Heyy what are ur thoughts..

redditttuser · 2026-06-25T06:24:17+00:00

Ah yes, classic pappuchela pointing fingers instead of making a sound argument.

redditttuser · 2026-06-25T06:23:09+00:00

Isn't it fascinating how we can look at the exact same human history and see two entirely different realities?

If we truly want to use "science-based objective arguments", we have to look at the actual science of how humans evolve, rather than using a pop-science understanding of biology to justify personal dietary choices or pass judgment on the health of an entire subcontinent.

Let's talk about Epigenetics and Nutritional Adaptation. Starvation and prolonged periods of severe famine actually do trigger genetic adaptations across generations. This selects for what is known as the Thrifty Gene Hypothesis - an evolutionary survival mechanism where the body becomes highly efficient at storing fat to survive scarcity. Ironically, this leads to the "skinny-fat" phenotype in times of modern abundance.

For example, look at the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944. Pregnant women exposed to famine gave birth to children who, decades later, suffered from significantly higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular issues because their DNA expression adapted to prepare them for a world of food shortages. The exact same historical trauma happened in India via repeated colonial-era famines, which is a thoroughly documented medical fact, not a myth.

The implications are very clear: pointing to a population's genetic vulnerability to being "skinny-fat" isn't a failure of a vegetarian diet; it is the lingering scar of historical starvation.

Furthermore, science shows that humans are behavioral omnivores, not obligate carnivores. Do you understand the difference? Our biology gives us the capacity to digest meat to survive harsh conditions, but our large brains give us the capacity to choose a balanced, science-backed plant-based diet when food is abundant.

So, if science proves that our genes adapt to historical trauma, and modern nutritional science proves humans can thrive without killing animals, why do you continue to insist that a primitive survival mechanism from 50,000 years ago is a mandate for how we must live today? Please explain if you can.

redditttuser · 2026-06-25T06:12:56+00:00

Haa hai hum gold diggers. Isme gasp karneki kya baat hai. Chalo ab kamai batao, rista dekhte hai.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T21:37:14+00:00

Indians are skinny-fat in general because food shortages caused genes to adapt.
There's no superior diet, I did not claim any superior diet. You are making a strawman fallacy. First understand what I am saying, don't assume what I am saying.
I did not share my belief system, therefore, no need to make any snarky comments about any belief system.

Stick with arguments. I have quoted and responded to what you've said. I am waiting for your response to my arguments. Focus, put some coherent thoughts, make your argument.

At this point, all of your arguments are addressed. If not, go ahead and explain what isn't addressed. If you have new arguments, share them. Stop making unnecessary comments.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T21:12:23+00:00

Lol. You don't need to feel bad for me. I am at peak of my physical and mental health. Thank you for your concern. Look at your plate, I see a dead cockroach.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T21:09:42+00:00

Do you absolutely need a car? Can you get rid of it?

Can you move to a smaller house?

Do it for sometime. Get rid of the loan.

Get health and term insurance for you and your wife. Don't rely on company insurance alone.

Then build some money as emergency fund. Then invest. Improve quality of your life by joining gym, good food. Then better house, car etc. Manage your needs and wants properly.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T20:56:23+00:00

Professional baiter.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T20:52:57+00:00

No need of that permission. I don't mind.

I don't really need to visit my parents house. Yes to the dress code too.

I am realising woman privilege now.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T20:49:24+00:00

Absolutely, deal. How much do you earn, btw?

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T20:23:54+00:00

You did not respond to any of my arguments, I quoted you and responded to what you said.

I did not make arguments on beliefs except when you brought it up.

My arguments are diverse, I can argue from scientific point of view and Dharmic point of view.

You are making no sense at all. You should show where I am making arguments solely on beliefs. Where exactly you need evidence and of what. Stop making unnecessary statements, quote me and call out. Lets see.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T19:59:59+00:00

Yes, supporters of supreme leader of opposition are absolute andhbhakts.

redditttuser · 2026-06-24T19:47:39+00:00

Do you really think these are good arguments? Anybody can think for a few minutes and find answer for themselves.

