Jannes

Do these benefits increase considerably more after around 100g of uncooked legumes, because that's around the bench mark where my gut stays relatively still. I don't think bloating is unhealthy it's just that it makes me socially uncomfortable because of the noise of my gut or the chance that I might fart because society shames these things. I heard that certain spices can actually reduce bloating though. Do you think its possible to create a supplement which reduces bloating by neutralizing these bacteria which cause gas? Oats are as beneficial as legumes??

Thats actually more of a counter argument for me for eating these foods because I like to minimize my fiber intake on all sides around legumes so that I can eat the most legumes (protein) possible without bloating, gas etc. but I do like the taste of whole grains sometimes. They tase really "healthy" to me.

The beauty of a bodybuilding body: Just like a flower is beautiful because of its short duration I thought that metaphysically there has to be something about a bodybuilding body to be beautiful. A bodybuilding body is both extremely muscular and with extremely little bodyfat. The muscle can represent strength/force/power while the low bodyfat can represent endurance/resistance/invalidate. Strength is only really visible when there is a big enough resistance. So a bodybuilding body metaphysically is/represents fighting through difficulties. Thats a certain kind of beauty.

Do you spice them?

Almost nobody puts his real name in the forum which makes it more outstanding. Sometimes I say that I am German and that I go to the theatre. That should be enough.

In the scientific world quantum physics is the best proven theory of the world that we have..

Oh okay. Yeah I don't think much of frugivore diets as well. Oh I just basically meant that sometimes our emotions completely dominate our rational mind and wanted to illustrate that on a romantic example but I didn't write that well sorry. Okay I misunderstood.

What do you like about acting if I may ask? You can go to theatre and see how you like it there. At my theatre most people want to become an actor. It's true that most actor start young. The director of my theatre group says after 26 it becomes difficult to get into the acting business. So start collecting experience now!

Ok Of course they can have some good point but they are also good at triggering and working with panic to get their point across. They can make very stupid things believable because they activate some more primal parts of our brain. For example if they show examples of vegans who look like skeletons and put it in a story where they don't outline the things the vegan did wrong with their vegan diet and just say This is the result of being vegan period. That triggers some real deep primal panic in you. Even if you now that the particular vegan is mentally ill, maybe only eats a handful of fruit and does everything wrong and could easily gain weight with grains, nuts, legumes, .. the more emotional stuff shapes your mind a lot more then a rational argumentation. That's why I wouldn't listen to it to begin with because it's hard to bring reason into a very emotionally shaped view on something. Just like you can't convince your emotions that you can just be chill and talk to that hot girl because she is just another human like you. Well maybe but that takes a lot of hard work, a loooot of convincing of the rational mind. I don't think you're bad informed otherwise I would not have argued with you for so long. I just feel like the way you talk about some things you seem to be emotionally about it. "diet" like why? That's so emotionally charged.

No oats are oats and not wheat. It's a grain where wheat, spelt, rye, .. fall under. Per definition grains are not vegetables. Sure. I would try to get most of the protein from the diet though as protein powders can contain heavy metals. With legumes and grains you can get enough protein though so you don't even need to supplement that. True. Well you could buy very organic animal products but that's expensive.

25-30 pounds of fruit In bananas that would be 10735 calories and 125g of protein and 34g of fat In apples that would be 5856 calories and 34g of protein 45g of fat It's funny that at those quantities even fruit becomes a fat and protein source. Because the truth is often boring and these "miraculous" examples are mostly rare exceptions and often don't show the full truth. There are 8 billions people on earth with different genetics. Someone will have the right genetic to thrive on anything. And if it was all so obvious everybody would have figured it out already.

Natural Oats aren't really a veggie but there is nothing wrong with it. If you eat a Whole Foods plant based diet with lots of legumes, veggies, fruits and some fat sources that is certainly healthy. If you want to be lean then this is a great diet to do so. You should supplement Vitamin B12, Vitamin D and omega3 of EPA/DHA sources at least if you do it vegan. I don't think adding some meat especially lean meat or fish is a bad thing health wise (ethical wise it is a problem) but it is not needed.

Because sex is primarily used for reproduction and having kids with family members can lead to deformities and stuff like that. Nature wants us to have kids with different partners with diversity or whatever.

On cannabis this bottle which I hold in close distant seems bigger then sober. Cannabis is a psychedelic. Psychedelics increase consciousness. If consciousness rises the conceptual understanding (things) lowers and direct experience is more in focus. Conceptual understanding -> the bottle in front of me is small Direct experience -> the bottle in front of me is big

There is somehing about even the most ordinary objects in reality that is a bit "fishy" if you put close attention to it. Like that they are certainly yet hiddenly connected to something greater/ something epic.

