Hatfort

@SgtPepper Even herbivores can get calories and nutrients to survive from meat, as seen in your video, that doesn't mean it is the optimal diet for them, it's not and if their lifes weren't already short enough to develop diseases from that, they probably would. That could make the case for humans too, you are not proving humans need meat, only that we can eat it, which no vegan put into question. Man, thanks for the respectul vengans thing, but calling the ones that think differently from you biased... What about you? Aren't you bieased when expressing your point of view? Or are you an objective neutral judge that brings us the truth? Well, thank you. The thing is, I used to think like you, but I changed my mind after checking more information sources. I don't pretend to have the whole truth, but maybe you shouldn't either. Only meat diets are disastrous for the heart and the arteries, there is data on that. Changing to plant based prevents it, even reverses this kind of disesaes. The less meat and processed, the better. Look, eat what you want, as I will. I do eat cooked food, I love it, but it's true I eat more raw than I used to when I was omnivore. Eating raw meat can be very dangerous, there are bacterias and parasites that are neutralized when cooked or processed. Lions and wolves have different digestive systems to handle this, we don't.

@LfcCharlie4 Yeah, it's easier now. I'm surprised how many options there are available. Even in Africa, where I've been living for a few months, I did fine. I also want to add something, three years ago I went vegetarian for various months, it was solely for economic reasons. I was jobless then, had some savings but had to spend more carefully. I took from my diet the most expensive thing, meat. People say vegan is expensive, they have not really been poor, they couldn't afford meat. I saw the Joe Rogan debate between the guy that debunked "Game changers" and its director. He totally crushed him, don't miss it. I'm just going to highlight one point from that. There is a part where they are discussing about some studies that relate milk consumption with prostate cancer. Even Rogan shows a bit of concern about that and he is clearly sided against veganism. Some of them are even from the dairy industry and they show the same tendencies, of course, all that is kept from the public as much as possible, I've been drinking big amounts of milk all my life, thinking it was healthy and good for my bones. Well, my bones are as fine without it and places where they don't consume it at all, the fracture rates are lower. I repeat, lower. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what the food industry is holding. They want to make business and they are lying. Maybe I'm wrong and they are genuinly concerned about the deficiencies vegans may have. But considering the rates of nutritional disfunctions like morbid obesity in omnivores are clearly higher, how is it that they don't start from there?

Of course, do your research, the best is others have already done it and you can just check them. About plant based diets, you can check Michael Greger's work, he has a website with lots of articles and videos, nutritionfacts.org and an active YouTube channel with that name. If you are a reader, totally go for his book "How not to die". Mic the vegan is a popular YouTuber too, easy to follow, but he does back up what he says. You can check "What the health" and "Game changers" documentaries too. You can check and ask in vegan forums, like in Reddit. If you go and ask in good faith, people will answer you well, then you decide what you do. Won't tell you about ethical and environmental considerations, since you didn't ask, but they can be a good bonus too, even if your primary motivation is optimal nutrition and health.

It's true we adapt fast, in fact we do it while we are alive in some degree. But not so fast, If you take a black baby from Africa to live with a Inuit tribe, he is going to be fine, he will start wearing fur like the rest and eat the food available and survive in their culture and environment. Does it mean his ancestors and genes are adapted to wear fur and other variables in that climate? I don't think so. His skin will be darker for where they ancestors lived, not for himself, but he won't die for that. If you take an Inuit baby and bring it to an African tribe where they mostly eat plants, he is just going to dress like them and his skin is going to adapt while he is alive too, whatever his ancestors did for thousands of years. I don't want to separete humans using fire, weapons or shoes from the evolution, but there are still very intrinsic things in us that we haven't left behind. If we stop using footwear, our feet are going to be well. That would be for our digestive system too, we don't need meat, we are fine without it, but in some environments was all there was, we only needet it that context, not that we really do. We can survive very long and have children breathing the smoke of cars and other filth daily too, that doesn't make it ideal and maybe our bodies will start evolving to detoxify more efficiently in time, but I wouldn't wait for it. In evolution, what mattered most was if we could surivive long enough to have children. So if we can live long enough for that with mostly fish and meat, like the Inuits, fine by evolution. It's still healthier for them to eat more plant based though, they will live longer. Same for mammoth eating Asians and Europeans, whatever they did in the Ice Age.

