Emerald

Back in early August or thereabouts I saw that she was up like 1 point on him for a couple weeks. So, that's not true. But this is the first time she's pulled way ahead of him.

You're over-estimating the general populace's cognitive and moral development... and their ability to hold space for seemingly dichotomous notions like compassion and justice. All things arise for ideological reconsideration in the time they're meant to be unpacked. And taboos stick around until society develops enough to parse those topics in a more mature way and the taboo becomes obsolete. That's the nature of human societal development. A taboo is like a cast that we keep on until the bone mends. And we can't take the cast off prematurely and get good results. And that's true even if it is at the expense of people who haven't committed a crime. And innocents have always been casualties of humanity's lack of cognitive and ethical development. It sucks, but it is what it is, until we collectively transcend to higher levels of ethical development. Plus, there are SO many other taboos and former taboos that are "ripe" right now for 'anti-tabooification' that we must focus on collectively... things like having kids out of wedlock, co-habitation, divorce, the LGBTQ community, choosing to have few children, choosing to have no children, miscegenation, multi-ethnic societies, female autonomy, birth control, polyamory, swinging, immigration, drug addiction, psychedelic therapy, choosing one's own marriage partner, sex work, withholding cruel and unusual punishment for criminals, and various other breaks from traditional norms that were once considered taboo by the general populace. These things couldn't be integrated into the Stage Blue societal structure because of the level of ideological and technological development and the adaptations necessary to make those kinds of societies run. Acceptance of these things and removing these taboos in a solid blue culture is like trying to jam a cd into a cassette player. It just doesn't work. But in the current state of Stage Orange society, we do have the ability to integrate all of those things without it getting in the way of how the societal technology runs. But there are still huge swaths of the population that struggle to integrate these things because they are not morally developed enough to move past absolutist thinking... and more towards an ethics that's more around the idea "If it doesn't inflict harm on another person. We can accept it." But someone who has developed their level of moral development to "If it doesn't inflict harm on another person. We can accept it." still won't be able to parse how to orient to people who have a taboo that is associated with the harm of the vulnerable... even if they've never committed a crime. And they will still have the punishment-mindedness of the previous level of development... only geared specifically to those causing harm (or are associated with causing harm) and not towards people who engage in taboos that are "unusual/uncommon" but not harmful.

First off, harm to pedophiles won't ever outweigh harm to children because children are in a far more powerless position. And issues that impact children are wise to give a greater weight to compared to issues that impact adults because children are in a very vulnerable state. But overall, I think you're over-estimating the level of moral/ethical development that humanity has, at present. We're still operating off of a rewards and punishments paradigm, and we haven't collectively transcended that idea. So, we haven't realized the paradigm of justice in its highest form... which is about serving everyone, including the criminal. And ultimately, stopping a criminal from committing crimes and helping them get into alignment with the law is the best way to serve them. And because humanity hasn't developed enough paradigmatically, humanity at large doesn't collectively know how to parse this subject without putting vulnerable children in harm's way. So, they can currently only hit it with a hammer and punish it. Taboos serve this very function. They are a kind of societal technology for beating back what we're not yet developed enough (technologically, ideologically, or otherwise) to parse or integrate in a nuanced way that doesn't cause harm. And we would need to develop collectively in terms of our outlook on justice, ethics, compassion, and so many other ideological frameworks before we even begin to have this conversation about exercising that kind of collective compassion towards pedophiles in a way that doesn't blur boundary lines and normalize things that shouldn't be normalized.