Predictability Animals are very predictable in their behavior which means they are pretty consistent. Humans on the other hand are a lot harder to predict. Jean-Paul Sartre goes so far in comparing animal and human that he says the following. for humans: existence precedes essence for animals: essence precedes existence Meaning that it's clear what an animal will do if it is put into the world. If you put a lion into the savanna there is just one thing which it could decide to do which is doing lion stuff. A human on the other hand can't be predicted like that. A human could invent shit, commit suicide, play the guitar, .. I don't think that's an absolute statement though. Even animal behavior is very complicated and most of the time not fully understood and at the same time you can predict the behavior of many humans pretty well. So hypothetical from an all intelligent entity there might not be a big difference between animal and human, there might just be more details to consider when predicting human behavior. The interesting question is what does it mean that certain behavior is more predictable than others? Is little predictability a sign of intelligence, wisdom, consciousness, .. ? We speak very badly of people who are easily to predict. Bots is a funny new swear word and it describes exactly a person who is very predictable so we intuit that it's a "bad" thing. So let's dive deep into what makes for predictability. If an object is very simple it's easily predictable. A rock is as predictable as it gets. A flower is more astronomically more complicated than a rock but still easily to predict. A bear is astronomically more complicated than a flower but still relatively predictable if you dive deep into studying a bear. A human is astronomically more complicated than a bear and pretty hard to predict, definitely not with certainty. So it seems with primitivity and simpleness comes predictability. A human is much easier to predict when strong emotions are at play. (Rationality is informed by emotions). What seems very hard to predict is when humans/ other evolved sentient beings act out of intuition. What is also pretty unpredictable is when humans act out of selfness motives. Selfishness makes predictability. And selfishness also seems to be rather primitive. Intuition is a complicated one. Its a form of intelligence but does it have different traits then reason for example? Is intuition a trait of of high intelligence? Does high intelligence has to be selfless?

Agree I thought the carnivores diet is defined as 100% animal based. If you can eat plants then of course I agree. So vegans need B12 from meat Yes I agree that through cooking our diet changed a lot and people thinking we should go back to nature and eat lots of raw leaves and fiber are actually wrong because that's not even natural for us. We are not apes living with technology we are homo sapiens living with technology and there quite a big difference between these two. I don't think a gorilla would eat a lot of legumes. There are many cultures where people eat a lot of legumes. I feel great on legumes. Yes you have to poop more often and maybe sometimes fart but that's not a health problem it's rather a problem of society thinking its better than animals and repressing these certain natural primitive things. I am not saying anybody can eat a lot of legumes though. Some people simply haven't built the gut bacteria for it and other people will never be able to adapt to it because of genetics. Do you have links for these health problems though? Most of them don't seem true at all for me. Especially muscle wasting lol. Legumes are literally a great protein source. And you don't have to eat a ton of legumes as a vegan. You can build more around starches, pseudo grain, tofu, nuts, seeds, veggies, fruits. You can eat that very well prepared with moderate amount of fiber and still get your nutritional needs met with a little bit of supplementation. Yeah fruit diets are dumb af, that's not what an educated vegan would eat. I think what's important for health is what is happening in our gut. ketogenic-vegan-diet just as an example of what's possible but not the go to vegan diet. Well we had that argumentation before. Most people still season their meat. Also high calorie food such as fatty meat or fish taste good universally because of lots of calories and that this an an unfair comparison even though I don't mind the taste of unseasoned veggies, find some legumes and starches by themselves pretty enjoyable and I like fruit. And if I were really hungry I would probably love all these foods. The matrix? Omega3 fatty acids are literally a subset of polyunsaturated fats Do you know what you are talking about with all that? It's true though that a high omega6 to omega3 ratio in your diet can cause problems like inflammation and not so great skin can also be attributed to that. So yeah a good amount of fish or a good amount of o3 supplementation is important for good health. Edit: Ideally the ratio should be 1:1 although almost nobody even comes close to this and most of the greatest minds probably don't have that ratio either. Although it's pretty rare too much omega3 is also bad for health. So fish should be balanced out with plant fat sources. All essential amino acids can be found in plants in good quantities. All animals that eat fish aren't as intelligent as humans. So this "If there is a survival benefit to intelligence animals become more intelligent no matter what their diet is and if not they stay dumb no matter what their diet is. At least that's my observation." still stands. Also I wouldn't discount animals so quickly. Many animals have incredible problem solving abilities. Our natural environment which is very intellectual makes us a lot more intelligent just by itself. If animals would have the same cognitive tasks each day suited to their species then I think they would be far more intelligent. And even if not as intelligent as humans they still got intelligence somehow without fish. So it's wrong to say that omega 3s enable intelligence. If that were the case no plant eater would ever reach any level of intelligence. I like pretty much ll veggies in cooked form and many of them raw by themselves. Your taste buts adapt to what you eat you now. Yes most of them have been selected and hybridized. But it's the same for animals. I can eat more than 100g of dried red lentils in cooked form sometimes without having to fart once when I am relaxed. I can eat a lot more legumes a day although then I need to fart but I don't get stomach problems below like 300g of dried matter. My gut is definitely adapted to it but it might also be genetics. Both seeds, everything has a little bit of fat in it, .. no clue if in the end that would be enough. But we need relatively little fat to be healthy. It can be as low as 10% of your calories coming from fat and that is still considered healthy (if its good fat sources). oh okay. Doesn't that taste like a sugar bomb? I loved the taste when I once had it. If I just hear names like Sv3rige or Freelee the banana girl I know you listen to very uneducated people. Sorry to say it so harshly. They are extremist on both sides. You filled your mind with trash from listening to these people. If you want to listen to good vegan YouTubers listen to someone like Derek from Simnet nutrition. Just someone who actually studied that shit. yeah yeah but even lets say 3 times a week fish and the rest plants. That could be as little as 5% of calories. We keep on finding new points aargh I mean we got at least this far. We both agree that we are adapted to a cooked omnivores diet because of omega3s ALA and EPA/DHA. Supplementing can be pretty as healthy as the real things even though it is not as natural although humans kind of isolate things sometimes. What the argumentation revolves around now is I think "Can the bulk of the diet be plants or should there be a significant agree of animal products in it?"

