Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - I disagree

[1] 2 ... 5
Interzone / Re: Now admit it
« on: March 21, 2014, 11:50:45 PM »
Crow is decent for entertainment, but for me is nothing more. DMBM(SRP/Brett Stevens), or Kontinual's post's were always the most interesting to me. Conservationist's were also interesting, but slightly more whiny.

Interzone / Re: Accidentally vegan
« on: January 29, 2014, 01:16:10 PM »
I was vegan for several years, and I never ran into the stereotypes discussed here. What I did run into are the typical defensive knee-jerk reactions to veganism discussing naive hipsters and faddists, and hypocrisy over what kind of animal products they use. However veganism doesn't categorically mean that those who follow it fall into these categories. In my experience there have been some well-meaning intelligent people who respect and care about the well-being of animals and want to contribute to this mistreatment and destruction of animals in our food production system as little as possible.

At the end of the day though, and to my point, contributing as little as possible is the best vegans can do. They can never abolish abuse and destruction of animals completely without converting completely to a gatherer living off the grid lifestyle. For those vegans that actually care about animals, I admire their effort to respect them, but just find their efforts to be somewhat misguided and a bit unnatural, hence consuming food, no matter how heavily processed, just because it lacks animal ingredients in it.

Interzone / Re: Multivitamins
« on: October 22, 2013, 12:54:38 AM »

Out of curiosity, what products/brands are you referring to, and what are some examples of the relationship to the "pre-industrial context" you mentioned (apart from possible drug interactions, or strength)?

Herbal medicine I tend to think of in the DIY respect as mentioned, not necessarily in store-bought supplements, though I failed to make that distinction in my post. Definitely any interactions with medication can be of concern, and certainly some herbs are dangerous on their own - like Kava Kava.

It's probably clear at this point that I think the "Wild West" situation with supplements via the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act ain't all bad. Maybe you have more personal experiences with it than I do.

All I am saying is that before people started eating industrialized food, being exposed to modern diseases, maybe herbs had some healing effects, i.e. cinnamon's effect of lowering, blood sugars, Kava Kava's effect on blood pressure or stress, and oregano Oil's positive effect on immunization and digestion. But as a lot of these conditions have often grown in strength and have to compete against all the other toxic shit we eat and breathe, they may not be very helpful. Conversely, I think the potency of many of these herbal supplements are in doses that were never seen pre-industrialization. So to say that certain herbs have been used for hundreds or thousands of years is slightly misleading, because people until recently never experienced these herbs at the dosages they are currently sold at.

Interzone / Re: Multivitamins
« on: October 21, 2013, 08:31:47 PM »

I disagree:

 Many herbal products have a long history of use, and can be much safer to use, but still they should not be used in high-doses without taking the appropriate precautions.

I personally find a lot of things in herbal medicine very appealing. A lot of the stuff is free (grow plants, forage for mushrooms, etc.), and natural in the most literal sense, with hundreds, if not thousands of years oh historical use.

I've found that although herbals have a long history of use, the ones you find on the shelf do not resemble, and are not used in the same context as they have been pre-industrialization. So it would be difficult to expect them to have the same effect as they had before. Many of them interfere with medications that did not exist previously, which is why it is wise to consult a healthcare professional before taking them. Some of them may just be placebo, not that I am discounting that. Sometimes placebos work just as well as a supplement or drug if not better, because of the person's belief and attitude toward the treatment actually producing positive effects in the body.

Interzone / Re: Multivitamins
« on: October 09, 2013, 01:28:06 AM »
Part of the problem with multivitamins and dietary supplements in general is that the products they produce are not regulated for content, only for safety.

Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA or get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements. Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.

They get around claim/function claims by saying a supplement "may help with" a certain health aspect, but carefully refrains from saying that the supplement will actually do anything.

Supplements are used in healthcare settings sometimes and do have uses in certain situations under medical supervision, but the majority of people buying multivitamins and other supplements are buying them because they "read something" that sounds plausible, but doesn't have any strong evidence showing the function that people are looking for. You may hear how much better someone feels after taking a multivitamin, but it's likely placebo, unless they are horrifically deficient; in which case they have bigger problems anyways.

Metal / Re: Birth A.D. - I Blame You
« on: July 01, 2013, 02:21:32 AM »
Something about the mix of the album rubs me the wrong way compared to the EP. I can't put my finger on it. I think it feels more on the punkier side of thrash than "Stillbirth..." does. Songs that I liked before don't have as much punch anymore, and the new songs feel like throwaways. Its a shame because I love 80's thrash, and liked the promise that the EP showed to take Thrash in a new direction, mixing death metal riffs with punk sensibilities.

