nom bread and cheese. but only certain types of cheese!
Printable View
nom bread and cheese. but only certain types of cheese!
re: meat
consider that we evolved on what amounts really what would considered today to be something along the lines of lean, free range organic meat that's naturally high in omega 3s. which of course is awesome. yet the vast majority of stuff sold in supermarkets today are NOTHING like that. e.g. factory farmed chickens and all the horridness and hormones that go along with that, bacon with say 40% saturated fat and tagalong nitrites/nitrates, etc. it's another issue that has varying shades of gray but too many people think in terms of black or white.
Fuck vegans, don't listen to them. Literally. And "like" wufwugy's points.
Whats with the vegan hate itt? Some of their food is fantastic. This girl who lived next to me freshmen year of college made amazing food in exchange for a few lit papers.
If you wanna extrapolate diet based on human evolution, we evolved for a sort of nuclear family. Men hunt, women gather and cook, and there has been some level of small scale cultivation like vegetable gardens where the community is relatively stationary and a very rare wild grain cultivation.
We ate a lot of plants. Women liked vegetables for cooking, everybody loved fruit when they could get their hands on them, and you hoped that the men brought home kills for the night. The variety in diet was as wide as the environment provided. We have also evolved on incredibly dynamic environments. There's an enormous difference in plant consumption among some cultures, but not as much in meat. I'm not sure there exists any ancient human society that didn't eat meat. And the societies that deviate more from our tropical climate and fishing ancestry have to make up for the limitations in other amazing ways. For example: watch the documentary Human Planet and you'll find that Eskimos catch and eat Narwhal once a year because Narwhal skin has been their only source of Vitamin C for untold generations. Eskimos have deviated a lot from normal diets, but my point is made even more strongly when you see they increased healthy meat consumption in order to survive heartily instead of decreasing meat. I think it was Papua New Guinea where they spotted a bees nest like four hundred feet up in a tree, and the father of the family climbed that shits and stole the honey. They were supplied this candy like once a year though
People are starving due to the economics of power struggles between wealthy people using it to control the masses. It has nothing to do with total supply. Food rots in a back room before it gets put in the hands of starving children because the human gravitation towards empathy is nothing like our insistence on selfishness
It's even possible that vitamin supplements can be unhealthy. There's some newish research about that, but I don't follow it much. The truth of the matter is probably that if you're malnourished, a supplement will really help you, but if you got your diet straight, some supplements can hurtQuote:
What you say about meat substitutes makes a lot of sense. One of the arguments that I throw at her is that her dislike for-- fuck what's the word here, things like taking vitamins in pill form instead of eating fruit, as you may well get what's in the pill but there's other good shit in the original product (some of which we may not have even discovered yet) that is thus being missed out on -- doesn't at all gel with cutting meat out of your diet and replacing it with whatever other stuff.
Yeah, that's the partial substitute, and it's mostly not healthy. I mean, dude, there's a reason why in cultures that rely on things like rice the people are shorter than everybody else. It's partially genetic, but partially nutrition. Whenever you feed a poor culture with stuff like meat, a few generations go by and they're taller. At the very least, your gf needs to drop some of the breadstuff and pick up beans/legumes/nuts. Newage hippie wannabe health nuts underrate protein like crazy. She'd still be getting too many carbs this way, but whateverQuote:
She does, of course, eat a bunch of vegetables, but I feel like she's often relying on too much bread/rice/pasta/polenta/millet whatever to fill her up which obv isn't super healthy.
Also, we've talked on this before, and there are at least two known nutrients that are accessible only via animal. Essential fats and Vitamin B-12. There may be more knowns that I just haven't followed up on, but there are definitely more unknowns. All the new info on Vitamin D only hit the public in 2008. Before then, the only people who weren't deficient were unknowingly being more "natural humans" by having jobs like farming that forced them to work out in the sun. This should be a lesson that doing something like "vegetarian" is a much bigger deal than those who do so are qualified to give their opinions upon
Cheese isn't bad like they say. It's not the greatest, but its protein makes it much better than high carb shit as long you consume fiber and nutrients in other stuffQuote:
(Disclaimer: I am in no way shape or form better, my nutrition is in ass, and especially since moving here to Europe I myself eat way too much bread and cheese type shit because dead animals here cost so much money)
I don't hate a vegan meal, nor vegetables and fruit. I hate on Vegans that think rice, pasta and bread is Vegan. It's not. It's just anti meat. If your against the humane conditions of livestock and animal killing then find a humane butcher or farmer that meets your standards, but don't ever preach health.
Yeh, noone hates their food. What I hate the most, not only at vegans but in general is any type of extremist point of view. And extremism often leads to idiocy and some sort of mass destruction. But more often just idiocy since most extremists have no access to weapons of mass destruction. I don't say we all have to be liberal and smoke weed every day and love our neighbor, there has to be some balance after all, but if some is already going to take an extreme point of view or living in general, at least do it for the solid reasons. And lots of them don't have it...only some flawed ideology and bunch of misconceptions about why is this right thing to do.
