[Dominic Harr]

Good luck proving it.

It's as proven as, "the sun is hot".

I suggest you even believe it yourself, and are just arguing to argue.

Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?

[Dominic Harr]

Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?

Oops!

:-D

Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good bad nutrition?

[tpaine]

Argung to argue is the true agenda of many here. Principle means nothing.

Intellectual self puffery is all.

[general_re]

Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?

What you or I believe is not the issue - objectivism says that things are knowable without relying on anything but reason. So go ahead and reason your way into proving that good nutrition is better than bad nutrition, without simply substituting in your own preference for good nutrition, and without simply assuming it to be true and thereby taking it as true on faith. After all, if you can't prove it, how can you say that you "know" it to be true?

[tacticalogic]

Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?

Doesn't the question itself ("good" nutrition vs "bad nutrition) make the determination of "better" a foregone conclusion?