Jannes

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.

Why though. You don't need all your calories coming from animal products in order to get enough protein and healthy fats for your brain and muscles. (Or any ) And evolutionary speaking all of this brain growth could have happened with a part fish diet. I don't think there is even that much Omega3 in meat but I could be wrong about that. Can be supplemented. Carnivores miss ALA from Omega 3. Vitamin A is in lots of fruits and veggies We could have gotten B12 easily from the dirt on plants and some insect on leaves for example vegan (well kinda vegan) That we only gotten EPA/DHA naturally through animal products is true though. But it's possible to get it with algae oil. And as a vegetarian with eggs, especially omega3 eggs. They tend to be on average but you could actually run a ketogenic vegan diet if you wanted. Idk where vegans are hypocrites. They don't say that you need or should eat as much carbs as possible to be healthy I don't think. I don't think you are getting easily getting deficient in these nutrients as a vegan. Zinc is the only one of that list that DGE (German Society for Nutrition) sees as a high risk of lacking in vegans and they are pretty conservative in their claims. That's what being deficient in something means, that it is a problem. Well there are many intelligent plant eating animals. Those also developed their brain only with plants somehow. I asked chatgpt about it and that's it answer below. What do you mean by that? Cooking is a very natural thing to do for us humans. Our digestive track is literally adapted for cooked food. It will be more nutritionally dense but still a cow for example has to eat pounds of grass everyday to get enough calories. Even with everything adapted perfectly. That's not what I wanted to illustrate. And cooked meat will be more nutritionally dense than cooked grains. Cow example Damn where do you live? yep I find that very interesting. I don't think people back then would through away the offal of an animal cause then they would waste a good chunk of the animal and the insights are the most nutritious. So doesn't that speak against carnivore diets being "natural" that we dislike the taste of unseasoned offals?

If people use pronouns to refer to a different gender then their biological one because then you need to communicate that and remember it.

yes its a bad diet. More variety, more fat sources, omega3 from fish or supplement, different legume and grain sources to get a full amino acid profile if you don't consume animal products,.. If you are vegan this is what I would recommend: https://nutritionfacts.org/daily-dozen-challenge/

This is a really interesting question I recently wondered about. How is it possible that you can explain different parts of reality by referring to analogies? Some examples: - A complete idiot will say some right things on accident just by mere chance -> A broken watch is right twice a day. - This old guys forehead is as wrinkled as a corn on the cob - You are as fat as an elephant - You are as tender as a water strider running on water - You are as stunning as a peacock opening his wings - She left him a foreign egg - You think as fast as a calculator - Getting fucked in the ass is like shitting backwards - An animated guy -> he is cooking By being able to explain one part of reality with another part, these parts of reality have to be connected in some way. The connection can be very direct or very abstract.

@ZenAlex Ok

That's not the point of this thread

It were just a lot of questions and by some of them I didn't know if you were serious about it or not. That's not the point of this thread though. The point is that I would prefer if we all didn't used pronouns for our gender and just used them traditionally to refer to our biological sex BUT further developed the picture of what he and she means. Because if we use pronouns to refer to our preferred gender then we make gender important. 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? I just don't want to be part of the drama and I don't want to take sides.

That's it. ?? Gender roles loose and change their meaning. 100 years ago the picture that came to mind when you heard women was a lot different than what it is today. So that's what I want. Just keep the traditional pronouns but make them less and less meaningful until more or less just the picture of the physical appearance remains. I am just surprised how fast this topic got emotional.

I meant intentionally using pronouns to refer to another gender than your biological one. You have conscious and unconscious pre assumptions about a person just by knowing if its a he or a she. The "gender war" is happening in many 1st world countries atm I heard. People find different ways to make their language gender equitable. I watched the Stage Green video from Leo so I roughly now what SG is about. As a human creature with a dick. Whatever that means. It's not really convenient. And that's not the point. It's that people using pronouns make pronouns important which I don't like. By repressing parts of your personality you put it in the shadow. If a boy isnt allowed to cry for example some emotional parts of him get hidden in his shadow, in his unconscious mind. That's how I would put it, idk how Carl Jung would define it. Well yeah.. I am tired though.. Okay if men integrate parts of the feminine side so their compassion and the ability to heal themselves emotionally for example their would be less conflict. Men could instead of starting conflict with another person to deal with hurt for example just cry. And if women a not de-empowered at an early age they would have more confidence, more will to get shit done at work.. It would be a lot to elaborate.

What is a women? Well there is the biological meat suit of a women. But that's not what a women is in political correct terms. Because a biological men can be a women. So a women is characterized by her traits. But it's wrong to say that a women is a person with such and such traits because that's greatly limiting. If I say a women is a person that is charming, empathic, emotional, caring, .. well are people who don't resemble these traditional traits not women? Of course not they can also be women. So a women is not her body and not her traits. So a women is an empty set like in mathematics where a set without any elements in it is still a set, the empty set. You could make the objection and say that just every person who identifies as a women is a women. That answers the question formally but not existentially because there is something an individual has to identify as. When the person identifies as a women they actually identify with something and not an empty set. Here is my definition of what a women is: "A person who identifies as a women is a women. What being a women means for the individual is completely subjective and there is no objective consensus and what being a women entails.

That's what my first magic truffle trip revealed to me