Carl-Richard

This is just my guess: if the vegan diet had the worst effects on him, I think the fruitarian diet would be even worse.

I mean just think about it: if "the whole" as you call it consists of somebody performing an action (rape), then how does somebody else performing an action (you stopping rape) somehow contradict with the whole? Again, invoking "the whole" as a way to deal with moral questions ("a part") is not really useful. The whole is the whole regardless.

If that is true, then not stopping the rapist would also be a selfish act as you're rejecting a part of yourself and identifying with only a part of the whole rather than the whole of which you are. It's a mute point. Absolute selflessness/selfishness is not relevant to moral questions. All morality is anyway selfish.

No one is perfect ?

Just a reminder that if you use "the absolute" as an excuse to be an asshole, you fundamentally misunderstand what it is.

Neopositivism - the spectre of epistemic blindness that has plagued the sciences for nearly 100 years. The doctrine of "we ought to revere verificationism as THE scientific methodology" is self-defeating, because 1. you cannot use verificationism to verify whether we ought to adopt verificationism, and 2. most scientists don't even follow it either (which is actually a good thing). When "proven wrong", instead of throwing out their theory, they pull out from the public sphere, hold on to their theory and attempt to smooth out the flaws and refine it. That is how science progresses: not by mechanical elimination but creative innovation.

This is a classic case of conflating the relative with the absolute. You intervening is also "letting God's experience play out". Choosing either scenario is anyway the absolute. All moral questions are relative in the first place, so any answer to such a question would be a relative one. The absolute is just what is the case; invoking it makes no difference. If you use it as an excuse to be an asshole, you fundamentally misunderstand what it is.

Technically you would be eating something. Carbohydrates is food Any calories coming from the outside will mess with the process of going into ketosis and make it even more unbearable.

What — Actualized.org child safety filter?

and carbohydrates which would end the fast.

@lmfao Seems like I'm 5w4

Yes, they're very similar actually. Fi is just misunderstood. I test 60/40 INFP/INTP, but Fi just explains me too well. I haven't gotten into enneagram yet, but I've been wanting to for a while. Maybe I'll take the test for it soon

Then how come Zizek and Foucault which he criticized in the video (both continental philosophers) are both NeTi (ENTP)? I wouldn't equate "abstract" with "meaning behind phenomena" nor assign any of those to just Ni, because 1. all intuitive functions (Ne and Ni) are dealing with abstractions (it's sensing functions like Si and Se that are more concrete), and 2. INTPs (like Leo) and INFPs (like myself) are very concerned with meaning, metaphysics etc. (xiNe). A better word to describe Ti other than "concrete" would be... well, "introverted, logical decision-making", as it's an introverted judging function. Ti describes a particular way that information is processed after being gathered from the perceiving functions (Ne/Ni/Se/Si) and used to make decisions, and those decisions can be just as much about concrete matters (sensory/physical stuff) as abstract matters (intuitive/mental stuff)

INFJ has tert Ti which could explain why you pick up on some INTP vibes. INFJ's Ni dominance is already very future oriented. Add an aux extroverted judging function (Fe) and you got a powerful drive towards manifestation.

Oh shit, my bad. I forgot he's an INFJ, not INTJ. https://www.personality-database.com/

The Western conception of karma has gotten contaminated by Christian morality and the concept of sin. Karma in its original conception is more akin to Newton's laws of motion, only applied to human life.

???

Omg you have to watch this. It's so accurate. Noam Chomsky (INFJ) explains why he doesn't like Slavoj Zizek and Michel Foucault (both ENTP), shaming their Ne-Ti tendencies towards using fancy words and obscure theories while asking "what use does it have?", all in 4 blistering minutes: I forgot he was INFJ, not INTJ. Still, even though Te is most commonly associated with the statement of "what use does it have?", Fe is also an extroverted judging function, which can have similar expressions as Te in a lot of cases (especially in how he talks about the importance of being understood over using fancy words — Fe caring about other people).

There is a trade-off for everything. Even within a purely biological framework with healthy individuals, you would actually expect the diet that maximizes fitness to minimize longevity and vice versa.

Yep. There is an important distinction between longevity and biological fitness. Just because x diet is observed in nature (the selection criteria being biological fitness) does not mean it promotes longevity. You could argue that longevity isn't a natural phenomena in the first place (it arose "artificially" through human culture).

My point is that these people probably grew up hunting or grew to like it somehow.

Without sounding like an ass, that is also a thought. So is the thought about a door. The solution is just to catch that. You're having thoughts about why you think you can't catch your thoughts. It's circular. You need a different method to break the spell.

That is a problem with the person, not the goal setting. I will respect the OP's requests even though I don't agree with the assessment.

Sure. However, synthetic cannabinoids don't necessarily cause bad reactions either in correct doses. If you were given a very high dose of pure THC, you probably wouldn't feel so good either.