Activity Feed

Ketosis is a useful or optimal metabolic state.

Saturated fat is preferable and good for long-term health.

Protein above 0.8 g/kg body weight is desirable, often up to around 2 g/kg.

Raising metabolic rate is possible and preferable to long-term health.

Fasting is beneficial to long-term health

Nicotine from non-smoking sources can be a useful health or cognition tool.

Whole grains, nuts, and legumes are health-promoting staples.

Fermented foods like kefir and kimchi are good gut-health staples

Fiber-rich vegetables like lettuce, greens, and salads should be part of your diet.

Factory-farmed pork and chicken are bad choices. Sufficiently so that it's worth stressing, rather than saying their well-fed counterparts are tastier or somewhat preferable.

Solid amounts of red meat are good or desirable

Plenty of simple sugar from fruit, milk, honey, or juice, is good.

PUFAs are generally healthy

One answer could be that the more fundamental principle wins.

I think you may be giving these stances too much credit.

There’s something to be said about people who have a high time preference also often being pacifists or socialists. But that may have more to do with the constellation of ideas in that particular memeplex than logical sense.

For example, compromise increases disappointment right away since nobody involved gets what they want, and they realize this immediately when the compromise is made.

I have trouble with altitude and can barely breathe when I am in, e.g. Bogotá. But Mendoza was no problem for me and I went on morning runs without even noticing a difference.

It's unlikely that an anarcho-capitalist president, if given enough time, will not lower these taxes.

Currently Argentina is also very bad at collecting tax from you.

Are pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?

Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.

Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.

Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.

Freedom of Association Maxxing:
https://libertythroughreason.com/freedom-of-association-maxxing/

Not if personhood requires literal explanatory universality, in the sense of: can create any explanation, since there are explanations which can only be created by a Turing complete system..., surely.

I've been thinking about the principle that principles should not or do not admit of exceptions, else they are not principles. Yet, I've thought, we seem to not abide by this, even with something as fundamental as freedom of speech. We make exceptions for calls to violence, doxing, etc.

But I've (somehow only) just realized that those are not what we might call "standalone exceptions" -- they are overlaps with other principles, those of non-initiation of force and privacy, in this case.

So we can say: principles do not admit of exceptions, but if there is more than one principle in the system, one's exception can be another's enforcement. Which is not an inconsistency. Then the question is, which one is the higher priority? Maybe this is where the court system comes in. (I don't know much about politics).

Welcome to Veritula, Brad.

Feel free to chime in on one of the existing discussions to get started: https://veritula.com/discussions

We also have a Telegram channel you’re welcome to join. I can send an invite.

What brings you to V? What are your main interests?