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 :)

by determining it incorrect through study/research.

Which gave you the understanding of why what you originally thought was impossible, by finding hard data?

"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.

Not typically, no.

Meaning there are instances when it can

consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity

But it can contribute to obesity.

Is there another time in your life where this happened, where you were confident something was false without knowing the real answer?

Right well that's my whole point. Why funnel a bunch of money to nasa, a whole authority on space science, and in particular a globe earth, instead of putting it to research?

Seems odd to be confident that it isn't one shape, without having an alternate explanation.

Seems there’s a lot of speculation involved. Any additional text or is it mostly just interpretation?

You don’t think the billions of dollars given to nasa could be used instead to find out the shape of the surface we live on?

I understand the context, you’re saying that is what the Bible describes the earth as.

Do you not agree with that description?

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.

I don't need to have a response immediately. Feel free to take your time and respond after work! Would love to hear more from you on the topic

Was this supposed to be a link supporting what you said? This is just the Vaers homepage.

Also, if it’s heavily manipulated, as you say, I don’t see why those numbers should be trusted

The point we’re discussing is if it’s deadly. If so many people who took the shot are still alive, how can we call it deadly? How do we know there isn’t a different factor at play?

lol why are you being cryptic? Are you not allowed to talk about the “something else” or what?

I mean the vax has been advertised as "super deadly" for the past two years, but a vast majority of those who got the shot are living life with minimal, if any, side effects. I'm not sure how we can conclude it's poisonous.

Ham did something to Noah, the bible is not specific....this is a complex subject so I'll leave it at that...

What other documents are more specific about what Ham did to Noah?

But HOW is it more expensive? With so much funding going towards educating the public on a globe earth, how is the truth more costly? What more is at stake? Would it not be cheaper to just educate people on the truth?

I’m not a bot.

If this is what is preventing you from explaining further, then I think it’s valuable for us to confirm that I’m not a bot so that we can have an earnest discussion! Would you like to have a conversation on a platform that allows for voice/video call?

https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/16c248vezN/x/c/4TwS56FCPJd

Well there is funding that goes to education facilities to teach this, science shows, lectures, maps, all sorts of things produced that support the globe earth. Why is this cheaper than the truth?

You have stated before that the earth is flat and with four corners/pillars

Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?