Diabetic super powers.

More ignorance from you. Diabetes (type 2) is caused by high fats & oil consumption. Sugar, and low fats, cures diabetes. The science and a German doctor proved it. Educate yourself (and disregard the Jew doctor who speaks first):

Disproving of the argument does not mean disproving of the conclusion.

You simply lack understanding of The Logos and the Catholic Faith. You're obstinately ignorant and effeminate.

but man has been eating meat and oils for as long as he's existed, whereas refined sugar was a luxury until the 20th century. You're telling me that a 20th century problem was caused by foods we've always been eating. I wonder what your teeth are like with all that sugar you're eating, or are dentists lying about that too?

Wrong analysis. Only in countries with high fat, oils and excess animal protein consumption is there a high incidence of morbid diabetes, obesity and hypertension. Lethargy in today's post-modern world compounds this problem.

Asians and Africans have the lowest incidence of the aforementioned pathogeneses because they have the highest consumption of carbohydrates and sugar while largely abstaining from fats & meat, and their active lifestyles add to their health and wellness.

Simply brush your teeth after eating. That's what you're supposed to do after any meal. Your "sugar rots teeth" is a red herring fallacy, along with your other multiple fallacies.

The Logos have nothing to do with my point. My point was that your argument was faulty, not the conclusion. Hence why I said "disproving the argument does not mean disproving the conclusion". Learn to read.

That's because you have no understanding of The Logos, which is why you can't grasp the truth that flows from the Premise. Oh, blind one, the conclusion is given, and it most definitely supports the argument.

Wrong analysis. Only in countries with high fat, oils and excess animal protein consumption is there a high incidence of morbid diabetes, obesity and hypertension. Lethargy in today's post-modern world compounds this problem.

Asians and Africans have the lowest incidence of the aforementioned pathogeneses because they have the highest consumption of carbohydrates and sugar while largely abstaining from fats & meat, and their active lifestyles add to their health and wellness.

Simply brush your teeth after eating. That's what you're supposed to do after any meal. Your "sugar rots teeth" is a red herring fallacy, along with your other multiple fallacies.

African tribesmen aren't pouring white sugar onto their cereal. They eat unrefined sugar. Big difference.

That's because you have no understanding of The Logos, which is why you can't grasp the truth that flows from the Premise. The conclusion is most definitely given, oh, blind one.

Conclusions don't justify arguments. My word, a 5 year old could grasp this. If I said "My wall is blue, therefore the sky is blue." Does the fact that the conclusion is true mean that it's my wall being blue that's making the sky blue? Of course not. Does my wall being blue prove the sky is blue? Of course not. The conclusion does not prove the argument. How can you not grasp this?

Just in case people forgot what this thread was about - stress and OCD.

I think this thread is perfectly on point, as Quid's comments are proving that his diet choices cause stress and OCD.

I think this thread is perfectly on point, as Quid's comments are proving that his diet choices cause stress and OCD.

Nah, I'm merely correcting people who have jettisoned this thread off topic with their errors. If somebody addresses me with an error, even though it's not part of the thread's original subject matter, I'm still going to respond to them.

Low carb isn't sustainable, and it causes metabolic damage. It sooner or later increases type 2 diabetes when people primarily eat fats & oils.

Sure it's sustainable ... unless you already have carb/sugar addiction.  Not NO carb, but low carb.  Just ask the Inuits who were initially studied by Atkins ... very little carbs in their diet yet extremely healthy.

That's why I said they DON'T do it moron, I was saying their eating habits aren't like yours. And I was referring to tribesmen because Africans living in wealthy urban centres aren't terribly much healthier than Westerners.

You move the goal post after being called out for your errors. You said, "African tribesmen aren't pouring white sugar onto their cereal. They eat unrefined sugar. Big difference." THEREBY, implying that most Africans are tribesmen. I corrected you saying most Africans aren't tribesmen, and their diet is still highly refined sugar-based and carbohydrate. I further corrected your erred implication that tribesmen eat cereal (a refined food product). Their foods are mostly raw carbs and some bush meat. Regarding Africans living in urban areas, they have a far less incidence of obesity, diabetes and hypertension. It's the American blacks who suffer such morbidity, because their diet is mostly fried fatty foods, oils, and meats. You lose, again.

It's called an allegory, I was trying to make it excruciatingly simple for you.

A one-dimensional allegory that's misrepresentative of a multi-dimensional reality. Same failure.

You move the goal post after being called out for your errors. You said, "African tribesmen aren't pouring white sugar onto their cereal. They eat unrefined sugar. Big difference." THEREBY, implying that most Africans are tribesmen. I corrected you saying most Africans aren't tribesmen, and their diet is still highly refined sugar-based and carbohydrate. I further corrected your erred implication that tribesmen eat cereal (a refined food product). Their foods are mostly raw carbs and some bush meat. Regarding Africans living in urban areas, they have a far less incidence of obesity, diabetes and hypertension. It's the American blacks who suffer such morbidity, because their diet is mostly fried fatty foods, oils, and meats. You lose, again.

A one-dimensional allegory that's misrepresentative of a multi-dimensional reality. Same failure.

It's incredible how much you're willing to lie to try and win a debate on theology. You're sort of missing the point there buddy. Lying about the food stuff is bad enough, but lying about theology is really really missing the point.