nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN

Thank you!

Is this a typo or the latest expression I have to remember now?

They are gazillionairs, you have to shift your ethics to not include them.

Not skepticism in a broad sense, I mean skeptics. Every scientist should have skepticism. But you don't call a scientist a skeptic. Neither do we call people that deny scientific facts, like flat earthers or young earth creationist, skeptics. No, skeptics are a category of people who defend the status quo in science, mostly adhere to scientism and metaphysical naturalism.

And one thing that could prove something to anyone is personal experience. I forgot who said it but the saying went something like 'denying ones own experience is like standing with one foot in the nuthouse' .

But that's not actually science or has anything to do with formulating a cohesive explanation of the phenomenon. But if you want proof, that's the only way to have the certainty of knowing. For the rest of us it's just guesswork. And for us, suddenly, things get a lot more complicated. How do I proof to you what I'm experiencing is real? Literally impossible.

And the skeptics make use of this problem by asserting that all paranormal experience aren't real, a priori. Why? Because of the problems that arise for their worldview (which is the truth of the current status quo in science from the perspective of metaphysical naturalism). Paranormal facts don't fit with their facts. And so it is relegated to the land of illusion where all consciousness is (again, in their worldview). From their perspective consciousness is (can only be) a product of brain function, and as such can not exist outside of it in itself.

And so, paranormal experiences like seeing your deceased relative on your bedside (very common occurrence) can not actually be a conscious being present in the room with you.

Even when people describe it as such, interact with that being, feel awake, and couldn't tell the difference between deceased or alive. In some cases receive information that they couldn't know from such beings, or record them, interact with their surroundings, etc. It's all considered trickery and delusion.

And if you wish to unpack it further, the roots of this lay in the seperation between church and science, from the enlightenment period. So the problem is more that proving the supernatural is like convincing an atheist to reinvent the basis for atheism as we learned to be atheist. Which is the strict removal of the causal influence of will on matter.

As such, one single piece of proof is but a blip on the radar. And the people asking for it know this. One thing is easily dismissed even were it interesting. We need a consensus and we don't have that. The closest thing is the continous interest in the subject and the continued research, to this day. Dr. Judy Beischel still researches mediums at the windbridge institute, for example. And some of the mediums hit 90% accuracy over a hundred questions. I strongly suggest actually listening to some of her talks and reading the research.

Everybody should take the time to go through the work of the research done in the late 19th and early 20th century, when there was a real sense of being able to break the taboo on the subject. It was the time of spiritism, with mediums receiving world wide fame. The problems that mediums presented to the scientific worldview of an objective measurable predictable reality was reaching crisis levels. The dissention was palpable, where many big names in science were determined to solve this once and for all. While through such determination found themselves on the side of spiritism, and became fervent proponents.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who cowrote the paper that made Darwin famous, made himself a pariah. He wrote already in 1870's the exact problem with the approach that articles like OP's take.

"... scientific men almost invariably assume that in this inquiry they should be permitted at the very outset to impose conditions; and if, under such conditions, nothing happens, they consider it a proof of imposture or delusion."

Sure, you can do an experiment where you control electromagnetic radiation, mold spores, etc. And under those conditions conclude that what is happening is merely some psychological self delusion. But it is an extremely obvious mistake, I hope, to assume it as an explanation for the rich and varied phenomena that are in need of explanation.

Apparently not. Even when this is such a self-evident scientific dead end, that I cannot draw any other conclusion that the self proclaimed skeptics are a just group circlejerk.

In order to explain something you have to first define what you are explaining, and skeptics only job in life is to explain delusion and trickery. Because they have defined the phenomena as such. This is, always has been, an a priori stance. It has zero to do with explaining anything real. And when I say this to them, they usually agree. They get this confidence because they won the culture war at the beginning of the 20th century.

The scientific facts persist, human experiences persist, and so they persist in claiming it all to be delusion and trickery.

There was no real indication for the scope and intensity of the hamas attacks. Based on US and Israeli Intel. There were some kind of warning signs, but nothing pointing to this ferocity. I think fighters got far further than they could dream of, and the severity of the response is a direct reaction to the failure of the isreali army to see and stop the attack. It's difficult to believe that the kremlin had more and better information to know that an attack would lead to war on the scale we see today. And I'm willing to believe that Russia sees benefits in arming hamas through the lens of geopolitics, they aren't controlling the actions of hamas in any meaningful way, I certainly don't believe that.

