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 - dariorpl

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 38
Be very careful when dealing with hallucinogens like magic mushrooms. While they pose little danger to your physical health, your mental health could be compromised, especially if you are already a person who isn't well balanced and very comfortable with who you are and with the environment around you. (Of course, it begs the question, if you already are well balanced and very comfortable with who you are and the environment around you, why would you need to try something like this?)

If you believe you are more likely than others to ever develop mental problems such as schizophrenia and paranoia, be extra careful and probably avoid hallucinogens altogether. I've seen people do harm to themselves and develop increasingly distorted personalities when using these substances.

Don't assume that just because HG tribes used them in shamanic rituals and that it may or may not have helped them, that they will help you, in a completely different environment, with completely different goals, and without experienced shamans to guide you through the experience.

By the way, the "non-addictive" (resistance forming) nature of hallucinogens has nothing to do with them being natural or artificial, you can no more become addicted to LSD than to magic mushrooms.

It depends on a few factors like temperature, humidity, how long ago the eggs have been laid when you get them, and how high you will allow them to get before you consider them to be spoiled.

Even in the summer, unrefrigerated eggs should last for a month if not more. Certainly a few weeks without developing any kind of smell. When they do start to smell, the smell is very mild and usually not unpleasant. If anything, they have a stronger taste only, but the smell doesn't begin to get unpleasant until it's been 2+ months usually.

Try and get eggs that have never been refrigerated. Refrigeration probably destroys nutrients and there's a chance that refrigerated eggs will spoil faster when left unrefrigerated.

If it's very hot and humid, like over 30 degrees celcius consistently and with high humidity, they may begin to develop a faint eggy smell within 2.5 weeks or so. But again, this also depends on how long they've been laid when you first get them.

Btw, plenty of people intentionally allow their eggs to get very high for months upon months (in some cases years or even decades) before consuming them.

Off Topic / Re: More and more people getting hay-fever
« on: May 08, 2017, 06:28:43 pm »
I get intense hay-fever symptoms when inhaling moderate amounts of household dust... The larger the dose, the worse the symptoms. But I thought there was something toxic in the dust that caused it, such as particles from sprays and other cleaning products, and building materials or paint coming off the walls or ceiling. I don't get these symptoms otherwise or when exposed to dirt or sand. Does anyone else here react to household dust in that way?

Also, it would be interesting to devise a test whereby I can see if natural dust, unpolluted by civilized life, would still cause this allergic reaction in me. Any ideas? Dust doesn't usually collect in natural places, that's why I ask. Maybe a cave? I don't know. Does dust collect in caves? I never actually checked, but I don't think it does.

AV often talked about these causing damage, he said they even altered DNA

In the comedy series Better Call Saul, they have a character who's crazy and believes that EMFs harm him and make him weak. The series presents him as someone who's insane and that it's all psychological, for comedy value. He wears a tinfoil sheet as a poncho. Sometimes two, for extra protection.

You have this delusional brainwashing that humans are pack hunters. Please go hunt without modern weapons and then let me know how well it goes.

If the money was available to pay a prize for the participants, it would be interesting to take two groups, of 40 people each, and have them roam around a given area of the wilderness over the course of a year, preferrably somewhere in Europe, and in such a way that the two groups never overlap, but that the available nutrition in both areas is roughly equivalent.

Both groups would go into the experiment with nothing but the skin on their back and one toothbrush per person.

One group would be allowed to eat whatever they can find, whereas the other group will be limited to vegan foods.

The group who finishes with the most members still alive and still in the experiment wins (the group members are free to quit anytime they want).

Perhaps one way to finance such an operation and provide a substantial prize for the winner would be to take a filming crew and/or place lots and lots of hidden cameras around the wilderness, and then air it as a reality TV series.

In a way the experiment would be heavily skewed towards the vegan side because in real hunter-gatherer societies, the two groups wouldn't just avoid each other, but they would fiercely combat each other to the death. And obviously if you have the tools and skills to hunt, you're going to be better prepared to fight opposing tribes, since the two practices have similar requirements in some areas, if only slightly. Still I think the paleo group would win by a landslide as long as the location isn't picked in such a specific way to give the vegan group a big advantage. (there are a few places on Earth where food is very scarce and there are basically no animals you can hunt, in such a scenario the vegan group would have an advantage because vegan people tend to be smaller and weaker and thus are used to surviving on smaller amounts of food - however these places are very rare, so you would have to really try to pick one of these)

To make the experiment even more interesting, it would be nice if all the food eaten had to be raw, and there was no cooking allowed, or better yet, no fire either. In such a scenario the vegans would stand no chance, unless the wilderness location was somewhere in the tropics.

Off Topic / Re: Unwanted adaptation to milk?
« on: March 22, 2017, 07:10:38 pm »
Of course not, as it's an absurd allegation.

So it's absurd? This is from , and it took me all of 45 seconds to find

Got cruelty? Got saturated fat? Got greenhouse gasses? Got somatic cells (a.k.a. pus)? Well, when you drink cows’ milk, you get all of those things—and nothing good that you can’t get from almond or soy milk. So why do people drink cows’ milk? The answer is quite simple: habit and brainwashing from the dairy industry.

Think about it: Humans are the only species to drink milk past infancy, and certainly the only species to drink the milk of a different species. Milk that is meant for baby calves, to rapidly grow them to 1,000 pound adults. Instead, we sell this stuff to adult humans who should have been weaned decades ago. It’s crazy!

Off Topic / Re: Unwanted adaptation to milk?
« on: March 22, 2017, 07:01:29 pm »
Which humans have died from the consumption of wolf milk? Or is this all a hypothesis with absolutely no backing?

Also, cheese is made by discarding whey and superconcentrating casein. I don't see people dropping dead from eating lots of pizza.

Some bodybuilders even use casein as a protein supplement.

Off Topic / Re: Unwanted adaptation to milk?
« on: March 22, 2017, 11:34:54 am »
Everything has hormones in it. Lion cubs fed raw cows milk develop normally also. Is lioness milk ideal for lion cubs? Of course. But cow milk is sufficient. The main reason that young mammals need milk is not because of milk's superior nutrition or hormones (which it does contain), but because milk delivers its nutrition in the form of a liquid, and at this stage, young animals typically don't have a digestive system developed enough to effectively liquify solid foods. And as you know, all solid food must be liquified before the nutrition in it can be accessed.

Birds, which don't produce milk, take a different approach to this problem. They typically feed their young offspring by regurgitating already liquified food.

Are you going to admit that this argument that HelpMeToHelpEwe made about milk is strictly copied from the vegan agenda playbook?

Off Topic / Re: Unwanted adaptation to milk?
« on: March 21, 2017, 06:36:23 pm »
Then reason in that cow dairy, arguably the most common in the west and very common still in parts of the east, is meant to grow a 50lb calf to 1000+ lbs over the course or 1-2 yrs... Not a humanoid infant of 6lbs to 150 lbs in 20yrs..

This argument is straight from the vegan agenda, and such nonsense... Lion cubs are born weighing 1 to 2 kilograms (2 to 4lbs) and by the time they're 2-3 years old they weigh up to 250kg under normal conditions. That's 125-250 times their birth weight within 2-3 years while cattle only grow to 20 times their birth weight within 1-2 years. So does that mean that zebra, wildebeest and antelope meat would be unhealthy for humans because it's "meant to grow a lion cub to 150+ times it's size in 2-3 years, not a human to 25 times it's weight in 20 years"?

Milk is only primarily fed to these animals by their mothers while they are young, a lion doesn't consume milk exclusively for 2-3 years and cattle doesn't consume milk exclusively for 1-2 years. Just like humans don't consume milk exclusively for 20 years. Most of the growth in cattle comes from grass, and most of the growth in lions comes from meat.

Stop being ridiculous. It's genetics that drives the growth. If you take a lion cub and feed it cows milk, it won't grow any faster or slower than other lions do, just like human babies don't grow any faster or slower than human babies when fed cows milk. Besides, we've had this argument before, cows are not even wild animals. Humans have domesticated them and artificially selected the ones which produced the best milk for human consumption, over thousands of generations.

Oh and stop changing thread names, it makes it harder for other people to follow them.

Off Topic / Re: Unwanted adaptation to milk?
« on: March 21, 2017, 09:50:19 am »
If those cultures were producing lots of milk from animals, then they would have less need to breastfeed their babies and not more.

What's more likely is that larger breasts that stay large permanently and not just during and post pregnancy, as well as the ability to produce milk without getting pregnant (which is not present in many other mammals) were selected for because milk was shared among all tribe members, and not just the children. This craving for milk and dairy then could've led to the consumption of animal milk once livestock herding and domestication started to appear.

If this was so, it would mean that milk and other dairy could be considered paleo for adults.'t-paleo/

Health / Re: Meat turning blue and green
« on: March 17, 2017, 09:02:40 pm »
That's very interesting sabertooth. Maybe some day you will find it advantageous to join or form such a group. Another possibility would be to sell most of the meat that you don't consume right away, but I suppose there are too many laws that prevent you from doing that. Also, there's likely not much of a market for the organs and blood.

I look forward to the day when I can enjoy food with as high a quality as yours. For now I have to make do with plain cuts of meat, many of which are not very good quality.

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Even the article itself claims they believe the amount of rainfall went back and forth several times over the past 9 million years. So why do they blame humans for the last of those turnarounds? And why did this not happen in the rest of the world? How long have the east asians been farming? They seem to be doing alright.

And excuse my ignorance, but how is this theory that the more warm the air is, the less rain will fall? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Also, what do they mean by exposing the soil? By farming you cover the soil in green, then you expose it temporarily during harvest/grazing, (except in the case of fruits or nuts in which case you may never expose the soil fully). then you let the green grow back. Also, how does heat turn dirt into sand in so little time?

I think the climate always changes, and these "scientists" can't deal with that fact, so they make up stories and try and find someone to blame. It's what they're paid to do, after all.

There's nothing comfy about them. I hate most fabrics unless they're at least 80% cotton. Women don't wear yoga pants because they're comfy, they wear them cuz they want all the guys to look at them. And now that similar results are being achieved with more natural fabrics, a lot of women are making the switch.

As far as pollution goes, I would think that soaps, detergents, medications, drugs and all of the other chemicals that we pour into the oceans through sewer systems (incluying dyes from clothes themselves), as well as the solidified or water dissolved toxins from the combustion from engines of boats, airplanes, cars, and power plants, would probably do a lot more harm.

Off Topic / Re: Foraging
« on: March 16, 2017, 10:07:04 am »
How do you eat the garlic leaves, Tyler? are they like the bulb at all, or completely different? And how strong is the taste?

I could probably get my hands on some organic garlic leaves if I just asked some farmers who regularly sell the garlic they produce. I've bought mustard leaves from them among other weird stuff and they were really good.

It would be regular garlic though, not wild (I think. It is a bit different than the one from regular stores, but not a lot. Does taste better though, but it's only available for a part of the year, unlike the one from the stores which is year round)

Health / Re: Meat turning blue and green
« on: March 16, 2017, 09:58:00 am »
sabertooth, if you were able to consume your meats always fresh, and assuming the same quality and variety of cuts, would you still seek to have a good balance of dry aged meats, or would you mostly forgo them?

Suppose you were part of a group where a new animal would be butchered and divided among the members often enough that everyone in the group always had fresh meat available and there was no need to store it for longer periods.

Health / Re: Meat turning blue and green
« on: March 14, 2017, 11:50:48 pm »
Have you seen AV's appearance on Ripley's Believe it or not? It's a classic

After looking for it, it seems that the main video has been taken down recently, but you can still find it, here's one version:

They exaggerate for shock value in that they say he always ate it like that, when in fact he only suggested having small pieces once in a while for most people, and a small amount once a day for some people. He certainly had no problem with having it always like that, though. It's just that for most people it's not very appetizing.

Off Topic / Re: Another reason to avoid farmed fish
« on: March 14, 2017, 07:57:23 pm »
Crowded conditions, GMO, antibiotics, anti-lice chemicals, I've even heard of artificial colorants. Whatever benefits people think they'll get from consuming fish rather than red meat will be more than offset by eating this toxic food. I'd even take full feedlot beef over those salmon any day. With factory farmed chicken it's not so clear which one is worse.

Health / Re: Meat turning blue and green
« on: March 14, 2017, 07:45:23 pm »
Here most everybody eats some high meat mold every now and then in the form of salami skin mold. It's usually white and/or green. It generally tastes really good, although sometimes depending on the brand it may not taste good at all. I think it may have to do with moisture. If it's moist and brown it tends not to taste good, whereas if it's dry and white/green it generally does. I'm not sure. It may also have to do with the particular molds that are used to inoculate each brand, or perhaps with the ingredients of the salami itself. Or of whether the skin is made from natural intestines or from cellulose/plastic. It may also have to do with how long it's been stored and hung to dry after preparation.

I haven't eaten it in a while because of the salt content.

Health / Re: Meat turning blue and green
« on: March 14, 2017, 09:09:37 am »
Most doctors would tell you to avoid it like the plague.

If I was worried I'd eat small amounts at a time.

Something similar to this happened to me once with a ground beef+egg concoction, a little after I started on this diet. It was in the summer time and I had left some of it at room temperature overnight. I threw it away without tasting it, so I can't say if it would've tasted good or not.

I can't remember if it was green or black or purple. But something weird like that, anyway. And it was only at the surface. I was surprised because I had done the same thing a few times, also during the summer, and that was the first time it turned a weird color like that. Although I'm not sure if the other times it also had eggs. It may've ciontained a few other ingredients too, I just don't remember.

Im sure it is possible for some mutant strain of supper vegan( Perhaps Freely and Durians love child) to undergo the epigenic changes needed to pass on vegan gene adaptation, and after a few stunted generations the force of life will find a way as it has always done....

Unlikely. Durian's had a vasectomy and he encourages all of his male fans to do the same, and tells his female groupies to make their mates have vasectomies too. Freelee is pushing 40 and has made her new partner have a vasectomy as well.

From my perspective, that's a good development. We don't need more people like that in the world. Freelee is psychotic and has said that all meat eaters should be executed. Durian is now promoting sprite as a health drink. "It's fruit in a can", he says. I think this strict low-fat vegan diet tends to deteriorate the brain in the long term.

If anything, what I don't like is that many of their fans followed their advice and got a vasectomy, and now regret it, but there's little they can do about it, reversals may not work and even if they do, it's not the same as never having had that surgery done.

Hmm, SB , I think, meant to say "veganism", rather than "vegetarianism".

There really isn't much difference. Vegetarianism used to mean those who eat vegetation/vegetables only, meaning plants. What is now generally referred to as vegetarians in the west used to be called lacto-ovo vegetarians, meaning they also consumed dairy and eggs, in contrast to strict vegetarians who consumed no animal products, except perhaps for honey. I guess seeing honey as an animal product is a new development in western dietary thought.

This was all a mere 20 years ago or so, so it's not like we're talking ancient history.

If I had to guess, I would say the difference between vegetarian and vegan was invented by radical militant vegetarians as a tool to shame and establish superiority over the lacto-ovo vegetarians for consuming animal products. i.e. "We're vegan, you're just a vegetarian"

What nonsense are you talking about, cobalamin?

For the most part in the animal kingdom, intelligence can more or less be correlated with whether or not meat constitutes a staple of an animals' diet or not. Carnivores and omnivores lead the charts in sharpness, with hervibores largely at the top of the dull category.

The reason why is simple, herd animals only need a herd mentality to survive, as long as they stay and move with the herd, their chances are good. Predators need to understand the complex behavior and tendencies of the prey, often to a better extent than the prey themselves understand it. Herd animals need not worry about understanding predator behavior, all they need to know is that if they run faster than their peers and avoid the predators while another one in their herd gets caught, they will survive. It's the predator which has to choose the prey who is the weakest, the one which will tire the fastest, the one more likely to trip over itself, the one least likely to kick and injure the predator, the one which will provide the most and the highest quality meat... It's the predator which needs to determine the stalking position, when to launch the chase, the attack vector, how to read and predict the prey's next movement. If it's worth it to lead the prey towards a natural obstacle where they will be trapped. Whether to go straight for the throat or to weaken the prey by attacking the extremities first... It always takes a lot more brain power to understand the brain and body functions of another, lesser animal. That's why, even if they tried, herd animals can't understand predators, in particular pack hunters. So they don't even try, for the most part.

Wolves, lions, dolphins, chimpanzees, humans, and all other pack hunters need not only understand their prey's behavior, but also coordinate attacks with their pack members. That takes even more intelligence.

I just wanted to add that while insects, grubs and worms can provide nutrition, I myself have never intentionally eaten any. I don't know if my repulsion to eating them is inculcated or if it's instinct as well. But I don't remember seeing one of them and thinking to myself "that could be food", or wanting to investigate what they taste like. Although I hear tales about how my mother had to get rid of a flyswatter because as a baby I was always grabbing it and trying to eat it. I wonder if as a baby I wanted to investigate what fly squashes tasted like.

There's a case to be made that humans are not supposed to eat animals that are that small. I don't know, if we see prey, our instinct is to be drawn to it, whether to chase it down if it's running, or to pet it, protect and/or feed it, let it reproduce and keep it closeby so that when it's time to eat, we can kill it more easily. But with insects, it's to get rid of them, because they annoy us, and I don't see myself trying to catch them so that I can eat them. I don't know. The only insects we generally favor are usually the ones which eat other insects which are even more annoying to us. With worms, we can also favor them if they're composting our organic leftovers and garbage in order to feed the plants that we will then eat, or the plants that we will feed to our animals which we will eat. But I really don't see myself or most humans picking through a compost pile for a snack of fresh worms. Rather, I'd let the chickens eat the worms, then I eat the chickens and their eggs.

I think we are opportunistic eaters. We can and will eat whatever is available. Our powerful brains, dexterous hands and the use of tools and planning have allowed us to acquire all sorts of foods in many different types of environments. The question here is what our ideal diet would be like, rather than what we can eat.

With any other non-domesticated animal, when determining what their ideal diet consists of, researchers would look at what that animal typically would be able to eat in the wild.

If one looks at what's available in the wild for humans to eat, while it does vary from one environment to another, in the raw, it's basically the same as what most bears eat. In the north pole and other northern very cold areas, polar bears will live on meat only, just like the humans who inhabit such areas. In other areas, while meat will still mostly play a crucial role, there are other foods available, such as fruits/berries, some mild herbs and bulbs/root vegetables and nuts and seeds and mushrooms that are not overly toxic, as well as insects, worms, honey and eggs.

Once humans developed cooking, however, more food sources became available, as there are many plants which are toxic or inedible raw, but become mild and edible when cooked. This is the case in particular with root vegetables and with nuts and seeds, notably with grains and legumes, which are generally a type of seed.

Then, with the development of agriculture, human diets were no longer bound by that which was available, but to an extent by that which they wanted to produce, or perhaps to another extent, by that which they could produce in enough quantities given scarce land, water and other resources.

In time, people learned to make intentionally fermented, refined or prepared foods and meals, such as wine, sugar, cheese, tea, and more recently hot dogs and icecream, then canned foods and potato chips, candy, and so on. Now much of our food is treated with artificial pesticides and is genetically modified, then treated in large factories and packed, often with additional artificial preservatives, then shipped over long distances, and it can sit in a shelf, often at room temperature, for extended periods of time before rotting.

The question then is, at what point do we make the cut, and say, this far is when we're gonna say we were no longer eating the foods that our wild ancestors would've been eating on a regular basis, and which were probably healthy for them (and thus, likely, for us too)?

Off Topic / Re: Was there really dinosaurs?
« on: March 12, 2017, 03:03:32 am »
Also, how do we know that they don't decay faster when the radioactive load is higher, in the beginning, and slow down over time?

I was thinking some more about this, and I suppose what they might do (and probably do do) is compare rocks or materials with different radioactive loads, and measure how much each decays over a given period of time, like a few years or decades, then compare from that, and if the rate is the same, they probably assume that the rate stays constant no matter the load, and no matter the time horizon. Still dubious, but it could explain that part at least.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 38
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk