Emerald

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    7,303

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Emerald

  1. Posted

    3 hours ago, OBEler said:

    It seems to me women prefer social events and not really doing the psychedelic alone for the sake of itself. And Ayahuasca is known as a group event.I guess you also did psilocybin with someone else.

    I have the feeling in terms of psychedelics women are curious, but they are not interested in truth /god realizations. They do it for adventure/having fun, social connections, how it makes them feel and healing their mental problems.

    Men on the other hand prefer doing it alone, really for the sake of itself und for searching for truth /god and mystical experiences, sometimes also for trauma healing/self development.

    I'm not so sure about that assumption. Having gone to 5 different medicine ceremonies, there are plenty of women seeking ego death and ego transcendence experiences for their own sake. But most men and women seek these experiences to heal deeper traumas.

    I definitely sought the medicine first out of pure curiosity (back 15 years ago) and in recent years mostly in order to heal underlying individual, generational, and collective worldly traumas and to connect with God.

    And each time I've ever done a psychedelic, I realize myself as God. That's true with all 7 Aya journeys I've taken, and my mushroom journey. 

    Though, all of these God realizations are there just to enrich my experience in this lifetime.

    It shows me that I'm the other side of its face and the value of the Feminine worldliness from its perspective, so that I can embrace the value of the world of the forms in a world whose religious practices of the past 5000 years have been very patriarchal and in opposition to the material (maternal) world.

    And there's a lot of immersion into a goddess-like state where I recognize myself as Mother Nature itself, and there is this sense that my relationship with my body and humanity's relationship with Earth are one and the same. 

    And it shows me how my individual neuroses both reflect and cause world-wide issues. And in my embodiment as the great mother, I have done work on giving birthing a new Earth in my journeys.

    But I wouldn't feel comfortable or safe doing a psychedelic alone as I need someone and something to anchor back into to bring myself back to my limited Earthly ordinary perspective. So, I wouldn't do something like that by myself as that would be overwhelming.

    But a huge theme within these journeys is recognizing and integrating Yin values like worldliness, limitation, suffering, illusion, and death.

  2. Posted

    9 hours ago, OBEler said:

    @Emerald what psychedelics do you prefer as a woman?

    @What Am I interesting theory 

    I haven't done many psychedelics as I don't much like to be in altered states of consciousness.

    Ayahuasca is really the only medicine that I've developed a relationship with, which I've been doing once per year for the past 5 years.

    I did try psilocyben once and got a lot out of it, but preferred the Ayahuasca. 

  3. Posted

    35 minutes ago, What Am I said:

    I grabbed this from AI. I remember Wilber talking about it, but I couldn't recall the details, so I cheated a bit:

    According to Ken Wilber, men and women tend to have different preferences when it comes to mystical states of consciousness. Wilber suggests that men often prefer the "Formless" or "Formless-Form" states, which are characterized by a sense of unity, emptiness, and transcendence of the ego. These states are often associated with the "via negativa" or apophatic approach, which emphasizes the negation of the ego and the world.

    On the other hand, Wilber suggests that women often prefer the "Form" or "Form-Form" states, which are characterized by a sense of connection, embodiment, and immanence. These states are often associated with the "via positiva" or kataphatic approach, which emphasizes the affirmation of the world and the body.

    Wilber's ideas on this topic are based on his interpretation of various spiritual traditions and his own research on human consciousness. However, it's worth noting that these are general tendencies and not absolute differences, and that individual preferences can vary widely.

    So by this logic, assuming he's on to something, I suppose it is possible that females generally would have less of a preference for 5-MeO-DMT.

    That seems to be true, in my experience.

  5. Posted

    7 hours ago, OBEler said:

    Yes 

    I bet not one woman in this forum has even tried 5 Meo DMT. Not a single one.

    Strange to think about how manly some drugs are.

    There's literally only like 3 women who frequent this forum... and 4 whenever I pop in for a month like once a year when I feel a craving for getting into intellectual arguments with other people who like to get into intellectual arguments.

    That's not exactly a great sample size to come to that conclusion.

    It might be a medicine that more men are attracted to, but you wouldn't be able to tell that by surveying the very few women that attend this 'you-know-what' fest. 

  6. Posted

    It seems to me that your issue is more akin to sexual repression and sexual shame... which actually amplifies desperation for sex.

    This is why the people and cultures who are the most sexually repressive have the MOST sexual dysfunctions and kinks. It's not healthy.

    You must come to accept that you are a sexual being and that your sexual urges are normal.

    Otherwise, it's the same thing that happens to people with eating disorders who get into binge and restrict cycles.

    When a person has eating related shame, it gets in the way of their natural primal instincts to eat to the point of satiety to the point where they restrict themselves and then end up in a huge binge.

    The same thing happens with the sexual instinct. The more you repress your primal sexual instincts and shame yourself for them... and starve yourself of what is normal, the more insatiable your craving will be. You will become obsessed with sex, like someone with a binge and restrict eating disorder becomes obsessed with food.

    So, try to get comfortable with your sexuality and stop resisting it. Then, you'll be able to make more sovereign decisions about whether you want to have sex or not.

  8. Posted

    4 hours ago, Scholar said:

    I want to remind you that you are not responding to the substance of my argument:

    A) You could use this argument at any developmental stage, and always make the same argument without anyone being able to disprove that you are right about "society not being ready". Each time we have challenged a taboo in the past people seemed not ready, yet we have managed to overcome it. How could you possibly know that society is not ready or that harm is caused?

    B) Using unsubstantiated (no empirical evidence or proof) speculation about whether or not society is ready to stop discriminating and causing unjustifiable suffering to innocent individuals cannot possibly be a justification for continuing to cause such things. If we used such speculation, we could have perpetually procrastinated minority issues in the past, on the fear of "society not being sophisticated enough to prevent possible harms". This especially applies in the context of trans issues, where this is a huge debate.

    C) You have provided no convincing argument that the taboo prevents suffering and child abuse rather than increases it, the argument and the data indicating the opposite is actually far more compelling and robust.

    There is a huge problem with your argument. Stage blue individuals will not be convinced, and do not need to be convinced, to create a reasonable space for minorities who are discriminated against. Stage blue people still get upset about homosexuality and especially trans issue. This will not stop no matter how much the more progressive side of society accepts such things. Which gets us to the argument I made:

    D) Saying that advocating for the rights of these individuals will lead to societal damage because suddenly everyone will accept child-predation (this is a completely absurd notion btw) is like saying the world will collapse if we advocate for veganism because if everyone went vegan over night, what would we do with all the animals from factory farms? Obviously this is not how things change. Stage blue, and less cognitive developed stages, will resist the abandoning of the taboo until they themselves grow up.

    So this entire issue is literally a non-issue, the very way society works makes it a non-issue, for the very reasons you yourself provided.

    I'm curious to know your stance on this:

    If we were putting pedophiles in prison, just for having been identified to have pedophilic desires, do you think we should advocate for the rights of such individuals, and how unjust it is that they are deprived of their freedom for the sake of "protecting society"? Would you think we have a democratic obligation in this case to speak up for these gross rights violations of a minority group?

    Or would you say "Well, society is not yet ready for this conversation, sorry!".

    On your last question, we already have rules and standards that prevent pedophiles who haven't committed crimes from going to prison. We don't have thought crime on the books... nor does someone go to jail for feelings.

    But with regard to you asking about sources, you're not using any either... precisely because there are none about this topic. But it is evident if you really understand the Overton Window of society is because you can see that the collective paradigm isn't ripe for combining the notion of compassion and justice with regard to people that the populace associates with crimes against children (even if many of these individuals haven't committed crimes). 

    And the Veganism thing doesn't work as a comparison because there isn't a strong taboo against Veganism. The most it gets is an eye-roll and a heated argument about why they call plant based milk, milk. 

    That said, I do agree that demonization of pedophiles isn't ideal because then we can't identify root causes and address them. Slapping the label of evil and irredeemable on a group means that we can't solve anything.

    But if you look at that average person, it should be quite obvious that this topic is pretty green on the vine and isn't ready to be parsed and reckoned with in an intelligent way. 

    And all things unfold when they're meant to unfold. And we have plenty of taboos that are not harm related in the eyes of the general populace that are in the process of being parsed and de-tabooified. We don't need to rush any of this.

  12. Posted · Edited by Emerald

    5 hours ago, Scholar said:

    People are perfectly capable of understanding these differences, we are far beyond the cognitive development stages to assert that this is a concept individuals cannot grasp or hold. It is not this complex, and if you want to sustain a position of maintaining discriminatory attitudes against victims of nature, you better have more than your personal opinion to do so.

    You're over-estimating the general populace's cognitive and moral development... and their ability to hold space for seemingly dichotomous notions like compassion and justice.

    All things arise for ideological reconsideration in the time they're meant to be unpacked. And taboos stick around until society develops enough to parse those topics in a more mature way and the taboo becomes obsolete. That's the nature of human societal development.

    A taboo is like a cast that we keep on until the bone mends. And we can't take the cast off prematurely and get good results.

    And that's true even if it is at the expense of people who haven't committed a crime. And innocents have always been casualties of humanity's lack of cognitive and ethical development. It sucks, but it is what it is, until we collectively transcend to higher levels of ethical development.

    Plus, there are SO many other taboos and former taboos that are "ripe" right now for 'anti-tabooification' that we must focus on collectively... things like having kids out of wedlock, co-habitation, divorce, the LGBTQ community, choosing to have few children, choosing to have no children, miscegenation, multi-ethnic societies, female autonomy, birth control, polyamory, swinging, immigration, drug addiction, psychedelic therapy, choosing one's own marriage partner, sex work, withholding cruel and unusual punishment for criminals, and various other breaks from traditional norms that were once considered taboo by the general populace.

    These things couldn't be integrated into the Stage Blue societal structure because of the level of ideological and technological development and the adaptations necessary to make those kinds of societies run. Acceptance of these things and removing these taboos in a solid blue culture is like trying to jam a cd into a cassette player. It just doesn't work.

    But in the current state of Stage Orange society, we do have the ability to integrate all of those things without it getting in the way of how the societal technology runs. But there are still huge swaths of the population that struggle to integrate these things because they are not morally developed enough to move past absolutist thinking... and more towards an ethics that's more around the idea "If it doesn't inflict harm on another person. We can accept it."

    But someone who has developed their level of moral development to "If it doesn't inflict harm on another person. We can accept it." still won't be able to parse how to orient to people who have a taboo that is associated with the harm of the vulnerable... even if they've never committed a crime. And they will still have the punishment-mindedness of the previous level of development... only geared specifically to those causing harm (or are associated with causing harm) and not towards people who engage in taboos that are "unusual/uncommon" but not harmful.

  13. Posted

    2 hours ago, Scholar said:

    That was a sarcastic post to illustrate why such attitudes in other contexts are barbaric.

    I don't see any compelling argument for how it would lead to the normalization of pedophilia. How else are these things going to progress but by having conversations about them?

    Remember, this isn't a neutral issue. People suffer from unjust stigmatization. The harm to pedophiles might actually outweigh the harm to children caused by child predation that is being prevented by this stigmatory stance.

    And I don't even see a compelling reason for how the stigma does anything but increase the instances of child abuse.

    I don't think it is serving the function you think it is serving. This just seems like very vague allusion and potential, abstract threats to justify the concrete rights violations against innocent individuals. Yes, any taboo in the past that was lifted initially lead to problems, but the entire point is to learn from the problems such that we can progress as a society.

    Most child sexual abuse is not committed by pedophiles in the first place. We could have justified stigmatization of homosexuals and transsexual on the basis of vague allusions about the risks of society not being able to handle such conversations and enabling dysfunction and abuse. This is just not the case with attitudes that are highly, highly ingrained in humans to be biased against.

    The most compelling argument here is that you are actually not showing how isolating and shaming individuals leads to less child abuse, instead of more. You are basically just fear-mongering about potential problems if we don't continue to commit contrete rights violations against individuals. If those problems occur, we will solve them once they do. This doesn't give us a right to perpetuate barbarism.

    First off, harm to pedophiles won't ever outweigh harm to children because children are in a far more powerless position. And issues that impact children are wise to give a greater weight to compared to issues that impact adults because children are in a very vulnerable state.

    But overall, I think you're over-estimating the level of moral/ethical development that humanity has, at present. We're still operating off of a rewards and punishments paradigm, and we haven't collectively transcended that idea.

    So, we haven't realized the paradigm of justice in its highest form... which is about serving everyone, including the criminal. And ultimately, stopping a criminal from committing crimes and helping them get into alignment with the law is the best way to serve them.

    And because humanity hasn't developed enough paradigmatically, humanity at large doesn't collectively know how to parse this subject without putting vulnerable children in harm's way. So, they can currently only hit it with a hammer and punish it.

    Taboos serve this very function. They are a kind of societal technology for beating back what we're not yet developed enough (technologically, ideologically, or otherwise) to parse or integrate in a nuanced way that doesn't cause harm.

    And we would need to develop collectively in terms of our outlook on justice, ethics, compassion, and so many other ideological frameworks before we even begin to have this conversation about exercising that kind of collective compassion towards pedophiles in a way that doesn't blur boundary lines and normalize things that shouldn't be normalized.

  14. Posted

    I don't think society is at a point where exercising compassion towards pedophiles and (in turn) addressing root causes and getting them the proper mental health treatments would lead to anything other than pedophilia apologism in a sizable minority of the general populace that is too polarized towards mercy. And the outcomes for children would likely be worse... at this juncture in time.

    To safely shift the collective paradigm this way in a way that doesn't enable pedophilia, you would have to first have a society that is able to discern and differentiate between compassionate root-cause problem-solving and enabling... which doesn't seem to be the case right now. We're collectively still at the "Hit evil in the head with a hammer" phase of development.

    And adding these nuances would just confuse a lot of people. Basically... don't try to give 2nd graders, college level mathematics.

    People already struggle with simpler integrations between universal compassion and justice/laws/boundaries/ethics. So, we'd have to begin there.

    I think if current society tried to take away the demonization and taboos from pedophilia in order to get pedophiles better mental health help, it would just erode the societal boundary lines and end up inadvertently normalizing pedophilia.

    The thing is that taboos serve a function. They help us push away what is bad for society before we have the ability to approach a problem or aberration from a deeper more integrated root-cause perspective.

    And currently, the taboo towards pedophilia is serving an important function.

    Keep in mind that we're a pretty barbaric species, and probably like 10% or more of people are pedophiles. And if pedophilia is approached with compassion in a way that is enabling from a large enough portion of the population, you'd probably have that 10% get more emboldened as fewer people would be on guard for it.

    So, I don't think this is an actionable or good idea at this juncture in time as we'd have to develop ourselves collectively a lot more to intelligently address this issue in a way beyond the overt punishment and shaming.

  15. Posted

    On 9/17/2024 at 2:09 AM, SageMind said:

    I feel that sometimes I am being too picky when choosing someone to date, but I feel like I can't lower my standards because for me there's no middle ground, if I date someone who I am not enough atracted to I feel that I am lying to her. But at the same time following this thinking makes finding someone way too hard and I need to gain experience to be prepared when Im ready to have a wife.

    You should let your feelings and intuitions guide your decision making on this.

    I wouldn't give a guy a chance that I didn't have romantic feelings for because that's my inner compass showing me who I'm interested in and who I'm not.

    Why should you give a girl you feel nothing for a chance?

  18. Posted

    20 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

    This is standard knowledge and should not be controversial.

    https://poe.com/s/LVYP2yXA7bDFVYmDwxHj

    Even plant-based advocates and scientists must acknowledge that their plants contain inferior nutrients relative to animals.

    They just bypass this hiccup by asserting that the benefits of plant based eating outweighs the negatives, and you can see the AI goes this route in its final comment (which is up for debate, and I clearly don't agree with this final conclusion, but to each their own)

    Basically all online diet advocates have their blind spots, vegans and carnivores alike.

    The guy who has the closest paradigm to me is Paul Saladino who recommends a red meat + organs + fruit diet (Paul admittedly has a bad rep on this forum because Michael, our resident health authority, maintains a fierce skepticism towards him) but that similarity in thinking is a happy coincidence - I've learned everything I know about nutrition from in-person mentors, and at this point I would believe what I believe even if the whole internet disagreed.

    You can fairly easily scout out the bias yourself without leaning on "reputable sources" (as if there's going to be a monolithic resource that exposes the whole nutrition industry - who would ever allow that source to see the light of day?), you'll have to do a bit of manual digging.

    For example notice how cronometer will pretend that flax seeds will cover all of your omega-3 needs (I urge you to type in 1 tbsp flaxseeds into your daily journal and notice the green bar for omega 3s at 100%+), and then do independent research into ALA (the compound found in flaxseeds) to DHA (the compound you actually need) conversion and it will become quickly apparent that cronometer is presenting you with a deceptive, misleading picture of your actual omega 3 absorption.

    from what I've encountered, all nutrition apps and sites have this problem.

    Most influencers are not scrutinizing at this level, but if they are, I would be curious to trace their work and verify it for myself before assuming malpractice.

    Plant based diets can be healthy, and they do have tremendous benefits relative to the standard american diet (which is 90% of modern western humans).

    So there is definitely merit there which I do not mean to dismiss.

    My only arugment here is that dismissing meat and going all-in on plants is not necessarily the highest paradigm from a strict health perspective, and that in fact, meat/animal products are rather essential for peak performance/biohacking (admittedly peak performance is my bias).

    Out of curiosity, what's your main dietary fat source?

    I believe this association is a premature epistemic jumping to conclusions. All these decades of cross-referencing and meta-analyses use a broken population as its building bricks.

    This will sound obnoxious, but I don't know how else to put it - There simply aren't sufficient examples of people like me, who take every possible precaution to maximize health whilst celebrating red meat daily. My lifestyle and habits are a tiny blip in the sea of degenerate, reckless meat eaters and health conscious, self-aware vegetable eaters.

    In essence, the concept of "health" is an echo chamber, so everyone either gets polarized into mindfully eating Mediterranean/plant based diet VS being a reckless beer-chugging soda drinking meat-eater with french fries, and this causes a cascading snowball effect where we find more positive outcomes associated with plant eating based on this initial assumptive-split that was made over half a century ago.

    I see this demonization of (red) meat and pedestalization of vegetables as the most epic self-fulfilling prophecy of all time, and nobody realizes that anything is wrong because indeed eating plant based is SIGNIFICANTLY better than being an unconscious average person in a western developed country!

    ...except nobody considers the possibility of stacking every healthy habit imaginable with daily red meat consumption. No study-able cohort adopts this lifestyle at scale for years, and so plant based eating becomes an artificial consensus ceiling.

    What we must study is: young men and women in their 20s who eat primarily red meat every single day, but also eat carefully curated plants and supplements; are not addicted to any substances (no caffeine no alcohol no drugs) or screens (no social media consumption, no porn); go outside and have a thriving social circle and dating life; engage in mindfulness, contemplation, self-reflection, time in nature, time in solitude, and exercise hard every single day and get 8-9 hours of perfect uninterrupted sleep every night. These people also avoid chemical cosmetics and personal care products, synthetic clothing and detergent, tap water and dish soap; they move to the country side where the air quality is less polluted, they avoid all plastics, and store and cook everything in glass or metal; they avoid as much EMF radiation and inappropriate blue light as possible; they feel absolute freedom and flow coursing through them at every moment of every day. They have 0 negative thoughts and 0 anxieties. They embrace death. They are philosophers and sages and leaders and lovers - and eventually mothers and fathers. Then study this group of people for 60 years until they're in their 80s. If we studied 10,000 such people, I promise there would be a paradigm-shattering, outrageous level of excellence and health from this community that all notions of "meat is bad" is rendered obsolete into laughingstock pseudoscience.

    A scholar reading my hypothesis here might laugh at (what he perceives to be) my naivete, because according to Mr. scholar, the people I'm describing must be bound to die of heart attacks and cancer and god knows what else. But I honestly and seriously challenge that assumption, because my mind is free of echo chamber limitations. I assert that not only will these people NOT die of horrible diseases, but they will THRIVE with boundless, never seen before, unimaginable energies and gifts well into old age. I would wish for nothing more than to bet my life, roll the dice, and see the outcomes firsthand of this experiment that I am proposing.

    But you see, nobody lives like this. No influencer, no follower; nobody. Everyone is IMPAIRED in some way, through habit or ideology. I just spent a paragraph describing nobody, because the very few people who share my ideals are themselves struggling to piece together all the moving parts, and frankly the bar I've painted is pretty damn high. Even I don't fully live up to the image I just described (I'm about 80% there, which is more than enough), but I set the stage in such a way so that at the end of this hypothetical experiment, there will be no doubt that either red meat is bad or not.

    To make this actually rigorous, we could even have vegans living in the same community where they share all the same habits for 60 years with the exception of meat eating. Then we will have truly isolated the variable of red meat! ...haha yeah, as if. You see how impractical this whole thing is? This study will never happen; in fact this community will never exist.

    Which is precisely why no health-conscious person believes in daily red meat consumption. After all, what's the difference between something being ACTUALLY bad vs something being PERCEIVED as bad? In actuality, you avoid both, and so "actual" and "perceived" is collapsed into a singular indistinguishable thing.

    In some ways, the more scientific and grounded your mind is, the worse off you are in this debate, because you will prioritize safety and stick to "what we know" over pushing the ante and forging into the unknown.

    It takes a truly free person (or an idiot) to say "I love health. I feel really really good eating red meat. let me do this forever, even if it kills me. Show me the truth. I AM the experiment."

    And here's the kicker - even if I live a long and happy life eating red meat every day (which I will), people will still find a way to relegate my story as being a fluke, because they are so cognitively biased against meat without having spent any time disentangling from social matrix/consensus, much less trying the thing for themselves.

    It's like psychedelic skeptics who say that aya ceremonies are hallucinations in the brain and you're the crazy one for seeing something that they don't ;) and they burden you with the proof of showing THEM an official study before they accept your premise... it's totally absurd. Not only is the study physically impossible to conduct; but even if we somehow did, the scientific skeptic would still find a way to dismiss you.

    To access the truth, the skeptic must cross over into the event horizon of self-annihilation, where he says "fuck it lemme eat beef every day for 3 years and see what happens" - but the smarter he is, the more he will resist hahaha. And then he will spin a story about how how discerning and wise he is for avoiding the beef, or psychedelics, or whatever shadow he dares not explore.

    To anybody reading this, don't believe anything I wrote (but don't fight it either). Notice how I'm right; notice how I'm wrong; notice how you disagree with me; notice how you agree with me; notice that nobody - you, me, and scientists included - knows anything really; and notice what a vulnerable, beautiful predicament that is.

    Despite some plants having anti-nutrients, there doesn't seem to be evidence suggesting the those who eat plant based diets are deficient in nutrients.

    Though I'm open to any reputable sources and studies that suggest nutrient deficiencies. But if that were the case, I don't know if the WHO would give plant-based diets their seal of approval as they have if Vegan diets were frequently nutrient deficient.

    But the meta-analysis (with over 11,000 studies considered and cross-referenced) shows that consuming meat is correlated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to those who eat a plant-based diet. And that same result keeps being repeated in newer studies as well. 

    And even diets that minimize animal product consumption, like the Mediterranean diet, tend to be associated with more longevity.

    So, given that there's 11,000+ studies considered in this meta-analysis, I don't see how you can discount ALL of the findings of these studies out of hand.

    I suppose the main thing that we disagree on is that you tend to look at more anecdotal personal evidence like how you feel to determine the health of a diet. And you trust that if meat makes you feel good now, that it is good for you. And you don't trust the current scientific research, despite how much of it there is.

    But I tend to look at the studies and meta-analyses (which are conglomerations of a variety of studies) as a better litmus test for health outcomes longevity.

    And if we disagree on the underlying principle that the scientific consensus is more accurate than personal anecdotes, then we simply aren't going to agree.

    Also the reality is that, even if you did hypothetically find that Vegans were generally deficient in some nutrients (which there isn't evidence of to my knowledge), the plant diet is associated with fewer instances of high ldl cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, etc.

    And heart disease is the number one cause of death in America.

    But nutrient deficiency isn't a common cause of death at all as long as you're getting enough calories.

    So, if you're looking for a long life... a whole food plant-based diet seems to be your best best based off of the current scientific literature.

    But there's a possibility that eating lots of red meat could make you stronger in the short term (which I don't know if that's been studied or not), but might shave some years or decades off your life.

    So, if that's the case... and you're here for a good time, rather than a long time... that's a decision someone could make to sacrifice the length of their life for how they feel in the short term eating red meat.

    But I want to make it to 100! So, I'll stay away from the meat.

    Now, in terms of your question about fat sources... when I actually focus on health and eat a Whole Food Plant Based diet, I tend to have Walnuts as my go-to for Omega-3s and Omega-6s because I only have to eat a handful to give me enough to meet my needs for both of these nutrients. But I also do flax seeds, hemp seeds, or chia seeds sometimes though those don't have a ton of Omega-6.

  19. Posted

    4 hours ago, questionreality said:

    So now you are reverting to whataboutism? Really?

    Why do you assume that only the right-wingers have a problem with his assassination?

    It doesn't matter whether you are on the left or the right - if you support assassination of a political candidate you for sure don't support democracy, or at the very least don't understand what it is and how it works.

    I knew you were biased, but didn't know that you could be this blinded. I can now see why this forum has such a strong echo chamber and groupthink. 

    I really can't believe what I have just read.

    It's not that most of the people here are condoning an assassination attempt. Obviously, it's important to condemn political violence of all sorts because it sets a bad precedent to normalize it.

    It's just that it isn't surprising that Donald Trump would be the target of one (or more) assassination attempts because he is a politician the sews chaos and engages in telling lots of Fascistic falsehoods that put vulnerable people in harm's way... and he is a genuine threat to democracy. And there's a lot of fear around him getting back into power because of his indications of a desire to become a dictator.

    So, of course some crazies might try to be vigilantes and take the law into their own hands.

    But it's quite silly for people on the right to point fingers at the left and accuse the left of being responsible for the assignation attempts against him by pointing out his dictatorial behavior. 

    Really... the answer is that crazies will be crazies. But there are reasons why this is happening multiple times to Trump in particular when it doesn't happen that often to other politicians... and that is a direct reflection of the way he has shown up on the world stage over the past 9 years.

  20. Posted

    21 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

    Unfortunately all consumer apps have the same bias.

    We would need to contact private, lab-quality facilities to get an accurate reading of our nutrient intakes.

    I agree that the carnivore diet needs supplementing. Eating only meat is very silly.

    I live and advocate for omnivore which is in my opinion the best of both worlds from a nutritional perspective, although I am sensitive to the moral concerns that vegans raise, having been a former vegan. (i.e. what is best from a nutritional perspective may not be the best from a moral perspective)

    I'm not convinced at all that vegan diets only need b12.

    Due to the bioavailability/conversion issue and the phytic acid issue that I mentioned above, I believe that to truly THRIVE as a vegan you would need literally dozens of pills (no joke).

    • Creatine, Taurine, Carnosine, Anserine, Leucine, Iron, Zinc, Omega3 DHA, Vitamin D (sunlight is insufficient esp. in winter), Vitamin K2, choline, etc. I'm just glazing the surface...

    ... there are many underground functions in the human body served by animal flesh that even if you manage to skate by without adequately addressing all of them, your body is still not actually operating at 100%.

    Think Bryan Johnson who may be the only vegan on the planet that is actually approaching 100%... and he takes about 200 pills a day lol. And even then I'm skeptical.

    There is some truth to what Schizo is saying. You could live off of beef alone for decades before running into something like scurvy. Whereas there is not a single plant that allows you to live off of it alone. By going the plant route, you are "forced" to eat an enormous variety, which is somewhat telling of the life-sustaining-potential of each food.

    I read that you've been vegan for 8 years, and I see that as very impressive and I hope you don't take any of this as an attack on your lifestyle or choices, it's a simple disagreement over nutritional minutia that has no bearing on you as a human (or any vegan individual). I'm rooting for your prolonged success :)

    Do you have peer-reviewed sources that back up any of these claims around lack of bio-availability of nutrients in plants to the point where you must supplement all these nutrients on a Vegan diet? Or are these just things you've heard from people advocating for a keto or carnivore diet?

    And do you have any reputable sources that reflect the bias in ALL the nutrition tracking apps? Or is that just a way that keto and carnivore influencers tend to explain away the nutritional gaps on these diets?

    I'm asking because it sounds like these are pieces of information deliberately crafted and selected as counter-points to nullify and explain away all the scientific studies that show positive results for plant-based diets health-wise.

    Also, it isn't difficult to get all the nutrients you need (except b-12) on a whole food plant-based diet... and the WHO even states that people at any phase of life can meet all of their nutrient needs on a plant-based diets as long as they supplement b-12.

    And (even though you don't believe in these) I do sometimes track my nutrient intake on apps, and I can meet all my requirements in terms of macro and micro nutrients in 1500 calories if I make sure to incorporate nutrient dense foods like potatoes, beans, walnuts, broccoli, etc.. And it's super easy to do if I eat 2000 calories which is about average for a woman of my height and size.

    Also, the fact that Bryan Johnson has chosen a plant based diet should indicate something about plant-based diets given his goals to extend his life-span using the most scientifically substantiated means.

    I don't resonate with his goal. But there's a reason why he's not eating an omnivorous diet, and that's because it's associated with shorter life-expectancy and higher risk of all-cause mortality than plant-based diets in a variety of studies that have been cross-referenced in meta-analyses. 

    But I haven't been Vegan for the past 8 years. I haven't eaten meat in 8 years. But there have been a few times that I got lazy and eroded my ethical boundaries and started eating dairy again for a couple months here and there. But I am Vegan and have been Vegan for most of the 8 years.

  21. Posted

    2 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

    Cronometer has a subtle plant-based bias which may blur the truth.

    For example with vitamin K, Cronometer only tracks K1 which is commonly found in plants, but it completely neglects K2 (which serves all the same functions as K1) found in animal products.

    Cronometer also doesn't account for the lack of bioavailability in plant nutrients. For example it will claim that carrots fulfill your vitamin-A needs, but that assumes your body actually converts all of the beta carotene to retinol successfully (which is highly unlikely). This principle is true of almost every vitamin and mineral as well as ALA and omega-3. I don't care how much flax seeds you are eating, you should count that as 0% omega-3 DHA

    Cronometer also doesn't account for phytic acid found in almost all vegetables, which binds to minerals and robs you of nutrients before your body can absorb anything. Eating brown rice with chicken actually yields LESS total nutrients than just eating chicken by itself. But Cronometer won't show that.

    Worst of all, Cronometer tells you to get more omega 6 from canola oil when you hover over the info card LOL.

    Your point on Manganese and Carbs is legit, which is why I would never recommend pure carnivore to anybody. I eat white rice with my beef.

    Vitamin C and Calcium are easily supplemented, and fiber is overrated (I have a 0 fiber diet and I have the best gut health of my entire life, including when I was vegan/vegetarian)

    You can enter it into another app if you'd prefer. Then, let me know the results if you do.

    But the reason why I was mentioning that the carnivore diet needs supplementing, is because Schizophonia was saying you need so many different supplements on a Vegan diet.

    But I was pointing out that the Vegan diet just needs b-12... while the Carvnivore diet has multiple nutrient gaps.

  22. Posted

    22 minutes ago, Onecirrus said:

    @Emerald I think you are like the third person to make this personally about me, but I’ll answer your question. I want someone who is emotional invested in my survival and well-being. Do I believe I can get that? Not really. 

    I am curious about the macro dynamics of dating though, since none of my friends excluding one is happy with their results in romance. 

    If this was an economic discussion, no one would be trying to pry into my psyche, it’s kinda annoying.

    Yes, my assumption was that you're asking out of more than just curiosity. 

    And it's a reasonable assumption to make, because people tend to seek knowledge to get information that's relevant to them and their lives. 

    Dating conversations usually aren't approached from zoomed out macrocosmic points of view like political topics are. And even if they are framed that way, it tends to be related to things the person is struggling with in their personal life.

    So usually, people go seeking this insights to help them navigate their own dating life.

    So, I was asking so that I can tailor my answer to what you want.

    Ultimately, what you want is out there. But it's difficult because a lot of people (especially young people) are more focused towards sexual/romantic excitement rather than a sustainable familial relationship.

    But beyond that, we also aren't taught how to sustain relationships. Before, people used to have survival needs and authoritarian laws and rules to keep everyone smooshed together in a codependent stew.

    But now, we must learn how to sustain relationships in a healthier and wiser way that is more bottom up. And we're in the baby phases of that. And most people suck at it.

    That said, what you're seeking is out there. You can find it if you have a discerning eye for who is compatible to you.

  23. Posted

    9 hours ago, Onecirrus said:

    I’m curious what percent of men are actually “winning” in this dating game. All of my married friends are miserable and tell me it was the biggest mistake of their lives and they feel like they can’t get out, my other friends spend all their time playing Magic: the gathering and vidya and seem to have completely given up on dating entirely, and I have one friend who fucks lots of girls and commits to none of them. Out of like 8 men I know, the last one is the only remotely successful one. We’re all under 30 btw. 
     

    What percent of men do you think is actually getting the results they want in this dating market?

    Out of curiosity, what is it that you personally want out of 'winning the dating game?'

    Whether someone is winning is really a matter of their own assessment.

    I assume you're asking to try to get some kind of clarity on whether or not it's possible to get what you want.

    So, what is it that you want out of dating? And do you feel like you can get it?

    If you can't get what you want, then what happens? And what does that mean?

  24. Posted

    6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

    Lol.

    No one believes that except for some insane conspiracy theorists like Dr. Barnard or idk who else.

    Animals or insects convert cobalt to b12 in some way and accumulate it, we need a lot of it to the point where it's pretty hard to reverse a deficiency and you rationalize that there will be pools of b12 on TRACES OF LAND because there will eventually be bacteria there that can metabolize cobalt.

    There comes a time when you have to slow down the cannabis.

    I will believe you if you give me examples. 

    To get examples, type an all meat diet of 2000-2500 calories into a nutrient tracking app and you will find deficiencies in Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Calcium, Manganese, Fiber, and Carbs. And you can try it with one type of meat... or a variety of different types of meat to get these results.

    I use Cronometer, but you can use a nutrient tracking app of your choice. Then, tell me what you find.

    But where are your sources about the b-12 Cobalt thing?

    Getting enough b-12 is super easy to do as you only need a tiny amount to get a lot more than your daily recommended intake, and quite a few plant-based diet staples tend to come fortified with it... like cereals, plant milk, nutritional yeast.

    Also, other animals don't create b-12 within themselves either. They just eat plants or other animals that contain b-12. 

  25. Posted · Edited by Emerald

    7 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

    No

    https://www.dovepress.com/total-meat-intake-is-associated-with-life-expectancy-a-cross-sectional-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM

    You pretend to not understand that this is about the best diet for your body.

    Yes. 👍

     

    Do you know who funded this study? If studies are funded by the meat and dairy industry, then there could be a conflict of interest. So, you have to be careful.

    It seems to me from looking at the link that there's skewed understanding derived from this study... as it is a study of 175 countries to determine if higher meat intake is correlated to higher life-span.

    But keep in mind that wealthier more developed countries would have greater access to meat... and thus might show that meat intake is correlated with longer lifespan because those in wealthier countries have a longer lifespan. 

    But that doesn't mean that meat intake itself is the cause of a longer life-span. There is just a correlation because the people that live in wealthier countries live longer and have more access to things like meat... but also medicine, sanitation, food in general, etc..

    To get a good sense of the actual impact of meat consumption, you'd need to control for the impact of starvation and lack of access to nutrients and resources and other environmental factors by studying people who live in the same region/circumstances with various diets but who have access to all the micro and macronutrients they need as well as a sufficient number of calories.

    So, if you only studied people in one region, you could control for the right factors to test the solely for the impacts of meat consumption on health outcomes and all cause mortality without other regional factors skewing the data.

    Only then you could get a clearer picture about the impact of meat consumption on the human body... without the interfering factor of starvation in less developed countries with a lack of access to luxury foods like meat... as well as lack of access to sanitation, medicine, etc. 

    A more accurate conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that "Regions where people eat more meat are wealthier regions that have a higher life-span because there is access to more and better resources."

    But every study and meta-analysis that I've ever looked at, shows that eating more plants and less saturated fat is correlated to less all-cause mortality.

    So, Vegan and Mediterranean diets tend to be the most correlated with longevity because there are more plants and less/no red meat and dairy in both of these diets.

    Here is a link to a very large meta-analysis that reflects this.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8408672/

    And this meta-analysis cross-references 11, 547 studies.

    Here's a quote from the meta-analysis...

    "Several articles (5 of 25 [20%]) reported that the dietary patterns associated with significantly higher ACM risk (and/or shorter survival129,130,133,135,148) emphasized the following commonalities: higher intake of (1) meat and meat products such as beef, pork, sausage133; red meat and meat products130; red meat and processed meats135; fresh and processed meats and seafood148; (2) high-fat dairy products such as ice cream, cheese, and whole milk129; and/or (3) refined grains130,135 or flour-based foods such as pastries133 and/or sweets and desserts133,135,148 such as cake, cookies, chocolate, and candy129; as well as lower intake of (4) low-fat dairy products, rice and pasta, fruits, fish and other seafood, and dark green vegetables.129"