Also, my dad has type 2 diabetes. I tried to show him the science that shows that a plant-based diet works more than twice as well for combating the disease as any other diet: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2847116/How-vegetarian-CURE-diabetes-Plant-based-diets-improve-blood-sugar-levels-scientists-claim.html

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/a-diabetes-link-to-meat

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?referrer=https://www.google.ca/

Yes, bask in your morally inferior positions, and unhealthy physiques. Vegans are the only demographic that falls smack dab in the middle of the ideal BMI range.

Of course, veganism is tops.

I see original sin, and the fall of the human species as quite a beautiful story. We are the only species that are truly culpable. Adam's legacy that we inherit is to lose our innocence, become self aware, feel ashamed, contrite, and cognizant of the moral weight of our actions. We can never be innocent like other animals again. We ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and became truly capable of guilt.

I got plenty of mine from television shows. What's wrong with that? Don't be so stuck up.

Do you think these people are happy Wosret? Is this the good life to you? Are these people really more knowledeable about their nature? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hFDiqHGTXM — Agustino

Those people all look fairly attractive, so I would say that they are probably fairly happy, and emotionally well adjusted.

What do you have to show for apprehending that golden lost knowledge besides a feeling of superiority? Could you actually present an excellence that produces any kind of effectiveness, or dividends? How could you demonstrate it distinct from a delusional conceit?

It

So you don't agree, some information doesn't require interpretation, and people directly perceive the causes of events.

Aristotle it's less clear, as he was certainly a naturalist, but not by discarding the supernatural as a separate domain to the empirical natural world, but by attempting to fuse the two. He definitely believed in a god, and inherent purpose in nature, though I don't recall him saying much about spirits. Plato on the other hand, Socrates definitely thought that he was on a divine mission, that he heard the voice of a spirit, his daemon, and believed in gods, and an immortal soul. Funny you'd hold the greeks up so highly though, considering how gay they were. Have you read the symposium? It gets pretty gay there near the end. Plato, I'll say seemed to be in favor of equality for women, far more so than Aristotle, but Aristotle was more feminine, for sure. He dressed flamboyantly, cared a lot about his looks, mourned his hair loss, and spoke with a lisp, which became emulated, and was responsible for the perception of the intelligentsia as feminine, which was later adopted by the gay community.

We seem to have different historical heroes.

More conspiracies... there are sociological studies that show that conservatives are just more afraid of things than liberals, and tend to perceive things as more threatening. Scoring much lower on "openness to new experiences". Stop being so paranoid, and thinking everything conspiracies.

No, elemental, and humorous imbalances is ripe nonsense, something someone comes up with when they have no fucking clue.

Because we know far more about nature now than we ever did in the past. Do you really dispute this? It's honestly getting painful to continue to exchange with you.

You're just repeating yourself, you never answered my questions about why this even matters, nor addressed my criticism that information isn't without interpretation, and the tools people have for more realistic, reasonable interpretations were far fewer than what exists today.

No, demons wasn't what the likes of Aristotle, or Plato thought. They still believed in that shit, but it just so happens that they thought different equally wrong nonsense based on primitive notions caused diseases of the body. Like elemental, or humorous imbalances. Plato never struck me as particularly impressive, or interesting like Aristotle did (he was a twat), but it's mainly their scope of topics, and how little there was to know about anything at the time. It's impossible to become a polymath today, because each field is far too developed and complex. A few centuries ago if you read a few dozen books you'd know everything that was known about everything. You just sound romantically enchanted by the past.

Yeah, I'm sure you're great.

I can't be ignorant, and selective. I can't willfully dismiss, and not know about something. For most of human history evil spirits caused disease and illness, so taking the entirety of history, and ideas about it, and see how disease and illness hasn't changed in that time, why would moderns be saying something different?

Unfortunately history doesn't write itself, isn't free of evaluation, and interpretation, and people from centuries ago where isolated, puritanical, and ignorant of their own natures, and the actual causes of most everything.

ISIS isn't coming to get you, and have never been, nor will ever be an actual threat to you or I.

Those articles aren't recent enough for me, and are by single people. You can find people that will say just about anything about anything. I was suggesting what is more orthodox among modern historians, and that Rome fell because of moral decay isn't.