Interzone / Re: Sugar substitutes
« on: May 26, 2012, 04:36:25 PM »

I don't want to derail your thread but...

Vegetarians don't eat anything that an animal had to die for, that includes all sorts of meat and fish and theoretically insects too. They could do this for all sorts of reasons, for pitying animals, for (arguably) environmental reasons, but also for spiritual reasons. Whatever, the good thing imo is that people are at least more conscious about their health and what they eat. For amusement you can argue veggies to death about whether they wear leather or eat cheese that contains rennet and other small details. Some veggies avoid eggs, others don't.

Vegans are people who don't eat anything produced by animals, period. They claim that cow milk is for baby cows (even though cows produce more milk than the calf needs) They'd claim honey is for bees and they eat nothing but organic vegetables and sourdough bread. They are usually kind of insane, even most veggies I've spoken with agree to that. The thing is that it's impossible to argue that being vegan is healthy. There is no other way for humans to absorb enough calcium than through diary products. The only alternative is to eat vitamin pills and those things are arguably unhealthy too. For amusement you could ask a vegan if a coprophiliac could be a vegan.

Anyway, I'd expect hipsters to eat clear green hemp lollipops with an insect inside it. And no, I'm not vegetarian in case you're wondering.

I think its inevitable that a discussion breaks off into subtopics.

I was a vegan for 5 years, and vegetarian for a year before that.  Do you know if cows inherently produce more milk than a calf needs? Most of the time, dairy cows are injected with hormones that allow them to produce extra milk. Without the hormones I'd be surprised if they produced more milk than a calf needs.  I do agree though that Vegetarianism and especially Veganism opens the door for an obsession about food and ingredients. Some are more obsessive than others.

Regardless, all vegetarianism and veganism can accomplish is LESS reliance on animal products, it can never completely abolish it seeing that everything includes some exploitation or harm toward animals in some way. It is somewhat arbitrary to decide where in the spectrum someone wants to be as far as their contribution to animal cruelty. I never met another Vegan, but for the most part, any vegetarians I met were not really any more annoying than any other person I've met.

I'm not a huge fan of milk (I'll drink it if thats the only thing available), but I still eat cheese. Biologically, humans are designed to use milk from the mother for food, and are able to break it down with the lactase enzyme. As we start transitioning to solid foods, many people stop producing the lactase enzyme because they are able eat solid foods, and don't need the mothers milk. A few thousand years ago, as people started domesticating cows, they started drinking the cow's milk, and over time, our digestive system continued to produce the lactase enzyme past infancy.  Lactose tolerance varies amongst ethnicities though. Those of Northern European decent are best capable of digesting milk passed infancy, while asian and african societies are less able in general.

Also, societies such as western europeans and north americans have the most osteoperosis compared to countries that consume the least dairy milk.  I think I'd prefer plant based sources of calcium over dairy.

Admittedly I'm no expert on the matter, but the bees don't die in the production of honey... maybe switch the word "vegan" with "vegetarian" then. It's never easy.

Is mass production they do. Queen bees are also a commodity and are shipped around to fill in colonies where the queen was worn out or killed.

Interzone / Re: Sugar substitutes
« on: May 25, 2012, 03:59:21 AM »
Currently, I'm finishing my masters degree in Dietetics, and I'm curious what the motivation is behind sugar substitutes? Regardless of whether a sweetener has calories or not, if your brain recognizes something as sweet, it will signal the pancreas to produce insulin, which is part of anabolism.  Worrying about individual food choices over the view of an entire diet isn't very useful, because you'll always  be able to find something with less calories, more fiber etc.

I drink coffee, I use sugar (sucrose). But I also eat foods high in fiber, I lift weights 5 days a week, which is good for blood sugar control, and I do at least a half hour of cardiovascular activity, usually in the form of bicycling 6 or 7 days a  week, between leisure bicycling, and bicycling to work. Getting regular screenings and knowing your family history is more important than worrying about individual foods and calories.

My advice would be to cook from scratch as much as possible. Turn off the computer, or TV when you eat/drink, and pay attention to your body's internal signals to tell you when you've had enough to eat eat and eat lots of fruits and vegetables. This will help you gauge how much to eat.

Worrying about calories eventually becomes a straw man's argument.

Interzone / Re: Stoned to death for being an emo
« on: March 22, 2012, 05:51:40 PM »
I think if I were gay, I wouldn't make a big deal of it either. In fact, I'd want it under wraps, like my current sexuality (I only get excited by V-8 trucks). I wouldn't want it to define me and, if people out there did hate fags for having sexual practices that are repulsive and disgusting to heretosexuals, I'd want them not to come after me.