Three months vegan and not going back. Belly fat gone, enegy level awesome and better mood, conscience and will power. I bought those B12 vitamin pills, started taking a bit ago, but apparently omnivores get deficient as much when tested. Heard it is found in water lentils, but have not seen them anywhere, so going with the pills. They are so cheap, a whole year supply less than 10€. I'm actually enjoying discovering new healthy foods. The other day I was buying food in the supermarket and felt like I increased the difficulty of an RPG video game, didn't see it as bad, but an enjoyable challenge. It's true we are omnivores, meaning we can eat a diverse diet, but some things are healthier than others. Well balanced plant based is much better long term and short term there's nothing wrong either. I'll get a bit into biology, we humans can't hunt as lions, tigers, leopards or wolves do. We can't compete with preys in speed and strength and our teeth and claws are no way enough to kill them, we can only do it with weapons or farming them. Our digestive system is not optimal to eat raw animals either, we need to process them with fire or other methods to avoid deadly bacterial infections. So it would be interesting to know how and when our diet came to be as it is and how we evolved as a species in relation, but we don't have a time machine unfortunatelly. Monkeys just don't prey on other big animals, that should be taken into consideration too, because they are our closest cousins. They mostly eat plants, fruits and insects and it is thought their big teeth can be to compete with other males for the females and maybe to defend themselves from dangerours predators too. The thing about the eyes in front or sides does not always apply to predator or prey, as many omnivores like to point as a prove we should eat meat. From totally plant eater monkeys with their eyes in front, to sharks in the top of the chain in the sea or totally carnivore dinosaurs, that have them in the sides, like the rex or the raptors, to mention the popular ones.

This was so funny!! This libertarians are a so naive. Of course independence and individualism are great, I love them too, but they don't connect how much collective agreements and regulations, government in one word, are involved so we have the freedom to the extent we do nowadays. Would be getting into much right now, but at this point what we need are regulations bringing some balance between big corporations and the people. Corporations are so powerful now, they are already lobbying the government all they can for their benefit and they would gladly fill any gap we left in governing. In some point, some decent people will have to get into politics and a good number of voters will have to grow from orange to green to realize they will actually have more freedom with them. We'll have to choose between giving freedom to the corporations or to taking it from them to give it to the people.

Getting away from them would be the first and best move. If not possible, they'll only stop when their actions have negative consecuences for them. Might be fighting back verbally or physically, reporting them, exposing them or anything like that. Of course, you gotta assess how this response will affect you too. You may get some wounds or difficult moments, but if the bully stops, it was worth it. But you could get into an escalation cycle too, that would be pretty bad. If your bully is a psycho, not recommended to fight back, get away from him. In the end, every case has to be considered on it's own.

@Bno Tulsi is growing fine on me too. I don't prioritize identity politics, but I acknowledge that it can have some influence and maybe even value too, she could be a nice first woman president. It took Bernie a long time to get where he is now, a bit late to be honest, but Gabbard is young, speaks well and may have a future. I'd like that.

@Apparition of Jack Yeah, I agree, I hope Bernie wins the nomination, but it's not guarantied yet. @Bno I know, there's a lot to talk about questionable past interventions on foreing countries or conflicts and there are hidden interests under the carpet always. But what may happen in Iran is more equivalent to what happened in Irak or Vietnam, it's on the USA to start it or not, it has to be avoided. Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate for that reason too, even Trump used that against her, although now he is the one doing it. But we are not in 2016, we are in 2020. Let's hope Bernie wins, the nomination and the election, both will be difficult though.

I agree to some extent, because I would not be very satisfied with a nomenee like Biden or Warren. Trump is a symptom, but is also a problem himself, he is red, very unstable and volatile and he has authority as president. I think a war with Iran will continue to be on the table with him and may happen on his next term, for this reason, I think it's a priority to take him out. That's over any other consideration for me, I don't think the Democratic candidates will trigger a war like Trump is doing. Iran has nothing to gain from this, see how they avoided to respond with American casualties for now. What's happening is on the USA, but if the USA continues provoking, in some point, even if it's for pride, Iran may respond more severily and then Trump and the interests behind having wars for profit, will go all in. Trump has to go, the faster, the better.