Putin is just taking advantage and is absolutely never harmed by being seen as some kind of geopolitical mastermind. He isn't.

There is nothing wrong with protecting your sanity. Why would you want to be exposed to vile nonsense, you're not going to read breitbart forums in your spare time are you? Like... You're the only one looking out for you online. The platforms are just trying to turn your participation into profit.

It's only an example out of a long list of examples. It would only be dishonest if they, or other dietary organisations, reached conclusions that don't support what I'm saying. But that isn't true. It's just an example of what has been the consensus among dietary professionals for decades.

The only one being dishonest is you and you're awfully quiet in providing examples or engaging with anything in any substantially relevant manner. Which is typical for fucking idiots like yourself.

Absolutely absurd to think that the positions on vegan diets have shifted to the point where you can come close to considering this 'misrepresentation'. That is so extremely dishonest, what an open afront to science.

Let's take a very recent study to hammer this home. A blood work comparison between diets. Done in Germany, among 120 or so people, so it's a small one... But just extremely recent, and interesting since it took in a few variables that are normally skipped... But not important for you, since you probably don't understand any of it anyway... All the dietary organisations stance on vegan diets were based on much much larger studies with ten of thousands of participants.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/pdf/IANN_55_2269969.pdf

Conclusion This study revealed that even amongst homogeneously healthy, highly educated and physically active young Germans, omnivore, lacto-ovo-vegetarian and vegan diets result in measurable differences in dietary intakes and laboratory biomarkers of health. Plant-based diets, in particular the vegan diet, exhibited more favorable patterns of lipid metabolism and glycemic control. Our univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the risk of vitamin B12 deficiency is a major vulnerability in plant-based diets; however, this could be overcome with the use of oral over-the-counter supplements. The detailed examination of supplement use and blood biomarkers provided a first estimation that 250µg/d oral vitamin B12 taken over the course of 2years, supports adequate vitamin B12 status in healthy individuals adhering to plant-based diets. The significant lower use of vitamin B12 supplements in lacto-ovo-vegetarians suggests an excessive reliance on dairy and eggs as source of this micronutrient.

Exactly echoing the stance on (not just ADA AND) from dietary organisations that a well planned vegan diet is healthy and even has health benefits.

So you're completely and utterly out of touch with the reality, and have a completely distorted idea on how these organisations come to their conclusions or how any of this works really.

Take googles 60 billion profit and stop complaining. But unfortunately that's not reality.

The growth of YouTube's revenue has always been steadily climbing. But it's far too slow to be a competitive investment. It's only like a percentage or two per year, that's not a rate that investors want to see. So yeh Google is putting like a couple of percent more ads on YouTube every year that is necessary to stay somewhat relevant in the market.

Of course there is a limit, at some point you can't put more ads into your system. I think they feel they are at that limit, and they are, it's getting insane with the ads. . They try to get some percentage of people to stop ad block or some percentage to subscribe.

But it's just delaying the inevitable demise. At some point they are out of people to milk for money, so growth will stop. So investors will pull out and YouTube will stop existing. This is just how it works.

Stop feeling bad. Someone or something will take its place. It will start small and grow and grow until it also dies. They could have 60 billion profit 'forever' but that's not how capitalism works. Capitalist are going to capitalist and there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter what business model, or user experience, or quality. No capitalist cares. You and I care, but you and I are just secondary, afterthoughts, inconveniences. They just want us to do as they say, play the game, and stop complaining..

But it's already a business that is making money and turning a profit for Google. And when I say Google I mean Alphabet, but that's just set up to obfuscate, so Idc.

Wow big letters. This was the position of the AND in 2016:

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

The ADA had the same position in 2009:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/

There is nobody being dishonest here except you. No matter big your letters are. I provided sources you could have just looked at them, or do some minimal googling. But you people couldn't care less about facts, I know. If only you could turns all those feefees into some empathy for animals.

They aren't my friends first of all. I rather have you alive and vegan than dead and leaving a stain on the planet. And lastly I don't think that hypocrisy is something you should be judging.