I don't think we can label homosexual practices as being exclusively repulsive to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals who practice S&M or coprophilia in a heterosexual way can  also repulsive to many other hetero or homosexuals.

Interzone / Re: Stoned to death for being an emo
« on: March 22, 2012, 12:35:42 AM »

I think "I disagree" makes a bad point however. Divergent groups fragment a culture, whether it's minorities or ideological enemies. Pretending the problem isn't there is just evasion. In fact, we can see how ludicrous his point is by extending it to another group: criminals. If criminals are destined to be, they'll thrive, so don't counteract them. Umm... yeah.

The argument only seems to hold in extreme examples. I wouldn't categorically put all minority cultures like I stated previously, in the same boat with criminals like murderers or pedophiles. We're talking about a group that is largely just materialistic and self loathing (emo's), which is not the same that a person who deliberately breaks laws well-defined laws.

Interzone / Re: Stoned to death for being an emo
« on: March 21, 2012, 03:44:21 PM »
I don't have any feelings toward homosexuals, either way. I don't know any. That's not from lack of availability. I hang out with people like myself.

My point is that if a angry republican Jesus comes back and kills them off, society will go on. In fact it will probably function better without the drama of fags versus christians going on all the time.

You can't deny that with a straight (ha ha) face. There is a norm. People who get away from that even if they're your friends, are not necessary and that which is not necessary just slows us down as a society.

I don't see why you try to make this personal. It's exactly opposite, I don't care about who they are, but which group they are, same with the pedophiles and emos. If we lose them, no loss. My inner nihilist says so what.

By this logic, minorities of any society would benefit the majority if they left or were exterminated.

This includes

minority christians amongst a society of Jews or a society of Muslims
minority bisexuals amongst a society of homosexual society or heterosexual society
minority nihilists amongst a society of creationists or LaVeyan satanists.
minority misogynists amongst a society of femenists
minority Swahili amongst a society of North Fali or Turgens
minority quakers amongst menonites


The point is societies thrive with cohesiveness, and groups that try to coexist break majority norms. No matter who or what dies off, life will go on.  Regardless, I don't see what this obsession is with promoting societies that "thrive" or are "productive". Productive toward what? There are no real goals of any society. They pretend like there are, such as "getting into heaven" and what not, but it's all speculative. Whether artificially, or naturally, the human race will be what it will be, and if degenerates infect the rest of the world's population, so what?

We need to stop pretending and supporting this "idealism" that threats of minorities who live amongst dominant cultures is anything else but annoying or uncomfortable. Are emos and/or homosexuals a threat to Iraqi culture? Maybe, but really, for as weak as that culture is, it will always be a passing phase. And if they do take over, then it's Iraqi culture that is weak.

I don't see the point in resisting minority cultures. If they are weak, or can't coexist, they will go away over time. And if they end up taking over, then it was meant to be. And if they end up destroying the human race, then whatever.

Interzone / Re: Stoned to death for being an emo
« on: March 19, 2012, 10:21:21 PM »
Homosexuality is Nature's population control. By eliminating gays, we are making more room for breeders to do what they've been overdoing best. Iraqis seem to be uninformed on population control.

Interzone / Re: Stoned to death for being an emo
« on: March 13, 2012, 04:00:51 PM »
This is some twisted logic here. Somehow I doubt that one can use dress as an accurate barometer for strength of character. Otherwise it would easy to improve one's self solely through attire. The obvious point is that these Iraqis see emo dress as a sign of westernism, which they view as counter to their beliefs and culture. Nothing more, nothing less. In this case, they decided to confront this perceived threat to their culture by stoning. Lets not let the inevitable bias and violence against pods who dress emo be mistaken for proper eugenics, and see it as a dysfunction of judgement within this situation.

Interzone / Re: Altruism=narcissism
« on: February 14, 2012, 08:11:08 PM »

How do you not get money?
By not doing one or more of the above

Why are the poor poor and the rich rich, and not otherwise?

Or if you lose your job, your business fails, or your job does not pay enough. Or you acquire a lot of debt through bad choices, or medical bills.

Interzone / Re: Altruism=narcissism
« on: February 14, 2012, 05:03:27 PM »
Maybe this is a virtue of classical conservative culture that maybe exists in rural parts of the middle east and asia, but this would never work in the United States. American conservatives that I know have a more darwinist viewpoint that charity only enables the poor, and that wealth is purely the result of your own success, intelligence, work-ethic, and the ability to overcome obstacles no matter how severe. These are the people that do charity for the recognition, and not for the good it actually does.

[1] 2 ... 5