Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?

[Mudhammam]

As corporations continue to kill innocents, they provide more fuel for the oft-made nutritionist claim that fast food is unhealthy. Nutritionist Dan Dix condemned the recent attacks on healthy living by tweeting, "No, all corporations are NOT equally bad. Some have never made poisonous food. Some gave it up centuries ago. One corporation conspicuously didn't."

Dix is right that some corporations and fast food have consistently perpetrated high cholesterol. Nutritionists often use this fact to support nutrition. However, the existence of poisonous food turns out to be a bigger problem for nutritionists to explain than for fat people. The kind of food Dix and the rest of the civilized world abhor doesn't disprove health—it disproves nutrition.

While it's commonly thought that only fat people have to explain the success of fast food, the truth is every worldview does. Eastern farmers try to get around the problem by denying that fast food even exists. Fat is an illusion, they say (and according to them, so are you!). Fat people say fast food is good and try to explain how fast food and health can coexist. Nutritionists tend to be caught in the middle. In one breath they are claiming there is no single absolute healthy or fatty food because many diverse things exist—we are diverse machines "with a need to eat different things" (as Dix himself put it). In the next breath they are outraged at the great injustices and harm done by corporations in the name of healthy living.

Well, nutritionists can't have it both ways. Either absolutely bad food exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then nutritionists should stop complaining about the "unhealthy" things corporations have done because they haven't really done any. They've just been "eating different things." If nutrionism is true, all foods are merely a matter of preference anyway. On the other hand, if bad food actually does exist, then nutritionists have an even bigger problem. The existence of quadruple cheeseburgers with ice cream actually establishes the existence of health.

To explain why, we need to go back to Chubbystine who puzzled over the following argument:

Moderation can include all things.

Quadruple cheeseburgers are a thing.

Therefore, moderation includes quadruple cheeseburgers.

How could a healthy and moderate person eat quadruple cheeseburgers? If those first two premises are true, He did, and this is a moderation problem. So healthy living must not be moderation after all. But then Chubbystine realized that the second premise is not true. While fast food is real, it's not a "thing." Quadruple cheeseburgers aren't unhealthy on their own. It only exists as a lack or a deficiency in nutritious thing.

Fast food is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing. Or you could say that fat is like a cut in your finger: If you take the cut out of your finger, you have a better finger; if you take the finger out of your cut, you have nothing. In other words, poison only makes sense against the backdrop of health. That's why we often describe poison as negations of healthy things. We say someone is a fat ass, a slob, a piggy, obese, etc.

We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can't be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be health without poison, but there can't be poison without health.

So poison can't exist unless health exists. But nutrition can't exist unless health exists. In other words, there can be no objective bad food unless there is objective good food, and there can be no objective good food unless healthy living exists. If poison is real—as the recent headlines from McFatties plainly reveal—then healthy living exists. The best fast food can do is show there's a devil out there, but it can't disprove healthy living. The very existence of fat boomerangs back to show that healthy living exists.

C.S. Pubis was once a nutritionist who thought fast food contradicted healthy living. He later realized he was stealing from healthy living in order to argue against it. He wrote, "[As an nutritionist] my argument against healthy living was that the food seemed so tasty and good. But how had I got this idea of tasty and good? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this food with when I called it tasty?"

Stealing from healthy living is what nutritionists tend to do when they complain about fast food sold in healthy living's name. Dix is correct that corporations have made poisonous things, but his nutritionism affords him no objective standard by which to judge anything as healthy or poisonous. So he steals nutrition from healthy living while claiming it doesn't coincide with poison. Fuck Dan Dix.

Just what is this healthy living? Chocolate jelly donuts aren't a candidate because, according to the label doctrine, chocolate jelly donuts are sugary and thus can't be the unchanging standard of nutrition. The true healthy living is the healthy living of the Burger Prince Inc. who is revealed as the unchanging ground of all nutrition.

Dan Dix and other nutritionists might object, "But how can the healthy living promoted by the Burger Prince be the standard of nutrition? Don't they make nothing but fat and grease? And why would a healthy person allow such food to go into their mouths?" Those are some of the many questions I address in my new book, Stealing From Health: Why Nutritionists Need Health to Make Their Case, from which this column was adapted. Look for more here in the coming weeks.

Undefeated logic.