The sound of hypocrisy unmasked
Did you have to consult with Ray Peat for those words?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
The sound of hypocrisy unmasked
I'm outlining how to properly think for people in this thread who haven't committed to becoming a conspiracy nut.
Lol.
Was that bit about 911?
You won't find here much sympathy for the official 911 narrative"experts".
This place's full of conspiracy nuts; more outrage for you, sadly.
I think human biochemistry is extremely complicated and I think it's very difficult to devise studies that can pinpoint optimal diets which is why I don't 100% follow a food pyramid or whatever is the mainstream advice.
Unlike say, the simple arithmetics of climate science. Hell, you don't even need studies it's so simple!
More hypocrisy? You're the one who needs to check with the experts for his opinion.Did you have to consult with Ray Peat for those words?
More hypocrisy? You're the one who needs to check with the experts for his opinion.
Who said I follow anyone? I follow the truth as best I can figure it out. Judging from your juvenile demeanor and ready insults, I think it would be best if you continue to let others do the thinking for you.Even your jokes don't make sense. You follow an individual in Peat. Not me. An expert consensus barring reasons not to believe it is not following an individual. Guess I'll have to quit this line of discussion with you too because it's like talking to a toddler.
Haha no they definitely benefit. You can't even imagine.
Yip. And nitrogen is good for plants, too. The more the better. Why would anyone worry about too much nitrogenous fertilizer? It leads to bigger plants, doesn't it?
On the other hand, if you have an interest in conserving current species, ecological systems and complexity, current island and low-lying or glacier irrigated human habitations, rather than just maximising growth, then more CO2, more heat energy and more weather may not be such an unmitigated positive.
If CO2 is brought to 1,500 ppm, is there some idea of how much water levels and temperature would rise as a result? I suppose if CO2 keeps going up and at the same time we are destroying all of our plant life (which has been the trend) it could lead to a undesirable scenario. Maybe we should focus on expanding our forests.
These studies showing conspiratorial thinking is a lack of understanding how to think properly .
Obvious trolling.
Reported.
You are not adding much to any of these conversations by continually trying to show that we are illogical or delusional conspiracy theorists. People on this site happen to be much smarter than average and know how to sort the BS from the truth. They did find Ray's work after all, which your friend from Oxford would completely dismiss based on his expert consensus heuristic. Try to stick to the facts discussed in each thread, debunk them if you can and maybe we would take you more seriously. Otherwise I agree with @burtlancast, you are just trollingNo Burt. Obvious trolling is you writing lies that I message you about how I love to vaccinate my kids.
It's an article about a scientific study as to the common pitfalls conspiratorial thinkers make. It's quite telling you find that so threatening as to report me (and Charlie as to implement a ban). You guys sure talk a big game about anti-authoritarian ideas, yet seem downright terrified of anyone threatening your worldview.
You are not adding much to any of these conversations by continually trying to show that we are illogical or delusional conspiracy theorists. People on this site happen to be much smarter than average and know how to sort the BS from the truth. They did find Ray's work after all, which your friend from Oxford would completely dismiss based on his expert consensus heuristic. Try to stick to the facts discussed in each thread, debunk them if you can and maybe we would take you more seriously. Otherwise I agree with @burtlancast, you are just trolling
More straw men. That is not even close to what I said. It is not that we are coming up with our own facts or observations contrary to the experts, but rather that we are listening to all the experts, and only then determining who is making the more valid argument. That is something you don't seem to trust yourself to do on your own.Of course you agree. Like Burt, you feel you're being attacked and want to shut down a contrary opinion rather than argue the science.
I never claimed there weren't smart people on this forum. There are a few very smart people, a few dumb people, and many in-between. It's pretty representative of life. My claim is that people can easily deceive themselves, especially non-experts, and that taking an inside view where you think you're smart or someone else is smart and knows more than and expert without being able to tell the experts why they get something wrong in a way they'd agree with (or at least some of them would) is a cognitive pitfall that is extremely common amoung the population and amplified across a number of domains amoung conspiracy theorists and people in these types of threads. Your response is simply "There are smart people here and scientists are idiots. Yay us! Right guys? See! These guys agree with me so you're wrong!"
That is something you don't seem to trust yourself to do on your own.
I think everyone here can see who the child is.For reasons of humility and understanding human bias which I've outlined and that the Oxford paper and bayesian reasoning describe in detail which you ignore. Whether you realize it or not you are acting both supremely ignorantly and arrogantly. But we've been down this road a few times and you still don't get it. Rather you're like the child who mocks arithmetic for telling them 2+2=4.