Parththakkar12

I'm Indian. Here in India, it's very easy to be vegan! It's very easy to make good Indian food that's vegan. Will have all the nutrients you need. There's a lot of Hindu religious traditions here that are heavily identified with being vegetarian. Cow-worshipping is a thing here because of which beef either is illegal or was illegal here. I wanted beef to be legal when I was a meat-eater!

Sure! I eat dairy from time to time to see how my body reacts to it. Does it react better or worse? I eat processed sugar to check for the same. A part of me still can't believe that my body doesn't like these things! The real reason I turned vegan is not because 'I should save animals' or 'It isn't moral to use animals for taste pleasure'. No dogmatism like that from my side. The real reason is that as I evolved more and more, my body started to react badly to meat, dairy, bread, junk food and other processed foods. My body started to gain less energy from eating these foods than was being spent in digesting it. It was as if the body wanted to expel meat/milk/yoghurt from the body instead of assimilating the nutrients from it! I literally had to do it to survive after a certain point in my own evolution.

No. It just shows your level of development in this area of life, that is food/diet. It's okay to be where you are.

I'm actually the exception to this rule. My favorite food as a kid was raw fruits and vegetables! I didn't like meat and I didn't like eggs. I didn't like junk food. All of this other stuff has been an acquired taste for me.

This means that you aren't evolved enough yet to want to take responsibility for animal suffering. Your ego is so dense that it needs to kill animals to survive! I'm sorry, that's what I actually think. I'm not there yet either, so I'm in the same boat.

I'm taking on the hard challenge of answering your question. He's turned the world into a clown show. I just don't take politics too seriously anymore because of him. Especially after he got COVID, I was like 'I've seen everything I needed to see in my life. This is it. My life is complete now.' I think that the system is beyond saving from the damage he's done to it. I'm not worrying too much about saving it from his rape and pillage. After all, it is this system that produced Trump. I'm just putting on my sunglasses and watching it burn. Now is this a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on what you want the world to look like.

@BlackMaze Yeah well, you gotta eat something! I'd choose plants over animals if I were awakened enough to that.

@PurpleTree When you kill a plant, it does not feel pain because it does not have a nervous system. Therefore, from the perspective of minimizing suffering, killing a plant is better than killing an animal. In the universe, nothing is off-limits. It is an unconditionally loving universe. However, human beings are capable of using their own minds to learn spiritual practices to transcend their own minds and become enlightened, such that we wake up to the reality that we are everything. Therefore, if an animal gets killed in a slaughter-house, that's you! When you wake up to that, it becomes in your own best interests to save animals and become vegan.

I can write a book on this! Thanks for the book idea

Hey everyone, I'm writing a book. I'm wanting to give credit to some big named famous people for being an inspiration for me in this work. This is coming from an honest place. I'm also doing this to get some attention in the first few pages, so that people can relate to a 'buzzword big-name' and relate to me better. Is this, strictly speaking, legal? Could I get sued for 'trying to hog their attention'?

@Hawkins There's only one way I know of to resolve this situation - 1. Research your position thoroughly and fact-check everything you believe, and 2. Go down their rabbit holes to integrate their perspectives. If you conclude that it is factually inaccurate, it won't bug you so much! Next time you can show them your findings.

@Leo Gura prioritizes expressing his raw, unfiltered insights above catering to the masses and giving them something simple and practical to chew on. Of course there will be gross misinterpretations of the complicated stuff he says by a few people! Of course some people will simply not think through all the complications and they'll choose to shoot the messenger instead.

What if the standards for 'proof' and 'objectivity' are determined by the mainstream? Who decides those standards? You've said yourself that proof is a circular concept and that there is no such thing as objectivity. Who stands to benefit from having these specific standards? You may say 'I'd believe the mainstream definition of objectivity any day over some conspiracy theorist's definition of objectivity.' Oh yeah? Why is that? Is it because you were taught that there is such a thing as objectivity? There is a reason conspiracy theorists don't properly investigate them and follow mainstream standards of proof and rigor. It's because those also come into question! They aren't creating an opposing definition of truth and objectivity, they're transcending their attachment to objectivity and proof.

I'd love to do such a job! I can then spread whatever I want. I can start my own cult! Everyone please come join my cult. Joining fees - not $20,000, not $10,000, only the affordable price of $2000!! I will then censor anyone who goes against me.

