Split-off from What's Bothering You?

[Blaise170]

I've personally seen many people over the years which actually lead a much healthier (and athletic) life living on a high fat and low carb diet (known as ketogenic). I never even stated that fats were preferred by the body either, by the way, that was an assumption you made. You can even eat high fat and low carb while on a 100% veggie diet (tofu, avocados, nuts, to name a few)! In fact, a limited carb diet is preferable for those with certain conditions such as diabetes since it prevents spikes in blood glucose.

[tp4tissue]

I've personally seen many people over the years which actually lead a much healthier (and athletic) life living on a high fat and low carb diet (known as ketogenic). I never even stated that fats were preferred by the body either, by the way, that was an assumption you made. You can even eat high fat and low carb while on a 100% veggie diet (tofu, avocados, nuts, to name a few)! In fact, a limited carb diet is preferable for those with certain conditions such as diabetes since it prevents spikes in blood glucose.

That is incorrect Blaise170.

High consumption of Fats is the Primary CAUSE of insulin resistance which Leads into Type 2 Diabetes.


I will stop with the he said she said, we are all gekhakrs , there's no need for that.


There are today many vegans who do eat as you've said a High-Fats, low carb diet.

These Vegans are NOT HEALTHY.  And they are at the same risk of heartdisease/ dementia/ stroke as the General Omnivorous population.


The ONLY verified and Tested macro composition to 100% Avoid Heartdisease/ Diabetes is  10% Calories from fats Maximum.

Logically because Nature would never intend for humans to get heart disease/ diabetes in the first place.  Plant Based diet should be recognized as the correct primary diet.

Blaise170, Please watch this video.. it explains the diabetes process in detail.

[Zuology]

Whoa, what happened - this thread got split off into it's own tp4tissue show? :popcorn:

[Acereconkeys]

Nutrition isn't my thing so I won't keep going on about it but I do think it's funny that you seem to think that nature has perfect control over limiting heart disease it's just those pesky humans who ruin it for themselves eating meat ... the food we evolved to eat .... wait a second.

[tp4tissue]

Whoa, what happened - this thread got split off into it's own tp4tissue show? :popcorn:

Tp4: Survivor of a thousand battles..

History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever.

Endless TP4

Anime Reference:

[tp4tissue]

Nutrition isn't my thing so I won't keep going on about it but I do think it's funny that you seem to think that nature has perfect control over limiting heart disease it's just those pesky humans who ruin it for themselves eating meat ... the food we evolved to eat .... wait a second.

If you research a little further back..

Eating meat in the Quantity that we do now was impossible until well into the Bronze age and ONLY for the wealthy.

Through analysis of their tombs we also know they have the same western style disease of affluence which plague america today.

Evolution had millions of years designed us through the stone age..


It would've been impossible to get any appreciable amount of animal cuisine given stone age tools.

Even today's natural wild hunting tribes have VERY LOW success rates during hunts. They also only hunt when their staple foods (root vegetables) are in ample supply.



Animal foods is an achievement of human intellect, the Triumph of an Herbivore over its Predators..

In our Hubris, we donned ourselves in the behavior of our oppressors only to rudely realize that we are NOT Tigers, Wolves, or Bears.

We are Very Successful Monkeys..

Monkeys are somewhere between an Herbivore and Frugivore(fruit eaters) , Very distant from true Carnivore (tigers) and Omnivores (bears)

[fanpeople]

It finally happened. The genesis cells that make up the What's bothering you thread split to create two super threads.


Tp has literally split the atom.

[tp4tissue]

It finally happened. The genesis cells that make up the What's bothering you thread split to create two super threads.


Tp has literally split the atom.

Hahahaha.

hai, fanpeople..  This thread is recommended by Tp4,  fun stuff.. Lot's of delusions of grandeur and unnecessary rhetoric

[Blaise170]

I don't feel like continuing this conversation any further, however... Anthropology is something I'm actually well versed in having almost minored in it and your statement that we are sucessful monkeys is completely wrong. We are not all that similar to monkeys, we are much closer to the apes. In any case, homo split off from our close ancestors ages ago after the Australopithecines (the most likely direct ancestor of humans) split from the chimpanzees to form Hominini. Monkeys had a common primate ancestor with humans, but that is much farther up the evolutionary tree and would be like saying we are successful lemurs (also a primate).

[tp4tissue]

I don't feel like continuing this conversation any further, however... Anthropology is something I'm actually well versed in having almost minored in it and your statement that we are sucessful monkeys is completely wrong. We are not all that similar to monkeys, we are much closer to the apes. In any case, homo split off from our close ancestors ages ago after the Australopithecines (the most likely direct ancestor of humans) split from the chimpanzees to form Hominini. Monkeys had a common primate ancestor with humans, but that is much farther up the evolutionary tree and would be like saying we are successful lemurs (also a primate).

Blaise170, thanks for dropping some monkey info on us. I will make that distinction in the future when referencing ancestry.

This however does not alter the quantity of animal foods which those ancestors had access to..

We can not say the human body has no adaptations for eating meat,  but they are rudimentary compared to our system for processing straight carbohydrates.

[kiwi99]

I don't feel like continuing this conversation any further, however... Anthropology is something I'm actually well versed in having almost minored in it and your statement that we are sucessful monkeys is completely wrong. We are not all that similar to monkeys, we are much closer to the apes. In any case, homo split off from our close ancestors ages ago after the Australopithecines (the most likely direct ancestor of humans) split from the chimpanzees to form Hominini. Monkeys had a common primate ancestor with humans, but that is much farther up the evolutionary tree and would be like saying we are successful lemurs (also a primate).

that being said, I share the facial expression of many lemurs whenever I stumble into a tp4 thread

[tp4tissue]

that being said, I share the facial expression of many lemurs whenever I stumble into a tp4 thread

Show Image

[futurecrime]

I'm interested to know what book photoelectric recd you, tp.

[fanpeople]

I'm interested to know what book photoelectric recd you, tp.

I think its called my story or something but it is in another language.

[tp4tissue]

I'm interested to know what book photoelectric recd you, tp.

Photo linked me to, The China Study, by NIH researcher T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. in nutrition, biochemistry, and microbiology, Cornell.   (it has very little to do with China, that's just the title)

After reading that,

Moved onto Prevent and Reverse heart disease by Caldwell Esselstyn. President of the Staff, Board of Governors @ the Cleveland Clinic (aka Cathedral of heart disease)


From there,  dove into their published papers and studies , including those by Neal Barnard, Dean Ornish, John McDougall, Michael Greger


Was pretty much convinced after the First book,  but made sure to go much further to verify the claim from various sources.

[Waateva]

But if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?

[SpAmRaY]

But if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?

We came from the 'other' monkeys.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Waateva]

But if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?

We came from the 'other' monkeys.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[davkol]

But if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?

I never understood this complaint.

You came from your parents, are they still around?

[emenelopee]

It comes from a deliberate misunderstanding of evolution, portraying it as some sort of spontaneous morphing of one animal type into the other. It's a strawman, nothing to get engaged with.

[Waateva]

But if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?

I never understood this complaint.

You came from your parents, are they still around?

Emenelopee has it right, some people just have no idea what evolution actually is.  Usually this is by design, as the groups pushing this point try and make evolution out as a secular agenda that is trying to convert their helpless constituents. 

[tp4tissue]

But if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?

I never understood this complaint.

You came from your parents, are they still around?

Their argument is how come the other monkeys didn't evolve into more intelligent forms as we did.

It's a logical rationale given a less scientific data set.

People forget that understanding evolution is not critical to all areas of society. The majority People can do their monkey tasks just fine without higher education.


For example, amish people. They specifically cut off formal education early to keep inhabitants reliant on more base skills and thought processes.

This is ENOUGH for them to survive in the way they choose..  They don't need anyone who's great at astronomy, astrophysics, fluid dynamics, they're no where near rockets..




The majority of our modern population equivalently occupy labor rungs which don't require deep thinking. Can you put up this roof on that house there,  yes ? Good?  here's ur paycheck, go have a beer.

This does not dictate whether or not everyone should be taught,   it only specifies to the Social Planner that a division of class is AT PRESENT a more efficient organization.



There is an episode in Trek-Enterprise,  where they met the race of Vissians.

This race has a class of females "Cogenitors" who's only task is to bear the children of members of its society which decided to become parents.

Now, the Cogenitors of this race are identical in DNA, the only difference being they are educated with only BASE information to do their sole task, and NO MORE.

The cogenitor lives simply, and is NOT unhappy..

However, one of the crew members felt sorry for the cogenitor and decided to educate her..  After finding out further detail about her predicament, she killed herself..



Our Human society is not so extreme, but It's very similar..

We do not Educate Everyone to the same level.  The Government purposefully inhibit equal opportunity education to preserve entrants into harsher more difficult labors..


Coincidentally, occupants of tough manual labor also have the highest rate of suicide.. Some speculate that it is that similar sense of hopelessness ..  But it could be anything, this class has more addicts, substance abusers, less education in general, dangerous habits, exposure to industrial chemicals, etc.


It's theoretically possible that humans would eventually have a similar system to the Vissians..

[Blaise170]

In most cases evolution is purposefully misconstrued to show that we can't possibly have evolved from monkeys, but that's not an argument from the "secular" community nor has it ever been an argument. Our ancestral cousins in the evolutionary tree evolved from a monkey-like creature such as Plesiadapis, but this creature is far different than any monkeys today, bearing a resemblance much closer to rodents. Even if you manage to convince someone that this is the case, their mind will typically completely shut down once you start trying to explain that the proto-primates also had common ancestors with species even less similar to us, such as Purgatorius. Eventually you get to chemical evolution (abiogenesis), the idea that life came from the random genesis of amino acids from compounds present in the early Earth's atmosphere which later became RNA-strands. These strands of RNA then started the synthesis of the earliest forms of life. The process of abiogenesis was likely started by biological matter introduced from another body in space via meteorites.

[tp4tissue]

It comes from a deliberate misunderstanding of evolution, portraying it as some sort of spontaneous morphing of one animal type into the other. It's a strawman, nothing to get engaged with.

It depends, If they are aware that evolution is correct,  Then you could say it's a deliberate warping

The other case is , some are so behind in education that they were not given the capacity to understand evolution. It's not a given..



Just as there are people who can't read , those who can't do algebra, those who can't do calculus, those who can't do differentials, those who can't do combinatorics..

There are RUNGS..  society is not homogeneous in the data set given to every person.




Some people were given how to eat burgers, and how to pull a rope without letting go even if it hurts..  These are necessary and vital occupants of a functioning society..

They're all GOOD PEOPLE..



Now, why might such a person defend religion and some of that fiction.

People are more interested in justifying their way of existence more so than they're interested in Improving.


Just as when we tell someone with diabetes, hey, you know, they cured diabetes, you just do this, and no more diabetes..

This person goes off and explodes, crys bloody murder,   In the end he's hurting himself..


WHY does he do that,  because he's interested less so in curing his diabetes,  he's more interested in the Pleasures which accompany his life now,  the things he eat,  the CHOICES he's made..   He's less afraid of his diabetes than the fact that he may have Done something wrong, or someone else knows better..

This person will die of diabetes or co-morbid afflictions (probably heart disease).   but he would've still lived His definition of Happiness even though he's destroyed himself.

In the end, this person though simple, is still a generally good person.. He's not done wrong, he's done the best he could..


Just as with religious people, maybe in SOME cases they deliberately warp science to serve an agenda,  but the Majority only understand evolution to the best of their ability, which is Not Understanding it At All..



AND THAT"S OK,   if all that is asked of them in life is to Pull a rope really tight and not let go.. Certainly not knowing about the monkeys is just fine..

[SpAmRaY]

Nobody reads walls of text.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[tp4tissue]

Nobody reads walls of text.

That's not true spam.. hahaha..

Not everyone is capable of reading walls of text,

Those who are , knows what's up.

You should read my previous wall of text to find out why they are not capable of reading walls of text..

I put'um up mostly as a typing exercise, but there is a limited audience.

[davkol]

[tp4tissue]

In most cases evolution is purposefully misconstrued to show that we can't possibly have evolved from monkeys, but that's not an argument from the "secular" community nor has it ever been an argument. Our ancestral cousins in the evolutionary tree evolved from a monkey-like creature such as Plesiadapis, but this creature is far different than any monkeys today, bearing a resemblance much closer to rodents. Even if you manage to convince someone that this is the case, their mind will typically completely shut down once you start trying to explain that the proto-primates also had common ancestors with species even less similar to us, such as Purgatorius. Eventually you get to chemical evolution (abiogenesis), the idea that life came from the random genesis of amino acids from compounds present in the early Earth's atmosphere which later became RNA-strands. These strands of RNA then started the synthesis of the earliest forms of life. The process of abiogenesis was likely started by biological matter introduced from another body in space via meteorites.

You should watch that episode of futurama A clockwork origin..

Having a Creator does not fundamentally conflict with Evolution..


It's certainly possible there is a god or god like conscious creator..


Yet there are people who dispute it.

We can't really rule it out, because we don't have evidence.

It's also possible that even if such evidence exist, our cognitive capacity may never be capable of understanding it.


These possible scenarios exist, therefore, we lump them all together call it god for now..


That's fine..  People who just pull rope are allowed to think there is a god, and he did the things in his certain way..



Purgatorius,abiogenesis, Plesiadapis, mitochondria, rna...  All good stuff,  But again, NO EVIDENCE for the order of events YET..

It MAY have happened that way, 

OR

It May be that we live in the matrix,  and we're actually all brains in a jar.. and the Machine created us, and all our consciousnesses are actually residual processes left over after running their fusion focus cycles..

[Waateva]

In most cases evolution is purposefully misconstrued to show that we can't possibly have evolved from monkeys, but that's not an argument from the "secular" community nor has it ever been an argument. Our ancestral cousins in the evolutionary tree evolved from a monkey-like creature such as Plesiadapis, but this creature is far different than any monkeys today, bearing a resemblance much closer to rodents. Even if you manage to convince someone that this is the case, their mind will typically completely shut down once you start trying to explain that the proto-primates also had common ancestors with species even less similar to us, such as Purgatorius. Eventually you get to chemical evolution (abiogenesis), the idea that life came from the random genesis of amino acids from compounds present in the early Earth's atmosphere which later became RNA-strands. These strands of RNA then started the synthesis of the earliest forms of life. The process of abiogenesis was likely started by biological matter introduced from another body in space via meteorites.

You should watch that episode of futurama A clockwork origin..

Having a Creator does not fundamentally conflict with Evolution..


It's certainly possible there is a god or god like conscious creator..


Yet there are people who dispute it.

We can't really rule it out, because we don't have evidence.

It's also possible that even if such evidence exist, our cognitive capacity may never be capable of understanding it.


These possible scenarios exist, therefore, we lump them all together call it god for now..


That's fine..  People who just pull rope are allowed to think there is a god, and he did the things in his certain way..



Purgatorius,abiogenesis, Plesiadapis, mitochondria, rna...  All good stuff,  But again, NO EVIDENCE for the order of events YET..

It MAY have happened that way, 

OR

It May be that we live in the matrix,  and we're actually all brains in a jar.. and the Machine created us, and all our consciousnesses are actually residual processes left over after running their fusion focus cycles..

Ahhh, and this where analogies like the Flying Spagetti Monster and Russell's Teapot come into play.  While it's theoretically possible for a creator to exist, the burden of proof falls on the person making the extraordinary claim to prove he/she/it exists, not the other way around.  Until that case is proven, it's just a claim that can never be substantiated and therefore, is not worth entertaining imo.

[tp4tissue]

Ahhh, and this where analogies like the Flying Spagetti Monster and Russell's Teapot come into play.  While it's theoretically possible for a creator to exist, the burden of proof falls on the person making the extraordinary claim to prove he/she/it exists, not the other way around.  Until that case is proven, it's just a claim that can never be substantiated and therefore, is not worth entertaining imo.

We have finite capacity to reason and comprehend..  So typically , we go with the firm things and that of which is a hair out of our current capacity..

The notion of what is and is not of worth is flexible over time.  We might not have the capacity today to comprehend -the Creator- we MIGHT in the future..

That in itself does not determine whether we should or should not..

If there's no food on the table, we shouldn't even be on Gekhak.. 


Because it's possible, we should record the possibility and hold it until a later date when it CAN be explored..

It's ON HOLD, fine,  but to outright reject it is Myopic ..

[Blaise170]

It's completely possible that evolution was guided by an intelligent being and is commonly known as theistic evolution. There's a complete range of beliefs based on how secular or anti-science you want to be. I tend to fall somewhere between theistic and atheistic evolution.

[tp4tissue]

It's completely possible that evolution was guided by an intelligent being and is commonly known as theistic evolution. There's a complete range of beliefs based on how secular or anti-science you want to be. I tend to fall somewhere between theistic and atheistic evolution.

Show Image

That's not a good depiction .

There's no high or low , or any linear relationship between beliefs..

They're all facets of the same core comprehension.

Flat earthers are just as right about the earth given their data set and their application of dimension compression,

The visualization of knowledge should be more similar to entanglement

[Waateva]

Ahhh, and this where analogies like the Flying Spagetti Monster and Russell's Teapot come into play.  While it's theoretically possible for a creator to exist, the burden of proof falls on the person making the extraordinary claim to prove he/she/it exists, not the other way around.  Until that case is proven, it's just a claim that can never be substantiated and therefore, is not worth entertaining imo.

We have finite capacity to reason and comprehend..  So typically , we go with the firm things and that of which is a hair out of our current capacity..

The notion of what is and is not of worth is flexible over time.  We might not have the capacity today to comprehend -the Creator- we MIGHT in the future..

That in itself does not determine whether we should or should not..

If there's no food on the table, we shouldn't even be on Gekhak.. 


Because it's possible, we should record the possibility and hold it until a later date when it CAN be explored..

It's ON HOLD, fine,  but to outright reject it is Myopic ..

I'm not rejecting anything, but until there is something to back it up beyond feelings and anecdotes, I don't give it any credence.

[Acereconkeys]

I flat out reject the idea. I respect/understand the people who believe the idea though. I understand where they're coming from. I'm pretty confident personally there's no creator though. Just my personal bias. I'm reminded of a great quote that shows the place religion goes which is that religion seems to always fill the holes in our scientific knowledge. I predict as we get more and more knowledgeable as a species we'll start realizing the things we thought previously to be "impossible to understand" or "must be the work of god" are really dictated by a strict set of rules.


This is similar to how in the past religions would think the stars are gods or the rain/trees are gods when they had no ability to comprehend/predict the weather or know the stars are just other planets like us.

[emenelopee]

It comes from a deliberate misunderstanding of evolution, portraying it as some sort of spontaneous morphing of one animal type into the other. It's a strawman, nothing to get engaged with.

I'm going to quote myself rather than TP's walls of text to keep the scrolling brief.

My point is specifically regarding those who are putting forward "so why are there still monkeys" as an argument against evolution, ie. assuming there has been some investigation into the subject. Those who do not know anything about evolution, and who are asking in good faith, do not count in my grouping.

[Waateva]

It comes from a deliberate misunderstanding of evolution, portraying it as some sort of spontaneous morphing of one animal type into the other. It's a strawman, nothing to get engaged with.

I'm going to quote myself rather than TP's walls of text to keep the scrolling brief.

My point is specifically regarding those who are putting forward "so why are there still monkeys" as an argument against evolution, ie. assuming there has been some investigation into the subject. Those who do not know anything about evolution, and who are asking in good faith, do not count in my grouping.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone who actually "knows" about evolution ask that question though.  It always seems to be something said by people who heard about evolution from someone else, and that someone else told them a very dumbed down, lazy, and convoluted version of it with little retorts like the monkey thing, where they can say them and immediately give themselves a mental victory regardless of what is said to them afterwards in rebuttal.

[Acereconkeys]

It's a tough topic to discuss because religion is so closely wrapped up in the personal identities of people.

[tp4tissue]

It's a tough topic to discuss because religion is so closely wrapped up in the personal identities of people.

Just like every other topic ?

Tp4 tells someone to eat broccoli , hey dude, cures diabetes..

Someone::  How DARE YOU, !!

Someone::  Bacon Bacon Bacon,  omg I've lost a foot..  Walking be damned..

[Acereconkeys]

That's not really comparable though man we just don't agree with your thoughts on diet. We're not so personally invested in what we eat we take deep personal offence when you bring it up.

Food is not on the 4 banned first date topics. R(eligion) A(bortion) P(olitics) and E(conomics).

[tp4tissue]

That's not really comparable though man we just don't agree with your thoughts on diet. We're not so personally invested in what we eat we take deep personal offence when you bring it up.

Food is not on the 4 banned first date topics. R(eligion) A(bortion) P(olitics) and E(conomics).

It's convenient to put everything in a different pocket,  but in actuality all the pockets are on the same pair of pants.

That is to say,  when you have too many things to one side, the pants could tear, and everyone dies..


So, Food, that being animal products, is responsible for 19% of all greenhouse gases, it is the most readily fixable aspect to climate change..

You can eat broccoli more easily than you could stop driving.


Everything is related, Food is related to politics, as is big pharma, keyboards, the ozone, everything..


You are extremely invested in what you eat, because there are consequences to food we don't consciously process..

[fanpeople]

That gay couple make a really good point about organic monkey dildos.

I never thought about it like that.

[tp4tissue]

That gay couple make a really good point about organic monkey dildos.

I never thought about it like that.

It's a good thing there are no SJWs on Gekhak,  otherwise they'd come in here and be like, heyyy you're using homosexuality in a negative connotation.

[fanpeople]

That gay couple make a really good point about organic monkey dildos.

I never thought about it like that.

It's a good thing there are no SJWs on Gekhak,  otherwise they'd come in here and be like, heyyy you're using homosexuality in a negative connotation.

See that is the problem with heavily regulating how we interact in public, certain people crave the feeling of offence and seek it out. I was having a crack at the stereotypical objection to homosexuality that traditionally hardcore religious people have. But an SJW might instantly assume that I was using it as a direct insult as opposed to a veiled inception insult.

[Acereconkeys]

Seems a bit weird you guys are both here talking about some "sjw" that doesn't exist. Strawmanning much?

[fanpeople]

Seems a bit weird you guys are both here talking about some "sjw" that doesn't exist. Strawmanning much?

Yeah sure why not. 

[emenelopee]

Seems a bit weird you guys are both here talking about some "sjw" that doesn't exist. Strawmanning much?

+1

"See that is the problem with heavily regulating how we interact in public," he said to all the chirping crickets, "certain people crave the feeling of offence and seek it out."

Look how easy it is to mock and dismiss grievance if it's not yours.

[fanpeople]

[tp4tissue]

(Attachment Link)

[Waateva]

Are these SJWs like the people who got mad about the Christmas Starbucks cups and the people who are obsessed with safe places?  As in, it's a tiny minority that everyone makes a huge deal out of but don't actually matter?

[tp4tissue]

Are these SJWs like the people who got mad about the Christmas Starbucks cups and the people who are obsessed with safe places?  As in, it's a tiny minority that everyone makes a huge deal out of but don't actually matter?

The only difference between an SJW and a real activist is that real activists have a large stake in the matter..  SJW are just there for the attention, they do the minimal amount of activism, and even if the cause they champion comes to fruition, it does not affect them in the least.