies... and many of which do control for healthy user bias)

Everyone uses statistics to justify everything they believe, I pointed this out on top, and I pointed out the mistake specifically in the statistics that you value, that it's correlation not causation.

I pointed to a bunch of studies that showed most vegans have malnutrition and that supplementation does not mean it will fix the malnutrition. That supplementation is an assumed treatment that will work in practice at scale.

Also, even if Vegans did have the nutritional deficiencies you mentioned (which is dubious because a Vegan diet can meet all nutritional needs except B12, which is easily supplemented)...

I already explained this on the top. 

The claim that vegan deficiency “is reversible with supplementation” is theoretical, based on what should happen biochemically not necessarily what does happen in real people in long-term studies.

What the studies are showing is: Every healthy diet has the same effect. "It’s not about meat vs plants. It’s about healthy diet and lifestyle vs garbage diet and lifestyle."

How many people are going to an early grave from these alleged nutrient deficiencies compared to people who are going to an early grave from heart disease and stroke?

So, even if Vegans did have nutrient deficiencies like you say, their health outcomes are still better overall. (Plant-based diets are associated with lower instances of all-cause mortality)

No they're not. The vegan with nutritional deficiency just gets destroyed like everyone else, they don't live longer and even if they do it's just brain fog and problems.

This is beyond ridiculous, nutritional deficiency is devastating, you clearly have never experienced a health problem.

No one is better off.

But beyond that, consider this...

Why are you going through so much effort to invalidate Veganism and to convince me that Veganism is an unhealthy diet? Are you trying to convince me to stop being Vegan?

You don't see me going around evangelizing people on their diets, despite having an ethical reason to want to do so.

Notice how I only ever respond to people who hate on Veganism to call people out on their cognitive biases? And this requires me to swat aside mis-information.

But notice how I never comment on some random person who's posting about their Carnivore or Keto diet and say, "Don't you know your diet is unhealthy and unethical? You should be Vegan!"

That just isn't something I would personally do.

So, why are you trying to persuade Vegans that their diet is bad as a non-Vegan?

This is a forum about truth, this is what I want to do. I was opening up a conversation about holistic nutrition.

I also don't have any ethical moral positioning to avoid exploring perspectives.

*Also, people don't lose weight on any "healthy" diet. People lose weight on any diet that puts them in a calorie deficit whether the diet is healthy or not.

When someone switche from a standard diet to any healthy diet they tend to lose weight even if they're not eating less because of less inflammation, overall less stress, improved insulin sensitivity, improved Sleep Quality and overall organ efficiency. People retain weight from stressors and other hormonal factors that are not all related to how much you are eating.

You’re treating anything outside your preferred studies as “just anecdote,” but that reveals a misunderstanding of epistemology how we actually know things.

In complex, real-world domains like nutrition, we must integrate multiple forms of evidence: empirical, experiential, observational, historical, cultural, and personal pattern recognition. That’s how real people, practitioners, and systems thinkers solve problems that reductionist science can’t fully address yet.

When you dismiss all this as invalid because it doesn’t match your meta-analysis, you’re not being scientific, you’re being dogmatic.

It’s like someone saying: “We’ve statistically proven heterosexuality leads to higher reproduction rates, so clearly it’s the optimal and natural orientation for everyone. We should outlaw all other forms of sexuality” Its bad logic and it’s epistemically negligent to diversity.

Some people actually have to eat meat or they get sick, but you just don't account for this.

What I’m arguing for is epistemic pluralism, using all the tools available, not just the ones that confirm an agenda.

I'm also arguing within your epistemic domain of only relying on the scientific lens, that you are warping it to just fit your agenda.

Every crime known to man was done through the epistemology you are using right now.

It's devilish.

Edited May 19 by integral

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, integral said:

You’re treating anything outside your preferred studies as “just anecdote,” but that reveals a misunderstanding of epistemology how we actually know things.

In complex, real-world domains like nutrition, we must integrate multiple forms of evidence: empirical, experiential, observational, historical, cultural, and personal pattern recognition. That’s how real people, practitioners, and systems thinkers solve problems that reductionist science can’t fully address yet.

When you dismiss all this as invalid because it doesn’t match your meta-analysis, you’re not being scientific, you’re being dogmatic.

It’s like someone saying: “We’ve statistically proven heterosexuality leads to higher reproduction rates, so clearly it’s the optimal and natural orientation for everyone. We should outlaw all other forms of sexuality” Its bad logic and it’s epistemically negligent to diversity.

Some people actually have to eat meat or they get sick, but you just don't account for this.

What I’m arguing for is epistemic pluralism, using all the tools available, not just the ones that confirm an agenda.

I'm also arguing within your epistemic domain of only relying on the scientific lens, that you are warping it to just fit your agenda.

Every crime known to man was done through the epistemology you are using right now.

It's devilish.

If you don't recognize that personal anecdotes are not viable evidence for the health of a diet (or lack-thereof), I'm done having this conversation.

[ExploringReality]

If you're making broad claims about diet and health, then anecdotes are not enough. But if you're making a personal claim like how a diet impacted you or you notice certain patterns that you recognize can be extremely useful. Individualized responses vary and long term effects are hard or limited to study in controlled settings when it comes to diets. 