One thing about these Stage Orange types who talk about 'tough love' and 'You are a loser because you deserve it!!!!' types - It's all good and fine to want to set goals. The issue with them is that they let success/failure define them. They will say things like 'You will never get anything better than what you aim for'. This is true, except for one exception - You don't define your life by your goals. You set the goal as an intention and then you fall in love with the growth process, as opposed to seeing the process as a means to an end. In this case, you can achieve a lot more than what you intend to achieve. Because, the movement you're creating isn't a taking movement anymore, it is a receiving movement, which is much more open, vulnerable and trusting of the universe. What you can get is not limited to what you can imagine in this case. When you say 'You are a loser because you deserve it', you are kicking someone when they're down. This is not tough love. This is bullying. Maybe it is tough love from a Stage Red perspective, where there are no rules and it's just pure dog-eat-dog. But, the higher stages have a conscience.

I'd say healthy Red, Blue and Orange. The whole 'go hard' thing is very Orange/Red. He does have this unbelievably strong drive for power and money, like nothing else matters. The whole willingness to insult people, call them bums, etc. comes from a Stage Red space. The way he talks is very Stage Red, where it's like 'Nothing matters. If I think you're a loser, I'm gonna tell you to your face that you are. No morality, no playing nice.' He has some heart and he looks super passionate about chasing money and power. I'm struggling to find bad things to say about him tbh.

You want anyone but him in power. He is probably one of the worst people to have as president. I'd rather have a literal chimp as US president than him!

How about 'Trump is evil'? Give a list of all his crimes in the debate and call him evil! You could actually get away with calling him a Satan incarnate or something. It will make you look dumb, but it will really motivate non-voters to go and vote against him. We may just need to use radicalization tactics to really motivate our side to vote him out. We're manipulating people's hatred towards him to really beat him in this way.

Does looking smart and well put-together and competent matter in politics? Or is it just about who can radicalize their base more? Will we need to fight fire with fire in Trump's case?

Out of curiosity, why? Is it about preserving our values of political correctness and not being the one who enters the pigsty to fight the pig or something? Trump may need some good old Stage Blue demonization to beat. He could be an example of a Stage Red person who takes advantage of Stage Green political correctness.

Would most people feel bad about demonizing him though? Calling Trump a devil would throw his supporters in a loop that's for sure. Him and his supporters will not hesitate to call Biden these things. They are the lowest common denominator who set the rules, so, yeah....

That really would be his 'I told you so' moment now, wouldn't it?! One thing I'm learning from Trump is to accept my ego more and not demonize it.

It finally happened. I have seen everything I wanted to see in this lifetime. Isn't it interesting to see the two biggest problems in the world interact with each other?

@DocWatts A healthy conservative party would be: One that accepts that the only constant is change. They wouldn't have this defeatist attitude towards change, they would be on the side of progressives when it comes to creating change. They would have healthy skepticism and cynicism relative to progressive ideas. They would be the anchor to ground progressives in reality, so that they don't wander off into some idealistic utopia. They would not let their skepticism and cynicism to turn into defeatism. They would admit that a mature progressive has a good idea for creating change when they do. This keeps them within the boundaries of their role and intellectually honest. Although their role would be to preserve the status-quo, they don't get identified with preserving the status-quo. They don't get identified with 'realism' or 'pragmatism'. They see the reality that when it comes to creating a healthy and functional world, the sky is the limit. The status-quo is not the best possible thing. Let's not downplay the importance of preserving the status-quo. If your change does not work, if you try something and it fails, you do need something to fall back on. In such a situation, if you don't have a status-quo to fall back on, you will collapse. So it is important to preserve the status-quo and this is the role conservatives would play. All they need to do is to stop identifying with this role and with the status-quo.

@Consept To me, nagging feels like pressure on my head. A woman will nag when you're not taking responsibility for something she thinks you should take responsibility for. The way for you to resolve this would be to figure out what it is that she's wanting you to take responsibility for or step up to. I guarantee you, it's going to be something deeper than just a hole in a sock. The hole in the sock represents some insecurity she has. You want to ask her about this and you want to figure out what it is that she's wanting you to step up to. Then, you make the decision whether you're willing to step up to it or not. If you want to step up to it, your relationship is working. If not, then you're incompatible. I personally would never put up with nagging. This is how I'd resolve the underlying issue, then I'd tell her to never nag me again.