Simon Zackrisson

Great. I was about to just start a thread out of cynical curiosity about what love really is, in the classical sense of you starting to love someone romantically. And here you are, having created a thread about it yesterday. I wanted to pose the question if the all the classical heartbreaks people have, is simply a matter of being in scarcity. This meaning, that you basically don't get alot of opportunities with your preferred partner. The cynical notion that all we do think and feel, is through the veil of instincts for survival and reproduction. That what love really is, is the settling for someone, because you subconsciously feel you have no other choices. It may sound crass, and it does i agree, but it feels to me like it is a logical law. That, under the bullshit emotions and rationalizations, what we are hard-wired to do, is this. S and R, survival - reproduction. I don't really find pleasure in this, although imo very true, perspective. I'm the kind of guy that loved to see love as pure and true, I feel I got hurt quite alot from this, hehe fucking love. I still feel it, but it is now accompanied with increasing understanding about how the mating dance goes between the sexes. Yes, it does make sense that the narcotic romantical attachment for someone could serve as a ensuring factor for the offspring. But this feels more true when we are older, more mature. I'm more thinking of this irrational love that can just engulf you often quite spontaneously, often when we're still young.

@Vercingetorix Interesting. And yes, I feel obliged to agree with you on the intellectual level. But. Look into a child's eyes, and receive the projection of the only ever sad hopeless disbelief in disappointment for it's own race. A little universe of unease and fear, a bundle of thoughts and feelings, treated with nothing but caliceness, the only thing it has ever known. This would of course be a hypothetical scenario where a child was exposed to plain simple suffering, only to then die in pain and confusion to seal the deal. Come and talk with me about how beautiful the universe is then. Or how it's all inside me, we're all one, everything that happens is me, i am both the background and the content. Note: This text is written out of curiosity and desire for truth, I feel no emotional crusade at the moment like: "omg life is fucking bad u just dont see it lol its all fucking terrible doesnt matter how much shit u talk about one life and we being all one lol what id like to see u grow up a child in abuse and then die in abuse". I just would like to be able to reconcile the terror in this world with its seemingly beauty. Or at least my emotional reaction to it.

Another name idea for this might be Radical Acceptance.

Might as well link to this, since it was what inspired this consideration

Hey. Just wanted to create a thread for anyone that wants to communicate and reason about the, in our subjective and human assessments, horrors of the world.

@counterdependent I'd say I'd agree with you to some extent. However, until this global communication is possible, I think it's better to lessen the boundaries by reaching through translations.

Comforting to know that I'm not the only one doing it. That is, the only one that is sane* doing it. *reasonably sane

Meat, eggs are not dangerous. Ignore this outdated, outproven science. Just use logic, what did we eat when we were hunters and gatherers? Hunting around in the forest.

Thought I'd initiate a place for discussions about the diet LCHF: Low Carb, High Fat. This is a diet that is exactly as the name suggest: Decrease the amount of carbohydrates consumed (Especially sugar, and slower carbohydrates, such as those found in for example Pasta, Potatoes, Bread) Increase the intake of saturated fats. (Natural fats, eggs, meat, avocados, cheese.) An exceptional resource for more information about LCHF: www.dietdoctor.com This is a website free of any financial recieving from any company or government. I've personally been eating this diet LCHF, for about 2 years. (With a non-strict approach, meaning I deviate as I see fit, sometimes I go crazy and eat whatever I want. ^^) I've most definitely felt a benefit in doing this. For example: no desire to buy candy when in store (this blew my mind the first month), feelings of better health and being overall in a more calm setting etc. If you know anything about blood sugar and insulin, this makes sense. (If you are interested in information concerning diabetes, you should learn the basics of LCHF) There is much more to this diet, so feel free share your thoughts, and send out questions. Note: I do not consider myself an expert on this topic. Do you have any experience with LCHF, or similar diet?

I'm gonna be the boring one: It's very different from person to person. Try to understand how he would deal with it in a way he appreciates.

I understand. I think you should perhaps say that you can't resonate with this person, that it isn't possible to have chemistry with everyone. Maybe you hate this person haha, it could be easier to state that it isn't anything personal, in order to get another person. Think about if you could get a person that truly empathized with you, that you felt you can shoot ideas too freely, that also had wisdom in regards to mental health. I have been guilty of this, to underestimate the potential that a psychologist can have. I think there probably isn't a need to talk about everything with a psychologist, but certain things can definitely be helpful. I think, at least perhaps give it a shot, so that you know what it is. And then you can quit knowing that you was man enough to try. And about the meds, was kinda the same for me. I've tried different medicine, that being the normal antidepressant type SSRI and type SNRI, but also different, such as benzodiazepines for anxiety and sleep. Sleep is still one of my arch-enemies. I gave the antidepressant an honest shot, and it maybe helped in some sense. For me, it made me feel less in general. All emotions were reduced. I know people that, when less under attack by the grip of their depression, has used this medicine to progress their position in life and then when put in a less anxiety inducing life-setting, afterwards quit it. I think it could be a good resource in this case. I don't think it's weak, in any case I think it's weak to not have the courage to at least try something that could assist you advance to a more powerful and happy position in life. What do you think?