Just wanna point out that extremism is not itself wrong since extremism is labeled relative to the convention. What happens when the convention is wrong, would not something labeled extreme be right?
An example of extremism that is actually right is abolishing wealth. It sounds crazy, but it's true. It might not be practical given what we are, but in theory, eliminating wealth differentials would be one of the greatest things that could possibly happen
You can break down the experience of pain and suffering relative to humans in three categories
1. The sensation of pain. All mammals are the same here since we have the same nervous system
2. The expectation of pain. All mammals are the same here as well since we have similar kind of hormonal responses based on the signal/experience/result model
3. A deeply abstract expectation and psychological reaction to pain. This does exist in non-human animals, but seldom, as far as we know. We don't really know how animals experience this, but we do know the main ramifications of this are a psychological "cross-contamination" of sensation based in imposing abstractions on biological functions, not necessarily an increase of sensation.
So what this tells us is that the industrialized torture of livestock is not much different than if we were doing the same to humans. In fact, there is an argument that very young humans haven't developed part 3 of their brains, and so they aren't much different than other mammals in this regard. So it isn't much of an extrapolation at all to take all the milk cows chained to the floor and replace them with three-year old children. That suffering experience would probably be the same
Wonderful world innit
bah @ eliminating wealth deferential. there is always something to envy even if wealth was eliminated
I disagreed the first time I heard it too. And the second
The reality is that human biology and sociology works just fine without abstract designations of wealth. In fact, we're so deeply evolved for community and family that wealth is actually a destructive concept. It is an unnecessary construct that forces a distorted incentive system. Wealth wasn't really a concept before money and trade, and those two things didn't improve social behavior or happiness
Look at it this way, humans are evolved for family society. We're supposed to not know anybody who isn't close or extended family. The people you live and die with, play with, and breed with are your closest friends who are also your family. "Tribe" is really just a different word for family. Do you need an arbitrary wealth system in order to operate and enjoy life and even improve life among your close friends and family? The answer is no. Wealth is a foreign concept to humanity, and most of the chronic suffering of civilization can be traced back to our abnormal value structure that cares not for human things, but for resource acquisition and control, which is even more distorted by our proxy resource known as money. If tribes used any concept of ownership and wealth even a fraction related to what we do today, their societies would break down and become extinct. Humans are one of the most social and community oriented animals in existence. In fact, we're easily the mammal most dependent on community egalitarianism and relationships on the planet. Not only do wealth systems not improve our lives, they destroy them
That is simply not true. In such an egregiously dysfunctional world known as modern civilization, you are right. But in the world for which humans evolved, envy is a foreign concept since societies are structured around egalitarianism otherwise they would collapse and we wouldn't be here today
Meh. You have something to eat, I don't, I'm gonna experience envy in some form no matter how many big words you use.
Wuf, you seem very quick to dismiss the benefits that our current setup has produced, most easy to demonstrate and use in argument being health and medical advances.
Small tribal society would never have reached the levels we have now.
Also, suddenly placed on an equal footing and without wealth to chase, pretty much everyone on this forum dies. As all infrsastructure seases to operate as it only does so based on money, whihch means no internet, no electric, no police, so the geeks most certainly shall not rule the earth, which means the bad ass gangsters will.
They're not necessarily benefits though, and that which creates them doesn't come without costs. If there is no quality of life improvements, I wouldn't call a technological advancement a benefit. The costs of technology are unrecognized epidemics with things like depression, suicide, imprisonment, teenage rebellion, divorce, the list goes on forever. We consider these things normal, but they're not. They're not one bit of normal, they're a byproduct of a dysfunctional society
Has quality of life improved? The answer is it hasn't. It's actually gone down. Civilization demands competition, which in turn demands more competition, which in turn demands more competition, the cycle goes on and on and on, and you end up with everybody working infinitely more difficult lives than we were biologically evolved for, yet we have little to show for it. We have so deeply forgotten who we are that we take dysfunction and chronic suffering for granted.Quote:
Small tribal society would never have reached the levels we have now.
We use to spend most of the time playing. Now we spend most of our time working and worrying
I did provide a disclaimer where certain things would have to be different for humans to successfully deny their natural selfishness. There would be an incredible readjustment period as we're so entrenched in our current society, but borne of it would be real egalitarianism and improvements in quality of life for those who survived. The context was meant in theory as a way to demonstrate how an extremist idea isn't necessarily wrong. I don't suggest we try to eliminate our world's structure, but if we could then I would, and it would be an extremist idea that was actually right.Quote:
Also, suddenly placed on an equal footing and without wealth to chase, pretty much everyone on this forum dies. As all infrsastructure seases to operate as it only does so based on money, whihch means no internet, no electric, no police, so the geeks most certainly shall not rule the earth, which means the bad ass gangsters will.
