Schizophonia

Eheh, i see what you mean. But what i mean is that when I tune into people's energy, the vast majority of the time the background is relatively conciliatory, even if they are unpleasant or even disturbed, it's relatively "gray". It's very rare that I tune into a person and realize that they are a pure antisocial demon who lives for money and power.

I rarely see real demons.

LSD feels "dirtier" than psilocybin.

I do it for comfort, to smell good. No, where i am, no one cares, everyone cooks with wooden utensils and no one gets sick The only person i've met who gets sick often is an American living in France, americans also seems have more allergies; The main difference between the two countries in terms of hygiene is that the French eat a lot more raw products, particularly vegetables, fruits, milk and meat (especially beef). And as i said everybody cooks with wooden utensils.

When i take LSD i tend to clench my teeth a lot, it also triggers unpleasant tooth sensitivity but i don't know if it's related to prolonged clenching or if it's just neurological. I have other side effects like the impression of having urinated on myself, of having snorted steel because of the vasoconstriction etc.

Having slaves is rational. You may want to avoid being too mean to them either because you're not a sociopath, or because you want to avoid them rebelling and killing you.

This is hypochondria

He has fun playing his ego.

The highest perspective is the one who serves your interests the most. With this dichotomy you can manipulate people who like to see reality through additional layers of concepts because it makes them feel more "intelligent", "evolved" or adjectives like that that allow them to inflate their ego. But this is opposed to a more holistic perspective, therefore more solid, but which is in fact simpler because with "less surface" as Ken Wilber would say. There are no selfish people and altruistic people it's a lie, there are people who have a more or less normal management of their libido (and who will favor their sexual pleasure, taste, their career, sport) and people who favor regressive patterns.

150ug of LSD is a funny trip to me ; And 300ug is a breakthrough toward another world.

You just lie there

I do better with both high fat and high carb than HCLF.

Your opinions shoud le flexible.

It's a shame that these media are controlled by billionaires with an ideological agenda, but it's the only thing to counterbalance the ideological influence of the left in institutions. Leftists don't want to massively propagandize everywhere they can and it starts at school because the professora is a traditionally left-wing institution in most countries. Besides, most people who want to block musk don't really want to do it out of ethics, out of concern for pluralism, but because they see musk/X as a barrier that prevents them from having a greater balance of power, it's opportunistic.

You're in the anima.

@Actualising There's no problem, if you're ready to leave your girlfriend for another one like that then it wasn't really worth it and it's a gift that you're giving to both of you.

Thanks, ditto Michael.

Okay fine, so where is this moral? It has to be somewhere. In the Bible maybe? Once again you begging the question, and that's normal because it's the only thing you can do with something drawn solely from the imagination. I can i've already killed several chicken (for eat ofc). It's disturbing for the ego at first, but not being able to kill an animal to eat it is also disturbing in the other direction for someone who is used to it. Do you think that a few million people, generally western/white or of marginal religious tendencies here and there in the world are normal, and the tens of billions of humans who have done this throughout history are not normal? I don't care in itself, having to do something because "nature" would be as imaginary as your ethic, that's not what i oppose veganism on (for me). No, it's the opposite, it would be to declare that there is an objective world that would legitimize my point of view the most, in absolute terms. Because if everything is imaginary, it leaves room for maneuver to slide towards a maya where eating lentils is super good and holy etc. But right now, you can imagine your ethics as much as you want, you imagine above all a maya where meat tastes good etc. That's what your being wants to imagine the most. Don't know if i'm clear. Begging the question + as a Lacanian pain in the ass i direcly see the mark of libidinal regression in the "animal flesh". For me it's just a piece of protein that tastes good, yum, then my empathy will eventually push me to avoid killing an animal in a way that is too cruel. Again, not because I'm "good" (regression) but because as an empathetic person I feel good about not hurting it too much. In fine the result is a trade-off between the two libidinal forces, that is to say that I will savor this freshness and, at the same time, make sure that the animal has not suffered too excessively (or that I have not seen it suffer, because ultimately it is essentially a question of perception). I don't see any problem with someone becoming vegan because they are hypersensitive and have a fixation on eating animals, it would be rational. But when you talk about "good", "animal flesh" it is not the same phenomenon that is hidden behind it. It doesn't tastes good and it's not nutritive Ahah We are all just selfish, only our survival matters; Idealistic ideas, which are far from the body, are a way to survive in a social context where you are weak, even if it's totally denied by the conscious . Freud and Nietzsche described this same phenomenon from two different points of view, if you're interested. Health*

You can't tell me that ethics is the best argument for veganism because it is a purely subjective, relative, and simply intangible fact because it is a tool of neurotic origin; Even if it is completely in denial, it is a way of diverting the libido from the reality principle to the imaginary. "I enjoy eating x" -> "normal", "genital" pleasure principle. (Master morality as Nietzsche would say.) "I enjoy eating x if I have saved enough" -> pleasure principle passed through the filter of the reality principle. "I eat y because it means that I am good" -> Libidinal regression, "slave morality" as Nietzsche would say. Essentially as a defense mechanism against the reality principle during the Oedipus complex and the passage to the phallic stage, which would explain why idealist ideas are more present in industrialized societies. On the other hand, hygiene is a totally tangible value, even if I would certainly not agree, you could try to demonstrate to me that veganism is healthier with studies or anecdotes, things that are based on reality.

Yes, but no one is going to subscribe to his thing.

For now, just his video is seriously lacking in professionalism lol. You can be a radical, provocative personality but still make an effort.

No, it's actually the worst, because ethics in this context is not based on anything tangible and is purely relative, even psychotic. You can actually strongly defend veganism from a hygienist point of view for example, because even if I can accuse you of epistemiological bias etc and basically estimate that you are wrong in the end these are concrete proofs that you possibly have at your disposal (studies).

No even if it annoys you it is perfectly logical. 1) Humans have evolved around a diet rich in meat, especially seafood, fish and small game. So a diet rich in fat. 2) Humans have not evolved massively around the consumption of nuts or avocados, the fats available in abundance in this evolutionary process are essentially if not systematically of animal origin. Some very important fats only exist in animals (EPA / DHA), although there are marginal traces of manufacture of consumption of flax seeds, for example, in the Paleolithic (in Europe from memory) 3) As humans have evolved on a diet rich in fat, diets rich in vegan fats are automatically more effective than low fat ones in reducing mortality from all causes, among other things. Now we should do studies on paleo diets, maybe it already exists i don't know.

A postulate based on simple reasoning can be true, a postulate based on complicated reasoning that involves more data and/or logical patterns can be false. Systematically preferring the more complicated arguent only serves your will to protect your ego, believe system and is anti-dialectical.

The diet of Paleolithic humans consisted primarily of fatty meats and some nuts, fatty fruits, and soft tubers/roots. The high-carb diet has no archaeological sense, it is normal that it does not obtain good results even on those who promote it.