Schizophonia

If you make the decision to adopt any way of life, it is because you believe, even unconsciously, that there is ultimately a gain somewhere. There is something to be gained/good from going there. Otherwise, it looks like a mind game. If you make the decision to adopt any way of life, it is because you believe, even unconsciously, that there is ultimately a gain somewhere. There is something to be gained/good from going there. When someone starts to become quite opaque it's because I think they haven't dug enough, with honesty and humor, into their real intentions. Hypocrite is an abstract concept that you use to designate a phenomenon, in this case "treat someone in a way that I would not want to be treated by others", but it's a dead end, it doesn't predict an annoyance or even any concrete consequence that the triggering of this phenomenon would have on my interests. To put it more simply, yes I kill animals for the pleasure of eating them and, at the same time, I don't want to be killed. What is the problem/contradiction? It's not like deciding in your mind that animals "shouldn't" be killed is going to fundamentally change the rules of the universe and nature. Law refers to a human construction, a set of explicit laws injunctions to the members of a community a way to behave. You also insist on the "no right" and imply de facto that there is somewhere a universal law condemning the consumption of animal products. All I saw when I looked up, day or night, was clouds and stars, I've never seen anywhere written "NO KILLING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN". Incidentally, the majority of human and non-human animals that I have encountered did not seem to really follow the laws that you preach ah ah. Finally, all the value of the law is based on the existence of a Justice having the means to enforce the said law under penalty of sanctions, but you have specified above that you do not believe in punishments. So in summary, you are appealing to a law that cannot be found concretely anywhere, that no one seems to apply and for which you do not recognize any sanction. You're right, but that's no longer idealistic. Mirror neurons are biological things, your history and upbringing (memories) are also concrete things. Your inability to kill an animal is therefore not a question of virtue but of "ability". Ditto, to whom do you have to justify yourself? Who decides who "must" do? What penalties? Where is all this written? same, why would it be a requirement? Happy again, because you too have certainly eaten meat for a whole part of your life. You are also certainly causing a lot of "harm" without even knowing it. Again, what does it matter if there is no punishment in the end. Moreover, it is up to you not to buy battery meat, just as it is up to you not to produce "evil" in other ways, for example by buying manufactured products made largely thanks to human exploitation. I'm not sure with our current state of consciousness we can understand "God" and his will, even with all the DMT in the world haha. I believe that more awareness helps less suffering above all for ourselves, precisely through a greater understanding of our own interests. ditto at least a little ah ah It has not been my experience

You do not understand. I am not the hysterical partisan of any ideology, I do not come to this kind of topic as a proselyte, to convert heretics to my point of view. I tolerate any ideology or simply way of seeing the world, I have never blocked, ghosted or bashed anyone, it has no interest. My only goal is to play, I have a real irresponsible pleasure for the argumentative conflict and the transgression towards an ever purer truth, devoid of parasitic and irrational consideration. One of my earliest childhood memories was of a day in kindergarten, we were outside in a row and holding hands when an adult warned us that the tar in one place was "fresh" and that it was not necessary to go there, the first thing that I did was to rush inside to see what it does, lol. I can honestly seem belligerent judging my character (especially after insomnia, lol) on certain topics but, believe it or not, it's not about hostility. In fact, I would love for someone to come at me argumentatively, destroy their schemas at length and breadth, I have no problem with that. In fact, I would love for someone to come at me argumentatively, until the moment when I know I'm wrong because I have nothing more tangible to bring in contradiction, and then I would have no problem lean in and absorb new knowledge, no matter how provocative and playful I may have been beforehand. Well, I think you can blame me for having a tendency to selfishly try to suck others into my schemes, but it's not just about intolerance. Just the way I "treat" myself. If you know what I mean.

I admit that I find it difficult to stop at the boundaries set by others when interacting with them, I haven't really gone down the rabbit hole yet but it's a bit of a loop that I often feel, you are right. I also recognize that I regularly push an agenda, you are also right on that.

