Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
gregpresley wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... gregpresley wrote: I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in question but throughout her other books and her institutional affiliations. We were discussing her conclusion, based on copious scientific research, that a diet without meat can satisfy the essential nutritional requirements, No, we were not, dummy. That conclusion is not challenged, and is not important; of course one can meet "essential nutritional requirements" via a diet that doesn't contain any meat or other animal products. What we're talking about is her politically motivated MORAL PRESCRIPTION that we "ought" to follow such a diet. Get a ****ing clue, will you? and since she did NOT advocate a VEGAN diet which avoids milk and eggs, but instead included them, every nutrient is completely covered by her diet. That's lovely. Now, WHY is she advocating such a diet? Bob Petersen attacked her as a left-wing kook Correctly and with full justification. If she wants to follow such a diet, she is free to do so. For her to be prescribing it for others is NOT based in science in any way; it's based in moral prescription, an ENTIRELY unscientific endeavor. HER prescriptions originate in her leftist political sentiment. and you fell right in line, No, I reached the conclusion years ago. without ever addressing that conclusion. The conclusion is trivial, and is not what she is really on about. You know this; you're dissembling. A little problem with reading comprehension here, I fear No, you know and fear nothing of the kind. Instead, what you fear is that her moralizing political prescriptions are being rubbished. You fear that with good reason: they are, and the basis for rubbishing them is rock solid. ....since her politics are not at all germane to her conclusion, Since her politics is EVERYTHING, and since the conclusion is scientifically uninteresting... in spite of your blathering unsupported comments. There is NO scientific research that contradicts her conclusion, Strawman. which, however, you were too lazy to discover on your own. No, liar; I did discover it on my own. I also discovered that it is uninteresting, and not what she is really all about. You stupid fat ****: she is taking a scientifically uninteresting conclusion, and using it as a flimsy basis for a totalitarian political prescription. Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling ignorance. Cohort: n. 2. A band or group 3. A companion or follower 3.a. is incorrect. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Edible Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Gardening | |||
Right wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
Right wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Gardening |