What does that mean though? How can we always be connected with being (because being connected with illusion, that being is not being experienced is also being as described before) but be disconnected from it? How can we be "not-be“? Or on the other hand how can we connect with something we are already connected with or in other words realize something we in a sense already realize!?

What you do is greatly affecting how you feel about yourself not just because when you get your ass up you beat your own bastard and all that kind of stuff but because you literally have a relationship with yourself. If you do good things for yourself you do good things for yourself. Sometimes that's not so obvious when we are lost in following other peoples expectations. I just continued my LP course and it felt like I was giving myself an intimate hug.

When we become more conscious things get recontextualized from things to being. Red -> being red Sentence -> being sentence joy -> being joy atoms -> being atoms Because in fantasy there are things, in reality there is only being. Asleep = things Awake = being Although things are still being-things even exactly when we are not conscious that things are being-things, because that illusory quality of not seeing that is also being. Delusion is being. Delusion-that-being-is-not-being-being (lol)!

Although I do think that pronouns are important especially for trans people I also have an issue with using pronouns more than is absolutely necessary. The reason is that it makes gender important again. The war that we want to fight is to remove stereotypes about biological women and men right? So he can like wearing a dress and making his nails, or she likes to repair cars or do physics without being looked at weirdly. But if we put pronouns into the mix, gender suddenly becomes important again. If a biological men wants to be called he then now suddenly people should consider him a person with typical male characteristics because he is his pronoun. You see how this is counterproductive? Edit: (If SHE could already do everything a men does, why does she have to use a different pronoun now? And if HE could already do everything a women does, why does he have to use different pronouns now?) The problem would only be perfectly solved if everybody took pronouns seriously or if nobody took pronouns seriously.

-> One negation too much? Yeah because we connect biological sex with gender strongly. And of course they want other people to recognize their gender. In the hypothetical scenario that intentional pronoun use becomes the norm and many people use different pronouns then their biological sex I wonder if the need to display the stereotype physical appeal connected to the gender you identify with will be so high because we wouldn't be used to connect gender and sex anymore so you would make less of a statement with your physical appeal and if you make an "anti-statement" (physical sex doesn't fit gender) people would be more open to recognizing that gender in a different sex. So in short I think there are people who identify with a different gender exclusively in terms of character traits and if people in society would recognize their chosen gender they would be fine with that and didn't need to change their physical appearance but because sex and gender is so strongly connected they are forced to also change their physical appearance alongside with it. Yes Can't make sense of that sentence because of the error in the beginning.

Yes I agree but it doesn't have to be physical. Some people see manly hood or womanly hood in the physical appearance and other more in character traits. A biological men and friend of mine identifies as female now. She says that she doesn't need to change her body as that is not what's important to be a women for her. So to come back to a comment earlier from you: "You can talk about expanding the perception of a woman to include people who transition, i.e. identify with the set of "womanly" characteristics and seek physical and behavior changes to externally reflect those characteristics, but you cannot say that the mere identification turns that person into a woman. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any trans people. They would simply identify as a woman and that feeling would be enough. The whole point of transition is the presentation to self and to others of the archetypical gender characteristics that are perceived as man and woman by the individual in question and society in general." So yeah there are some people who change their gender just by identifying with a different one. Some people need extra surgery, others don't.

