You have been subjected to many logical fallacies, this deviation has NO truth reliability, I may simply argue this relativity of emotional
appeal, that is all you have argued in this thread, being no factual statements and a manipulation of English Prime context in an attempt to sustain the inconsistencies of these fallacies.
Your babblespeak does not hide that the only "evidence" you have presented is a questionable graph from a commmercial source which is flogging TVP. In your subsequent post, you claim that your "diet attempts to practice the paleolithic concept.
What do you mean by "questionable", when are the conditions of a "commercial source" satisfied, SHOULD I argue relativism, being that your fuzzy concepts enable this to be so?
Leaving aside for a moment that "the paleolithic concept" is not a recognized scientific term--in your subsequent bulleted points you reject animal protein sources and the use of fire for cooking. What the **** is paleolithic about that?
Can you state the required conditions and elaborate "not a recognised scientific term"?
Where have YOU satisfied these necessary conditions?
As for "what the ****", yes, I am eliminating CULTURE, I desire to know the human diet.
genetic code =/= cultural phenomena
Humans may consume grains, by culture.
In terms of animal protein, are you willing to agree that humans may consume it raw?
Basically, you're just making **** up as you go along, Paleolithic humans used animal protein sources and they used fire.
How do you KNOW this?
Very likely, grains were no very large part of their diet as they only had them by gathering--agriculture being thousands of years in their future.
How do you KNOW this?
Also, what do you mean by "very likely", how is this measured?
So there is nothing in the least paleolithic about the silly story you're constructing here.
Does science use these 'pejorative' predicates?
I use 'pejorative', being that there is no logical basis for silly, it is non cognitive, just as 'boo, you are wrong'.
You appeal to emotion.
It's bad enough that you (apparently) cannot construct coherent sentences in plain English to state your meaning.
Is this a valid arguement, you have onlyONE post that has satisfied the topic, though I did disagree with several of arguements, and this is how you clarify.
While you practice your babblespeak, however, you make claims which you have not supported and which are flat contradicted by the terms you use. The fact that you might be willing to acknowledge that contradiction does not alter that what you offer is meaningless bullshit.
Are you referring to the fact that I consume meat, yet I question if it valid?
Relatively, your arguement itself is a contradiction.
Is science open to falsification?
This open for arguementation.
Nothing obliges you to eat meat, and i don't care if you do or you don't. Nothing obliges anyone here to stop eating meat, and certainly not on the basis of your floridly overwritten line of crap, for which you provide no realistic justification.
So you ARE agreeing that meat is NOT necessary?
Culturally, this appears to be the case, however I desire to know if the 'cave man' consumed animal protein PRIOR to cultural phenomena, I would argue that it is a specific enviroment consequence for a sustaining cultural basis (i.e fire and grain), if there was no fire and grains, how did civilisation exist?
I not certain what is "realistic justification", can you define this?
However, if you continue to assert this non operational language, there is nothing to argue, simply your circular repetition.
What do I want know?
Why do you believe science suggests humans to be consumers of animal protein, naturally.
As suggested, I desire scientific reasoning, a positive analysis, no normatives appeals.