Hope your day is going alright today buddy. Attempt to constantly channel the burst of inspiration for this life, even the smallest, just try to get any little feeling of what the fuck it is that would make you happy on this earth. What the fuck would make you happy here? Another, shorter video that I like.

@ttm Best scientific evidence is in garlic as a vampire repellant! So annoying with these vamps attempting to get in ur house and suck ur blood. Thank god for garlic yo

Actually, it was these videos: Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1geoD61y1_s Part 2

@The Alchemist Indeed. Try to work yourself up in a warrior mode, watch a lot of inspirational videos, think about how you wish to sculpt your life. This video has perhaps kept me off the edge sometimes. Edit: wrong video, it's kinda nice but little annoying

As previously mentioned, perhaps try to get a higher perspective, meditate and initiate a more spiritual setting. Another thing that can be very healthy, while underrated, is to talk to a therapist. What are your feelings towards this? Edit: Damn I missed it, you are talking to a psychologist. Ok. So what is your feeling towards that? Have you guys talked about medicine?

@ZenMonkey But if you don't want to keep engagement in the conversation it's fine. I would just have been happier if you didn't accuse me of using logical fallacies. Peace bro

@ZenMonkey If you're referring to the part Dhana Choko edited, I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings. I just felt upset of you misquoting several times, while accusing me of using logical fallacies without even saying when I did it.

@ZenMonkey Now I'm not following. Call you which things?

I didn't say it is true. I said there is no incentive for misinformation, since there is no donating corporation or government. There is an incentive to give the current scientific truth about what is healthy to eat. If it turns out that veganism was to be shown in independent, high quality studies, dietdoctor would be the first one to update its recommendations. It is not about a certain diet, it is about what is the scientifically supported healthy thing to eat. If you have a membership, you're interested in being accountable for the best science that is around, you want your members to know that you are interested in their health, always looking out for the best information around, and not invested in some dogmatic feel-good diet. It's not websites that are right, as I already said. It is the independent, high quality scientific studies that is of weight. There definitely is such a thing as independent, high quality studies. Studies that aren't "onesided". It's not the amount of studies that matters, it is the quality. Just because I am too stupid to interpret long academic studies, DOES NOT mean that there is not independent, high quality objective studies which reveal the reality of the situation. One example of this is the fact that there has NEVER been a study proving any danger to eating cholesterol. It doesn't matter if you cherry pick all you want. You got to realise that while some studies indeed are sponsored with an underlying agenda, both from the grain and sugar industry, as well as the meat and dairy industry, some studies are independent. It doesn't matter if you or me understand studies, it still exists such a phenomena as independent high quality studies which shows an accurate picture of reality. As explained, the website is concerned with up-to-date scientifically supported data. It's not us versus them. It's not "www.lchf.com" vs "www.vegan.com". www.dietdoctor.com is about actual health, not a diet. The current scientific supported truth is showcased, not a certain diet. They definitely would update their recommendations, if there is scientific support. That is what is called accountability. But that doesn't take away that it is this magazine that initiated the war on fat, and now updated its position. Enlighten me. Which argument are you referring to? Also, where did I commit a logical fallacy? Factually incorrect. I wanted Phocus to respond with a single example in his accusation of me being guilty of using logical fallacies. Not reply to every point. I find it fascinating that you should quote without actually grasping what the text states. No, the image shows what happened after the they said don't eat fat. Again, correlation does not imply causation. But it is, in my opinion, pretty crystal clear. There is both of those there, in science and stories. Look again. You're right. It is ultimately a belief, just like it is a belief to believe in god, that the earth is flat based on bad evidence: the bible. And it's also a belief when you're basing your opinion on the newest science, stating that the earth is indeed not flat. Well, high five to that brother. It's good that we both avoid direct intake sugar. Perhaps you should eventually consider avoiding carbs too, since they become sugar in your body.

@ZenMonkey You are standing in truth in one way, all of us will always have a bias, it is something inevitable since we are indeed humans. I feel I resonate with dietdoctor.com because it does not accept donations from any corporation or government. There is no other incentive than presenting a fair and balanced perspective to its members. It's free of narrative from external sources whose concern is for profits, and not real health for people. In short: lobbyists and special interest groups can go fuck themselves. And ultimately, it's not the site itself that holds scientific weight, it is independent high quality studies that is linked to. Also, you seemed to have missed the highlight from TIME magazine, so here you go again. The very magazine that initiated the war on fat has now updated itself: In addition to the updated science, I just used simple logic. While observational data cannot prove causation, this graph is very curious. When the mistake of recommending avoidance for fat was introduced. I would need more research to comment about the intestinal length in humans, but it seems @Draconis Chaser has done a bit of study in regards to this. Here is his take on this. This part of your post makes zero sense. This was a response to Phocus, regarding his accusation of me committing logical fallacies. Why are you quoting this? If you want to talk about anecdotal evidence, real life success stories from people, more and more people keep coming forward to share their personal positive results from lchf. It is almost overwhelming.

@Draconis Chaser A note to that, the body is perfectly capable of producing glucose for the brain through protein in the liver; there's no need to eat carbohydrates for that.

I like garlic! I think it's healthy.

@AHappyTeddyBear Dude chillout i agree with you that it's a sport, im just saying that i might be too weak to handle it as it can easily become addiction for me

@AHappyTeddyBear meant it like a heroin addict that shoots up with someone : P