I don't think society is at a point where exercising compassion towards pedophiles and (in turn) addressing root causes and getting them the proper mental health treatments would lead to anything other than pedophilia apologism in a sizable minority of the general populace that is too polarized towards mercy. And the outcomes for children would likely be worse... at this juncture in time. To safely shift the collective paradigm this way in a way that doesn't enable pedophilia, you would have to first have a society that is able to discern and differentiate between compassionate root-cause problem-solving and enabling... which doesn't seem to be the case right now. We're collectively still at the "Hit evil in the head with a hammer" phase of development. And adding these nuances would just confuse a lot of people. Basically... don't try to give 2nd graders, college level mathematics. People already struggle with simpler integrations between universal compassion and justice/laws/boundaries/ethics. So, we'd have to begin there. I think if current society tried to take away the demonization and taboos from pedophilia in order to get pedophiles better mental health help, it would just erode the societal boundary lines and end up inadvertently normalizing pedophilia. The thing is that taboos serve a function. They help us push away what is bad for society before we have the ability to approach a problem or aberration from a deeper more integrated root-cause perspective. And currently, the taboo towards pedophilia is serving an important function. Keep in mind that we're a pretty barbaric species, and probably like 10% or more of people are pedophiles. And if pedophilia is approached with compassion in a way that is enabling from a large enough portion of the population, you'd probably have that 10% get more emboldened as fewer people would be on guard for it. So, I don't think this is an actionable or good idea at this juncture in time as we'd have to develop ourselves collectively a lot more to intelligently address this issue in a way beyond the overt punishment and shaming.

You should let your feelings and intuitions guide your decision making on this. I wouldn't give a guy a chance that I didn't have romantic feelings for because that's my inner compass showing me who I'm interested in and who I'm not. Why should you give a girl you feel nothing for a chance?

Thank you! I'm glad that my Ayahuasca journey report was moving to you.

I clicked on it earlier today, and I was confused at first... before it hit me and I realized that it is actually me who is the shittiest man alive.

Despite some plants having anti-nutrients, there doesn't seem to be evidence suggesting the those who eat plant based diets are deficient in nutrients. Though I'm open to any reputable sources and studies that suggest nutrient deficiencies. But if that were the case, I don't know if the WHO would give plant-based diets their seal of approval as they have if Vegan diets were frequently nutrient deficient. But the meta-analysis (with over 11,000 studies considered and cross-referenced) shows that consuming meat is correlated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to those who eat a plant-based diet. And that same result keeps being repeated in newer studies as well. And even diets that minimize animal product consumption, like the Mediterranean diet, tend to be associated with more longevity. So, given that there's 11,000+ studies considered in this meta-analysis, I don't see how you can discount ALL of the findings of these studies out of hand. I suppose the main thing that we disagree on is that you tend to look at more anecdotal personal evidence like how you feel to determine the health of a diet. And you trust that if meat makes you feel good now, that it is good for you. And you don't trust the current scientific research, despite how much of it there is. But I tend to look at the studies and meta-analyses (which are conglomerations of a variety of studies) as a better litmus test for health outcomes longevity. And if we disagree on the underlying principle that the scientific consensus is more accurate than personal anecdotes, then we simply aren't going to agree. Also the reality is that, even if you did hypothetically find that Vegans were generally deficient in some nutrients (which there isn't evidence of to my knowledge), the plant diet is associated with fewer instances of high ldl cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, etc. And heart disease is the number one cause of death in America. But nutrient deficiency isn't a common cause of death at all as long as you're getting enough calories. So, if you're looking for a long life... a whole food plant-based diet seems to be your best best based off of the current scientific literature. But there's a possibility that eating lots of red meat could make you stronger in the short term (which I don't know if that's been studied or not), but might shave some years or decades off your life. So, if that's the case... and you're here for a good time, rather than a long time... that's a decision someone could make to sacrifice the length of their life for how they feel in the short term eating red meat. But I want to make it to 100! So, I'll stay away from the meat. Now, in terms of your question about fat sources... when I actually focus on health and eat a Whole Food Plant Based diet, I tend to have Walnuts as my go-to for Omega-3s and Omega-6s because I only have to eat a handful to give me enough to meet my needs for both of these nutrients. But I also do flax seeds, hemp seeds, or chia seeds sometimes though those don't have a ton of Omega-6.

