Basman

Animals can offer a lot of value besides as food. Like for example sheep/goats are often used to keep grass area clear, like for example for a solar panel farm or for historical monuments that are located on grasslands. I think European farmers dealing with the now resurging wolf population should experiment with guardian dogs for livestock for example. Not to mention the immense value that pollinators provide. We should think more creatively how we can harness animals for distinct purposes. They present solutions that works without the need for expensive machinery that drains resources or technological development. Just needs creativity and understanding of how these creatures work. We already have a past of employing animals to great effect.

What's the ratio like? You go full burger?

Is that because they are eating more meat specifically or because they have more food security as their standards of living raises? Eating more meat is positively correlated to being more well off like how wine is correlated with being rich. Rich people are generally more healthy which can make whine look healthy even though it actually isn't all that healthy. I see a lot of statistical correlations being thrown around, both for and against veganism, which doesn't conclusively prove anything just yet.

The rich yearn for the colosseum.

The only beer I ever liked was Christmas beer and ginger beer, and the latter is actually soda. Most alcohol tastes like shit. Its also expensive. I might drink one or two units at a party, but I rarely buy any. Usually, someone hands me something.

Norwegians hate standing out. Despite being ideologically liberal, they are highly conformist and tend to see things that are different as strange and weird to a minute degree. There is a picture of school kids being asked if school should introduce uniforms, which they all say is a bad idea while all dressing and looking the same. When I went to high-school, all the boys would wear blue puffer jackets and girls black parkas, which had a carabiner attached to the rim of the hood. It's all brand specific even. Norwegians ideologically believe in the freedom of the individual, but they still have that village mentality culturally, where conformity is key. They aren't overtly polite either. It's not that strange considering Norway has been isolated for most of its history (which arguably it still is, especi ally outside of the capital). Liberalism in Norway is in large part about the right to privacy. Norwegians aren't expressive as a result, which can even be seen in their food, which is bland and safe. The Norwegian version of taco, which arguably is their actual national dish, second to frozen pizza, is a buffet of common vegetables like salad and cucumber, cheese and plenty of meat. It's filling and inoffensive, while at the same time you can pick and choose ingedients like a buffet. Taco is like Norway, in that you have the freedom to be yourself but inside of a bubble of safe conformity. Norwegian culture actually promotes a kind of safe masculinity, which is soft spoken, unopiniated and logical. A trait typical of certain Norwegian girls is that they are bit masculine actually, speaking little, with a low and slow tone. Kind of dead-pan. It's very characteristic of that culture. It's like a dozen years of schooling and the general culture has optimized out the irrationality of feminity.

I'm not Butters, but I've lived in the Netherlands for quiet a few years, comparing my experience to having lived in Scandinavia most of my life. Best: Food is cheaper and more diverse. Road infrastructure is some of the best in world. Smooth, quiet and minimal road work. Compared to Belgium, it's like night and day. You can literally feel the moment you cross the border. Even the airstrips are bad in Belgium. The Netherlands being small and flat makes it easy to get anywhere as well. The netherlands, especially Amsterdam, is really centrally placed. You can easily travel to anywhere from here. Cheap and fast packaging too. Worst: Mandatory health insurance. This would be an upgrade for most people, but I'm used to healthcare being entirely free, so it is a downgrade for me. You often have to fight your GP for treatment. They love sending people home if they aren't 100% certain of treatment. It nearly cost me my life once and permanently scarred me. Those fucking fat bikes are everywhere. It's like hoverboards back in the day, but more hood ratty. People are manspreading on their bike like they are a riding tricycle. Pathetic.

Do you like 'em crazy?

Link to article without the pay wall: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/lifestylegeneral/i-regret-belittling-men-at-63-i-ve-ended-up-alone/ss-AA1O4jxM?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=68ed463a583f4732b17b3430b3a7d69e&ei=21#image=7

Feminism is a relatively broad notion of female sovereignty that is still evolving with differing points of view on things. There are plenty of feminists who have healthy relationships. This women subscribed to a particular antagonistic ideology. Of course you are going to be lonely if you are being mean to the people you want affection from your entire life. That's what bigotry does. 2nd wave feminism illustrates that living in reaction against something is in of itself a kind of conformity. The things you reject still determine your beliefs and actions. A lot of women would probably be happy being housewives if they didn't feel like it was somehow shameful for example.

The issue is that people are deluding themselves into thinking that humans categorically aren't omnivores. You can do whatever in your personal life, but don't start making up shit. You don't need sharp teeth to eat meat. People eat meat their entire lives just fine. Carnivores rarely chew their food as they swallow their food whole mostly. Sharp teeth isn't for chewing but for gripping flesh. Humans don't need sharp teeth because we hunt with our hands and we cook (and we also need to chew thoroughly). This is what I mean by cope. It's so reaching.

Leo is very brief here on the forums actually. It is fair to expect users here to understand the basics when conveying an idea.

