[pinkmuffinere]

There’s a long history of producers making something unhealthy, and suppressing evidence it is unhealthy (cigarettes, corn syrup, milk formula, bacon, the list is quite long). It’s _not that remarkable_ if they’re doing the same thing here. I don’t believe the seed oil thing, this is my first time hearing about it; I just don’t think it’s hard to believe evidence about seed oil health could be suppressed. Given the long history of deceit in food products, I don’t think it’s crazy for people to ask for evidence in either direction.

[Intermernet]

" I don’t think it’s crazy for people to ask for evidence in either direction."

That's literally the point of view that Russell's Teapot is demonstrating as fallacious. There needs to be evidence "for" something before you can argue its validity. Arguing for a statement with no evidence is easy, common, and unfortunately absolutely pointless.

[lovich]

The seed oil advocates are not asking for proof that a new substance is healthy before accepting is use. They took something that as existed for as long as humans have known you can crush seeds to get oil out of them, have actively harmful properties that they can explain.

They have no evidence and make active claims. If you want to join their side on that flimsy logic because it sounds mean or you don’t like big pharma then enjoy the company you keep