It's not that most of the people here are condoning an assassination attempt. Obviously, it's important to condemn political violence of all sorts because it sets a bad precedent to normalize it. It's just that it isn't surprising that Donald Trump would be the target of one (or more) assassination attempts because he is a politician the sews chaos and engages in telling lots of Fascistic falsehoods that put vulnerable people in harm's way... and he is a genuine threat to democracy. And there's a lot of fear around him getting back into power because of his indications of a desire to become a dictator. So, of course some crazies might try to be vigilantes and take the law into their own hands. But it's quite silly for people on the right to point fingers at the left and accuse the left of being responsible for the assignation attempts against him by pointing out his dictatorial behavior. Really... the answer is that crazies will be crazies. But there are reasons why this is happening multiple times to Trump in particular when it doesn't happen that often to other politicians... and that is a direct reflection of the way he has shown up on the world stage over the past 9 years.

Do you have peer-reviewed sources that back up any of these claims around lack of bio-availability of nutrients in plants to the point where you must supplement all these nutrients on a Vegan diet? Or are these just things you've heard from people advocating for a keto or carnivore diet? And do you have any reputable sources that reflect the bias in ALL the nutrition tracking apps? Or is that just a way that keto and carnivore influencers tend to explain away the nutritional gaps on these diets? I'm asking because it sounds like these are pieces of information deliberately crafted and selected as counter-points to nullify and explain away all the scientific studies that show positive results for plant-based diets health-wise. Also, it isn't difficult to get all the nutrients you need (except b-12) on a whole food plant-based diet... and the WHO even states that people at any phase of life can meet all of their nutrient needs on a plant-based diets as long as they supplement b-12. And (even though you don't believe in these) I do sometimes track my nutrient intake on apps, and I can meet all my requirements in terms of macro and micro nutrients in 1500 calories if I make sure to incorporate nutrient dense foods like potatoes, beans, walnuts, broccoli, etc.. And it's super easy to do if I eat 2000 calories which is about average for a woman of my height and size. Also, the fact that Bryan Johnson has chosen a plant based diet should indicate something about plant-based diets given his goals to extend his life-span using the most scientifically substantiated means. I don't resonate with his goal. But there's a reason why he's not eating an omnivorous diet, and that's because it's associated with shorter life-expectancy and higher risk of all-cause mortality than plant-based diets in a variety of studies that have been cross-referenced in meta-analyses. But I haven't been Vegan for the past 8 years. I haven't eaten meat in 8 years. But there have been a few times that I got lazy and eroded my ethical boundaries and started eating dairy again for a couple months here and there. But I am Vegan and have been Vegan for most of the 8 years.

You can enter it into another app if you'd prefer. Then, let me know the results if you do. But the reason why I was mentioning that the carnivore diet needs supplementing, is because Schizophonia was saying you need so many different supplements on a Vegan diet. But I was pointing out that the Vegan diet just needs b-12... while the Carvnivore diet has multiple nutrient gaps.

Yes, my assumption was that you're asking out of more than just curiosity. And it's a reasonable assumption to make, because people tend to seek knowledge to get information that's relevant to them and their lives. Dating conversations usually aren't approached from zoomed out macrocosmic points of view like political topics are. And even if they are framed that way, it tends to be related to things the person is struggling with in their personal life. So usually, people go seeking this insights to help them navigate their own dating life. So, I was asking so that I can tailor my answer to what you want. Ultimately, what you want is out there. But it's difficult because a lot of people (especially young people) are more focused towards sexual/romantic excitement rather than a sustainable familial relationship. But beyond that, we also aren't taught how to sustain relationships. Before, people used to have survival needs and authoritarian laws and rules to keep everyone smooshed together in a codependent stew. But now, we must learn how to sustain relationships in a healthier and wiser way that is more bottom up. And we're in the baby phases of that. And most people suck at it. That said, what you're seeking is out there. You can find it if you have a discerning eye for who is compatible to you.

Out of curiosity, what is it that you personally want out of 'winning the dating game?' Whether someone is winning is really a matter of their own assessment. I assume you're asking to try to get some kind of clarity on whether or not it's possible to get what you want. So, what is it that you want out of dating? And do you feel like you can get it? If you can't get what you want, then what happens? And what does that mean?

