Jannes

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

Are you argumenting for a carnivores diet/ highly meat based diet or for a diet that includes some meat? What deficiencies? Well as I argumented there are many reasons for why our brain developed independent from the fact that we consumed meat. Also we could have just grown more intelligent and therefore gotten able to kill more animals tactically and as a result thrived and reproduced a lot. You say that the chicken came before the egg but you don't actually know. But all of this doesn't even really matter because we have modern nutrition now which might be better than any paleo diet. It's good as a side dish instead of rice for example. "complete cereals" lol. Sounds carbphobic. Bulgur is made out of wheat flour so its not really a natural product I am not arguing that cooked grains are more appealing than meat, (although idk if I would like it because I am not used to meat anymore). Anyway let's take a pig as an example. A pig is a clear omnivore we can agree on that right? If you give that pig the option between veggies and meat I think it's safe to say that it would pick the meat. Not because it's healthier or more natural for the pig but just because the meat is loaded with calories and calories are jummi. Well if a deer has badly adapted enzymes for meat but still manages to break up 10% of the meat that's still better then the grass where it can digest 90% from or whatever. Are you sure people like meat without seasonings? I was never a big meat eater so I can't really tell but I always find it funny how bodybuilder grow tired of eating their unseasoned chicken breast so much ? I think you have to compare seasoned plants with seasoned meat or unseasoned meat with unseasoned plants. And even then, as in my marked comment, meat has an advantage because it is high in calories which doesn't mean it's healthy for ya. High calorie foods just taste good for survival reasons but that doesn't count anymore.

Hate reveals love The purpose of evil and devilry is to find out what things are about at the core. If people manage to move through or not move through tragedies you can see what they are really about at the core. How much love do they have to sustain themselves.. I love this picture of the last of us because it perfectly captures how hate is actually love. All the hate in her body is perfectly correlated to the love that was taken away from her. In her hate you can see the love the clearest. But reality is made in such a way that this hate can only be experienced authentically. You actually have to hate. You can’t see that hate is beautiful if you never hated. Notiz 24.04.2023 (2).pdf

I sometimes felt the sensation of weird energies that I couldn’t really name. I don’t know what they are or why I experienced them. What I could say though was that they felt pretty "real“. Some things feel more real then others and those energy felt pretty real. In my mind I just had the picture of myself doing push-ups the other day. This picture (with the felt effort in the muscles) was the basis for the weird sensation I just felt. I could only connect the weird sensation with the push-up because I just saw it directly happening. If not they were no chance I could connect the dots. I experienced it like a black hole sucking in the experience into its essence. This observation was really hard to catch because it happened on a really sensitive level. I hope I can make this observation again.

Yes so know that everything is clear how would you define that?

Relatively physically fucking

I think it's hard to call cuddling and kissing sex in everyday use. I would draw the line further up. Physical fucking.

Fucking

95% plus 1% plus 10-20% = 106-116% ..? Right now relatively few people use pronouns. But I think it will be more and more common for people to use different pronouns than their biological gender. A pronoun unconsciously connects a person with pre assumptions that we have about the gender. Stage green across the globe. I want to be called he without making a statement about it. Its not that because I use the pronoun he that I am implying that I want to be seen as a person who feels manly nor do I want that people think I am not feeling that way. I just don't want to make a statement with my pronoun. But if everybody uses pronouns intentionally then people will think that I am using mine intentional as well. Which I am not. I want that he and she loose their value in a sense. By using pronouns intentionally it becomes important again. For lower developed countries I don't see this as too important. But for first world democracies the gender topic is important imo. People who integrate their shadow are a lot more functional. I think men with integrates female traits are way less likely to start a war and women with integrates male traits get the economy and development going a lot more. Plus it makes people happier. So I think it's very important to find strategies on how to remove stereotypes.

It's like 5 to 7 months ago when I first got my first small insight into god. A few days ago I remembered some of it again. I remembered how my hairy leg looked like through gods glasses. Golden, noble, like a lion mane shimmering at sunrise. It was so clear, so true that this leg was made out of god. No earthy material could ever touch the majesty of god. It's like the insights of these trips worked through me for all these months.

You now that you understand a persons behavior completely when you realize that you would behave exactly the same way if you were in their shoes. Anything away from that, anything "but I still would have acted differently in that situation." is ego, is illusion.

There aren't any "things" in the real world. The real world is exclusively made out of experienceable qualities. So truth is an experienceable quality of reality. It's not "1 plus 1 equals 2", because that's not the real part, that's just black forms on white background. The real part is the experienceable quality truth.