you don’t seem to get my point entirely, so ill try to explain it here. your standpoint seems to be:
body fat cannot be determined by impedance
the measurements are that unreliable that the mere presence of the measurement hurts more than it helps
you present these points as expert, not as your opinion. in the comment thread you write: “I’m happy to delve into this subject in as much depth as you may be interested in”. when someone asks you for sources, supporting these points (presumably because they are interested) - you deflect and take a combative stance. it is deflection, as you ask the person trying to learn something, to find proof that your point is wrong. since you (initially) did not provide sources for your points - you seem to take the absence of evidence (from the companies selling these) as evidence, that it can not work and will cause harm.
This line of argumentation makes me second guess your motivation. even though i agree with the overall viewpoint. i am not asking you to prove it is a scam. as you mentioned it is tedious and wasteful to prove every new scam attempt false. so if you shift your argumentation just slightly (which you did in your reply to me), the whole second guessing of motivation won’t occur:
The companies selling these products don’t provide any proof, that these scales work as advertised
especially in medicine it is required to proof, that the benefits hugely outweigh the drawbacks
who is more likely to tell you a falsehood: the person actively trying to sell you something or the one not selling anything?
-> be more skeptical of the person with a motivation to mislead you and ask them to provide proof and sources
these points are a very strong argument IMO and don’t require to do any more research. but they seem much more genuine as you don’t appear go back on wanting to discuss the subject and don’t take a combative stance towards the person probably trying to learn something.
Fair enough yeah. My way with words can absolutely be too serrated at times, in an unproductive way. There’s also the matter of unclear framing in the comment in question, sure.
But I don’t really see that my argument has shifted at any point. The actual content is the same, if perhaps taking it as granted that we will all be on the same page regarding who has the burden of proof. You’re saying that I deflected and instead asked for proof that my point was wrong, when what I did was correctly reposition the argument (“You are the one [making the positive claim here] [thus you are actually the one who needs to bring sources]”). I can see how it can be read the way you describe, but ultimately I don’t think that interpretation is correct. I may be to blame for that, sure, so hopefully continuing to elaborate here when pressed is doing some good to clarify the whole picture.
Some additional context here which is admittedly invisible, is that having immersed myself in the fitness industry, I am constantly presented with such scams lol. So at a certain point I have become quite unapologetic in my condemnation of them all. It’s why I come up with things like, “The reason you can’t find any source for this is because these are all worthless scams” and “whoever told you that is a con artist liar, exile them from your life” lol.
And hopefully by now it can no longer be said that I am refusing any type of deeper delving. The happiness that I feel in continuing to do so is also ongoing, even if by tone one would assume at points that I am impatient or irritated
you don’t seem to get my point entirely, so ill try to explain it here. your standpoint seems to be:
you present these points as expert, not as your opinion. in the comment thread you write: “I’m happy to delve into this subject in as much depth as you may be interested in”. when someone asks you for sources, supporting these points (presumably because they are interested) - you deflect and take a combative stance. it is deflection, as you ask the person trying to learn something, to find proof that your point is wrong. since you (initially) did not provide sources for your points - you seem to take the absence of evidence (from the companies selling these) as evidence, that it can not work and will cause harm.
This line of argumentation makes me second guess your motivation. even though i agree with the overall viewpoint. i am not asking you to prove it is a scam. as you mentioned it is tedious and wasteful to prove every new scam attempt false. so if you shift your argumentation just slightly (which you did in your reply to me), the whole second guessing of motivation won’t occur:
these points are a very strong argument IMO and don’t require to do any more research. but they seem much more genuine as you don’t appear go back on wanting to discuss the subject and don’t take a combative stance towards the person probably trying to learn something.
Fair enough yeah. My way with words can absolutely be too serrated at times, in an unproductive way. There’s also the matter of unclear framing in the comment in question, sure.
But I don’t really see that my argument has shifted at any point. The actual content is the same, if perhaps taking it as granted that we will all be on the same page regarding who has the burden of proof. You’re saying that I deflected and instead asked for proof that my point was wrong, when what I did was correctly reposition the argument (“You are the one [making the positive claim here] [thus you are actually the one who needs to bring sources]”). I can see how it can be read the way you describe, but ultimately I don’t think that interpretation is correct. I may be to blame for that, sure, so hopefully continuing to elaborate here when pressed is doing some good to clarify the whole picture.
Some additional context here which is admittedly invisible, is that having immersed myself in the fitness industry, I am constantly presented with such scams lol. So at a certain point I have become quite unapologetic in my condemnation of them all. It’s why I come up with things like, “The reason you can’t find any source for this is because these are all worthless scams” and “whoever told you that is a con artist liar, exile them from your life” lol.
And hopefully by now it can no longer be said that I am refusing any type of deeper delving. The happiness that I feel in continuing to do so is also ongoing, even if by tone one would assume at points that I am impatient or irritated