To get examples, type an all meat diet of 2000-2500 calories into a nutrient tracking app and you will find deficiencies in Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Calcium, Manganese, Fiber, and Carbs. And you can try it with one type of meat... or a variety of different types of meat to get these results. I use Cronometer, but you can use a nutrient tracking app of your choice. Then, tell me what you find. But where are your sources about the b-12 Cobalt thing? Getting enough b-12 is super easy to do as you only need a tiny amount to get a lot more than your daily recommended intake, and quite a few plant-based diet staples tend to come fortified with it... like cereals, plant milk, nutritional yeast. Also, other animals don't create b-12 within themselves either. They just eat plants or other animals that contain b-12.

Do you know who funded this study? If studies are funded by the meat and dairy industry, then there could be a conflict of interest. So, you have to be careful. It seems to me from looking at the link that there's skewed understanding derived from this study... as it is a study of 175 countries to determine if higher meat intake is correlated to higher life-span. But keep in mind that wealthier more developed countries would have greater access to meat... and thus might show that meat intake is correlated with longer lifespan because those in wealthier countries have a longer lifespan. But that doesn't mean that meat intake itself is the cause of a longer life-span. There is just a correlation because the people that live in wealthier countries live longer and have more access to things like meat... but also medicine, sanitation, food in general, etc.. To get a good sense of the actual impact of meat consumption, you'd need to control for the impact of starvation and lack of access to nutrients and resources and other environmental factors by studying people who live in the same region/circumstances with various diets but who have access to all the micro and macronutrients they need as well as a sufficient number of calories. So, if you only studied people in one region, you could control for the right factors to test the solely for the impacts of meat consumption on health outcomes and all cause mortality without other regional factors skewing the data. Only then you could get a clearer picture about the impact of meat consumption on the human body... without the interfering factor of starvation in less developed countries with a lack of access to luxury foods like meat... as well as lack of access to sanitation, medicine, etc. A more accurate conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that "Regions where people eat more meat are wealthier regions that have a higher life-span because there is access to more and better resources." But every study and meta-analysis that I've ever looked at, shows that eating more plants and less saturated fat is correlated to less all-cause mortality. So, Vegan and Mediterranean diets tend to be the most correlated with longevity because there are more plants and less/no red meat and dairy in both of these diets. Here is a link to a very large meta-analysis that reflects this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8408672/ And this meta-analysis cross-references 11, 547 studies. Here's a quote from the meta-analysis... "Several articles (5 of 25 [20%]) reported that the dietary patterns associated with significantly higher ACM risk (and/or shorter survival129,130,133,135,148) emphasized the following commonalities: higher intake of (1) meat and meat products such as beef, pork, sausage133; red meat and meat products130; red meat and processed meats135; fresh and processed meats and seafood148; (2) high-fat dairy products such as ice cream, cheese, and whole milk129; and/or (3) refined grains130,135 or flour-based foods such as pastries133 and/or sweets and desserts133,135,148 such as cake, cookies, chocolate, and candy129; as well as lower intake of (4) low-fat dairy products, rice and pasta, fruits, fish and other seafood, and dark green vegetables.129"

I don't know many people in my town on a political level. So, I'm not too sure. But I'm tentatively optimistic for the reasons you mentioned... except for the sexual assault charge. That's just one more thing that gets lost in the mix of all the other things he's done. Also, Hilary lost because she didn't win over the Rust Belt because she made her campaign about herself and didn't promise change, while Trump was talking about bringing back manufacturing jobs and killing NAFTA and Making America Great Again. So, he positioned himself as a populist change candidate and she promised more of the same. Plus, her personality gives off this fake liberal elitist deep state crone vibe that puts most people off. Like I voted for her, but I wasn't excited about it. Yet, she was still more popular than Trump because she won the popular vote... which says something. So, I don't think Bernie Sanders had much to do with her not winning as he was just running in the primary. If anything, he fired up the Democratic base and got more people involved in politics. I wasn't tuned into politics prior to Bernie. Yet again, I'm sure that the threat of Trump would have called me to politics if the possibility of a Bernie Sanders presidency hadn't already woken me up to civic engagement.

There are 70+ election officials workings at the polls that are election deniers. And if they refuse to certify if Kamala wins, it will go to the Supreme Court... which is packed with Trump appointed justices.