On the bright side, technology will eventually optimally adapt humanity to modernism. In fact, it will far surpass what we're currently evolved for, but it will also involve biological change via that technology. On the scary side of that, technology is the driver of increased suffering, and the more advanced we get, the more the system will determine suffering increases
People don't understand how technology increases suffering for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they don't understand death. We look at death as the ultimate wrong, but that couldn't be more incorrect. It is because of death that wrong things come to an end. Suffering is minimal in tribalism because the system can't support much misery. In the struggle for survival, the weak die. In modern civilization, the weak do not die because there is no more struggle for survival. Not only does this distort our lives by forcing us to struggle for such troublesome and elusive things as joy and meaning, but it means that the weak and miserable continue to be weak and miserable. Technology has done this, and advances in technology will make it worse since it further perpetuates a system that requires death even less
I'm sorry, but the ills of technology are an extremely disturbing topic, and I probably shouldn't get into it. We're unfathomably lucky that we're not ones the system has thrown into the furnace. There are alive today many millions of people who live in greater suffering than they could without technology, and it will get unfathomably worse as technology advances.
Dying isn't necessarily a preferable option to suffering. I disagree with fact that proportionally more people suffer. We just have a different system for determining who suffers, it used to be weighted by strength and agility plus a small amount of intelligence, now its about wealth and to a lesser extent intelligence. But birth is and always has been a lottery with very few winning tickets.
Also, you ask has quality of life improved? It has for anyone who had a serious accident or a serious illness. But on your theory they just die. Aren't we morally required to help the week? I know we don't really, but those people in modern countries are better off than they would have been.
The systems we have offer us lots of benefits that wouldn't otherwise exist. The problem is balance and government. The government controls the wrong things and allows money and wealth to control the important things. If we kept our current system and just adjusted distribution, control and values we'd live in a pretty fantastic society imo.
What about the extremes? Today, many people are born into and die in misery due to technological capacity to do so. Tribalism simply cannot support things like prison or slavery or chronic mental disorders, but a technologically advanced society can and does.
That's what I'm getting at. There's still pain in tribalism. Geological disasters, droughts, and warring between tribes still existed. But that shit is nothing compared to the incredible suffering of something like imprisonment
I've had both a serious accident and serious illness, and I've suffered tremendously more having not been killed by them. Death is the last thing that comes naturally for the human mind to rationalize, but the fact is that in many cases it is actually a good thing.
Yes I think we are morally obligated to help the weak. That's kinda the point I'm making. That's an important point of egalitarianism. What I'm saying is that our value system actually isn't conducive to people helping the weak. Just look at the USA's recent battle over health care. That shit is all about wealth accumulation at the expense of the weak and suffering
As far as people being better off with medical technology. Some are, some aren't. Like I said, it's incredibly hard for an ego to rationalize to itself why death would be better for it, but there is ample evidence of a myriad of different conditions that people endure in which they wish they were dead
We sure would, and you didn't say something much different than what I said. You say "adjust distribution", which means to adjust it away from widened wealth differentials, which is down the same path I mentioned in the first placeQuote:
The systems we have offer us lots of benefits that wouldn't otherwise exist. The problem is balance and government. The government controls the wrong things and allows money and wealth to control the important things. If we kept our current system and just adjusted distribution, control and values we'd live in a pretty fantastic society imo.
Humans are meant to put the utmost value in their society and their surrounding humans. Sadly, things like monetarism do everything they can to make sure that we instead value money and its wealth instead of human things
But you don't need equal wealth for that. Just better values of those with power, for which you need better values in those who vote, which requires better education and more difficult to achieve, an unbiased moral compass which guides them.
I thought this was the randomness thread?
So what are you going to do about it? I know I've pointed this out many times and I'm sure it bothers you but there are 3 main options as I see it:
1. You can just choose not to think about it much. Live life as best you can, try to be good to people, etc. Most people I know fall into this category, myself included. Occasionally give blood or donate old clothes and let the social workers sort it out.
2. You can volunteer your time and/or money to various charities and/or causes to help the less fortunate. For all your crusades against wealth and the wealthy, just think-- you have the intelligence to accumulate it yourself and redistribute it as you see fit. How many billions of dollars has Bill Gates given to charity? How much time has he spent on those causes? Clearly that is an unrealistic goal. But replace billions with millions and I'm sure you could do it.
3. You can continue spending all your time searching the web, finding cool internet memes, preaching to a dozen or so people on a small poker forum, and otherwise being lazy and complaining about the state of society without ever really doing anything to positively change it.
I wanna see those videos. That's awesome.
Chili's hotter
I actually didn't like black girls until like age 24
a healthy vegetarian diet (in this society) is far harder to maintain than a healthy diet that includes meat. That being said, from the bit I've gathered, without regards to ease, a vegetarian or very very low meat diet is ideal.
cliffs: all veg may or may not be ideal, but 24oz steaks is def aids.
I have dual goals of both being healthy and looking good. They are by no means mutually exclusive, although a lot of people have a way of making it out to be.
I'm trying to keep my meat intake somewhat down. Just about everyone should have a moderate amount of lean red meat in their diet because it's just so awesome. Add in some eggs, salmon, dairy (including whey/milk/casein powders), etc. and it's trivially easy to cover protein intake. And I'd note that I assume those last 3 to be vegetarian friendly. Veganism is silly.
mmmmmm center cut pork chops
I just did some electical work in Queens. this Mexican dude that labored for 8+ hours (did carpentry-type work) only got $80. Damn, I didn't think labor was THAT cheap.
If this was 40k years ago, 24 would be close to grandma age
but its not.
in unrelated news on my relax day had the worst massage ever. this girl who was younger than me did nothing but exploit my tickleishness for an hour
The image of some young Thai girl tickling Bickes for an hour has made this morning awesome.
They are still not done
BBC News - French village of Bugarach spooked by doomsday cults
tj posted this a while back on facebook, thought it was relevant
http://paleozonenutrition.files.word...pg?w=340&h=308
Where the f is the cereal? You call that living!
P.S. Mexico invaded America today
33 Mexican soldiers accidentally invade Texas - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
best fail comp ever
‪Fail Compilation July 2011 || TNL‬‏ - YouTube
what i can't figure out is why bennyladouche referenced left eye instead of chili or tboz
She's was the exciting imma-set-yo-house-on-fire type.
What, that's not attractive to you?
(Also, it's the only name I knew because let's face it, it's TLC.)
WHY ENTOURAGE?!?!??! WHY?!?!?!?!
why are you only 30m long =(
epic rap battles of history are waaaaaay too good
‪Darth Vader vs Hitler. Epic Rap Battles of History 2‬‏ - YouTube
‪Wish I Had a Portal Gun (Aperture Science Rap)‬‏ - YouTube pretty sure there are some portal players here
So a gay guy on the bus (I live in Queens, NY) tonight asked me for the time. He was ldfo gay...but whatever, that doesn't bother me much. There was some BS talk and then he goes...(all in Spanish fwiw)
"I have a question for you but I'm embarrassed. Are you gonna get mad?"
I shake my head.
"Do you suck dick?"
"No."
"Oh, I'm sorry."
"That's OK."
Um, so what should I take from this exchange?
Oh, and later he commented: "Your legs are so hairy. Is your chest hairy too?" That kinda made me feel awkward.
Pogos has taken over as the FTR one-liner funny man
wuggles has taken over as the FTR name shortner/ nickname giver (he should probably rename the position)
but i do agree, grade A material pogos
ill shorten your name to philly and the phanny
lol body hair
bah i say!
OutRun AR project lets you game and drive at the same time, makes us drool -- Engadget
Surely the next step here is car becomes glasses, road becomes fat chick and out run becomes Cheryl Cole.
On my facebook this morning. How can there be people that still haven't seen this photo and know that it is fake?
http://i.imgur.com/KvpTD.png
So today I discover a tiny note under my windshield wiper. On my car they practically retract into the car and aren't visible from the inside.
Said note is a piece of cardboard, approx 1.5" by 3.5" that reads in very tiny print
"You hit my car! will be in touch pls leave ph # or I have plates"
No idea what this person is talking about, I don't recall any close parking jobs in the last week. They didn't think to leave their own # so I can contact them, or tell me which car is theirs (assuming I even found the note right away).
Probably just someone who noticed a "new" ding in his door among the others, and is trying to blame me. This happened to my dad once. Dad gets out of his car, crackhead flies out of his shitbox screaming that he just dinged his door, pointing at a random ding. Dad points at a different ding and calmly says "are you sure it wasn't this one? Or that one?" as he points at another...
matacow lolo
Do English FTRers know that English laws don't allow footage from Parliament to be used in a comedy show? If so, feelings about it? No freedom of press in England?
Also, yes, I got that information from the daily show.
BBC News - Mars: Nasa images show signs of flowing water
M-A-R-S Mars, bitches! Red rocks!
I'm bored. Everybody who posts ITT from here on will be properly nicknamed by Browugy
DatAsh
abooborilla aka aToolgorilla aka a500lbitch
Do me! Do me!
ShotglASS
BooB69:0_o
Kate Hurley
bewst
boost already has cool nick names, the coolest of them being giggles
dykes
gmmbb
What has that link got to do with BBC?