Jordan Peterson claims the carnivore diet cured his periodontitis. And yet here we have a carnivore animal with periodontitis 🤔
It's also supposedly impossible to overeat on such a diet.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Jordan Peterson claims the carnivore diet cured his periodontitis. And yet here we have a carnivore animal with periodontitis 🤔
It's also supposedly impossible to overeat on such a diet.
I saw him talk about his meat diet and I believe roughly 0% of it lol.
Even if it was true, which it isn't, if nothing else, all that red meat is gonna give him a heart attack in short order.
It comes across similar to that fruit-only woman who insisted it was amazing, then died of malnutrition.
Only a vegetable would think that was a good idea!
But yeah given periodontitis is extremely common in cats and dogs, both meat eaters, it just points to more BS
So you think he's lying? So that would include his daughter, too? And wife, cos I think the whole family is on the meat-only (Lion, they call it) diet.
I disagree with much of what he says (and agree with much, too), but based on what I've seen so far I can't bring myself to believe that he purposely lies to people about eating only meat.
I reckon he's lying yeah. His obsession with being 'brutally honest no matter what' suggests to me that he's got a track record of lying to himself if not others.
He hid the fact that he believed in God, denied at first, then avoided, and now admits it with pride. I don't think that spells a kind of character I can trust.
I also think, as he is most well known for, that he talks out of his arse a lot of absolute codswallop which, no matter how much you break it down, turns into gobbledegook. Put him in a conversation with somebody like Stephen Fry (which happened) and he looks totally lost.
He denies climate change and all sorts of other stuff. I don't trust his words about almost anything.
Now, when he talks about issues that don't depend on his honesty, as in, philosophical points that society needs to, but may not like, to hear, free speech etc, I can often get behind a lot if not most of what he says. I think he's a potential force for good in several ways. I just wouldn't take advice from him on what to eat for dinner!
(Also, even I can tell he has a horrifically poor understanding of climate science. Like, really bad its cringeworthy)
I haven't followed his entire corpus, obviously, but as far as I'm aware I don't think he ever hid the fact, although he's sometimes reticent about answering the question.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, so I lean toward him actually believing what he says (e.g. about climate change) rather than purposely hoodwinking people about it. Though, about the meat thing . . . it's kinda hard not to be aware of what you're putting in your mouth!
Speaking of climate change, would you say it is an incontestably true fact that climate change is a top priority survival issue for humanity? I think that's what the scientific consensus believes, correct? So I'm asking what you think about it. I haven't read a single book on the topic, and have only read a few articles and watched a few podcasts by experts, and I don't feel able to definitively evaluate the things I've heard.
I side with the scientific consensus by default but, for example, there's people, like some physicist who appeared on a Michael Shermer podcast (found it; will link it below), who argue the science is unsettled (although he admits climate change is happening, but he says we don't know how impactful it will be), and I can't really respond to their arguments other than to say "But consensus". I guess there's something about it that seems iffy to me unlike, say, COVID vaccines where I feel much more confident about the consensus view and will enter long FB arguments against the conspiracy theorists! Whereas the climate change deniers (I mean, the deniers of the danger of the change, not the change itself), I will simply leave alone!
Hmm well my concerns are less about whether or not climate is or isn't and to what extent this and that, my problem is more the cheap and stupidly political response to it. Politicians using it to get brownie points. I remember in an election debate some years ago, our UK leaders were all standing next to each other, asked about what they'll do about it, and then each one of the five just started numbering the amount of trees they were going to plant like an auction
Meanwhile in the time they had that debate China opened about 17 coal power plants that generate more CO2 than the UK does in 10 years.
We as a species are meant to innovate our way out of problems, not freeze and starve our elderly in the name of some idealistic, globalist endeavour. You can't expect India and China to stop producing thus never having the same developmental privileges we in the west did just because we did it first. The fact is, Africa, India, China, they're all going to start producing more and more emissions. You could wipe Europe of the face of the earth and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I mean, the UK is less than 1% of global emissions. Even if you did wipe the UK out of existence, China would just see an open market opportunity and pick up the slack.
We see the farce in so many ways. We cut our emissions and the politicians announce it with pride. 2 minutes digging into the details and you find they're just importing energy resources from around the world, which not only is made in less sustainable ways, but also has to be shipped on large ships across the oceans. We're not reducing climate change at all, we're just shunting it off to poor places. It's all a massive joke.
Solar panels on your houses? Great! You'll break even in 45 years, except the panels only last 20 years and lose efficiency as you go. Also, you're in the country with fourth lowest sunlight hours on the planet, roughly the same as Iceland and Alaska. Oh, now you want to block the sun to cool the earth, over a country you just make completely bankrupt investing in solar panels? Nice!
(I'm sure there's more nuance to that last one but you get the point).
None of these people give an honest shit about climate. If they did, they would stop importing immigrants to the country given that their carbon footprint invariably skyrockets when they land on our soil. Surely it's greener to leave them where they are and help out charitably in reasonable ways? But no, that goes against their political posturing. Ideology before consensus I'm afraid.
Ok I went on a bit of a rant there so I'll keep the rest short!
I'm always a bit wary of 'consensus' because it's treated like some kind of godlike status, which just automatically makes me skeptical. In China, it's scientific consensus that acupuncture works 100% of the time to heal everything ever. Who's to say the West's consensus is anymore valid than theirs? We're already well aware of the Replication Crisis which we just conveniently sweeped under the rug and forgot about.
In principle, it's a noble thing though and I try to trust things to the best extent that I can. (scientific) conspiracy theories are just too easy at this point to even bother with.
❤️