aurum

Well you seem to have found a diet that works for you. Indeed, I actually eat fairly similar to you and find myself doing very well. Despite all the meat I eat, even my lipid panel shows no issues. My last doctor chalked it up to genetics, so I am skeptical of people who paint a simplistic picture of meat = bad health. At the same time, I'm also skeptical of extrapolating my personal experience into a generalized theory of nutrition. For instance, I have a food intolerance to eggs. If I ate a single egg I would be rolling around the floor in agony for god knows how long. And I also didn't get even 1/10 of the problems you seemed to have on a vegan diet. So now what? How much should I assume my personal experience is generalizable, especially when you can find anecdotes with seemingly similar results for any diet? This of course is why you need to do studies. But why do you have faith in mechanistic studies and not human outcome studies? Especially when we know mechanistic studies are notoriously bad at translating to actual results in humans? Don't you need the human studies to really say anything conclusive? This is a hunch on your part. Which is fine, but you can't corroborate it with any kind of data. What if humans genetically engineer a food one day that is superior to meat? Maybe it will be the other way around. But how do you know you've arrived at that answer? And why should anyone take that strategy seriously when you don't have the science to back it up and they have to change their entire life?

It's a fair point. But this argument kind of works against meat as well. If you have to do all that just so meat isn't detrimental to your health, then you're probably better off just not eating meat. Because you know no one is going to do that. You might as well say "if someone lived in a perfect health bubble, then meat wouldn't negatively impact their health". Well yeah. But they don't, they live in a world with suboptimal health conditions. So they have to eat accordingly. And I could flip this same argument you just made, but in favor of veganism. If the vegans did everything you described, how do you know they would get significantly worse results than the meat-eating group? In which case you could just as easily be vegan, and you're really only eating meat because you want to.

@SageMind concern yourself primarily with your own work.

Were you really expecting the shooter to be a political scholar?

Ironically, those are all beliefs the new age spiritual community was founded on. The corruption of survival at its finest.

I don’t know anything about her. Maybe she’s had some legit spiritual experiences and is motivated by some higher values. But also, it should be obvious that new age spirituality has turned into a tool for human survival. Almost exactly like religion. You can sell your courses, meet a romantic partner, gain community etc. It’s a whole industry you can go into if you’re willing to play the new age spirituality game and not think too deeply about it. So you have to be careful of what you assume about these people. I’ve had new agers try to pitch me on pyramid schemes before. Just because someone uses spiritual buzzwords and can play the spiritual part doesn’t mean a lot.

The irony is that while the shooter was apparenly quite concerned about the Trump threat to democracy, political violence itself is an undemocratic act. Which is partly why it is condemned in all developed democracies. One guy with his AK-47 is trying to unilaterally decide that a candidate that almost half of Americans want should not be allowed on the ballot. That is not democracy. This also doesn't factor in the importance of civil due process and the inevitable chaos and further violence that would result if Trump was killed. Which just further erodes all the essential foundations for democracy to exist. The guy was a known criminal who clearly had a penchant for violence. That's what is really going on here.

No I don’t live in a swing state. I have done some canvassing but that kind of thing is not really my expertise. So no, I can’t say I have any brilliant ideas on getting out more voters that aren’t already being implemented. I leave that part up to activists who understand that world better.

That’s just my analysis of the overall situation. Trump will win a couple swing states and Kamala will win a couple. So the election is basically coming down to a coin-toss for Pennsylvania.

The polls are accurate in this case. There’s no good reason I see to assume either candidate is going to blow the other one out. It will be a close race.

Maybe. We can nitpick about what we think tips the scales, but the reality is it’s going to be an extremely close race. Kamala is no longer surging in the polls like she was. We’re back to almost a statistical tie.

Debate seems to have been almost irrelevant so far: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/video/enten-harris-trump-poll-debate-digvid https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4x71znwxdo.amp

That Lankford interview was months ago, and he got ripped by a lot of the right-wing for that. There is no big backlash still to come from the right, they have mostly all fallen in line around the decision. A more recent FoxNews article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-run-border-bill-republicans-say-was-never-designed-solve-problem.amp So it doesn’t matter whether Trump did or did not kill the bill for political reasons. What matters is that people don’t believe he did. I won’t say it has no impact though. I just think a 10 point swing is way too much.

But you do realize how many people make this claim, correct? Which one of you right? It can’t be all of you.

Have you looked into MAT? A practitioner *might* be able to help with some of that tightness. https://muscleactivation.com/

I was commenting specifically about the effects of the bill itself. Going from +25 to +15 I think is way too much. +10 overall in the polling on this issue could certainly be right.

That seems very generous in Kamala’s favor. Here’s my argument: How many people even know about that bill? And of the people who know about it, how many of them also believe that Trump killed it for political reasons? I expect her to lose quite badly on this issue. “How can she protect the border if she’s not an angry white male? -> unconscious voter logic

That one only works if you’re an intelligent person who votes on policy. For most people, Trump seems like the guy who will save people from immigration. So they will still vote for him.

Saying it was “planned out” I think gives them too much credit. Trump is not that smart. Rather, the story went viral because it hit a lot of people’s buttons. And Trump and team just ran with it because they saw the popularity and that it played into their right-wing platform.

No. This is progressive nonsense. Racism is about survival. And survival is the most natural thing there is.

Try thinking about it like this: Infinity must be what is contained within it because “transcendental” is a duality you are making. You imagine there is this “transcendental thing” and then all this stuff that is “not transcendental”. But that violates what it means to be Infinity. Reality is, and must be, One. Such that reality simply is itself, with nothing else. And yes, it is tautological. That’s not a mistake.

I’m not saying you’re a right-winger. I imagine you have an open mind. But dude, take the feedback. I’m not looking to attack you. I’ve posted plenty of cringey stuff on here. It happens. Our political discourse is hot garbage right now, and politics itself is notoriously hard to understand. The purpose of being here is learning. So just stay open.

No, that’s not how this works. I offered my explanation. But there is no “proof” for this I can just give you. This is not a mathematical formula.

Because then infinity wouldn’t be infinity. It would be less-than-infinity, since there are things that are not it. For infinity to be infinity at all, it must be Total. You don’t have to agree with my logic. Discover for yourself.