Your video, Blood Ice Crystals, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Hey crab, stop inhaling that meth or next time you might get more than a crystal 'stashe!

That's a long disjointed rambling rant for an apparent comprehension mistake.
I suggest you read again, I only mentioned antifa because Bob misidentified them, not to support or defend them.
So far as I know, they were not active in this specific fiasco, the one I'm commenting on. I have no love for them, as they seem to be fighting violent fascism with violent fascism.
I've seen no footage of black hooded thugs this time, only polo shirt wearing nazis (not hyperbole, actual nazis) fighting hipsters, women, children, and elderly people.

You must be fucking kidding, Asmo. The white nationalists are clear why they are feeling safe to unify and license to mobilize, their guy won the white house and he's gonna help them take their country back and make America white....I mean great again. When Trump tried to spread the blame for the violence, they saw that as another endorsement, as did most people. It's not a reaction to antifascists, antifascists are a reaction to their resurgence imo. Which came first, the KKK, the Neo Nazis, the alt right, or Antifa?
To be crystal clear, so you aren't confused again, my mention of the antifascists here is not an endorsement of their group or methods.

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

If you are going to approach someone with no sincere intent to understand them with love and reason your way to the correct thinking, you just may end up crystallizing their existing errors and making them even more bold to spread the philosophies you despise. It would be better in that regard to simply ignore them. Unless your sole purpose in the engagement is to make yourself feel better about them being wrong and staying wrong. In which case, knock yourself out. Though I would argue that's not helping you, them, or anyone else progress.

Does that make sense?

In a world where the world ends at the end of your block
And them uh, little whirlwinds spin friction round the clock
I'll be savage, hunt and gather the average rather cadaver
Cock back hammer, splatter matter all over cell phone and calendar
No peace, yeah, in the middle of a war zone, riddle when the norm thinks slow
No sleep, yeah, with the shades down low, on the down low fighting with a dream
I creep, yeah, all secrets please, I don't need to speak
I'm paranoid like a man in the land of the free
To set up and let us burn and turn cheek, damn
Stop with the octagon, top your block, I'm gone
Off my rock, no songs, no more locked, yeah
Just a little bit a prison for everyone of us
We won't listen till there isn't any more of us
These days we quick to part ways with rights like "okay"
Here, let's be clear, for the record I did not sign up for lockdown
Or any kind of shock and I'm so bored

You must have forgot just who you were dealing with
Nothing less than aggression so naked, so crystal clear with a
Trust in absolutely fucking nothing but Doomtree
Step up your thought game lame, we're all thirsty!

It's like they leave us no option
Walking these streets, heat is watching
These preachers speak from their pockets
These teachers...bring it back c'mon
These teachers reach but can't stop it
Seedlings so poisoned, so lost and
Follow these prophets to nonsense
Tossing what's right to the dust
And I ain't no casualty
Got no surface with spotless morality
My dirt might have to cover up my grave
But I keep my fear of faith
And filth clutter up my cave
Got me looking for disinfectant
(I don't know how to behave)
God, I'm bored!

You must have forgot just who you were dealing with
Nothing less than aggression so naked, so crystal clear with a
Trust in absolutely fucking nothing but Doomtree
Step up your thought game lames, we're all thirsty!

Mooooooooore!...
So thirsty for mooooooooore!...

Um....so you think the right didn't make sinister sounding documentaries about Clinton? Where have you been living the last 25 years, a cave in the Peruvian alps?

I think perhaps the "glass houses" complaints are being made by people living in a paper thin crystal snow globe who wish to distract from that fact.

Recall, Trump ran on the lie that he paid for his entire campaign and was beholding to no one, it was absolutely central to his candidacy, and was just another pack of obvious bold faced lies he sold the right, like draining the swamp, releasing his taxes, hiring the "best and brightest people", and putting his assets in a blind trust....all of which were total lies.

Well, if anything it introduces GITS to the newbs... I know so many kids in their early 20's that have never even heard of it; maybe it will inspire them to go dig some good shit up.

We always crave new, but the past is riddled with cavernous halls intertwined with crystals & gems.

No one can blame you for walking away
Too much rejection
No love injection
Life can be easy
It's not always swell
Don't tell me truth hurts, little girl
Cause it hurts like hell

But down in the underground
You'll find someone true
Down in the underground
A land serene
A crystal moon -- ahhh ahhh

It's only forever
Not long at all
Lost and lonely
That's underground
Undergroooound

crack is pretty much confidence in crystal form.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

Nice. I've never thought of using it for wound care. That's a great idea.
I raised bees for years, and I have jars of honey on my shelf that are >6 years old. Not only have they not spoiled, they didn't even crystalize yet. If they do, I can just heat them up and they'll be good for another 6 years.

It's insanely cheap and potent.

TBH the only way I think it could be nipped in the bud in the west is by legalising heroin to push the price down.

Junkies will find a way. If the easiest way is a drug that will kill & injure them many many times faster than a more costly and harder to obtain alternative, then that's the drug they will gravitate towards.

Much like with the rise of crystal meth.

Crack and heroin require them to maintain a fairly substantial income to fund the habit. Addictions to Crystal and Krokodil can be sustained on a relative pittance.