Thank you for your answer and your point. Can you answer just these two questions: 1) What will you gain by going vegan from an idealistic point of view, do you have a concrete fear like karma, hell, or a similar belief? Otherwise why not eat this meat if you wanted to? That's what all the animals on this planet do. The human is also an animal, you will say that we have the choice but the other animals too, we just have the cognitive capacities sufficient to lose ourselves in excessively abstract concepts especially when we are in an extraordinarily sociable situation like today . This does not mean that humans MUST use this ability to be systematically rambling on the behavior of other animals and our primary instincts, it is a resonance destined to inflate the ego. It's just a neutral ability and an ability that can backfire on you, humans can not only go vegan, they can go orthorexic, conspiratorial (paranoia), religious... 2) How can you claim to be able to go against God's will? You said "Would you, as the creator of this universe, consciously choose to torture and kill millions of animals for the sake of your egoic pleasure?" but it is the reality of God! It is not only real but pervasive on this very planet right now. Nature is full of suffering, it is also what God is and it responds to a necessary or in any case non-contingent balance in the current state of things. You are not God, you don't fundamentally know the how and why of the universe, and the fact is that you and a number of people want to persuade themselves of unobservable things. All that's going to happen if you go vegan is that you're literally going to die unless you take supplements, and that's always going to be more unpleasant than an omnivorous diet. Incidentally, if you too are a rationalist and have a somewhat Spinozist vision of God, or simply that you share the more or less commonly accepted vision of God here and in perched circles in general, then you will admit that life unfolds in a rational, determined, and that life is strangely similar to a movie from which you cannot leave but which you rationalize by illusory concepts taking into account the limitations of your own infinitely limited and dual condition (free will, choice...) How can you go against a movie?

I eat whatever I want as long as it doesn't bother me noticeably and my senses like it, I'm not dogmatic. The fact of functioning according to this schema could be considered as ideological, but in fact I do not limit myself fundamentally to this one, I really do whatever I want as long as I realize that a certain way of functioning is wrong. advantage in my interest than the previous one, if I realize that it is "veganism" then it will be "veganism" lmao. I'll just answer that it's my right to push what you consider to be an ideology. What I can't do however is not to respect the rules of the forum or the laws of my country, such as inciting hatred, suicide, insulting and posting illegal things in general. Indeed, my current diet allows me a fluidity such that I can respond, even after insomnia, to relatively complex subjects Even when my interlocutor is a passive-aggressive SJW without arguments It's intelligent, a thing is by definition intelligent if it is rational and effective in solving a problem, even if it seems particularly simple. It is not because something is simple that it is wrong, it is not because a solution is complex and whose understanding is opaque for ordinary mortals that it is intelligent. In fact it is very often the opposite and this is precisely why the understanding of a system in the hard sciences always passes through an argumentative/deductive escalation, where the constitution of the macrocosm is based on the arrangement of condiderable constituents such as axioms by scientific methodology (admittedly arbitrary). All that to say jerking off to dr greger videos, taking your iron supplement every morning and hesitating between normal and methylated version of B12 doesn't make you any smarter than a scientologist jerking off to cosmology invented by L Ron Hubart. I presented a simple, effective, and cheap solution to help her cheap, and which does not involve a vegan diet with certain problems that I have implied. You would have tried to dismantle the opposite, but you preferred to play Scientologist, too bad.

Have you noticed significant changes in your well-being?

https://theswaddle.com/iron-supplements-not-enough-to-address-anemia-if-diet-remains-poor-study-shows/

That's not how the world works. Universal justice does not exist and is a fallacious projection of pragmatic human societal constructs. It's basically just survival, the law of nature, opportunism, and the fact is you're a predator, a predator numbed by comfort and doxa, but a predator nonetheless. The price to pay for defying nature (God) to reassure the ego will be at best a taste disappointment (who wants to eat several cans of legumes every day lol), at worst health problems (deficiency or lack of iron, in b12, in zinc, in Vitamin A, in protein, in Omega 3 EPA/DHA etc, intestinal disbiosis, loss of cognitive capacities due to endotoxins...)

This is not a paradox, it is a sophism.

