TheTechnician27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UulEsFPhIjY

This is why sex ed is so important in our schools. Puritanical Republicans are why so many poor American kids who grow up in red states don't know about basic things like periods, contraception, and vaginal spas.

Was going to get around to it, but I'll quickly add the 2025 position since you think it's pressing.

OP, I would seriously consider trying the Arch Wiki for this. I really hope you had a backup, but you probably need expert-level advice here (at least below "paid data recovery specialist") if you have any hope of unfucking this. Obviously you've learned your lesson about running random commands you don't understand in response to an error message, so I don't think people should be scolding you for that.

You're so lucky to be able to have yours be portable. 😞 The only penile spas I've ever seen are permanently installed in a wall. No clue how they work either.

Oh, dude, trust me, after spending the last six years with the most easygoing digestive system I've ever had, I know going carnivore without a transition period would be throwing sodium in water.

And don't worry about the gravy. I know all about making substitutes from omnivorous recipes.

Are the people who put hot sauce on their eggs using napalm?

OP, the site you're linking to is LLM slop. Like seriously just look at this site for a second.

• There's zero consistent theme.
• The images are generated.
• They're all "BY JOHN" (no pfp, no last name, no bio, let alone no indication why they're qualified to write about this cornucopia of shit).
• It only ever hyperlinks to itself – i.e. the sources may as well be "I made it the fuck up".
• The way the articles are structured are LLM slop to a tee – randomly bolding words, meandering prose, overuse of bullet points, jarring logical flow, etc.
• At least five articles per day from the same "person" despite extensive length, perfect grammar, and alleged research being done.

Can't you please link to an actual source to make this claim?

"That is no longer the position of the academy" is only true in the most pedantic sense that every position they release has a hard, unchangeable deadline (this one's was December 2021). It doesn't invalidate any of those positions. Unfortunately, the January 2025 position only covers adults, with children and pregnant/lactating people outside of the position's scope, so 2016's is the most recent position we have for "all stages of life". From the current summary:

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that, in adults, appropriately planned vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns can be nutritionally adequate and can offer long-term health benefits such as improving several health outcomes associated with cardiometabolic diseases. [...] As leaders in evidence-based nutrition care, RDNs and NDTRs should aim to support the development and facilitation of vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns and access to nutrient-dense plant-based meals. Promoting a nutrient-balanced vegetarian dietary pattern on both individual and community scales may be an effective tool for preventing and managing many diet-related conditions.

What a scathing disavowal of the Academy's position in 2016: "Plant-based diets can provide all the nutrients you need and can offer long-term benefits including improving health outcomes associated with the number one killer in the developed world. We should work to support these diets, and promoting them to individuals and communities may help prevent and manage problems associated with our current health crisis."

Fuck this, I'm going carnivore. Pull up the griddle and get me a bacon, egg, gravy, and cheese muffin where the muffins are sausage patties. The AND has no current positions on that diet, so it means I'm in the clear.

As for the "spam list", I'm sorry, but "Because it's devastating to my case!" doesn't make it spam. And a crucial element of a Gish gallop (presuming that's what you mean by "spam") is that the arguments are individually low-quality and just exist to exhaust the rebutter. But, uh... Yeah, 90% of those are systemic reviews and meta-analyses. The other 10% are robust discussions published in peer-reviewed medical journals (such as the AJLM discussion of fiber).

Maybe I'll get around to responding to this pseudoscientific garbage, maybe I won't. Let alone that your treatment of the RDA is just completely fucking wrong.

The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) is the average daily dietary intake level that suffices to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97–98%) healthy persons of a specific sex, age, life stage, or physiological condition (such as pregnancy or lactation). The RDA is a nutrient intake goal for planning the diets of individuals. [...] The risk, but not the certainty, of inadequacy increases as intakes fall further and further below the RDA. However, the RDA is an overly generous criterion for evaluating nutrient adequacy. By definition, the RDA exceeds the actual requirements of all but about 2–3% of the population. Therefore, many individuals who are below the RDA may still be getting enough of the nutrient in question to be above their requirement level.

But for anyone who comes across this in the interim who just sees two people slinging nutrition science terms and thinks "well gee I guess it's just inconclusive", I'm going to point out that jet follows and peddles a carnivore diet, a health fad with zero clinical evidence of any health benefits and a known major risk factor for multiple chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. They're the "smoking doesn't cause cancer, and it's good because it helps you relax" type of quack you'd see in the 1960s in the face of increasingly overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise. They're trying to drag as many impressionable people as they can to lifelong, debilitating health issues. You arguably cannot find a less trustworthy source of nutritional information on this website for just how steeped in disinformation they are.

Full disclosure: I'm vegan. Not plant-based for health, but vegan for the animals and the environment. Yet despite having every incentive to focus only on the extensive long-term health benefits of a plant-based diet (especially one predominantly from whole foods), I will continue to loudly advertise the shortcomings of a plant-based diet whenever it's even somewhat relevant. This is because I treat my diet as a nice side effect of my ethics, not a bullshit pseudoscience panacea to our accelerating health crisis. I would gladly eat plant-based regardless of if it were less healthy than an omnivorous diet, and yet vast amounts of evidence continue piling up that the opposite is true.

Rare, and I meant to say "atrophied" but can't now because it's been called out. 😩

I'm so glad the yellow underline exists in this 60-word screenshot to tell me where I should pay attention. I don't think my poor, dystrophied zoomer brain could sit down for the average 15 seconds it would take otherwise.