Well, I hope so, I'm pro Bernie and you can call me biased all you want, but those who do, just ask yourselves if you are not biased for whoever or whatever first, I think that's fair. I have heard what the different candidates had to say before making my choice, if that means something. I think he is the best candidate, he speaks well, he wants to balance power and economy inequality between low and middle classes and high class and big corporations. He presents the most ambitious health system reform, ambitious in the USA context, because in many other countries in Europe it exists and works, even conservative people love it once it's running. If it's not now, it will come later, in the future they will look at not treating people for lack of money as insane and inhuman, Medicare for all is at the right side in history, simple as that. His position on wars in general and potential Iranian, thanks to Trump, in particular is very reasonable. It's also humane, he makes a brief revision of Vietnam and Irak, their motivations and consecuences, but it's not naive either, he does not discard using military force when necessary. I'll link a video of some days ago because he spoke well about all this. He is not young, he is quite old in fact, but he still looks fine to me. We have Trump in front and my biggest concern is how easily he is able to inflame wars with foreing countries. Iran is clearly the choice they have made, after sounding out Venezuela and North Korea first. I guess it's still more popular to attack muslim countries in the Middle East and Kim Jong Un is just too crazy and would totally drop nuclear bombs to South Korea and USA if necessary, even if it costs eveything to them, because it totally would. I just want to say getting rid of Trump is a priority, for that, I will support whoever wins the Democrat nomination, but I'll go with Bernie for now.

@RevoCulture Thanks so much!!

I want to elaborate a bit my thoughts about the spiral stages, after reading the last two comments, because I think they both make really good points. @RickyBalboa I think what you say happen a lot to greens, because even in developed countries, the majority of people are still in blue - orange and so the governments and politicians they choose, at least we live in democracies, to give us some credit. So these governments establish the frame with the laws and rules where we all live and sometimes there is no escaping that. It's a bit frustrating for greens, they honestly think a lot of stuff they propose would help us to live better as a society, avoid unncecesary suffering and they don't understand how others don't see it like they do. Happens a lot about environmental issues, honestly, a lot of what greens say is reasonable, but they aren't able to connect with people stages below. @RevoCulture What you say is also important, most countries or societies are not in just one stage, but in different ones. A lot of economically orange organizations are open enough to include more modern inclusive green ideas, for example. Of course this applies to people too, one person can be in different stages for different aspects in his life. There is probably one predominat stage, but almost nobody would be purely one, I don't think that's how the spiral dynamics model works either. I would say I'm mostly green, have been for years and have experienced the frustration I was talking about before, among other things. I don't think I'm totally done with orange, neither with blue yet, there is value on those stages too and apparently they are steps in the same ladder that should be taken. Perhaps I'm starting to grasp a bit of yellow too, getting to know this model seems a big resource for that and I think it can bring some kind of serenity, I understand better people is just where they are supposed to be, as I am too. But I'm not going to rush it, I'm still integrating and enjoying some green aspects and I'm fine with that. Maybe I'm wrong, making self inquiry can be tricky, but this is what i think.

@RevoCulture Cool!! We do still get in wars and we've been doing it though all our history. But there is and has been a lot of healthy intercultural interaction too, from green cultural encounters, stage orange commertial stuff or even blue tribal sport competition interaction type. This is all good and fun, generally speaking at least, problems can come too. I think we are in fact doing a lot of what you say in your comment, constiously or unconsciously.

Transcend culture? What about writing or expressing your thoughts or ideas in a language others understand? What about all the cultural development that has brought us to this point in history where we can use cars, computers or even pencils? Being able to trascend it has to also include admitting how attached to it we are. We can't escape it really, a baby can't survive without at least a mother taking care of him for a few years, she will transmit her culture to him want it or not. I'm more inclined to see it as a value, multiculturalism is something that naturally evolved in humanity and if we were able to keep it as a way to learn from each other or even to have fun, instead of conflicting like we usually do, I think it would be good. Even in a globalized world, in fact globalization allows us to interact much better, if only we did in healthy and respectful ways. Then we have the monks, the nuns and the enlightenment seeking people in general. Perhaps they are able to transcend it momentarily in deep states of enlightenment, but they still have to continue living like humans later, so there's that.

This is totally a green war, candidates using what they can against each other and in a very green topic. Warren wants to corner Bernie so it seems he believes a woman can't be president, for whatever he said about that years ago. Maybe he said it in the sense that voters in America may still not be open enough for that, like they wouldn't be to vote for a muslim president either, to put another example. If he said it, I think he was wrong, American voters would totally vote a woman president, but let me add the right one. Hillary was close, but couldn't, I don't think Warren is a great candidate either, but we would have to see. Bernie has said that he thinks that woman can be president, I don't think he is pretending, to be honest. Now it's on him to make it clear enough, this is candidates using all their weapons.

Sometimes when blues and oranges judge greens, they do it from they point of view. They have not transcended their stages yet, so they can only judge from where they are. Blues may think greens are very tribals and oranges may think greens are only after the money, surprise, that's where they are. Not to talk about reds, they accuse greens of being violent. Not saying all greens are saints, they have their own flaws and sometimes they may indeed behave like stages below. But just be careful about some stuff you read out there about them, a lot are just projections.

