The radical militant vegans fail to recognize that pushing veganism for everybody is the most cruel lifestyle, because they're being cruel towards humans who cannot be healthy without consuming animal products.

The only way to claim that such is not the case is by equating animal suffering with human suffering. But even that argument would fail because you cannot be truly compassionate toward others if in doing so you are being cruel towards yourself.

Some good side effects:
-got an incredible sense of smell, bad in a way, as many smells are really bad

In my experience, it's not that vegans have a better sense of smell, but that they are more sensitive to strong smells.

A raw paleo person can detect faint smells they're not used to, such as tobacco or cannabis smoke, or cooked foods, much more easily and from further away than your average vegan or raw vegan.

But whereas the vegan may be disgusted even with the smell of their own food after they're done eating it, the raw paleo person isn't bothered by this as easily.

. Not really. I know many, many people who easily avoided military national service in Austria , making up the most bogus of excuses. Admittedly, this was in peacetime, but a coward can easily fake enough ill-health etc. in order to be put well behind the front lines.

It's not a coward who refuses to fight in an unjust war. Actually, the coward is the one who does everything he's told without even questioning it, for fear of punishment.

Not remotely valid, as that very change has nothing to do with genetics but is said to be solely due to the sudden rise in food-intake in modern times. Obviously, someone with a larger brain is going to suffer in more ancient times when famine was far more likely an occurrence.
Height has also increased in modern times due to a lack of famine

And likewise the smarter and taller ones who survive pass on their smarter and taller genes on.

BUT we are still shorter than our palaeo ancestors, despite this. The point being that to get back to the brain-size of Cro-Magnon, and especially the Neanderthals, we would need significant natrual selection and the like to do get to that point.

This could be the case, although this wouldn't indicate that the dysgenic effects are as terrible and as pressing as what you think. That said, I remain highly skeptical of the theory that says that neanderthals and cro magnon were much smarter than us. I could accept that on average, they may have been slightly smarter, but they didn't have the raw numbers to produce unlikely geniuses like we have today, which are the ones who truly move civilization forward. If they were so smart, why did they all die out? And why didn't they produce technology like the kind we have today? Or are you saying that they did have such technology, built the pyramids, ruled over us, and when they got tired of playing god, left the planet and went for the stars?

The Flynn Effect has been discredited. People have pointed out that all it shows is that people have become better at doing IQ tests, not that they were growing more intelligent. I myself have done endless IQ tests and steadily scored ever higher points as I did more and more IQ tests which were very similiar in nature. As soon as I did more complex IQ tests which had far different methods, I would end up scoring much lower than usual. My scores have varied anywhere from 113 IQ points to 170!

The Flynn Effect applies to subsequent generations. Yes you can teach yourself to do better at IQs, but like you said, as soon as the type of IQ test is changed drastically, your benefits are gone. The Flynn Effect applies to people who've never done IQ tests before, certainly not the ones used to test for it.

Oh, and the Flynn Effect has been recently broken. This is linked by some  to recent mass immigration:-

Yes, of course, you could have a situation where every race is getting smarter on average, but the population as a whole is getting less smart on average because basically the only ones who are growing in numbers are africans, who on average are less smart. Notice that this applies worldwide too, so it's not simply about immigration/emmigration.

One idea has been that  the level of dygenics over the last 200 years has been temporarily masked by the fact that better conditions arose such as less exposure to famine and better environment, along with better education. The idea being that dysgenics is now so dominant that a better environment/adequate nutrition etc. can no longer cloak it.

I'd doubt some of that. There might be less famine, but quality of foods has gone down substantially. And like you said, famines should have an eugenics effect, no?

Likewise the formal education has gotten terribly worse, while informal education has gotten much better in very recent times due to the internet.

Sorry for bad edit of quoting, I tried to modify but it doesn't work.

Dysgenics is clearly a major factor. For example, many people died in the 2 world wars, and there was the Spanish Flu epidemic after WW1 which caused a lot of people to die. If the remaining population were not suitable, genetically, then....

But that's a big assumption to make, that the remaining population were "not suitable" in a significant way.

Anyway,my point re all this is that there is a steady, increasing  tendency among all populations worldwide to have lower sperm-counts, higher birth-defect-rates etc. While some of that might be reversible, it is extremely unlikely that it could be wholly reversed.

And my point is that the tendency has increased at such a rapid pace that it can't possibly be due to dysgenics, and to the extent that dysgenics may play a role, it's only minimal when compared to the actual rate of change in the tendency.

Dr. Pottenger found that 4 generations on raw was all it took to bring his cats back to health. It's not clear that the damage is irreversible, nor that it's a result of dysgenics like you suggest.

The rise in the amounts of disease that we see over the past 50-100 years cannot be explained by dysgenics alone. It takes time for something like that to have a significant effect in the population.

Plus, you assume that just because someone survives, that they will reproduce, and that is not necessarily the case. In some ways there is even more discrimination now about who will reproduce and who won't, regarding diseases, than there was back in paleo times.

Raw liver is supercharged with Vitamin A, so it's unlikely that an overdose is the problem if raw liver is what makes your symptoms go away.

Do you drink a lot of caffeinated drinks, or have you done this in the past?

I find that when I'm raw, my body is especially sensitive to caffeine, and reacts strongly to it, whereas if I'm eating cooked the reaction is not as strong.

I used to get blurred vision often when I was having a cooked diet (not necessarily low carb), and this went away when on raw, the only thing left was some ocassional twitching of one or the other eyelid which I associated with caffeine detox, which also went away in time. If anything, on raw my vision became better and better. However, if I have heavily caffeinated drinks, my vision will get worse and I get pain in the eyes that feels like blood pressure is too high in there, it makes my eyes feel like they're swelling up and as if that continued, something would burst.

Talk to him and help him see how ridiculous it is that he's terrified of germs and at the same time eats mett.

Don't push him to change his eating habits, but don't hide yours either. To the contrary, show him how your eating habits are much better for you than if you were eating like he does.

Finally, I would say, I wouldn't even date a girl more than once if she wasn't 100% cool with my eating habits, let alone make her my girlfriend.

If someone eats insects and grubs for convenience, taste or finances, I certainly have no problem with it. I'm just saying that I don't buy into the idea that it's healthier to eat those than to eat meat.

Megafauna used to live all over the planet in multiple different climates and habitats. Nowadays there's pretty much only elephants and rhinos, and I suppose hippos.

I wonder if these were hunted mainly through hit-and-run ambushes and largely long distance chasing until the animal dropped dead from exhaustion, since fighting them could easily result in many tribe members being killed, especially since weapons back then were very primitive and made out of wood and stone only.

Staple maybe not, I am 100% against being 100% anything! But you can raise insects better than cows... Same as guinea pigs, this is an argument for those who do not want to eat industrial meat and have difficulties finding good meat that meet their standards. I know some vegetarians that would eat some good meat but no way they go to the shop for ordinary meat.

If I want to eat wild game only, I would be starving. And for organic meat, I needed to buy a freezer. And I do not know if it is grain-fed or not.... We have not enough grass here. Ordinary local cows eat ...green bananas! Full of pesticide including DDT!

So I have just bought frozen beef liver...

I believe you're probably better off eating grain finished muscle meat beef right off the supermarket as a staple of your diet, than eating top quality organically raised insects as a staple of your diet. But I could be wrong.

To me it seems not to be paleo to consume vast amounts of insects, as that can only be achieved through agriculture.

I forgot worms, beetles and other decomposers, also very important.