Why is supplementation bad? I agree with you that its not natural but if it works physiologically where is the problem? Quick google search will do. Or here: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-Consumer/ ALA is essential oh okay. So it is possible vegan but it's not easy. I heard the theory multiple times when I did some research years ago. There are some cases of vegans getting enough b12 without supplementation although they are the vast minority. Do you think by eating insects we could get enough b12? That's what I meant that we would have accidentally or not accidentally eaten some insects alongside the plants. No herbivore is 100% because they always eat some insects alongside. If that doesn't work you could supplement of course. Which is not natural but I don't see a problem with it especially if it's a small percentage of the vitamins that are supplemented. These films are trash. That's not what I said that humans are adapted to herbivorous diet and I didn't see it as that important. But I get your reasoning now. Your whole argumentation about what is natural or not is so important to you because that's what you think matters 100% to good health. Natural = Health. Yes I would agree that humans are not perfectly adapted to a herbivorous diet. I would say that they are adapted to a cooked omnivore diet. So IF your point Natural = Health is true then I would agree that herbivorous diets are unhealthy. You haven't convinced that we are carnivores though. Anyways I got a few arguments against "Natural = Health": This was an argument I already made. Even if you are adapted to diet A, these adaptions could accidentally also be usable for diet B. Like a sprinter is adapted for sprinting but is also a great jogger. If physiologically certain unnatural things like supplementation work well or physiologically some things don't work so well like to much colestoral on tons of meat then isnt that more believable then our background story? Just because we survived on some things in the past doesn't mean we thrived on it or that it was the best diet for us it just means it was enough to get by and reproduce. Our biology is long and complicated. The human phase wasn't all our past. There are probably still even some adaptions we got from our biological mouse phase. So it's not really clear to say what we perfectly are adapted to. Although it doesn't make up a huge time span relatively speaking there are still some adaptations we got in the last few thousand years ago. When your diet changes radically I think you can make very fast adjustments. For example in the scientific literature a dog is literally considered an omnivore just because we fed dogs so much veggies over the years because meat was to valuable that dogs became omnivores with almost as good veggie digesting capabilities as pigs. Of course not as great but pretty good. And given that humans were not straight carnivores like pigs we probably developed a lot further because our starting point was more in the direction of plant eater in the first point. I mean you have a few options like nut and seed bread with avocado or more nut butter, salads with olives, roasted veggies with oil, tahini dressings, scrambled tofu stuff, soy yoghurt. It's not great but also not a nightmare I think. yeah that is dumb af, please take examples of educated people from the vegan community. Do you have a link? great apes, elephants, parrots, .. and some carnivores are some of the dumbest animals on the planet like crocodiles. If there is a survival benefit to intelligence animals become more intelligent no matter what their diet is and if not they stay dumb no matter what their diet is. At least that's my observation. I like the taste of veggies and there is nothing wrong with causing gas actually. Animals in nature fart all the time. The gas becomes unpleasant and irritating if we don't allow ourselves to get it out by farting which is the real problem. Yeah but what's the problem? Humans naturally cook things. With only veggies it's unrealistic but with grains included no problem. Why LF though? Yes with lean meat but fatty meat wins. Isnt tamari like soy sauce. I don't understand. I wonder how things are if we would be really really hungry. Like if I eat a bunch of chocolate I love the taste of some natural veggie soup but if I am really hungry that really isnt doing anything for me I just want calories and cooked grains would be very appealing to me. oh okay I asked chatgpt in which cases carnivores leave some of their loot and its either because they can't eat it all at once, they can't digest it all, some parts are toxic for the animal or certain tactical behavior. I don't think it would be either one of these reasons for humans because they could eat it all together in a tribe and by cooking the meat most parts should loose their toxicity. I am no specialist but it doesn't seem to me that it is one of the other reasons. So yeah weird that humans don't like the taste of organ meats if they are well adapted to it Given the fact that we couldn't get EPA and DHA I would agree with you there. How much fish was really needed isnt clear though, it could have been relatively little. .. damn took me more then an hour to answer all that. I hope you don't make any good points anymore

My head hurts from all the drama of this thread. I hope you are doing fine? Luckily I already got a decent answer to my question. It shows that there are some people who connect womanly with traditional female physical attributes but that doesn't mean it's the case for everybody in society because trans people make up a very small amount in society. So there could very well be people who just by identifying with a different gender then their biological one and are happy with that. The fact that some people can't do that doesn't mean there arent people who can do that.