I agree that Kamala is stronger than Biden... and WAY stronger than Hilary. But keep in mind that Biden is a white guy and he was always polling better than Kamala is now. He was up on Trump +9% in the aggregate of polls during the 2020 election... but ended up only winning by 4% in the electoral college. Hilary Clinton was thought to have a 90%+ chance of winning over Trump because she was up 6% on Trump. She won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. In contrast, Kamala is up between 2-5% nationally (depending on the poll) over Trump. At no point has she polled as well as Biden or Hilary. But even though Trump isn't in power as the president, there are 70+ election officials in key swing states that are election deniers who will not certify the votes if Kamala wins. This will ten lead to a situation where the election goes before the electoral college... which is full of Trump appointees. So, he may not really need to win the election to strong-arm his way back into the White House. And I agree that we need tons of people watching the situation and ready to fight back.

Okay fine... I'll make an exception to my Veganism, just this once. Too cute not to gobble up...

You would be wise to look at various studies and meta-analyses to come to any conclusions about what the healthiest diet is for human beings. And if you do, you will find that people tend to live longer when they eat more plants and less saturated fat (which is mostly in animal products). But the "natural diet" is just whatever is edible and available. We could never really pick and choose up until recently. So, anything that we can eat... is natural for us to eat. But that doesn't mean that everything is healthy for us to eat... which is a more important consideration when choosing a diet.

I'll have to agree to disagree. Most edible plants are super delicious in my opinion. And you can make a huge variety of dishes with them with really interesting and complex flavors that have a balance of carbs, fats, and proteins. And curry is just one amazing dish among many others. I haven't eaten meat for like 8 years or so for ethical reasons and I don't eat dairy or eggs either. But meat tastes pretty good... as do dairy and eggs. So, I don't have anything against the flavors and enjoyed them before I went Vegan. But meat, dairy, and eggs don't taste so good that it would be satisfying to eat for every meal forever. It sounds like a really boring diet from a texture and flavor palette perspective. The umami flavor is pretty bland without herbs and spices (aka plants) to make it interesting. Also, the only supplement that vegans need to take is b-12, as that comes from the bacteria that animals ingest when they're eating food that's got dirt on it. And human beings don't eat plants with dirt on them, so we don't get that nutrient. But we don't need to take it daily. While someone on the carnivore diet would need to supplement daily for Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Calcium, and Manganese as those nutrients are only in minimal amounts in meat and dairy. Not to mention that you'd have literally zero fiber. You'd also have zero carbs... which are the body's preferred fuel source.

I wouldn't be too certain. I think it will be close but that Harris will win the electoral college. But I also think that Trump could very well steal the election this time around, because he has lots of election deniers in place in swing state polling locations to withhold certifying the vote. And he also has JD Vance instead of Mike Pence who would certify the fraudulent electors... as this is why Trump picked him as a running mate in the first place. So, I fear that Kamala won't be able to win in a way that's too big to steal... and that it may be stolen. Trump is unpopular, that's true. And far-right thinking is a minority viewpoint. But there are so many advantages towards the right wing that's baked into the cake, that Democrats always have to win big in the popular vote to actually win.

Definitely!

I'm going to guess that it would be something vaguely insulting like a child's insult... or on the borderline of being a dig at his appearance, temperament, or element of his views. Like we had Sleepy Joe, Little Marco, Crooked Hilary, Lyin' Ted, Mini Mike Bloomberg, and Low Energy Jeb. So, it would probably be something really inane like "Confused Leo" or "Crazy Leo" or "Wacky Leo" or "Loony Leo" to take a dig at the complexity of his perspectives but to frame them as non-sensical.

Think about it this way... a Vegan diet only limits you from eating dairy, eggs, and meat... which is only like 8 foods that you CAN'T eat on the Vegan diet, while the other 1000+ are fair game. And you can still eat all the Vegan replacements for the 8 foods that you can't eat. But with the carnivore diet, literally all you're eating is meat. And that means there's only like 5 foods you CAN eat on the carnivore diet... chicken, beef, pork, fish, and shellfish.