Jump to content

Shienvien

Members
  • Content Count

    3,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. That's not true. Cows of dairy breeds will produce milk regardless of whether they have ever been pregnant - and that's coming from a person whose relatives did own cows and can testify it from experience (and who owns what are pretty much pet chickens herself). Chickens will likewise lay eggs no matter what, the eggs will just be unfertilized (I do have a rooster now, simply because one of the chicks I hatched grew up to be one, and I had become too fond of him to give him away).
  2. Go home. Acquire food. Why am I still in office several hours after the workday ended when I don't have to be here?
  3. That's why you don't eat them raw... Or eat your fruit/vegetables without giving them a rinse, for the matter (who knows what the person handling them before suffered from, or whether they washed their hands after using the bathroom, or what the produce were sprayed with). I recall an infection spreading with long Spanish cucumbers, for instance... You typically don't have to worry about contaminants if you prepare your food properly.
  4. Sometimes, asking other questions might help to answer questions... For instance, *why* would you like to identify as male/female/other? Why does being referred to with feminine identifiers irritate you? Is it predominantly because it feels like you "have a wrong body"/"that body is the right one", or because of what expectations people tend to have from women/men (that is, do you expect people to automatically fall into a certain mindset - automatically attach some unrelated baggage and make a number of other assumptions about you - if they label you a "she"?), or something else? Now, I'm admittedly a 100% ciswoman, so I can only speak from that angle - but, there is a "but". I'm not, eh, particularly "stereotypically feminine" - emphasis on the quotation marks. It's not anything I've had problems with in university or workforce (I've always been treated as complete equal there - I'm in IT), but oh was it an issue with my mother's side of family, a specific kindergarten teacher and a few other people. Those people genuinely made me feel like I was some kind of freak for liking/preferring the things I do. (Machinery, "hard" sciences, some more destructive physical activities, etc.) I could never be content being anything but female despite all of its inconveniences, but consciously I know I wouldn't have gotten this kind of treatment - and attempts to force me be what I'm not - from certain others if I were male (luckily, my friends and father's side of family were always wonderful, else who knows what my opinion of myself would have been). Gender roles and sexist concepts in general need to go and burn... We shouldn't assume a person is - or worse, "should be" - some way or another "because" they are certain sex/gender/sexuality/identity/what-have-you. (For instance, I'll bite - though not literally - anyone who tells me wearing skirts is "more feminine" than wearing trousers. No, it's not. Ask old Mesopotamians if you don't believe me. At most, it's current fashion, and my care for fashion has always been marginal at best. Besides, I feel shackled wearing a skirt... This time literally - my legs either won't have their usual range of motion or it would be impolite to exercise it... Or that I'm a particularly nurturing individual - if anything, I'm a warrior by nature.) Another thing to remember - what you feel is the most fitting explanation is not something that can be wrong. If it is the alters' influence - you share a brain with them, after all, and for some DI/MP people there can be some slight overlap in for instance what memories are accessible and whatnot -, then it is. If it's something else, then it's something else. Maybe you're somewhere between and either more or less attuned depending on day. You are you are you anyway. (In any case, not having gendered pronouns makes things easier... >.<)
  5. I'm probably far too pragmatic to be partaking in this thread, but here we go... I've "seen" things, though in the end there has always been a very mundane explanation in the end. Heck, I've (inadvertently) been someone else's "ghost" myself. I do not believe in the paranormal/supernatural. (That includes all religious entities.) I do think there may be some undiscovered creatures and phenomena. (Okapi was a fairly recent discovery, though we're running out of places to scour for large mammals. Oceans might be hiding more, as there is more undiscovered terrain there...) I do think it is possible there exists extraterrestial alien life. (Technically, whenever you visit another country, you're an alien. But the extraterrestials... Why not. It happened here, something similar can happen again elsewhere; much like one of the people above I don't think aliens belong to the same bunch as ghosts.. Whether they are weird sulphur-bacteria or actually possess what we'd see as intelligence is another matter. Might be a hundred million occasions of the first and six of the latter per the entire universe...) Whether aliens visit us is another topic entirely - and that I personally consider very unlikely, provided physics work as we think it does. Space travel is wont to forever remain ridiculously expensive - it's unfeasible they'd visit us just to hover about, show itself to some confused people with notoriously poor cameras from a distance, and then vanish off again. At most they'd maybe send a dumb probe, one that would fly here for 800 years, transmit all it can, and then crash/burn up. That's a bit more feasible. Never mind that many natural and human-made objects can be UFOs. (The supersonic plane, Blackbird, is most (in)famous example of it, due to a semi-common maneuver where it rises straight up, something that often caused its engines to stall, cue restart that came with fancy green flames, and finally, when the desired height had been reached, full power forward, cue "thunder" - sound familiar?) And that "their" life might be completely different from ours. It's entirely possible a space-worm from a faraway galaxy with liquid nitrogen for 96% of its blood will take a single glance at Earth and dismiss any possibility of "life" on here because who on Tzetograilon could live on a planet that is 70% liquid rock, with some of it in the form of rock vapor!? (Never mind said rock just happens to be our "water".) And in a different galaxy even farther away, a dainty figure with far too many limbs will be munching on an aluminum bisquit and concluding that the same planet is a cold, inhospitable hellhole, with at least 95% of its breathable air condensed into vast pools of liquid... Might be not too probable, but certainly interesting to theoreticize. I'd disagree on not knowing what happens when we die, though... We know exactly what death is. It's nothing more and nothing less than us breaking down for good. Dead people are the only people who are well and truly permanently defunct. Everyone else still has a chance. Life is nothing "special" as it were - we're all just biological machines. The only reason we cannot just 3D print new humans at will is the fact that humans are incredibly, unbelievably complex - the human brain alone has about 90 billion neurons, each of which can form many connections. For comparison, a good new CPU has maybe 2 billion transistors - and unlike the spanning neuron, a transistor is just a very simple object which has one slightly fuzzy state. You'll need a very powerful supercomputer to contain the same number of states as a human brain has - and a human brain will fit in a jar, while a "proper" supercomputer is the same size as a warehouse! It's ridiculous. And facinating. And ridiculously facinating. Granted, human brains are not perfect. Sometimes they forget dreams on while we are awake (the vast majority of "sightings" are just waking dreams, or hallucinations). At other times they forget to switch the "don't trash around while sleeping" switch off when we wake up, and then we get sleep paralysis. Or a brain "sees" things it thinks should be there because image processing is hard and needs some guesswork to be quick enough. And so on and so forth... We term things paranormal because we don't know what they are yet, or confused subconscious imagination for reality. Most of the time, however, the reality is much more interesting.
  6. That does not make sense. That could furthermore have lead to severe health complications to other people (as some people do fall ill if they don't eat any animal products for that long - I know I would have protested the decision for the sake of my health). No one individual should unnecessarily infringe upon the rights of others.
  7. Except they do. All the time. At roughly the same rate as anyone with a decent diet that contains meat, and more for those vegans who don't do their research. You also possess a severe misunderstanding of how genetics work, and a lot of the sources you post are full of biases, poor, *poor* research, and a few contain outright lies. A couple of articles you posted even disagree with the claims you posted them with, which implies you did not even read them yourself before posting them. Multiple people have informed you where you're wrong, and also posted information on it, yet you continue to post the same false, misinformed statements as before. Vegan diet is not "the most optimal one", nor will it keep you safe from the ailments you claim it does.
  8. Going to add my voice to the fact that the new theme is far too bright, and actually physically straining and borderline painful to look at (would probably cause a headache on a longer stay). Me with my eyes - I cannot use it "as is".
  9. A lot of the "lottery math" is based on on faulty understanding of statistics. Numbers aren't due, and for something with a 50/50 chance, there isn't a higher chance that the next one will be Y when there has been four Xs already, and so on and so forth. The fifth chance is still "50/50". The previous throw doesn't affect the next, so to speak. What is a bit more probable (if also unlikely and most likely negligible in effect), is the possibility that the "RNG mechanism" in use is a bit faulty. Maybe one of the balls is a bit heavier, maybe whatever algorithm is used for the draw is a bit skewed towards one number or another - things like that.
  10. Avast and Avira are among the best when it comes to free anitivirus. Paid ones ... Kaspersky and Bitdefender.
  11. I will add my voice to the fact that it is *very* demanding on the eyes to look at the new site, even at the lowest brightness setting my laptop screen will go... I have fairly high brightness/contrast sensitivity, which means most light themes will be distinctly unpleasant to look at, with pure white being an onslaught. For a person who works with screens all day long (which I also do), it especially stands out. (For comparison, I generally use steel silver text on black background.)
  12. To my knowledge, it doesn't apply to recommendation letters - so, it means that they can give you a signed recommendation letter to show potential future employers, but they can't go on to hanging up/telling info of you "behind your back", so to speak. (Laws may vary by place, but that's roughly how it's here.) Not sure about sexual assault etc - may be criminal background check, if it escalated to police level?
  13. The background of the new theme is far too bright for me to be able to read it, and some of the text shows up as silver (system default) instead of black. Would it possible to get a proper dark theme, since I'm physically incapable of using the new theme without experiencing intense eye irritation/exhaustion/pain? Alternatively, just making the background a few tones darker and defining the text to be black on the top level (e.g. "body" foreground color in CSS) should make it tolerable.
  14. I don't have a "crazy health problem". I'm perfectly healthy and eat a diet that is optimal for me. I don't take any food supplements or extra vitamins; I don't need them. If you eat 90% meat and 10% plantmatter, it is not optimal, I agree. I also agree with you that it is easier for humans to survive on 100% plants than 100% meat, but 100% plantmatter is not necessarily the most optimal (and may further be hindered by things such as your location - fruits picked from your back yard are superior to ones that had been traveling boat, plane and truck and then stood in a warehouse for a week). If you eat ~15-20% meat and ~80-85% plantmatter, it is probably about as optimal as it gets. It's mainly the "high carbon" part of your diet that is problematic for numerous people, as well as it can be harder to obtain some specific nutrients from plants in sufficient quantities. Especially if you live who knows where and tins of kidney beans and avocado fruits are most "exotic" things available. (No, seriously - the closest supermarket to me only sells beans in tin can format. No dried beans or anything.) But yeah, high carbon. High carbon does not work for me, plants generally do not give me sufficient iron, and most fruits are better classified as chewable drinks, not food. Fruits are basically what I'll eat instead of drinking sodas (I drink tea, usually green, water or homemade low-sugar syrup most of the time, occasionally milk). Will eating fruits and vegetables make me healthier than I am now? I *do* eat fruits and vegetables (it's harvest season, so I have plenty of fruits from my garden to go around - right now I eat unusual amount of fruits for myself, thusly), and I *am* about as healthy as it gets at the time being. I'm fairly fit, too, so short of gaining literal superpowers, I don't really know how I physically could be any healthier than I am now. So that question does not make all that much sense. Does eating fruits/vegetables contribute to my continued health? Yeah. But eating fish *also* goes into ensuring my continued health. I never argued that a reasonable amount of fruits/vegetables is bad (everything is bad in too great quantities; you'll generally die from both too much or too little of anything, and that holds true for even things like oxygen and water). I argue that a diet that is ~15% animal, ~85% plant, as little in the ways of pesticides and no heavy processing or long-term storage, is *also* optimal and may work better for some people than your particular diet, depending on their genetics and the selection of foods available to them. I did try a diet roughly like the one what you described once, as you might recall earlier from the thread, purely because I was a poor second-year-university student and the person I was living with offered that kind of food - then my health actively did worsen. So I tried, it didn't work for me, and the experience was unpleasant enough for me to be unwilling to risk my mental and physical health like that again. I don't want to feel weak, fatigued and unmotivated. I want to feel powerful, capable and full of energy, *as I am now*. Not sure why you keep insisting I don't eat vegetarian because I'm "just too fond of meat" - sure, I love meat and poultry and cheese and fish, but I also love broccoli, beans (kidney and garden), melons of all sorts, leaf salads, pasta, and a plethora of other things. I find tofu nauseating. But I also find liver paté something I will avoid consuming if I only can. Now, I love pasta and breads of all kinds - but I also know, for a fact, that those things are unhealthy in large quantities, more so than unprocessed meat. I also know for a fact that many of the things you've stated are factually wrong. On occasion, even the articles you yourself linked claimed the exact opposite you did. Your diet won't make you impervious to the things you stated it makes you immune to. All cultures everywhere for centuries haven't eaten like that and prevailed thusly. The majority of modern science - again, even some of your own articles - does not agree with you. You choose to aggressively ignore all evidence that is contrary to what you state, and only highlight the parts that seem to reinforce your stance. This is not how science is supposed to be done. This is how biased propaganda is done.
  15. Except it is. It means your a) muscles have taken damage or they are deprived of oxygen. The first will be felt the day after, the latter during exertion or slightly after (up to a few hours). As I noted, I've only been tangibly sore due to physical exertion *once* in my entire life, for about a day, and that was after me downright aggressively abusing my arm muscles for twelve hours straight. And I'm no athlete; most of what I do with my hands is typing. And while diet may account for ~40% of your health, there are still ~30% of genetics and ~30% other environment at play (numbers are illustrative and don't carry actual factual value). You cannot dismiss the importance of other factors, or insist that people's health problems would go away if they ate your way. No matter what you state, you're not "safe". Natural isn't perfect. Natural is *mostly sufficient*. And, with the advent of modern medicine, the bar for "sufficient" has been brought down by quite a lot. As it is, our evolution favors social skills and brains over perfect health. Maybe we'll all be cyborgs in a thousand years, who knows... I am not a victim. My health is, all things considered, nigh perfect. *IF* I ate your way, though, my health would no longer be perfect. I'd be weak and unmotivated, a shadow of my current self. You're actively advocating me to wreck my health by refusing to understand that your diet cannot work for everyone. There are plenty of grievously sick people who do follow HCLF. Such as there are plenty of people who are healthy on it. It works for you. It cannot for everyone. If it works for you, then good. But for the sake of everyone, please do acknowledge that not everyone is physically like you, and your diet is not the only one that works. There are some that will work for different people, and others which would also work for you. There is no person more ignorant than one who insists that they are right under all circumstances.
  16. My blood tests are likewise perfect or very close to it (may vary a bit depending on the month - some months just don't allow me to pick when and where I eat, while traveling especially), as noted before. Perfect blood pressure, pulse in the sixties. Etc, etc. Lower end of normal weight - I'm actually quite thin. No physical or mental health complaints. Never fainted in my life, never needed a surgery, so on and so forth. I was last ill last spring (with something that was probably mild flu, a mild annoyance at worst - I actually stayed at my usual level of activity, if stuck to being at home since I didn't want to contaminate the people at office, did not take any medicine or anything, it just went away on its own after a week), before that I was ill in 2012, also towards spring, and by then I had not been ill for another couple of years (note that children are ill more often because their immune system is still developing, not necessarily because their diets are wrong). And mind you, I live in the "cold dark north" with its maybe 3h of sunlight during the peak of winter ('cept it's probably cloudy). I also suspect I'm naturally physically much stronger and more endurant than you. (My grip is scary strong, and I don't even know why... Are those muscles from typing or something? Sure, let's go with typing. My typing muscles are most likely powerful enough to snap a human radius between my fingers...) You mentioned being sore: if you're sore after exercising, this means you overexerted yourself and actively worked on destroying your muscles. I've only been "sore" once in my life, my upper arms only, and that was after spending a good twelve hours splitting logs during a single day, with only one break for dinner. I don't exercise regularly, either, for the matter - mostly just when I feel the excess energy, or otherwise remember to, aside of the somewhat more regular hand-to-hand combat training. I don't chase times, and I don't definitely build body. It's mostly just the baseline of my body. (Though running 10km should generally be something any healthy person can do without any prior training ... the walk from the bus station to my home when I was at school alone was 6km, for comparison. If you can't hold a steady jog for that distance, you are unhealthy / have some kind of physical ailment. - Just in case, I'll note that physical ailments don't make a person worth any less - I myself have several scars on my right hands, which at times makes using my right thumb a bit more difficult.) By all medical standards, I'm perfectly healthy, and continue being so. Not one of my relatives, my entire extended family included, has ever had any form of cancer or diabetes, or heart troubles before 85. Most people related to me that did not die to a tragic accident or be murdered by the Soviet forces lived to over 85... And you can find plenty of evidence to back that balanced and sufficient omnivorous diet that contains unprocessed meats/eggs can be as healthy as any balanced and sufficient vegetarian or vegan diet. Please, do try to comprehend that your diet is not the only one to be healthy for humans, and may in fact not work for everyone. Especially for people with different genetic makeups from yours. You can't say that an Aborigine, an Indian, a Japanese person, a Nigerian, a Finnish person, a Hispanic, a Native American, a Mongol, a German, etc, are all the same. They physically are not. They are dozens of generations of different influences, genetic predispositions, etc, apart. There is a lot of variety in humans - if you ignore that, you'll end up harming most people you're trying to help. Furthermore, this is false: You have no guarantee of that. None. Even less an absurd percentage like "99.999%". No matter what you do, there is a much, much more significant chance. Maybe it's 95%. Maybe. I don't know your family history, I can't search your genome for markers. Even when you get your diet down perfectly to the last molecule, there are so many other factors in your genes and environment. And sheer, dumb coincidence. For instance, skin cancer is notably more common than breast cancer in my country. Why? Most likely because sunlight causes skin cancer. Count of people who have had skin cancer I personally know in real life? 3, thus far, including one devout vegetarian. Breast cancer? 0. (...1 in 8?) Outlandishly untrue claims that directly contradict any observable truths do not lend credibility to any standpoints that one might try to defend. Vegans and vegetarians - even those who do not suffer from any deficiencies - routinely do get those ailments. Slightly less frequently than hamburger-eaters and processed food affectionados, but not overwhelmingly so. As a sidenote, there are two foods I can think off the top of my head I would not enjoy - liver (especially liver pate) and tofu. I think tofu is the least pleasant part of vegetarian cuisine I've thus far encountered, and it's quite common to boot... I've heard people state tofu is quite bland, but for me it's always had rather distinct, "vomity" taste. (Or what I assume vomit tastes like, anyway ... my age was in single digits when I last threw up. On second thought, vomit probably tastes much more like acid...) The only soy product I have in my house right now is this one: https://www.mitoko.com/media/catalog/produc...180820025-1.jpg
  17. Don't care what people will think of me; if I'm going to a place with those things, I'm going to wear gun range ear protection.
  18. And I can objectively, with absolute certainty, tell you that it does not. Humans are not all equal. If you ever believe that, you're liable to end up doing someone serious harm. You've also told us very little of your health. Have you been ill during the last decade? (Which climate do you live in?) Sick? Fainted? Felt fatigued? Had sleeping issues? Memory problems? Been unusually irritable? Depressed? Could you, for instance, keep up with me during a two-week mountain trip? When did you last have complete analysis of your blood and thorough medical health check done? Was anything out of order at all? How can you confidently say your own diet hasn't been slowly damaging your health in ways that are not immediately apparent (especially if you have no blood tests to show from the past half a year)?
  19. Pardon? I'm a scientist at heart; I look at *all* evidence, from all sides, check its credibility, and draw my conclusions from that. I know how biased a lot of research is. I've seen the back end of it. I have worked with scientists since I was 20. I have looked at actual evidence, and, having reached wholly different conclusions, I disagree with you. I even referred to parts of an article you yourself had linked that was telling completely different things from what you yourself had said when linking said article. This leads me to doubting you had actually read it thoroughly. SOME fat is healthy. So is some cholesterol. Our body needs it to build cell membranes, the myelin covers of our neurons, a whole lot of things...
  20. Type II diabetes is proven to have strong connotations to both sugar intake and general obesity; we have known that for a long while. Type I is typically genetic; the body simply doesn't produce (enough) insulin. Fats as such do not cause diabetes, but they can definitely contribute to excess body weight, since they are very high in energy and your average person simply does not spend that much. Overabundance of *anything* is bad. (Even water is poisonous in too high quantities - and not only when breathed in. You can die from drinking several liters of water at once, as some soldiers and people with defunct thirst regulation have unfortunately found out.) You might have overlooked the part of the article you yourself linked which spoke about obesity... If you eat enough to literally make yourself obese in a fairly short of time (as was case with those mice - keep in mind that tests like that often take things to the very, very extreme, and aren't thusly representative of a probable real scenario), then obviously it won't do you any good. If you have an average-ish metabolism, eat 3 or so times a day, reasonable portions, and will eat a couple of pieces of chicken, meat or fish prepared with little or no additional fat/oil during each of those days, then no, it would not contribute to you getting diabetes. If you eat a kilogram of oil-drenched overprocessed hamburger patties for dinner each day, and generally eat enough to keep packing on weight on a steady pace, then yes, you'll increase the chances of getting something unpleasant by a fair amount. It's all about being reasonable. (Me? I'm not even close to overweight. More so sitting on the low end of normal weight; I weigh a bit more than I did during my teenage years, but most of that is muscle, as much as I've had more opportunity to move than during school.) Note: I will not watch any supplied youtube videos - even lower credibility combined with the fact that I'm at work. I also find videos fairly ineffective method of conveying information - "noisy" and very info-scarce. I also immediately distrust anything with screen-sized info-collecting ad popups which take several tries to dismiss. The food site you linked managed to throw one at me despite adblock...
  21. There is nothing "wrong" with me. I'm built like a tank. I'm full of physical energy (if a bit through with dealing with people-things mentally, but that's more to do with the sheer quantity of that). Some years, I don't even manage to catch a simple cold, and it's been well over a decade since I've been "properly" ill. I've never needed a surgery. I've never passed out in my life. I have not vomited since I got a stomach bug from my mother when I was grade four (I'm past university now). My pulse at rest is about 67 or so. My blood pressure has generally been 117/76-120/80, sometimes a bit lower, never higher. I can hold my breath for 2.5 minutes and keep working with my hands without any notable effort. My last blood tests have been just fine, with only iron being a tiny bit under average, but not too low - still well within the norm. It also means my present diet is working for me. Vegan/vegetarian diet did not, and from what I know of how my body handles things, could not. My father has also been a lot healthier since cutting most wheat products from his menu. The problem with most hydrocarbons is that many people (especially those with fairly high metabolism) are essentially too good at digesting those - which means that their blood sugar would be thrown out of whack and then they're instantly hungry again. It's even worse with fruit and some high-sugar vegetables. Hydrocarbons are essentially just long chains of pure sugar, nothing more, nothing less. With a predisposition to type II diabetes, you'll soon get it. Sadly, I could name names here... But even for people not headed for diabetes, that game of high-low is not particularly good. It can lead to various health problems and even premature death. For the matter, we don't have the "herbivore" digestive tracts, either - and even your classical herbivores, like deer, will not hesitate to eat meat when given the opportunity. Gorillas in nature, by the way, are not pure herbivores, either.
  22. Calling "plenty of ___ are fine despite ___" is a fallacy. Plenty of predominantly carnivorous people are also fine. I am fine, my parents are fine, my grandparents are fine, my great-grandparents, minus those killed by the soviets, lived to their eighties-nineties. One of them, nearing 100, is still alive, is still mobile, and has her mind sharp as ever. And yes - depending on your personal digestion, eating fruit can be bad for you (and mind, I *like* many types of fruit). I know people who, my medical professionals, have been specifically banned from eating many fruit because it does a number on their blood sugar and general health. Your "high-carbon" diet can be lethally bad for some people, for instance myself. Your diet might work for you, but I would eventually die from it. I'm not winging it - it's what doctors and blood tests tell me. You can't argue with what a blood test tells you, even if your doctor might miss something. I tried to accommodate my diet to an almost-vegan vegetarian once, for about two months, simply because I was living with them and they offered and... The effects on me were observably noticeable, and my blood went quite some ways into the "not OK" part of the spectrum. It was worse than the effects of almost literally starving for over a week while also doing physically strenuous activities, to put things into perspective (mountain-hiking with limited supplies, not fad diet, in case someone is wondering; that was over a decade ago). I'm not willing to experiment on myself like that again. I physically cannot live on a vegan diet. Just to bold it: What works for you, physically cannot work for many others. And, to reiterate: many studies are either very biased, poorly conducted, or outright fabricated. You cannot believe a study just because it exists, especially if it is by a proponent of one or another outcome.
  23. A lot of the "meat is bad for you" is propaganda. People advocating for their agendas very frequently use fearmongering, scare-tactics, misinterpretation of statistics, and outright lies. It's very easy to push content to internet. People abuse it for furthering their goals to hell and back. This is not an issue specific to militant vegans, not even when only food is concerned. You can literally find a "X is poison for you" article for any food item - I recall one about all plant oils being strong carcinogens, especially if fried. You can bet that I regard that one with the same amount of skepticism. (I can dig it up, if someone wants.) For example, this: Is absolutely untrue. Vegans can and do get those things. On a frequent basis. Misinformed vegans even more so. Meat eating does not magically cause cancer. What does? Mutations, genetic predisposition (basically "poorer detection of potential cancerous cells")... Mutations occur randomly, due to some chemicals (including many pesticides), UV light from the sun, natural background radiation, etc. In fact, if our immune systems were not constantly working to destroy "faulty" cells, we'd all be dead from cancer, within days. Our cell replication system is just that inaccurate. One type of diabetes is from genetics. Another type of diabetes is mostly derived from overconsumption of easily digestible hydrocarbons and sugars that eventually wear the related systems down. Many plants have ridiculous amounts of those sugars and hydrocarbons, being largely sugar and water. You can absolutely peak your blood sugar to absurd levels from eating fruit, say, grapes... (I almost failed a blood test due eating strawberries once... 6.9, which is nothing overly drastic, granted, but still above a norm, and the criteria are pretty strict for tests like that.) And so on and so forth. I know for a fact that if I tried eating vegan, I'd most likely die thirty years before I'm due. As it stands, I'm as much as ill approximately once every two years, and have no complaints about the general state of my health.
  24. I do wholeheartedly support better living conditions for livestock; I do not necessarily endorse vegetarianism, even less veganism. I do endorse checking which farm did your meat come from, and how they kept their animals, and having regulations and checks for the living conditions of animals from the government-side. I'd much rather have the grazing culture of having large free-range herds of livestock restored on a greater scale, like you can occasionally see here in some rural places. We definitely have the space for that, and I dare say these animals are quite content out there. More people should keep their own chickens for eggs (I know people who have pulled that off in suburban areas). Stricter requirements for the conditions for keeping livestock. And so on and so forth. Eating meat is the natural order of life - even deer and other classical herbivores will eat carrion and smaller creatures given the opportunity. Death is one of the most certain things in life - and nature is brutal. If someone isn't eventually torn asunder, they'd be slowly succumbing to some horrible mangling disease or spending months gradually breaking apart instead. I and many people would not be able to survive decently on a plant-only diet. Is it impossible for humans in general? No, but only if you know what you're doing. If you know what you're doing, go on, eat or don't eat whatever you want. Just don't force other people to eat or not eat what you do. That includes your own impressionable children. I've always sensed an air of hypocrisy in vegans who proclaim "moral reasons" for not consuming animal products. Growing plants still means that living habitats and terrain will be destroyed, fertilizers will be used (which either come from animals or are synthetic, and may end up in bodies of water and destroying ecosystems when used wrongly), animals who'd otherwise eat the growing plants will commonly be shot or poisoned, combines hack hundreds of thousands of small mammals, birds, amphibians and other critters to pieces... Plant farming is hardly bloodless or kind. Depending on type, it'll kill less or more animals than animal farming, but it's definitely not animal-friendly. Plant farming becomes especially nasty is you love creatures like corvidae and rodents. Crows and rats are among the most intelligent animals there. And somehow, for many people it's somehow OK to murder a crow so it would not eat your crops (and we don't even eat the crows we kill - we just leave the corpses), but it is not OK to kill and eat a somewhat dumber large creature of livestock. The points about honey are also good - the harm done by bee farming to bees does by no means overweight the fact that were it not for the honey farmers, bees as such would be much less, plants would not get pollinated as effectively...
  25. Ehh... I've generally found USB headsets less reliable, never mind that they will inevitably take up an USB slot, which some computers - especially laptops - do not have all that many of (or you'll have to crawl somewhere to reach most of them with a PC, and the headset *does not* have a long enough cord to properly reach the back USB ports, if it even reaches the front ones decently enough). Also, USB headsets occasionally have driver issues; the ones using designated audio/mic/dual jacks will just work upon being plugged in. Those depicted are the typical "old" mic / line in / line out plugs, so just look for one with two separate jacks - might be color-coded pink and green for your convenience. (And check the length of the headset's cord if you buy any; cords of inadequate length are definitely a mildly annoying first world problem. )