Edited May 19 by ExploringReality

[AION]

6 hours ago, integral said:

The problem with the data is that its Cherry Picked for veganism, people eating unhealthy processed diets filled with processed meat Dairy and eggs have a higher risk of cholesterol problems, arthrosis and high blood pressure, and people eating an unhealthy vegan diet are high risk of a million other things. The studies have nothing to do with specific Foods, they are targeting a large portion of the population for eating garbage and creating statistical correlations.

Eating meat and eating cholesterol plays no role whatsoever in clogging your arteries or increasing blood pressure. This is a long-standing myth. The Paleo Community doesn't have this problem, the carnival Community doesn't have this problem, omnivore communities... healthy balanced diets don't have this problem.

People eating a healthy Paleo diet are not dying of heart attacks... Can you see the confirmation bias?

Take 100 people and feed them whatever diet and most of them would be fine and one of them is going to have a ridiculous artery clogging cholesterol problem. Most of the people I know with high cholesterol and high blood pressure are eating perfectly fine yet their problems are ridiculous. People who have these clogged arteries they have predisposition health conditions genetic problems that make their body just build up cholesterol in their arteries that is not one-to-one correlated with their eating. (but it can be greatly improved with better lifestyle).

---

Science does not prove: That veganism works equally well across different genetics, microbiomes, life stages, or health conditions.

Anything trying to claim that is using statistics to prove their ideology, a common trap.

Every diet community uses science and statistics to prove everything they believe.

^^^ conflation

Every healthy diet has the same effect! "It’s not about meat vs plants. It’s about healthy diet and lifestyle vs garbage diet and lifestyle."

Im not anti-vegan. Im anti-ideology disguised as science and I'm in favor of individualized tailored nutrition.

The idea that veganism works is completely theoretical, they're assuming supplementation is an effective "treatment".

Most studies that report high deficiency rates don’t reliably track supplement use.

The claim that vegan deficiency “it’s reversible with supplementation” is theoretical, based on what should happen biochemically not necessarily what does happen in real people long-term.

There is very little robust, long-term follow-up showing that vegans who correct their nutrient intake via supplements go on to maintain optimal health for 10+ years without new problems emerging.

^^^

I explained this in the other thread and then she ignored me out of nowhere 😰

[integral]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

If you don't recognize that personal anecdotes are not viable evidence for the health of a diet (or lack-thereof), I'm done having this conversation.

Out of all of your good points, you have stupid epistemology in the same way many spiritual people like sadguru support Trump.

What is the viable evidence to understand Trump?

Cohort scientific studies? 🙄

I just laid out integral, holistic, epistemology, and you shat on it like it was nothing.

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

4 hours ago, AION said:

I explained this in the other thread and then she ignored me out of nowhere 😰

Her epistemology is science equals truth and she doesn’t wanna hear anything else.

so I used science to show problems with veganism through malnutrition that 50% of vegans are malnourished, then I explained that supplementation doesn’t mean it can resolve these nutrition problems because it’s theoretical not practical and then I use science to explain how correlation doesn’t mean causation and then use science to explain how every diet justifies their beliefs with science.

All of this ignored.

It’s some kind of shadow conservativism.

Like the way a lot of really smart people have some of the worst politics.

And when you use the word epistemology they think you’re running around in circles trying to avoid their perfect facts.

When really you’re going Meta to resolving the differences between perspectives

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

@AION lmao I wouldn’t go as far as you went with this, in her domain of expertise where she put the most energy in she’s fairly insightful. Ironically, that would involve shadow work so any conversation on the shadow we will get the highest level of resistance possible lol

It’s a matter of epistemology in the end like why does Sadhguru support Trump?

most people need to see some kind of catastrophic failure in their life to realize that their epistemology was wrong instead of learning from other people’s mistakes and avoiding it

[AION]

Perhaps I could have framed it another way but I think shadow work is serious business. Psychology is a serious business. And only a conscious person can help to unravel someone’s else unconscious which is what shadow work is.  I have bad experiences with psychologists. That is why I reacted so harsh. 
 

14 minutes ago, integral said:

@AION lmao I wouldn’t go as far as you went with this, in her domain of expertise where she put the most energy in she’s fairly insightful. Ironically, that would involve shadow work so any conversation on the shadow we will get the highest level of resistance possible lol

It’s a matter of epistemology in the end like why does Sadhguru support Trump?

most people need to see some kind of catastrophic failure in their life to realize that their epistemology was wrong instead of learning from other people’s mistakes and avoiding it

Consciousness works in mysterious ways. Usually we feel attraction to the polar opposite of what we are. So there a lot of these nice guys who follow Andrew Tate because he as something they don’t have in their psyche. They are feeling the attraction for integration with qualities they lack themselves.  Same dynamic could be possible between Sadh Ghuru and Donald Trump. They are polar opposites. 

Edited May 19 by AION

[Michael569]

2 hours ago, AION said:

erhaps I could have framed it another wa

thanks for taking it back, I removed my comment