In regards to eating meat

[yossarian]

I don't believe my opinion is infallible. I do believe it is clearly supported by research. We are not talking about one or two studies, we are talking about entire fields of science which didn't even exist before, such as nutrigenomics. Perhaps you are not aware of this.

You're presenting it as infallible. I didn't believe I was infallible when I presented my opinion back in 2009 either. I believed I was just making my case and spreading my beliefs, which I believed was an acceptable thing to do.

What is theory is not presented as fact. If it appears that way, it is unintentional. I attempt to be cognizant of delineating my own personal hypotheses by saying things like What if...? or Maybe... though I am sure I am not perfect at it.

So again you're claiming that you have knowledge of universal facts that are unquestionable. What's the difference between us? That you're right and I'm wrong? You're a fanatic too, just maybe a fanatic who happens to be correct. The emotional orientation seems to be the same.

Yes. Your behavior reminds me exactly of a memory I feel from the time of Atlantis when I charismatically and self-righteously led people down a path that led to great destruction.

You feel the memory? You don't remember the memory?

You are passing off your own diet views as absolute truth. You are saying "Everyone needs something different! There is no best diet!" and promoting this claim as an absolute, unquestionable truth.
You don't present evidence, you just write passionately on the topic and make assertions, similar to how I did it back in 2009.

This is akin to saying that I am attempting to pass geology off as absolute truth, and demanding proof that geology exists. Yes, geology exists, and there are entire textbooks written upon the subject.

You're just making an assertion and you have confidence that you're right. How is that any different from the behaviour of anyone?

I've made no claims about who should eat what. I don't believe we have the answers to that. And I am even skeptical that those answers will ever come from science. But what we do know is that the same foods are metabolized by different bodies in different ways. Yes, I think that is a fact. If you really want me to post links to textbooks with pages of medical references, I will be happy to do that.

You're splitting hairs. Sure, some people are lactose intolerant and others are not. But these are tiny details. Overall, humans are more similar than they are different. There are some pretty widespread general rules. Don't eat rocks. Don't drink saltwater. By figuring out the general rules through statistics scientists can discover a generally best "average diet". This is what people mean when they talk about the best diet. Every diet always makes provision for stuff people differ on. Some people always throw up when they eat eggs. Some people can't eat gluten. But overall there are trends and I still believe there is a general template of an ideal diet that applies to everyone.

Saying no one should be a fruitarian is a claim about who should eat what. Saying there is no best diet is also a claim about who should eat what, just now it's a claim that what people should eat is something different for each person. Maybe you're right, but I'm trying to make the point that you're just expressing your own views. Maybe your views are better than mine but it doesn't seem like you're attacking my views but rather attacking the fact I said anything at all.

On what moral principle are you condemning me? Being a fanatic?

Yes, I want to understand more of what it is like to be a fanatic. It appears that you have had success balancing this issue within yourself, and I would like you to share your wisdom with me about it. I feel it is my honor/responsibility to offer balance to the energy of fanaticism in the world, and I wish to be more empowered to do that through understanding the process by which a fanatic arrives at balance.

I'm still a fanatic just not about food.

I tend to agree with the psychologists who say that fanaticism is basically a hurt or lost child desperately searching for someone to love them. They take this early childhood drama and project it out onto the world. Their extremism is not rooted intellectually but rather emotionally. Fanatics are neurotics desperately trying to compensate for a sense of inferiority, unworthiness, or lack. They go to extremes because their emotional needs have not been met through normal channels.

I was experimenting with all kinds of diets and I felt better on this diet than I ever had before. It was like a drug. I felt airy and euphoric and extremely energetic. It was an altered state of consciousness. Maybe I was dying and that is what dying feels like. I had read all kinds of books debating and discussing nutritional issues and the paleolithic diet made the most sense to me. The veganism modification was a moral position.

I basically still believe the same things and I'm doing a form of the paleolithic diet today, just not a vegan paleolithic diet. I decided the meat component of the paleolithic diet is pretty hard to substitute with vegan alternatives and not worth the hassle.

Prove karma exists. You can't. You're pushing your beliefs on others and your beliefs have no basis in observable fact.

I could give a rat's hiney whether or not you believe in karma. If you said, hey TN- I don't care about any of that karma baloney, then I would stop writing about it to you.

My point was that you're pushing the existence of karma with your statement, just like how I was pushing the benefits of the vegan paleolithic diet with my statements. What matters is not how you feel about the statement when you make the statement, but rather what you're saying. How I feel about my diet is not what got your attention. What got your attention is how I talked about it.

From my own perspective my behaviour then appears fanatical and extremist. But I basically express myself in a sensationalist, extremist way most of the time.

Why?

Entertainment, excitement, and to get attention. Only extremists and sensationalists are listened to. Dry people are boring and have no influence. I guess I've learned that a sensationalist style is persuasive. If you want your writing to actually affect anyone you have to write passionately.

You seem to be morally outraged.

What is your view on the morality of your actions?

Emotionally I think it's wrong for me to promote views on a field where I don't have an education. My 2009 self was confident he was making accurate statements. I still basically agree with my 2009 self, based on a whole bunch of books I've read, but I have no motivation now to try and convince anyone or spread my beliefs.

You believe that the purpose of your life is to serve others--but it's impossible to figure out how to do that because you can never really tell what is real service.

I believe that I am serving at all times. The question is, what am I serving?

Shouldn't that be "who"?

I want to analyze this from a moral perspective in terms of the LOO. How do you know it's bad karma if you can't even judge what is STO and STS?

From my own experience.

You're sort of missing my point. My point is just that everyone presents their views based on their best knowledge and experience and what else can you expect? I presented my views which were based on my experience and knowledge. If they're wrong, hopefully you managed to sway people away from them. Why can't my views stand of their own merit? Why do you have to denounce the fact that I expressed my views at all?

Why do you even bother?

I'm not really sure. Why do you?

I think I'm searching for some kind of meaning to life or some kind of genuine truth.

---

For what it's worth, yossarian, It seems that Tenet's perspective allows you, and anybody, to develop your own diet for yourself.

Except for fruitarianism?

If you like, you may show me a combination of fruit to eat that provides all of the 22 nutrients required for the body to function on a biochemical basis. If I had an example of this, I would begin promoting frutarianism myself.

Vegan is one thing. That can be done correctly in multiple ways. I've don't believe I've ever said a peep against veganism- only against the promotion of it without the knowledge necessary to employ it in a healthy way.

For the record I'm not a fruitarian and never was. I was making a point, not actually supporting fruitarianism.

But you have now shown that you aren't as tolerant as you say you are. You don't support ALL diets. Just the ones you agree with. You support people selecting from a few different diets that you have pre-approved. This makes you intolerant toward many prominent diets like fruitarianism, breathatarianism, sungazing, etc.