It looks like a mind game. Soft ice cream is "addictive" in your own definition, you just don't see it because it's such an insignificant, one-time treat that it's only a matter of seconds. When will it be when your parents, your lover, one of your children will die in your car accident? You are going to suffer and undergo "this" dependence which is only the mark of your Love. So what, you are going to put yourself in a cave like a yogi waiting for death which anyway we will all bring back to non-duality, to infinity and to the absence of suffering (because this is the essence of your company, even if it is tacit).? You don't want to be addicted to something (typically a drug) because it will jeopardize your physical, mental and financial integrity. But this endeavor isn't ascetic in essence, it's purely pragmatic in placing your love in more natural and less dangerous stakes (heartbreak or dieting won't kill you like heroin withdrawal). So yes I insist, wanting to be attached to nothing is to imply to love nothing. I could explain more, but I slept badly so I'm lazy lol, I think you'll see where I'm coming from

I am an adult man and my blood tests a few months ago showed that I was almost anemic. Many men are iron deficient unless they are particularly sedentary and/or have bad habits that lower iron metabolism, such as regular alcohol consumption. I am an omnivore with a history of low consumption of animal products including trying veganism for a few weeks.

Or she could eat a nice big sirloin steak and literally reverse her anemia in less than two hours flat.

No, people vote "far right" because they don't want to be racially overridden and because 90% of crimes are committed by non-white people. It is also a vision of the world in its own right. + She is not completely wrong, where I am the extreme right is not liberal and looks like a form of disguised duginism , most of the time.

Stop having an ideological and unnatural diet.

cool

You will be as detached from pleasures as you want when you are dead. In the meantime you are trapped in duality. Wanting to be attached to nothing = not loving life.

As a last resort, usually for suicidal people. Otherwise it is never used chronically because it is potentially neurotoxic and simply toxic. And I specified that it was an exception in dissociatives/anaesthetics because ketamine (especially the S isomer) is VERY dopaminergic. Why not just use a dopaminergic agent which will be much safer?

In fact, women are inherently more manic and sadistic than men on average. Even in men, aggressiveness, libido and even muscle mass gain are actually due to the conversion of testosterone into estrogen. Take exemestane and find yourself with no libido and a flat, low mood. The only difference is that androgens act like benzodiazepines (especially on the pituitary). Men are less sensitive and empathetic, more phlegmatic, and therefore allow themselves to be more violent on average. Going back to the op, he just blindly projects his view of the world.

These are people with a weak holistic view of things. It's not like a glass of wine here and there is going to change anything, even in the long run.

Prostitutes have no interest

"How not to be a human anymore ?"

He said he has depression, dissociatives will make it worse. Ketamine is an exception because it's dopaminergic, but it still makes you lethargic and you can't use it all the time. @Hugo Oliveira Have you done any blood tests? I can tell you what to test tomorrow if you want and enlighten you on potential problems. edit : you cannot take MDMA regularly, it is neurotoxic. The best would be to first try (difficult to say since there is no blood test) for example an anti-prolactin like Cabergoline, acts in the long term (one/two doses per week of memory) will have a direct anti-depressant effect through D2 agonism and indirectly by suppressing prolactin (which will in turn increase the production of pituitary hormones and improve the efficiency of the gonadotropic axis in general, testosterone and androgens, even estrogen has an antidepressant effect by increasing the signaling of catecholamines, histamine and neurotransmitters in general). Metergoline or bupropion should be good too.

You still need women for sexuality and to satisfy your needs to control/correct/use something. No need to be misogynistic. Otherwise yes, men are on average more rational and pragmatic than women, and therefore more suited to controlling political power. Even on a sentimental/intellectual level, it's not very politically correct, but even though women are supposed to be more sensitive, the people I had the greatest emotional connections with were actually somewhat artistic/gentle men. not women.

OP did not state or imply having recurring cravings, just that he was "attached" to his weekly glass of wine. It's subtle, but maybe OP misspoke. It doesn't matter.

It's complicated to give an opinion on a post that requires watching a 2-hour video, can you summarize this person's opinion in a few sentences? Anyway, ethics is just a game in the head, it's not like it's based on anything concrete.