Windappreciator

What did it cause?

Test it on yourself.

No Leo, you don't understand. Many people have a romantic idea of animal products consumption and this body type thing feeds into it, especially from someone they unconsciously consider "high status". That's like putting butter on the bread. Their minds are disconnected from what animal products actually mean. Emotionally they are far gone but also even on the conceptual level. They do not understand for the sake of understanding, understanding is a tool for them to pick what preserves their current behaviour.

You should really put your theory to the test.

Maybe you guys have too much "stage orange" ideas of relationships. This seems to be a theme in the forum. You can sacrifice for someone despite having other options, that's a totally realistic thing. I am not saying otherwise can't be true either, but I wonder how you determine that from this thread?

Most bodies do work, you're a niche and people will misuse what you said as simply "my genetics" for their lack of compassion.

That makes no sense. If someone has cravings often why would eating meat sometimes stop it?

Where is the criticism though?

I am vegan bro, welcome to the good side

That depends on the partner.

I really don't know how you guys can determine by this post, that he is pathetic or a snake or alike.. Maybe you guys should stop leaning towards leo so much.

You figure something out, don't worry about it too much, it's really not the end of having a good life.

I assume we're all done with the Leo bashing.

They needed a logician to somewhat recognize it. If someone without such a status had told them, who knows if they had just shrugged it off. Not to deny someone without that education would have unlikely found it.

that's finer, yes.

hm, I think if were to avoid confusion around stuff like plainly having blue and not blue from which you could conclude it automatically generates the rest of colors, meaning if I am god and I give rise to blue and not blue, but not blue means yellow and yellow means not yellow, but not yellow means green and green means not green, but not green means blue and blue means not blue and then not blue means yellow again and so on(*), which I think is a rather beautiful loop, we could introduce meta structures in which these are nested. 1. We have started with one duality from which all the others automatically expanded out explosively and it doesn't matter with which one to start, because by starting any one is like starting with any other. 2. We introduce meta dualisties. For example, let's start with the notion color and not color, we are biased towards color so we zoom into color and we find blue and not blue and hence apply 1. within that frame of color and we get (*). 3. we repeat 2. for a meta duality and then apply 1. if we zoom in. the visual representation for this process would then be fractals.

Aaah classic, you eliminate paradox by establishing a limit for yourself to view that paradox. typical rationalist move.

Here is the thing. You don't need to have Y here, being X automatically creates !X. When we say: "We have X and Y", we don't necessarily mean that Y = !X, but rather, Y itself is it's own duality creator. It's important to see that being X does create "not-being-Y" but it also is not Y and neither is "not-X" the same as "not-Y" or Y. So if X creates !X, Y creates !Y, however !X != !Y what this means is that you can have 2 dualities in a linear fashion, saying I am X from which follows !X and then imagine X and !X collapses into 0 and you become Y and therefore !Y and then with the use of time and memory you can construct a sequence of : I am X and !X at time 1, I am Y and !Y at time 2, I am Z and !Z at time 3 and so on.

Oh, sorry about that mate.

I mean, what is causing it? What circumstances?

Why?

You must have some sort of neurological condition.

You don't have to censor more, just an increased quality and effort in formulating ones views.

I am stunned, that is exactly my point. Please read what I have written.