They are non sequiturs, meant to throw the conversation off topic. If you wish to continue conversation with me, then let’s fully address the bot situation now, so you no longer have to be confused in the future.
Otherwise, you’re fully demonstrating that you do not respect me, nor the conversation at hand.
You may say you work very hard not to lie or divert the topic, but you are not practicing what you preach
I ask lots of questions!
You don’t ask questions to determine for certain whether I’m a bot, yet you very frequently bring it up in your comments as a non-sequitur, showing you’re not really interested in having discussions in good faith.
You have failed very often, as you have here again, in practicing what you preach. It makes it seem like you do not respect the conversation or me. If you do not want to make it seem that way, then let’s be direct instead of trying to steer the topic off the trajectory.
If you want to insist that my status as a bot is still up in the air, then my preference is to clear that up first
Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong.
Correct! When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
When you validate (or invalidate, as it is in this case) a single claim you don't (and shouldn't!) validate other claims at the same time
Correct! You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!
They are!
Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this...conclusion.
Right here:
It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.
Wrong again!
It's what you said.
Then i confirmed that it wasn't.
Exactly! Through learning the proper causes!
Invalidating a claim is NOT the same as validating a separate one
Correct, they are not the same! They are two separate steps of the process. You invalidated the previous claim in part through the method of validating a separate one.
Wrong! Invalidating a possibility is not the same as confirming another one.
I understand that. But in this particular case, what you have described yourself doing is gaining knowledge of the actual causes of obesity to fully discount the previous assertion. You said yourself:
To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
I didn't initially find the premise that eating a diet high in (especially animal) fat was bad for you impossible
Right, exactly.
It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.
So you learned the actual reason for the causes of obesity, leading you to fully discount the previous assertion.
Objective study is not possible if you begin from a biased conclusion and then go out to (selectively) confirm that bias.
I agree! We cannot form our conclusion first without doing our due diligence, and sometimes that includes reckoning with the difficult questions that might skew our biased worldview
To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
Exactly! You've come a long way. It's okay to admit if you're not sure of something, instead of blindly affirming to your first guess.
Now apply this to the discussion on the shape of the earth :)
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Not the same. This isn't an "if" statement.
You didn't "magically" get the correct answer by not believing in what ended up being incorrect. You learned the correct answer.
Oh I’ve looked, and the rate if complications, particularly death, is incredibly low, in the neighborhood of a fraction of a percent. It seems you think there is different data out there, but are unable to produce it
I’ve had similar conversations with people and it always ends the same way. Seems odd that people like you want to keep this data secret
I mean, usually if I'm making a claim I'll provide a link to support it, instead of just a vague overview.
I'm a supporter of real science and data. You haven't really provided any of that unfortunately.
I have been vaxxed if you insist on knowing, but not boosted. If I were a shill, I probably would have mentioned that myself. I'm only questioning your claims. You seem to think your claims are above questioning.
It is not. If it is, then it is an indirect form of communication that is, still, disrespectful. If you want to continue to insist that my status as a bot be questioned, then all you deserve now is a proper proof that I'm a real human being.
Incorrect. It is YOUR responsibility to not use them in the first place. Don't be the example of disrespectful conversation that we both want to avoid.
A literal, parenthetical, non-sequitur in action.
You are not telling me I am acting like one. You are directly questioning whether I am, and in one case lament that you have to assume that I am.