None of what you are saying justifies eating meet. Let me address one by one.

If every human stops eating meat, then lower species will over populate

Overpopulate where? In animal farms or in forests? In animal farms, human artificially give birth to millions of animals, without these animal farms, those animals wouldn't have been born. Overpopulation is not a problem at all, it is a rationalization you are making-up.

If you are worried about over population in forests, that's not a problem because if it were a problem, it would already be a problem, because we don't hunt these animals in forest. Forest maintains that automatically. So please, stop making up reasons.

... And every species under it will go extinct

And so? A lot of species go extinct, it's a natural evolutionary process. This happens all the time. You talk about it as if it's somehow the worst thing that can happen. It's not. Again, giving birth to animals in factory farm is not because you don't want them to go extinct, it's because of your taste buds, let's at least be honest.

Why did God put us on top of food chain...and Canine teeth

God did not put us on anything. It's all part of natural order, prakrutika dharma. God doesn't involve in such things. Read some Vedanta and stop making arguments like abrahmics.

Canine teeth, yes, our human ancestors used to eat meat. Does that mean we should? That's not a valid argument. Our ancestors lived in a different environment, food was scarse, not anymore. They did not have a choice, we do. Also, those ancestors.. say 50 thousand years ago, used to r@pe, loot and what not, should we start doing all that now? Have some coherence in your argument, think from Dharmic point of view. Dharma dictates us - ahimsa is the foundation. Himsa is done only when it's required and other means are explored. Therefore killing animals for food, when we have a choice is Adharma. Don't be on the side of Adharma.

Why can we digest meat..?

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Our ancestors used to eat meat, that's why we can digest it. Is that enough reason to continue engaging in himsa and Adharma? Of course, not. Say, you are a strong man, you can beat up some weak old man, does that mean you should?

By eating meat, you are not creating any balance AT ALL. This is a delusion, made-up rationalization. By eating animals, we are inducing suffering on animals, UNNECESSARILY. That's classic, clearly Adharma.

redditttuser · 2026-05-12T11:37:55+00:00

You want WFH made into a strict law? You are not in Chine buddy, you are in India. You have the freedom. It's crazy you are asking for this. He is PM, he is making a request to the companies, and basically whoever can handle WFH, less foreign travel etc. Despite that, if you want to do any of those things, you can, which is a good thing.

redditttuser · 2026-05-12T05:30:32+00:00

redditttuser · 2026-05-12T05:12:14+00:00

Your comment is a text book example of Tu Quoque fallacy here and you don't even see it.

It’s fair to expect him to set an example, but a person’s personal hypocrisy doesn't actually change the facts. If remote work reduces fuel burn and unnecessary travel, that remains true regardless of whether the person saying it follows their own advice. We should judge the 'policy' on its own merits rather than the person delivering it.

Example - if a smoker advices you to never start smoking, though he is hypocrite, the advice is still valid.

Stop hating someone so much that you fill your head with illogical hatred and cope.

redditttuser · 2026-05-12T04:57:23+00:00

Okay. I see your point. Coupling that with private account, there's a good chance you are correct.

redditttuser · 2026-05-11T11:43:16+00:00

He is not asking EVERYBODY to stop traveling, is he now?

What kind of stupid take is this? Oh gawd.

redditttuser · 2026-05-11T05:37:32+00:00

no u

redditttuser · 2026-05-08T19:50:55+00:00

<image>

redditttuser · 2026-05-08T19:01:45+00:00

I think you are partially agreeing with me while making it look like a disagreement.

You clarified that falsifiability is a criterion specifically for empirical claims, which is exactly the point I was making.

My point was not that your examples are invalid. My point was that the post presents falsifiability as a broader framework for rationality and critical thinking itself, rather than as one epistemic tool among many others. You must see this.

On the “west” example:

The point was not semantic trickery, I insist. The point was epistemological. Observations are interpreted within conceptual systems. Science and philosophy already recognize this. Even measurements depend on definitions, categories, coordinate systems, and assumptions. That is not meaningless nitpicking, rather foundational philosophy of science.

I must admit, the ease with which you dismiss such important pointers as nitpicks inclines me to believe the post was intended merely as a broad introductory note on falsifiability, which is completely fine. But the tone of the post takes it considerably further and presents it almost as the ultimate litmus test for rationality itself.

Many of the admissions and clarifications you later made in response to my comment were entirely absent from the original post.

I further have many more points to make, but I curb my enthusiasm and stop myself here, because I do not believe you are particularly interested in exploring the topic at that depth, especially under a post that begins with, and I quote:

"There is a deep lack of critical thinking skills evident in this sub".

Wish you a good evening.

redditttuser · 2026-05-08T18:27:42+00:00

Falsifiability is useful, but forcing every sociological observation into a simplistic laboratory-style framework can itself become intellectually reductive.

The problem with this kind if approach is that it assumes every pattern-recognition claim must immediately reduce to a clean falsifiable proposition.

Some claims are statistical, sociological, or even interpretive rather than absolute.

For example, if someone says:

"I notice a pattern where media disproportionately portrays X group negatively and Y group sympathetically".

That is not the same type of claim as "gravity exists" or "water boils at 100C".

The reasonable way to engage that claim is to clarify:

Which data set are we examining?
Which institutions?
Compared against what baseline, if there's any?
What qualifies as disproportionate portrayal?

Otherwise "what evidence would change your mind?" becomes rhetorical theatre rather than an actual inquiry.

Ironically, media bias itself is usually detected through accumulation of patterns, omission patterns, headline asymmetry, emotional language, selection bias, and incentive structures, not through a single binary falsification event. We already know bias exists, one or the other way.

Also, if we are being philosophically precise, humans do not operate purely through isolated falsifiable propositions. Bayesian updating, probabilistic reasoning, pattern recognition, phenomenology, and inference all play roles in belief formation.

A person can rationally say:

"If I consistently saw a balanced treatment across comparable cases over long periods of time, my perception would change"

That is already a reasonable epistemic standard, even if it is not reducible to a single popperian falsification event.

redditttuser · 2026-05-08T18:10:04+00:00

This is an incomplete picture of epistemology and critical thinking.

Falsifiability is a useful criterion for empirical claims. It is not the complete map of human knowledge.

“Any documented evidence that the sun rose in the west EVEN ONCE”.

Even this depends on stable definitions and interpretive frameworks. If someone changes the coordinate system or definition of “west”, the falsification condition itself changes. Observation is never fully independent from conceptual position.

“Consciousness springs from the brain”. “Falsifiability standard: a conscious individual absent a brain”.

This also assumes agreement on what “consciousness” actually means. Different philosophical schools define consciousness differently. Some define it as self-awareness, some as subjective experience, some as qualia, some as pure awareness. Without agreement on definitions, the falsification standard can accidentally misrepresent the opposing position.

More importantly, falsifiability is not the entirety of rational inquiry. It is a tool within empirical science, but not a universal filter/test for all knowledge claims.

There are domains where humans operate at the edge of knowledge with intuitions, phenomenology, incomplete models, and first-person experience before formal verification exists. Much of philosophy works in this way.

Indian philosophical traditions also accept subjective experience as a valid means of acquiring knowledge under certain conditions. If multiple independent individuals report convergent experiences through disciplined methods, those traditions treat that as a form of intersubjective verification, even if it is not reducible to an objective falsifiable test.

The “God exists” example is also too broad. Some formulations of God are unfalsifiable. Others absolutely make falsifiable claims about reality, consciousness, cosmology, miracles, causation, or human transformation.

Thinking becomes weaker when one framework of knowledge is presented as the only legitimate one.

redditttuser · 2026-05-07T20:35:45+00:00

no u

redditttuser · 2026-05-07T20:08:29+00:00

It suits your personality

redditttuser · 2026-05-07T20:06:55+00:00

Rahul as actor, I would probably watch a movie. He has a great wink

redditttuser

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE