That, the relationship to mysticism, giving sermons in Greek instead of Latin, translation disagreements with the bible

It was a few things, but I also want to believe it was the bread.

Also I was raised by Catholics but in hindsight the eastern Orthodox seems much more based and I say they were in the right

Sorry, you have a scale that can measure your water content?

Still not an ad hominem.

Do you want me to compile examples? I'm trying to explain my miss givings with carnivore content creators and there is employment of these tactics in their promotion of content.

I will admit my use of circle jerk was crass and for that I'm sorry, but I'm genuinely wanting to talk about what I perceive to be a bad mark on your community.

I've made no ad hominem attacks so far as I can tell.

I'm criticizing rhetorical style and listing my reasons why.

The closest I can see to ad hominem was putting "Dr." In quotes, but that was just for emphasis on the title since I didn't know if asterix would work e.g. Dr.

Also, my apologies for any confusion as I do have 2 accounts. I promise I'm not tying to ban evade or anything. I just forgot I switched at some point.

I did watch the full lecture you linked, but I did notice it was different from the short clip.

Its a good talk and well cited. It also matches sources I had found independently with the help of my fiance who has a degree in chemistry and in nursing (alas, I am just a history fan who likes to argue).

But I'd like to point out I did say

It's fundamentally a bad line of reasoning that only means something to people deep in the weeds of carnivore food science.

Does my original point make sense?

I do think there's interesting science here and I honestly and truly don't want you guys getting caught in grifter style clip farming, rage baiting, circle jerkings. Dr. Mason seems to be a pretty good source, but his newer content is slipping into this sensationalist format of communication.

A lot of his newer stuff has lines like "what mainstream medicine doesn't want you to know!" "Are you smarter than you're doctor?" Which I admittedly haven't seen those videos yet, but that's a red flag that a lot of carnivore content seems to lean on.

I get it, that's how the algorithm works, but I think good information can thrive by just being packaged well.

Do you see how "perhaps" is different from "just asking questions?"

No. Its the same rhetorical move its just different from the more aggressive "just asking questions"

Please don't misrepresent the content in this community.

I'm trying not to, but this is a short clip without any context or further readings.

I want you guys to have better educational materials.

This guy says a lot of things with coincidental or anecdotal evidence at best and that's not good evidence when also trying to position oneself as an academic expert e.g. "Dr." In the name. Dr. Mason should know better if the Dr. Is worth anything.

Take the criticism or don't, but this is a relatively small push back to the carnivore idea.

If there's more, better science on these claims, then they should be included, referenced within the talk. Something! Maybe this is just an out of context clip, but that doesn't make the argument better. It's fundamentally a bad line of reasoning that only means something to people deep in the weeds of carnivore food science. How was I, an outsider, supposed to know about the paper you're citing? How can I know he knows about it?

"Perhaps vitamin D synthesis in the skin maybe one of those functions."

This isn't a sentence from a place of evidence backed science, this is a string of probably connected things that Dr. Mason should know isn't the same as a proven idea. In fact he says its anecdotal, but he is presenting it in a way that the listener can come to the conclusion that cholesterol makes vitamin D without having to site anything.

If this were a scientifically backed idea he could have said but didn't would follow.

1. "The Keys survey showed people with higher vitamin D had lower cholesterol."

2. "A second study was done and found X and Y"

3. "Thus confirming that cholesterol is used to make vitamin D"

But that isn't what he said. He only cited part of what sounds like a much larger study and is then extrapolating based vaguely on anecdote.

Could it also be possible that people who spend a lot of time in the sun simply consume food with higher vitamin D content and they're in the sum all day because they're mostly agrarian or some sort of labor economy so they're working out which lowers cholesterol levels with a normal diet? Yes, but we don't know more than that based on this talk.

If he's honest, then this is an interesting start point to do science, but as it stands he's just using human psychology to convince people of his position without needing good evidence.

I'm finishing Phillip Pullman's "The Book of Dust" trilogy with "The Rosefield"

I heavily recommend the series to anyone interested in Magic, Consciousness, Fairies, and fighting a corrupt and evil Christian Church.

Pullman 's writing is flowing and subtle. Every pay off feels earned and all his foreshadowing is there enough that it feels like a mystery the reader can solve.

My favorite details are when details of events we've experienced in the book are mid remembered to other characters. Its often inconsequential, but I just love it when I know a character sounds so dumb for being wrong but they couldn't know!

To add to this, I personally recommend "Did Jesus Exist" as the Dr. Ehrman follow up.

It has the same vibe as Dr. McClellan's book while also being an incredibly useful popular academic book. Just as accessible and covers the second most important part of Christianity to understand, the origin as opposed to the current discourse.

"How Jesus became God" being a natural progression.

I finished the book a while back and I reference it often.

Its really good. All of the book is formatted as long form responses with citations and solid academic reason without being inaccessible.

What jargon there is is fully explained in the intro or in the text.

It was in fact a wonderful resource for a modern interpretation for the bible and a resource on modern discourse around it if you're not religious like myself.

Its good enough that I keep a spare copy to give to friends if they're interested in interpretations of stories inspired by or from Dan.