Emerald

Totally agree

That's true that the Covid botching is blood on the hands of Republicans. Republicans are quite a bit worse domestically, for sure. As I said, that's why I personally was relieved when Biden got the presidency. But if we look past their domestic impact and look toward foreign policy, we can see that those in the most vulnerable positions are suffering the same amount with both Democrats and Republicans at the helm. We as Americans, can only see Democrats and Republicans as drastically different because we exist inside the protective bubble of America. But if you're a civilian in a foreign country that we've occupied, they would likely suffer just as much regardless of who's in office. "So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of" I said many people in the Democratic base are Green on the spiral... not America in general. Democrats know that they will have to please Green-minded people. So, of course they have to angle their moral leadership in such a way that it doesn't alienate Green... even though the substance of what they're doing is very Orange... and usually very toxic Orange at that. Also, when it comes to development and education of the people, you may see this as happenstance and just a reflection of individual character. But that makes the same mistake that Libertarians who grew up with wealth make about assuming why people are poor. The way that governments and the powerful stay in power is often because the masses are given 'bread and circuses' to keep them depoliticized. Essentially, those in powerful positions want to maintain their power. And an educated and politically informed and engaged populace increases the potential for challenges to power. Prior to the internet, it has always been the case that mainstream media would siphon out most dissident angles to the stories that they share. And of course, public schools would teach things a particular way to either present half-truths about how things work or simply leave it out of the curriculum altogether. No institution is going to give instructions towards its owner's undoing. Now, I'm not saying it's some big cabal of elites behind the curtain doing this. It's just that a lot of very wealthy people own politicians and industries... and thus have a lot of power and control over what the masses see vs what they don't. And it can really be boiled down to the profit motive. But now that the internet exists, we have a different issue. It's that the truth gets lost in a pile of lies. And so, instead of keeping people de-politicized, things are angled in such a way that make people hyper-politicized around a lot of misinformation and magicianry.

Exactly

But you were the one that just brought up with your concerns about how the Vegan diet would cause these issues around expansion of farmland. That's what you said your concern was... that if we all went Vegan, we'd take up too much farmland and cause all these environmental problem. And now, I've answered to your concerns about farmlands expansion and environmental issues it causes and presented you with information that shows that Veganism would actually decrease the amount of farmland used because we wouldn't be farming cattle that eat a ton more crops than human beings could ever hope to. Then, you respond instead by moving the goal posts and saying that the issue isn't farmland expansion and the environmental impacts of it. But instead, the issue is that we have the pressure of monitoring how much farmland we can afford to have. It just shows me that your concern was not for the environmental impact of particular diets from the get go. It was that you have a dislike of the Vegan diet and decided that you were going to reach for ANY argument that debunks it. But you accidentally didn't think it through and made a pro-Vegan argument by bringing up the issue of farmland expansion, which Veganism answers to. So, you had to move the goal posts, so that you could still continue to maintain your anti-Vegan stance while cloaking it in the veneer of concern for environmental issues. Am I right?

The majority of farmland is used to grow food to feed livestock. It's like 80% of farmland here in America... and similar numbers in other places. So, we would use less farmland if the entire world happened to go Vegan. Pigs and Cows eat a lot more than human beings do. So, in order for us to eat them, we need to feed them and raise them. So, the keeping of livestock is the number one cause of problems like soil erosion, pesticides, and eutrophication as well.

First off, a Vegan diet is almost always more environmentally friendly (with maybe the exception being if someone consumes tons of almonds or palm oil). And the reason why is because the animals we consume as food, consume a lot more than we do. And industrial farming practices cause a lot of pollution and contribute significantly to the impacts of global warming. So, my question to you is... 'Given the above facts, how are Vegan diets less environmentally friendly on the whole compared to Omnivorous diets?' And if it's the case that you find that Vegan diets are actually MORE environmentally friendly on the whole compared to Omnivorous diets, then why aren't you decrying the poor environmental effects of Omnivorous diets? What is the reason for your inconsistency in concern for the environmental impact of particular diets? In your eyes, are the negative environmental effects caused by Omnivorous diets okay while the negative environmental effects caused by Vegan diets are not okay, even though Omnivorous diets cause more environmental problems? Now, I don't doubt that a very small minority of people must eat animal products to thrive. But we have to be careful when we try out a Vegan diet to not let our cravings make us make up a story that "Oh well. I tried. But I guess I'm just one of those people that need meat to survive." The mind can come up with all kids of rationalizations so that we can justify doing behaviors that we disagree with but still want to do. The mind is tricky like that. Also, can you link me to the studies that have shown tall people and people with big brains need to consume animal products? And what do you mean that b12 doesn't work for you? It takes like 2-5 years to burn through the b12 that's stored in your body. So, you can go a very long time without taking any b12 supplements. So, unless you've been Vegan for over 2 years and found that b12 doesn't work... I'm just not sure what you mean by this. And furthermore, there is no reason to temper your meat eating habits by saying that you eat a nearly Vegan diet... or by saying that you will switch to artificial meat if it comes out. It's of little consequence to me if you personally go Vegan or not. So, I'm not judging you. I ate an omnivorous diet for 26 years of my life. But I wonder if you're judging yourself and justifying it to me because you're judging you... and then projecting your judgments of you onto me.

Leo didn't say that the Democrats weren't self-interested. And I don't think he would say that. If he knows anything about American politics at all, he knows that most of these politicians are getting donations (essentially legal bribes) from huge corporations and industries... and even certain special interest groups in other countries like Israel. He just said they were more developed. And that's true on the Spiral Dynamics level of their moral leadership. And moral leadership, is basically about the way that they address the nation and present themselves and give speeches. What they encourage in the populace. So, on the level of moral leadership, Spiral Dynamics differences are evident. But at a certain point, level of development on the Spiral doesn't matter as much... the outcome matters. And Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all continued the offensive regime change wars and toppled so many foreign governments. And they support these wars because they were all getting donations to their Super PACs by lobbyists who work for the Military Industrial Complex. And both Democrats and Republicans are in the pockets of their donors... as is anyone who gets bribes from people. There's an automatic conflict of interest when there are bribes as, of course, those billionaire donors want things from those politicians in exchange for their financial support. And you can go online and look up which politicians are taking money from which industries and corporations. It's public record. So, both are HIGHLY motivated to please these donors so that they can continue to get their financial kickbacks and support with financing any future campaigns. So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of.

I think it's a very strong possibility that another more competent version of Donald Trump will come along. The establishment benefits too much from being able to strong arm those who are wanting a more progressive politician or who want to vote third party into choosing between the "lesser of two evils" establishment canditate. So, now that they see that they can run "Neofascist corporatist vs Neoliberal corporatist" and get a ton of people falling in line, they may continue to do worse and worse intonations of that split. It might be a Tucker Carlson... but he wouldn't be the worst. It could really devolve into being some Richard Spencer kind of character.

You've just posted a lot of misinformation, so let me debunk all that first and then tell you why it's likely that Vegans trigger you. Number one, Veganism can be done more cheaply than the omnivorous diet because most naturally Vegan foods are less expensive than meat, dairy, and eggs. For example.. oats, rice, tofu, beans, bread, potatoes, etc. are all very inexpensive foods. Also, Vegans don't need to consume more volume. I eat about the same amount of food as a Vegan as I did when I was eating an omnivorous diet. It's easy to get the number of calories you need for the day on a Vegan diet... potatoes, tofu, beans, lentils, oats, wheat, rice, bananas, etc. are all pretty high calorie foods. And the macro and micro nutrients are also easy to get from Vegan sources. And Veganism is less harmful for the environment because (if everyone went Vegan) we'd use significantly less farmland because 80%+ of the crops currently growing are grown to feed livestock. And cows and pigs eat far more than a human being ever could. Also the methane gas from cows raised for dairy and meat contributes to global warming. So, in the unlikely case that all the world suddenly went Vegan, it would be one of the most beneficial things we could do for the environment. And Vegans don't binge on vitamin pills. The only supplement you NEED as a Vegan is b12. It's the only thing you can't get in a Vegan diet that is present in an omnivorous diet. I take a multi-vitamin and b12. That's it. Also, I've never taken a blood test as a Vegan. There is no need to unless you really want to. And I don't eat a bus load of vegetables... nor do most Vegans. Raw vegans often do eat a ton of food. But the majority of Vegans eat a normal amount as there are many filling Vegan foods. Now that all that is dispelled... There are certainly Vegans who are judgmental and pretentious. But aren't you being very judgmental towards Vegans? You seem to look down your nose at Vegans and thinking you're better than them... so that's a bit pretentious, isn't it? But really, I think what triggers people most about Vegans is that MOST people have Vegan values. It's just that few people live by them. And I think this is probably the source of your judgments about Vegans. Most people hate to see animals suffer, and so there is cognitive dissonance when we continue to eat products that contribute to the suffering of animals. We don't want to give up the foods we're used to. But we also don't want to become aware of the extreme suffering on the other end of those foods. So, when we see Vegans, they remind us of the suffering on the other end of our habits. And it becomes an uncomfortable experience that we'd rather just push away. And this produces projections onto Vegans as a whole group and a lot of effort to "debunk" the Vegan lifestyle by finding flaws in it that aren't there.

I'm definitely not blonde. I don't know what that has to do with my work though. But if it's an attraction thing, no worries. I'm sure the disinterest is mutual.

Thank you!

First off, the point still stands that Dems aren't reaching across the aisle because they're more developed. That's simply not true... even if they are more developed. They're reaching across the aisle because it's good for their donors... and their donors give them money. Period. This is very simple to understand. So, that point still stands, regardless of how developed they are. But to address what else you'd said... As I'd said, the window-dressing and moral leadership of Trump DID matter as he was a demagogue and he brought out the worst in people here domestically. This is true. And this REALLY matters. That's why I was relieved when Biden won as it does put out a fire. But I can also recognize how the natural outcome of the way the establishment protects corporate interests at the expense of the people and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few, leaves the populace vulnerable to demagogues who can come in and speak to the pain of the peasantry and say, "I see you're struggling, it's (fill in marginalized group's) fault. Elect me and I'll do something about them." So in this way, the magicianship of politicians' moral leadership really matters. But on other levels, who cares as to who's more developed or not, when they're both killing the same amount of people? So, window dressing matters... but it isn't ALL that matters. You're neglecting the impacts of American Imperialism and how things are set up to benefit the very few at the expense of the vast majority. And many civilians in other countries have died in the American war machine just so the owners of the military industrial complex can continue to create more weapons for these forever wars and get access to the big pot of American tax dollars. Also, you can't get cheap foreign labor if the country you're trying to extract that labor from has a thriving middle class. So, the war machine is maintained for this reason too. And this is going to be the same whether it's Republicans or Democrats. While moral leadership is very important, you have to look beyond just the moral leadership role of politicians if you want to see the roots of corruption and actually fix things.

None of them have sinister motives. They have self-interested motives. They get money from the owners of corporations and industries to do the bidding of the owners of corporations and industries. I recommend reading some Noam Chomsky to get an idea of how American Imperialism works.

Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally playing for the same team. The differences are there, certainly. And I'd rather have Dems in office for that reason. But in the most fundamental ways, the "niceness" in their roles as moral leaders is window dressing. Of course, with Trump, we can see that that window dressing and (at least the illusion of) moral leadership matters. But it's still just window dressing. And the tolerance that Dems show is an illusion... because their constituents are nicer than the Republican's constituents. So, of course they have to seem nicer and more tolerant. But they're not nicer or more tolerant when they continue to support the Military Industrial Complex and American imperialism in so many foreign countries and support 2/3 of the world's dictators. And they're not nicer when they continue to support Big Pharma and the private insurance industry when all other developed nations have socialized medicine, and 30k+ people die every year due to lack of insurance or under-insurance. The real reason why they're always trying to "reach across the aisle" is because Republican legislation benefits their wealthy donors. So, it is Democrats' role to pretend to be for the average person, while being as adaptable and pliable as possible and to mostly concede to Republicans. Where it is Republicans job to get their agendas through by any means necessary... including obstruction. And it's all because this is what benefits their donors. Nothing more.

The reason is because the owner class benefits most from right-wing legislation as Republicans are for bigger tax cuts (for the wealthy) and small government (aka BIG corporate sector) with fewer regulations on the powers of big business. So, Republican legislation benefits the wealthiest Americans, while mostly screwing over 99.5% of the population. So, it's to the owner class's benefit for Republicans to get their way as much as possible. And it's also in the owner class's benefit for Democrats to always want to "reach across the aisle" and concede and give Republicans what they want... because what Republicans want IS what the owner class wants. Trust me, Democrats are not playing patty-cake because they're unaware of how to play politics well. Trust me, they know what they're doing. They're playing patty cake because politicians (both Republican and Democrat) get a bunch of kickbacks by serving the interests of billionaires, corporations, and industries. And that means shifting the political landscape as far to the economic right as possible.

Agreed

Actually the word slut, as a derogatory term, refers to a woman who enjoys sex and has a lot of sex with many partners. The derogatory term whore is the word that refers to prostitutes. Basically, the idea is that sluts do it for the enjoyment, whores do it for the money.

It isn't about the behavior. You can believe that hooking up is unhealthy in the same way that you can believe that eating a certain type of food is unhealthy. But the issue I'm pointing out, is about the people attached to the behavior whom you're judging the worth of. There is a difference between the two. You can believe that promiscuity is unhealthy without diminishing the value of those who are promiscuous and creating these binary categories of female worth. You can also understand that your belief in the unhealthiness of hooking up doesn't actually reflect a universal truth... and that women who hook-up might be simply subscribing to a different value system.

I'm just pointing out that you're passing judgment towards women by making these hard and fast categories. And I'm telling you that this is unhealthy because these judgments can create internalized misogyny. This is because those judgments will come back on you... as a judgment outward always becomes a judgment inward. It's not about having a preference for abstaining from sex for a certain length of time. That's perfectly fine and healthy if it is an expression of what feels right to you. The problem comes from you categorizing women into this worthy vs unworthy binary based on their sexual behavior... which is a symptom of internalized misogyny. And I say that with no judgment towards you. I'm just pointing something out. And I feel like you're bringing up the fact that everyone has different perspectives and preferences to avoid owning up to the problems inherent in your perspective and what it reflects in regards to your feelings about women. So, while you are entitled to your perspective, that doesn't mean that your perspective is healthy. Mind you, I never said you weren't allowed to have your own perspective. I just pointed out that there are some things that are fundamentally not good for your self-esteem about your perspective.

With all due respect, this is just not a healthy way to look at women with the 'real women don't have sex right away" or the 'real women are looking for a solid relationship' narrative. This can pit you against your natural sexual drives, which may become stained with shame as a result. It can also lead to some internalized misogyny and come back to impact your sense of self-worth. Now, some women ARE looking for a solid relationship (probably most) and others are just looking for sexual experiences. And that's okay. And some women will want to wait for a while once they're in a relationship. And other women will want to have sex right away when they're in a relationship. I know I'm usually in the latter camp when I really like a guy. I just do what feels right intuitively. I don't have hard and fast rules. But the thing that makes this possible for me to do is that I can always tell when a guy is really interested in me... versus just being interested in sex. So, having sex right away in a relationship just feels natural. And I don't even get into the thought about sex being transactional and something I have to withhold and all that stuff. That just complicates things and gets people out of touch with their natural sexual feelings. Sex can be an expression of love and appreciation at its best. And this requires following your heart and not getting caught up in the weeds of these kinds of mindsets around sexuality and relationship. It's difficult to do because there's a lot of slut shaming and a lot of guys who are users out there. But once you get the spidey sense for who's trustworthy and a deeper connection to the intuition, it becomes a lot clearer who is a solid person and who is flakey.

This is exactly what I'm trying to get across. It isn't the fact that pick-up exists that's a negative thing. It's totally understandable that such a need exists. And I probably would do some pick-up if I were a guy. It's probably the best thing to do if a guy is in a space where he doesn't really know how to interact with women or has a fear of approaching. Or if a guy just wants to have a variety of sexual experiences, that's understandable too. In this way, it's really helpful. The issue is that it sets up a simplified and distorted view of female sexuality that's both straightforward and easy to systematically respond to... to where certain formulas can be applied. It kind of compresses female sexuality into the format of male sexuality to make it more understandable and user friendly. And because it's an easy and effective system for attracting sex, a lot of men stay in that simplified conceptualization of the female sexual experience. This is because it gives the illusion of truth and thus control over the situation, it can really get in the way of their ability to genuinely connect with and understand women beyond the attraction phase. But not just that. It really chokes out and invalidates what's real and true about the female perspective relative to dating and relationships. And I can personally attest to the fact that the PUA perspective is a distortion, even if it is a useful distortion. And that's because I have done a lot of introspection into my own sexuality and internal attraction dynamics with the same lens that I explore other things with. And the insights that I've had, have been hard-won, even as I am a woman... largely due to society misrepresenting the female experience (particularly in regard to sex/relationships). I've really had to reinvent the wheel to get to know myself on that level. So, it does irk me a bit that so many PUAs will be like "Don't listen to her. Women don't know better. Don't ask a fish how to catch them" when I'm giving some really honest direct insights into the female experience over here. And the ability to look deeper at female sexuality will be necessary if the man in question really wants to cultivate a deep connection to a particular woman.

To understand this, it must be understood that the percentage ratios of Yin/Yang are described from a relative perspective of being a human being that is perceiving the world. Just like up/down, big/small, beginning/end... we can experience them in from the relative human perspective as having a substantial existence that we can understand and relate to. But there is no such thing as up/down, big/small, beginning/end in any absolute sense. But if we take on other perspectives Yin/Yang, it could also be said that there NO duality there... aka non-duality. And that would be true, as all is one thing. But there is another perspective which paradigm that sits in the middle of the absolute non-dual perspective and the relative human perspective. And this is to recognize that everything is infinitely Yin and Yang. As a visual metaphor, if you could imagine zooming into the Yin half of a Yin and Yang Symbol... you would find it was made up of its own Yin and Yang symbols. Then you could zoom into the Yang side of one of those symbols, and still find more Yin/Yang symbols. So, in the relative human sense, it is a fixed quality. But you can become more conscious and more developed relative to your inborn Yin/Yang signature. But the way to become more magnetic is to own both of your polarities and not grasp towards one and repress the other. But in the other perspectives I mentioned, everyone is infinitely Yin/Yang and everyone in another sense is neither Yin nor Yang as even that dichotomy is a false dichotomy. But in-so-far as it concerns attractiveness to a partner, your best bet is to own your energetic signature completely and develop your core potentials that stem from that signature.

My attraction comes from the months before that happens. I have to be attracted to a man BEFORE I have sex with him. And the quickness of pick-up doesn't give me the time I need to determine that. As I've said, it's usually a few months before organic attraction arises... if it will arise at all. You have to watch a man when he's not watching you to know what a man is really made of. And this comes only from interacting with him often. You won't get very much information the real man if he's trying to do the mating dance at you. You certainly wouldn't get enough information to know if you're compatible or have chemistry with him.

I do understand that it is a lot of guys who just want to get some success with women. This is why I have no issue with pick-up being used for those purposes. I probably would try out pick-up if I were a man. What I am saying is that pick-up creates a distorted image of female sexuality... just one that is more workable for the agenda of getting laid. So, it is only the misrepresentation of the female experience that is unnerving to me. But I also think it's important to get men to realize that their notions of pick-up can write over the actuality of female sexual experience. And this will stand in the way of deeper bonding experiences.

I am fine with men using pick-up to get laid. And I do understand the efficacy of having such a mechanism. But understand that it does come at a significant cost to intimacy and organic relationship growth... which is what women usually care about and feel satisfied by. Pick-up from the female perspective is like the fast food of sex and relationships. It can taste okay and fill you up a bit. But the real sustenance comes from the ability for things to happen organically over the course of time. And I have personally found that starting things out on a sexual note seriously impedes that organic process. The relationship quality difference is the difference between the waxy chocolates they sell at the dollar store during the holidays and hand-crafted gourmet truffles made from cacao beans found in the depths of the Amazon. It takes time and pick-up is immediate and fast.