You continue to act as if information is free of interpretation. If there are far more liberals occupying a field it means that there is a big conspiracy forcing out the far superior, more accurate and truthful conservative historians. Like creationists claim about scientists that support creation science. It isn't that they're bad at their jobs, it's just a conspiracy to silence them.

You could always jump off the fucking mountain, join us down here on the ground.

That's because they're bad at their jobs. Can't make much progress with people that's politically identified label means holding you back.

Big liberal conspiracies aside, allowing you to make untrue statements, that are clarified with only accepting the historians you agree with in the first place... totes setting that aside...

Data has changed a shitload. Sociological, scientific, multicultural data has changed, which makes us evaluate, and consider different things credible than in the past.

A better question though, as obviously we'd never agree about this, but why does it matter, and what can we learn from it? How do we prevent it from happening to our society too? What kind of steps are you willing to take? Just complain, and tell people how bad they are as they ignore you and civilization crumbles around your righteous pure ears?

I was referring to "many historians" believing that. Which century was that? That was indeed a credible view in the past... but not recently... if by many you mean more than like ten people... then yeah probably, but if by many you mean a considerable portion of all modern historians then definitely not.

Really it's the depressive that gets their sentiments from cliche. The notions that happiness and stupidity are correlated, and intelligence, or artistic ability are correlated with misery. Even that mental illness is correlated with artistic skill/genius, or that truth is a terrible downer, and fiction is always pleasant. Most of that is demonstrably untrue, and that truth is always terrible, and fiction always good seems obviously wrong to me. Paranoia, and fear cause more damage than truth ever has. The cognitive evaluation, and belief that there is a nobility in feeling awful about the state of the world and life, I can't see doing anyone any good.

One is apparently super opposed to suffering, but if you're not miserable then you're ignoble, or delusional... which is bad...

Again, you're refusing to admit that sexual debauchery played a role, even though many historians seem to think it did. — Agustino

From which century?

I don't think that there is much of any obligation to prevent harm, rather than not be the cause of it. The former implies a smothering involvement in the lives of others. When we happen to be there, and could prevent some harm without putting ourselves out too much, then it is definitely a good thing to do -- but failing to catch the rock thrown at the head of someone you're standing next to just clearly isn't even remotely in the same league as having thrown the rock.

I think that it's contorting things, and inserting one's self in the business of others too much to say that we have a moral obligation to prevent harm, or suffering. Much craziness and abuse seems to follow from that. Though I can see how this unreasonable extension may be necessary to make antinatalism sound more reasonable.

A Chinese friend of mine told me that mistakes like "it's" and "its", and with all of the "there/their/they're"s are things native speakers are far more likely to do, because they learned to speak before write, and learn both in a fundamentally different way than a native of another language learning English.

I even replace words with other words that just rhyme all of the time... not that I don't actually know the difference, but just speaking-wise, they're too similar.

I don't really buy it. Who can judge that sort of thing without inconsistency or circularity? Andrew Solomon likes to say that the opposite of depression isn't happiness, it's vitality. Lying takes more energy than telling the truth, so I'm willing to buy that part, but not the delusion part... unless being deluded is too much work for the whiny assholes too!

I mostly don't trust the people judging such a thing. If the judges were depressed then maybe... but if they were mentally healthy, who's to say that they aren't just deluding themselves into seeing whatever they want to!

I was unaware that unbelievers were opposed to justice, and only don't believe in religion, because then they get away with all of their live's injustices when they die, rather than rotting in hell. It all makes sense to me now!

Lol, well, Alberta is a lot like the Texas of Canada. By far the richest province, the average wage here being twice as much as the second richest province... setting me still below even middle class in Alberta, but I feel pretty rich. Just bought a house in December.

Everyone is super conservative though, and are not super happy about our new Prime Minister, mainly because he'll share the wealth. Last week he was in Edmonton apparently explaining why he raised unemployment benefits everywhere except Alberta. I live in little town about an hour outside of Edmonton, with about 300 residents, and it has two liquor stores, a gas station, a bar, a grocery store, a pharmacy, auto repair shop, Chinese restaurant, and a coffee shop. That's unreal to me, and every little place is like that.

Still, no where in Canada is like the southern states I'm sure.

I would very much like to give you a good reply to your thoughts here, if not for my almost complete ignorance of politics, and world affairs... I don't watch nor read the news. The most I probably ever hear about the news come from the radio on the way to work between songs.

I share the sentiments though, a lot of progress has been made just in the last couple of years, and I too worry that things could go the complete other direction. I may be ignorant of politics, but it seems to me that the justice of the supreme court appointment may be more significant than the presidential election... you know... until a communist Jew comes along.

You haven't met my parents. Freud said that the reason that we have god parents is to remind us that our own parents are not divine.

Moral nihilism =/= moral anti-realism. — darthbarracuda

I'm not really either. I'm not saying that there are no moral truths, I'm saying that I am the truth.

Sure, someone can say that, but there being a moral objectivity, or absolutism doesn't force anyone to do anything either. They can still say no, it isn't as if moral commandments are magic, and literally force you to obey, you'll just feel more justified, right, and secure in your opinions, and able to dismiss dissent more easily if you believe that. I don't see how it has much to do with forcing compliance.

We prove our moral sentiments with our lives and characters, and how we effect, inspire, or disgust others. We ourselves are the proofs.

I've always gots to feel radical brah. I have six siblings, and four nephews... plenty of my genepool is floating around, but I'm obviously the best, and it would really be a crime against nature and humanity if I refused to gift the world my progeny.

Lol... because you realize the metaphysical truth, and then responsibility ensues...

I've actually not heard anything that I didn't know from any of you guys yet. The problem is just that it is insisted that one must feel awful about it, and obsess over it or they're not really getting it. Why it is anyone's duty to just feel shitty about the world all the time? What does that accomplish? If one is inspired to act in philanthropic ways on account of it (besides twisted "lets all just go extinct now"), or it aids in any way whatsoever to anything that couldn't be accomplished without feeling shitty all of the time because of your duty to think about death in every moment, then I've yet to hear about that.

In what sense is that responsible?

Also reminds me of that quote by Russell about how people that are unhappy, like people that sleep badly, are always proud of the fact. Misery is noble, happiness is for the ignorant, deluded, or dishonest.

A misery you can feel happy about.

The vampires and werewolves part? No.

One first only need understand that it isn't actually a technical term for anything, it's a colloquial term, taken from a term that just means "mental disorder", or literally, "mind disease" -- and just sounds like a technical way of calling someone a crazy person. In popular fiction the evil serial killer usually has a mismash of things like schizophrenia, disassociative personality disorder, or in the case of Buffalo Bill, also something of a transgender disorder as well. It's just a mismash of what people think are crazy people, combined with evil actions.

The facts are though, that a person with a mental disorder is not any more likely to commit horrible crimes than someone with no mental disorders. They still have to be crazy to be murders, and evil though, don't they?

The word is just synonymous with evil now. A pyschopath is just an evil person. Someone that is remorselessly manipulative, violent, or self-entitled. That uses others without qualms, and enjoys the suffering and misery of the innocent. As well as murders and eats people. It is just a technical sounding word for an evil person, that often doesn't actually have any kind of mental illness, but the very fact that they're evil means that they must be insane!

This is just exaggerated, and unscientific, but it also is based on a distrust, demonization, and marginalization of the mentally ill.

And if I were to succeed with such efforts, that's all the more reason to think that they're just assholes that don't care or try enough -- or that I'm superhuman, and fundamentally different from the rest of the soulless populous.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that x-men doesn't do it. I think that a better argument can be made that the x-men are actually communists, and not a different race. They look like everyone else, and blend right in at all levels of public life, but keep a dirty commie secret.

"Anti-social" doesn't mean that they have no friends, it means evil. Anti-social as opposed to pro-social, or things that harm, or go against the community, and mores.

What they are is a modern day monster. Today's vampires and werewolves.

Yeah, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and powering up is super hard!

I'm not into bromances. Goku pwns all of the faces.

Goku is way better, though not lately either, unfortunately. Sure, he has universal destructive capabilities now, but it's also implied that you could just knife him in his sleep as well, if he isn't ready...

I also am looking forward to the X men movie, Marvel makes some damn good movies.

Have you seen Superman V Batman? He isn't entertaining recently.