Long and waffly text tend to reflect a lack of mental clarity and reactivity in the writer in my experience. If you find yourself writing a lot to convey a point then theirs a chance you could probably cut out most of it. You really only need a couple of sentences to convey a good point in most cases. Brevity is more witty, elegant and respectful of people's time.

Survival isn't about being optimal, but good enough (in the broad sense). Just look at the flawed mess that is human birth. There's no pressure to be perfect. Just to survive. Survival =/= optimal or happiness. A bear belongs to an entirely different genome. Bear guts reflect bear evolution. Humans also cook, so we don't need an industrial garbage processor of a stomach to survive. Our closest living relatives aren't necessarily good comparisons either because they are species specialized for a particular habitat, as opposed to a generalist species, like us humans. Notice that there is only one generalist species of ape that exists today, us humans. Other human species have long been out competed/absorbed into our genome, such as the neanderthals. It would be more pertinent to compare to our sibling species than our distant cousins, which incidentally all ate meat. A likely conclusion is that food scarcity necessitates meat to survive and incentivizes migration among different populations due to our relative size and nutritional needs (especially relative to how resource intensive our brain is). It wouldn't be possible for us to survive historically without meat.

The whole naturalism arguments from vegans is such cope. Humans are are obviously omnivores. You can make arguments for what may be an optimal diet under modern conditions and even make some ethical arguments to boot, but it is pure greed to claim humans are not omnivores to support some kind of narrative.

That is the very definition of an omnivore... It is like saying that humans "merely" adapted bipedal walking, implying we should really be bear crawling everywhere. "Merely" here is such a rhetorical slight of hand. We are omnivores. Nice try.

Had this epiphany about education while contemplating why it is the way it is. It dawned on me that the core issue of when it comes to the quality of public education boils down to resources. Society has to educate millions of people, but it simply doesn't have the resources to give every single person an education that is of high quality on an individual level. Hence bureaucratic tools like exams and ritualistic/symbolic educational requirements to get into higher education/get a job (degrees, diplomas, etc.). educational attainment is contingent on resources and opportunities available. Genetics, interests and hard work can carry you to a certain extent but for most people getting higher grades requires simply more resources. A genetically gifted child can only get so far if he's born in Africa. Africa lacks the resources to give him a high quality education compared to a European country. The education system is largely systemic in my opinion and only meritocratic to a certain degree. Which is why strict requirements for higher-education opportunities tend to filter out lower-class people. They don't have the resources to truly shine. So if you are struggling academically, consider that you just need to invest more money into it.

It's not really corruption because the purpose of religious institutions isn't charity. They sometimes do charity but they are not charities.

People need to learn an actual useful skill. The degree bubble has come and gone.

I'm not sure I understand what this proves. Churches are tax exempt to protect religious freedom first and foremost. Their main purpose is to host a religious community. Charity is in of itself a religious activity for many religions. The sampling is also tiny.

You should preface that in your video so people aren't confused.

This is just a kind of post-modern style of ethics, where moral intuitions are presented as both relative and inherently valid regardless of how they compare to various measure. Much of the same criticism that applies to post-modernism applies here as well, namely that just because you can have a moral intuition doesn't automatically mean it's true, and if its not true its not grounded in any sense of realness. Then it's literally fantasy. Also, if you are going to assume a relativistic stance, you have to acknowledge that anti-natalism is merely one possible perspective and that pro-natalism is equally correct as a perspective. Ultimately, you are not really saying anything substantial besides "this perspective exists". For anti-natalism to be a valid perspective it has to be true, at least by my standard (or at least parts of it). If it is not based in reality then its just hot air. What is missing is substantial proof that life disavows itself which doesn't rely on speculation and whataboutism. It's impossible to make a serious logical deduction based on for example the after life because it is impossible for us to know what it even really is. It's philosophically a dead end.

The "usual suspects" you mean, who would take a break from celebrating Charlie Kirk's death and bashing US hegemony to call you "weird" and "problematic" for wanting a hot chick an accuse you of being some phrase which ends with -ist or -phobe. They'll somehow make it about women's rights and being trans.

I didn't know how to swim till I was a teenager in high-school in a country where it is common to swim from a young age. One semester my class had swim lessons and I was literally the only one who couldn't swim. I was splashing in the kiddie pool while the rest of the class where doing exercises in the deep pool. However, I could remember one lesson from when I was very little that swimming is just doing the same motion as a frog. So I started practicing trying to float and swimming like a frog and I eventually figured out how to swim. At the end of the class I told the teacher that I can swim now so he told me to swim to the other end of the deep pool. So I dove down and swam towards the other end. The girls who sat and watched along the edge audibly "wowed", including the girl I had a crush on at the time. The teacher later that day complimented me for pushing through despite it being embarrassing to be the only one splashing in the kiddie pool for a high-schooler. He noted I could've just skipped class if I wanted to. It's actually a proven fact, no cap, that people will like you more for overcoming a deficiency than if you are perfect from the get go. They will at least respect you for it. What will make people, women especially, dislike you is cowardice, not trying, etc.

What stopping you from staying genuine, for a lack of better phrasing?