It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I’ve seen some quite serious institutions challenge his mental competency. Personally I think he is a dangerous buffoon who should never have been left in a position of power. He seems to be obsessed with undoing as many of Obama’s achievements as possible. His war of words with Kim Jong Un has brought the world as close to a nuclear war as it’s ever been.
I agree with you that Trump is unfit for the presidency, he is a complete narcissist and disconnected from reality as well as having undemocratic authoritarian tendencies.
I think when criticizing him it's important to be fair and avoid hyperbole so that criticism isn't dismissed out of hand as well as just for historical accuracy. So saying that "His war of words with Kim Jong Un has brought the world as close to a nuclear war as it’s ever been", is really quite far fetched. Off the top of my head I can easily bring to mind the Cuban missile crises and I'd wager that there are other cold war examples where we came very much closer to a nuclear war.
I like You Tube science and knowledge channels. Of course there are plenty of negative places on You Tube as well so you need to have some restraint to not click on those.
Recognizing the ways you suffer around these things is an important first step that a lot of people are never able to take. But actually changing things does take time and persistence. Those of us who have been around Buddhism for a while have seen it in ourselves and others though that change is not only possible but inevitable for those who do the work.
I'm wondering what exactly these early teachings being free from the complexities of some later versions means. I think the assumption that I've been working under is that these are the truer version of Buddhism. Maybe though, rather than being the original, truest version they are the intro version. Buddha himself taught for many years beyond this and apparently didn't just stick to this script.
Either way though us westerners in general can probably be considered beginners to the overall mindset that the Buddha presented so these teachings should be a good place to practice in.
I think a lot of the reason you find studies that say "x is bad for you!" "whoops, actually x is good for you!" is a lot due to that individual expression and biology. Most studies are voluntary, in that people sign up for them or are recruited by doctors for them. So particular types of people are likely to be interested in certain types of diet studies for many reasons. Including reasons they don't have a clue about and neither do the scientists. So it's easier to see how a group of people already unconsciously biased about how they believe wine affects them would choose a study to see if that's the case. And often when we learn how to listen to our bodies we know when something isn't ideal for us. But even if science agrees, that doesn't mean that it's bad for everyone.
Not all that long ago, we didn't have a world of choices for our food. We couldn't decide to be living in Texas and want to eat a lot of north Atlantic fish. We couldn't be someone in Canada who ate a lot of pineapple and so on. It seems to me that there are probably good reasons why people in certain regions thrive on the foods that grow/live naturally in those regions. And why the expansion away from that has seen such immense effects. If I had to live on what was available here naturally, I would be eating a lot of meat and fish and dairy products and not much fruit. Because very little fruit grows here, and when it does, it's only a couple months a year. In fact plants are entirely unavailable here 8 months a year. Yet people live in this climate a long time before refrigeration and grocery stores, and my immediate ancestors (say 150 years back) lived in the same climate as I currently do. So it makes sense to me that I do best on a diet similar to what they ate, even as recent as most of the years my grandparents were alive (the last of whom died just 2 years ago). Which is why I reject studies that claim that certain diets are the best for all of humanity, because it's simply not true.
I have my concerns about the dna testing that's available for ancestry testing and so on, but I admit the nutrition-based one piques my curiosity just to know if what I have found out about myself so far carries over into what my genetics show. But for $300, it's not in the cards right now!
@person, not disagreeing with you by any means, I largely agree with you. Just adding my own thoughts to what you said already.
Yeah, that's part of what I was trying to say with the example of some people's glucose spiking to rice and not to ice cream while with others it was the opposite. I doubt there is a "best" diet for everyone. Many people will benefit from LCHF, but is it 80% of people, 50%, 20%? My genes from my mom's side has very good insulin regulation, there is a lot of dessert and pastry eating but no one has diabetes and my glucose always tests very good and eating "good" fats has very little if any effect on my HDL cholesterol.
I think I jumped into this thread as a result of listening to a conversation about diet where all manner of things were being raised as things to avoid and do. Like eating eggs is as bad for you as smoking cigarettes, we are all seriously deficient in iodine, things like that.