RendHeaven

To be clear, "fructose" is a category of sugar and is obviously found in fruit, but is more importantly found in all the processed foods (corn syrup) and added sugars that everyone is eating. At a high level, my stance is not that fruit is bad for teeth, but that processed sugar is bad for your teeth. At the end of the day, all sugar is a threat, but fruit has protective compounds that "counterbalance" the sugar content, whereas something like cereal with corn syrup will just fuck you over time. If anything, I do recommend a moderate daily intake of (organic!!) fruit for most people (amazing vitamins and antioxidants, which are overwhelmingly positive inputs). I am weird in the sense that I'm basically on 0grams of dietary sugar (personal preference. not a universal recommendation). Sometimes I drink organic pomegranate juice in glass for the antioxidants, but it's not a daily thing. This does stain teeth so I sip through a metal straw to avoid as much teeth contact as possible, and promptly brush and floss my teeth (with water) afterwards. tl;dr: fruit is generally fine. fructose is more concerning in processed normie foods (which everybody is eating, which is why everybody needs toothpaste). within fruit, there are further distinctions about staining foods vs non staining foods. you can use your gut to discern. like obviously blueberries will stain your teeth more than a banana. You should be brushing (with or without paste) after every time you eat fruit, but if you're guzzling blueberries every single meal then just water might not be enough to keep your teeth completely white

No, your paradigm assumes that optimal teeth requires addition of inputs, when in truth its a subtraction of inputs. Oral hygiene is 95%+ food discernment and the mechanical movement of brushing and flossing (with just water is fine) the paste only exists to overcompensate for the fact that most people guzzle teeth-destroying foods, which creates problems that require fixing. But that is synonymous to putting duct tape over a crack in the dam. You're creating your own problem, and then going out of your way to fix it, when you can just stop creating the problem and there's nothing for you to fix. There's nothing "lambo" about having the best duct tape covering up existing damages. The winning formula is to simply not have damaged teeth in the first place, by avoiding inputs that erode and stain. This same dynamic occurs in pharma solutions as well as other minor hygiene products like shampoo and deodorant

@Leo Gura That makes sense. What I like about Emerald's story is that she's very vocal about how she glanced at the possibility of omniscient solipsistic infinity during an aya ceremony, but then collapsed back into her dream character out of overwhelm. The takeaway lesson for her was to cherish the finite. That's very honest, and true to the soul of a woman. You could accuse her of throwing in the towel too early, but from her POV she made the most appropriate choice for herself. There might be something universal about her journey that can predict the trajectory that most feminine souls will follow. It's simply not a woman's job to transcend and annihilate. In her eyes, she has better things to do here on earth. The object of her loyalty (earthly affairs) might look like peanuts next to the vantage point of God - but somebody has to attend to the minutiae with great care. You can imagine that God created women in order so that the things you don't care about are given sufficient attention and love. This way, every finite object in the universe has its respective adorer and steward.

ah fuck..

They're all like this with their crystals and star signs lmao. They just conduct social violence (indirect reputation battles) against their foes rather than kinetic violence like terrorist bombings

In their own twisted way, this is the flowering intelligence of a woman. She loves the drama of intense ups and downs with such sincerity that she'd actually rather ride that wave than to kill the spectacle with "solutions" like a boring, linear, dry male.

titanium dioxide is horrible. definitely one of the (many) ingredients I actively avoid. I'm at the point where i don't even use toothpaste lol. 0 fructose diet + no spices or sauces + no coffee or staining drinks + mechanical brushing and flossing + home made diluted peppermint spray keeps my mouth elite as fuck

oh. duh, that's easy. it's just literally not there. ta da

I was going to write an answer to this and then realized I literally can't lol

Can you give an example

@Natasha Tori Maru And yet, I can see very clearly how feelings ARE true. If I put orange glasses over your eyes, you would see all things as having the tinted shade of orange. So in some way, the whole world really does become orange (to you and you alone. nobody else will affirm this for you, unless they're willing to meet you in your world by also putting on orange glasses). But the logistics-oriented man would find this ridiculous, because he would say "the world didn't ACTUALLY turn orange; everything you're experiencing is explained by your glasses! the moment you take the glasses off, the world is no longer orange. Thus the world was never actually orange, you just thought it was orange while you had your glasses on!" But also that's quite insincere. Because if he actually bothered to wear your orange glasses, he would see, very personally, just how orange the world can look. And whether that orangeness is an illusion, or fleeting - it still gives a strong in-the-moment impression which is true insofar as it exists at that time. There's much more I can say about this, let me know if I'm making sense or if this jogs anything in your mind.

@MuadDib Glad we agree. Unfortunately I do find that most women would not take well to the suggestion that she's gained weight, even if you buffer it with flattery and genuine statements of love. I suspect this has more to do with modern people's body image getting royally fucked by social media, advertisement, consumerism, etc. A woman without toxic inputs should be able to take realistic, balanced feedback without her mood spiraling.

@Leo Gura Chest over glutes huh?

@Deziree Great points overall. I appreciate the effort you put into this post. I agree that ultimately, empathy does not have to conflict with brutality or truth. A conscious mind can hold brutal clarity (i.e. truth) while acting out of compassion and balancing all perspectives and shifting the needle towards harmony. This is what Leo means by the maxim "Live Intelligently"

Yeah, I get you. It's not that the best survivalist is the apex truth seeker per se - you're right that these men are totally deluded. The seed of a man's "truth-orientation" is a very crass, primordial need to accurately scan the terrain that you're planning to conquer or defend. At a very extended level, this makes God more accessible to men on average because knowing God requires you to eventually kill all fantasies and die. Which, nobody wants to do. So obviously, almost no men are God-Realized. We're just saying that, all else equal, if you pluck a random man VS a random woman, the man will have an easier time solving God.

@Natasha Tori Maru Yay, I was hoping you would join I did consider very thoroughly that the feminine POV has "it's own truth." I've brought up many times in this thread now that most women will prefer to hear what sounds good to them rather than a consistent interpretation of sense data (accurate mapping of reality). This is the anchor claim behind why femininity tends to be less truth oriented. But the counterargument to that is something like - "sure, a woman might reinterpret sense data in whichever way feels whimsically good to her in the moment, but why can't this be its own meta-truth? why do you insist that there's only one correct interpretation? Maybe she doesn't value utilitarian pragmatism. When she makes statements or asks questions, she's feeling into an energetic truth beyond the logistical content of her speech" That would be a solid way to challenge everything I've written so far. But the problem with saying that women are tapping into some sort of "meta-truth" that goes beyond the logistical contents of speech is that this gives license for women to call anything at all "truth" on a whim. This reduces Truth down to "anything goes as long as I feel like it" and this cannot be tenable because Truth is non-arbitrary. The finite world is configured a certain way and not another way. A woman can paint over the state of the world with her relative, spontaneous "meta-truth," but unless her worldview is stress-tested and accuracy-checked by contact with reality, she will always be a walking contradiction between what she says, believes, and feels VS what the world is reflecting back at her. @MuadDib But that's precisely delusional, if she's actually fat as fuck and the guy has to reassure her that she's not fat in order for her to feel loved. Truth = Love. There is no Love if it's built on lies. If the woman really cared about love, she would feel warm butterflies and a sense of peace and comfort when her man says, "Actually, you do look a little more plump today. I don't mind. You're beautiful to me." But no, this would make her sour and passive aggressive lmao. Because she doesn't actually care about love. She cares about FEELING love on HER terms. (again, speaking in averages. obviously, conscious women do not have this issue)

but you're comparing men vs men now. regardless of how they stack up against each other, on average they will both prefer to interpret sense data in a self-consistent manner whereas the average woman will choose to interpret sense data in whichever way sparks joy

No, the dichotomy is genuinely truth vs feeling. Case in point, my earlier silly example about the girl asking if she looks fat or not. She intentionally doesn't want to hear the truth Whereas a guy asking the same question is positing a logistical query. Is my belly popping yes or no? The reason the feminine-coded POV here is anti-truth is because reality-mapping becomes strictly secondary to the positive feelings she is seeking.

your posts always make me smile lol, the excessive exclamation points give this impression of wholesome yelling

noooo but leo its all looks and moneyyy it's hopeless

Yes, it's not an accident that basically everybody avoids accurate reflection. The genius of femininity is that it finds a way to cherish the moment without running accuracy checks

AG1 sucks.

To call brutality reductionist IS the reduction IMO. Brutality is never phased out or replaced. It is always silently dormant in the background. It just looks like it's been replaced because we don't personally see it. The amount of slavery, torture, and death that funds your lifestyle (yes, you) at this very moment is unfathomable. The fact that you have an electronic device with which to access this forum means you're loosely interconnected with and reliant on a web of child slave labor in Africa (mineral mining to produce electronic chips). Not to mention food, care products, transportation, electricity, your work/education - and even if you somehow manage to side step every evil by meticulously planning every micro behavior to dodge consumerism and champion sustainability, your friends and family are entangled in a web of slavery, torture, and death, and your life is entangled with their lives. Notice the somewhat cold and confrontational way that I wrote this. I didn't particularly intend to sound so harsh, but it just naturally comes off that way when you announce the accurate state of affairs. This is the cost of truth. Truth means you're eating a bacon burger and I remind you that you're funding and relishing in the torture and extermination of pigs and cows. I'm not TRYING to make you feel bad. I'm just saying what is the case. Or maybe you're vegan and you think you're above animal cruelty - well then I'll remind you that for your salad bowl to exist at all, there had to be soil-eroding, biome-destroying monocrop agriculture and enormous transcontinental shipping chains with a combined harm yield of: slave labor, ecosystem destruction, species extinction, ocean pollution, and so much more that I can't even wrap my head around. I'm not saying this to say "you're wrong." I think you made great points about the importance of empathy in survival. I basically agree with you on everything other than your idea that brutality is a reductionist relic of the past. I am generally pro-empathy. I am just highlighting how empathy tends to conflict with truth and avoids accurate reflection. And accurate reflection always unearths things that you would rather not admit to yourself. Like if your girl asks "do I look fat?" you're basically obligated to say "no honey you're gorgeous" even if she's actually a land-whale. Because you care about her feelings. And more importantly, she cares about her feelings. So she's not even asking the question wanting to know the real answer. She's asking to feel good, which has nothing to do with accurate reflection. This is a silly (but common) example, but the overall dynamic is preserved across most instances of empathy between humans.