My experience travelling and living in other countries with different cultures is very positive. It's cool to see what's different, but also what's universal and common for everyone. I think it's good to travel with an open mind and heart. Don't overjudge whatever you may find underdeveloped, may happen comparing a place like England with India. You may also find the opposite, some things developed countries have lost and would be good to reintegrate. It can be a good place to set a business, why not. Just go, you can always return anyway!

I've been following him for a while, since 2015 actually. I think he is a man worth to listen. He has introduced me to self development, has expanded my knowledge to new ideas and has made me more openminded too. Not bad. He is a man wearing his shoes, as everyone else is, but he is putting good content in YT by working hard and he is enlightened in ways I'm not and I can respect that. Ok, enough of fanboying! The man is resting now, I think he deserves it.

The posibility to self actualize out of the safe spaces does not disappear though. People who use them, don't live permanently inside of them, actually, They have a wide world to experience whatever meanness it offers daily, they actually do. There can be people who find it difficult to fit in the conventional gender identities or roles. Boys that have been bullied during their childhood for being effeminate or whatever other reason. Same for girls for being masculine or other reasons too. Maybe people who have suffered violence or sexual abuse, in their childhood or later. You think these people have not experienced meanness out of the safe spaces? Maybe they have more than you ever did or will, give them a break, I say just let them have whatever space they feel they need, it doesn't harm me in any way. Maybe it does help them in their self development, different people develop in different ways.

No, that is not what I said, you can read what i said in my comments. I didn't speak on that terms, but you can if you want to.

@Bodigger What we gotta tell pro-lifers is that they can go on with their pregnancies like they want, nobody is going to stop them, but they don't have the right to decide for others. All those numbers you are putting there, we are all saying they are arbitrary, there are no real limits. It's like being an adult at 18, it could have been 20. We needed to establish one point for legal practical reasons, that's it. It's the same about abortion, just that the issue is more controversial. I wouldn't enrage if somebody stepped on a turtle's egg going to the clinic, I guess you are saying like in a hurry to save somebody's life, but not on purpose. I wouldn't like someone stepping on a turtle's egg on purpose with no reason, why would he do that? I would enrage someone stepping on a pregnant woman too, going to the clinic or not.

What Trump did was to escalate the situation threatening North Korea to make it a living Hell, with fire and fury like the world has never seen, he literally said. Behind the curtains, South Korea and his own inteligence and militars made Trump sign a peace agreement, because they knew Kim Jong Un is crazy enough to actually execute his nuclear threats too. Trump was very irresponsible to speak like he did about North Korea in the first place. He is no man of peace, he is inflamatory and what he is doing in Iran is horrible too. Iran does not want a war, but provoking a country like that, it was to expect they wouldn't stay still. They attacked two american bases and a plane full of civilians, not any american victim, this is no coincidence. This didn't need to start, but he did it. I'm afraid what the American military industry wants is Iran to really harm the USA and get the excuse to counter attack, that may be on his second term, after he is reelected.

I'm pro choice, but I wouldn't word it like that, I see some truth in both points you mention as beginings. Traditionally, we've always started counting life after birth, the first year in our life is the zero year, we don't count the pregnancy. But at the same time, everyone of us has been conceived in some point, after our parents had sex or maybe happened in vitro. It's not written anywhere that we need to respect life after birth either, although it's good we decide to do that in my opinion. But we cannot even totally or radically agree on that, war laws, killinf for self defense, random assassinations, death penalty, euthanasia, mercy killing to avoid suffering and so on... All those are cases were we kill each other after birth, some of them pro-lifers defend as legit and some I do too, others not. I just want to make the point of how arbitrary and complicated things like this can be. About abortion again, that would be the grey area from conception to birth, there are not real boundaries in there, it's a process where we develop from one cell, to a baby with all the organs formed and ready to take the first breath. Personally I'm in favour of letting a woman decide if she wants to go on with her pregnancy within a reasonable period we can arbitrarily agree, like about four months I'd say, before the fetus is too formed, but also letting some flexibility for special cases after that time, like for medical reasons. Now tell me this would be an arbitrary law, of course, all laws are. But this law would allow pro-lifers to go on with their pregnancies as they think is right and pro-choicers to make their decisions too, in any way they decided as best for them in that moment and circumstances, this law includes both options as possible.

@Leo Gura Yeah, I think I agree with that. This is an issue where legality should better be flexible enough to adapt to potential different or complicated cases, out of rigid boundaries too.