Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels
-
@lobotomize so haidut's article is wrong and based on lies?
a few of the things you said in your response are deliberately the opposite of what my words say. You are a weird nigga.
-
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"so haidut's article is wrong and based on lies?"
False Dilemma / Strawman
You attempt to force a binary choice: either I agree with your interpretation, or I must believe the source ("Haidut") is a liar. This ignores the nuance that the source is correct (about physiological doses) but you are misapplying it (to pharmacological abuse). It attempts to trap me into defending a reputable figure instead of attacking your flawed logic."a few of the things you said in your response are deliberately the opposite of what my words say."
Projection / Gaslighting
You accuse me of twisting your words ("deliberately the opposite"), which is exactly what you did with my initial argument about immunosuppression (turning it into "inflammation = competence"). You project your own rhetorical dishonesty onto me to deflect accountability.Furthermore, you fail to cite a single instance where I actually did this. If I had misrepresented you, you would simply quote the error to prove me wrong. Your inability to point to a specific example confirms that this is a baseless accusation, designed to cast doubt on my integrity without burdening yourself with the need for evidence. I never twisted your words, I engaged directly with your literal statements using direct quotes.
"You are a weird nigga."
Ad Hominem
You resort to a racial/derogatory slur to degrade me. This is the lowest form of argumentation, essentially forfeiting any claim to a "spirit of discussion." It signals a complete loss of composure and an attempt to dominate through pure shock value and insults.[Citing Haidut's article which says: "The doses... were physiological... 5mg T..."]
Self-Immolation / Self-Contradiction
You cited a study to support your defense of 3000 ng/dL (approx 500mg/week), but the text you seemingly rely on explicitly states: "The doses of both T and DHT administered in the studies were physiological... 5mg T... daily".
You are using evidence for replacement levels (5mg/day) to defend abuse levels (70mg/day). By linking this, you have scientifically disproven your own argument that high-dose abuse is "probably immune restorative." -
@lobotomize
“False Dilemma / Strawman”
This label overreaches. The question is rhetorically aggressive, but it does not actually construct a formal binary where all alternatives are excluded. Treating it as a false dilemma imputes logical structure that isn’t present. Likewise, calling it a strawman presumes a misrepresentation of your position rather than a confrontational reframing. The label adds argumentative force, but it does so by exaggerating the logical failure.
“Projection / Gaslighting”
Invoking “gaslighting” is imprecise and inflated. Gaslighting refers to a sustained effort to destabilize someone’s grasp on reality, not a disputed claim about wording or interpretation. At most, this is an unsupported accusation, not psychological manipulation. The framing escalates the exchange and moralizes disagreement instead of clarifying an actual reasoning error.
“Ad Hominem”
This classification is technically correct but analytically low-value. Identifying an insult as an ad hominem does not engage the substantive issue or move the discussion forward. Once discourse reaches this stage, pointing it out functions more as commentary than critique.
“Self-Immolation / Self-Contradiction”
This label conflates distinct problems. The issue is not that the source contradicts itself, but that it is being extended beyond its evidentiary scope. Framing this as “self-contradiction” misplaces the error in the source rather than in the interpretation. A charge of evidentiary overextension or category mismatch would be more precise and harder to dispute. -
@lobotomize you keep saying my comment to you is in the context of 3000ng/dl
to clarify things
my first response in this thread is satirical. you dont have a funny sense of humour so you wouldn't get this. plus you dont know my postings enough to see this. there is a popular and funny meme where a character in a burning building surrounded by fire is saying "this is fine".
secondly you keep saying things that I said , which I did not say.
thirdly, my first reply to you in this thread has nothing much to do with Hans 3000ng/dl, and this is logically true just by reading the content of my post. if you think my comment is somehow related to 3000ng/dl even when I say "normal" androgens, idk what to tell you other than stop making things up in your mind about the words I am typing
you are selectively ignoring things ive specifically said to avoid admitting that what I said is likely true and correct
-
“my first response in this thread is satirical.”
This is a retroactive clarification, not something evident from the original text. Satire normally signals itself through tone, exaggeration, or contradiction. When a comment reads as literal and only later gets reclassified as satire, the ambiguity is created by the author, not the reader. Explanation after the fact does not transform unclear writing into effective satire.“you dont have a funny sense of humour so you wouldn't get this.”
This shifts responsibility away from the text and onto the reader. Disagreement is reframed as a personal deficiency, which makes the claim unfalsifiable. If understanding hinges on presumed familiarity with your personality or posting history, then the communication itself failed to stand on its own.“secondly you keep saying things that I said , which I did not say.”
This is a serious accusation, but it is made without a single quotation to support it. If words were falsely attributed to you, demonstrating that would be straightforward. The absence of examples suggests that the issue is interpretation, not fabrication.“my first reply to you in this thread has nothing much to do with Hans 3000ng/dl.”
This assertion conflicts with the observable context. Your comment appears within a thread explicitly centered on that topic, and it uses overlapping terminology. Context is established by placement and framing, not by later declarations of irrelevance. Simply insisting there is “nothing to do” with the topic does not negate the surrounding discussion.“if you think my comment is somehow related to 3000ng/dl even when I say ‘normal’ androgens.”
Using the word “normal” does not automatically sever contextual links, especially when the discussion contrasts normal versus extreme values.“you are selectively ignoring things ive specifically said.”
This imputes motive rather than identifying error. Claiming deliberate avoidance substitutes psychological speculation for argument. If something material was ignored, pointing to the exact sentence would resolve it immediately. -
-
@sunsunsun
“no”
This is a bare negation without content. It does not identify an error, supply a counterargument, or clarify disagreement. As a response, it functions only as refusal, not engagement. Without explanation, there is nothing to address, correct, or rebut, which effectively halts the discussion rather than advancing it. -
he needs to show labs
-
^^^^what he said.
He’s always taking about his labs and dropping some numbers, but I’ve never seen them posted, especially not in a comprehensive fashion. Maybe they’re behind a paywall, I don’t know.
-
There's something fishy about Hans. He claims he's been doing all these self-experiments where he takes a mega dose of something for 2 weeks and does before and after blood tests, and frequently other tests like stool tests. If it were all true, he'd be practically living at a clinic!
He says doctors are useless and that he pays for all his own private tests. But then makes a post about having a chat with his doctor, and discussing various results with him.
He never posts his labs, as others have pointed out. He could just be making it all up, for all we know. What he does do, constantly, is try to make money off his claims. So I'm a bit dubious.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login