This is an issue because some people are trying to confuse the issue to trick other people into believing veganism is healthy by pretending it's the same as a plant based diet.....

veg·an- vēɡən
noun
1.a person who does not eat or use animal products.

plant based -
A plant-based diet is a diet based on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. ... In fact, almost 90% of Americans don't get their recommended intake of fruits and veggies. Eating more produce helps lower your risk of heart disease, diabetes, and even some cancers. (Note there's nothing about not eating meat or dairy)

Vegan is NOT just a plant based diet (that includes moderate meat and dairy), and is NOT what doctors mean when they say the words "plant based diet". Plant based diet means less processed food and sugar and more fruits and vegetables, not an exclusion of all meat and animal products.

Vegan doesn't equate to more natural or better for you, only lacking animal products.....E.g.. Oreos are vegan, but they are not part of a plant based diet.

Eating Vegan does NOT equate to eating healthy as this video of a bunch of "Doctors" would have you believe. People who push being vegan do it for animal welfare above all else, NOT for your health as they often pretend to care about. Go ask your doctor what the best thing you can do dietarily to becoming healthy. I'll bet you the first thing they say is cut out sugar (processed foods) and eat more fruits and vegetables. ALL of my doctors have, and i have a few

I assume Vegans find more success going on about your health and the environment now, as the animal cruelty aspect isn't tapping into as many people as they would like. That would be my guess when i see videos like this.

(edit) also "The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicines" tax filing shows its activities as "prevention of cruelty to animals." Nothing about human health. Just saying. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.irs&ein=521394893

It's best to give them the small bundle of sugar cane or bananas first.

But...sugar

The last comment about 'be a nice guy' is interesting.

I was listening to Joe Rogan Experience, and they mentioned something about how the genesis of the 'woman hater' is actually the forever-friend-zoned-nice-guy who gets so fed up with being 'taken for granted'/'shot down' that his niceness turns into hatred

It made sense to me. Essentially, the woman hater is what becomes of a boring nice guy who lacked the patience/endurance to wait for women his age to make their way through all the exciting unreliable men before being satiated (or just getting too old to fetch the interesting men's attention) and finally settling for the nice guy that was boringly always available.



And I get it. It plays into the human natural value system, where things that are scarce are more valuable.

The ahole is fleeting. You can't always have him, and if you do you can't hold him, so he has an element of scarcity, which creates value.

The nice guy will reliably stick around if you go with him, so he is less scarce, so he is less valuable. The lower value in turn makes him more likely to be single and always available, further reducing his scarcity, and further devaluing him, and further increasing his chances of being single. A feedback loop.

I suppose that there is also a 3rd path - the element of nice guys that just stop giving a crap before turning into haters, which makes them more scarce, which actually finally gets them attention, and they stop being single.

(And a 4th path - nice guy finds 'a girl who wants a nice guy from the start'. In my observation this isn't the typical case.)



Cases like this (forever alone nice guy, not specifically Mr Van Driver) are when I think 'arrangement' web sites create a good solution. The guys get to not be lonely anymore, and the women gets taken care of. Kind of plays into the nice guy natural instinct, too.

Amusingly, 'arrangement' may be a better fit for the forever-alone nice guys than 'waiting it out'.
In both cases (waiting vs arrangement) the women are mainly after stability/support.
The older women 'nice guy' matches with by 'waiting it out' would not have picked 'nice guy' if they still had the looks to keep pulling exciting men.
So, if you're gonna be with someone because they want you for support, why not just go with a younger woman and be up front about the situation. If it doesn't work out, either party can walk away. No messy divorce. Seems like a safer and more practical option.

(Not picking on older women, just observing that : as people get older, the single scene becomes more and more 'leftovers' that are 'left over for a good reason'. The odds of finding anyone worth while diminish with time, because the highest quality individuals get retained first. Wait long enough, and you're left with over the hill jaded pragmatists who once may have had looks but now have nothing left to offer. At which point, both 'arrangement' and 'being single' are legitimately better options.)



Regarding Mr. Van Guy specifically, I'm not sure if he had a chance. He had some social anxiety that made him unable to talk to people. So he was likely not gonna get a partner naturally, and was unlikely to succeed among professional peers well enough to get the financial security necessary to be some sugar daddy.

So, yeah, dude was likely a romantic dead end. Possibly even the same mental (brain developmental?) issues that made him unable to talk to people also made him susceptible to getting the sort of crazy tilted that allowed him to run people over. The dude could have actually been fated (circumstantially) to end up in tragedy. Just speculating, wouldn't shock me.

-scheherazade

I prefer butter, brown sugar, and cayenne pepper, pan fried. Yum

"Everything is dead forever." Wow, those science birds really don't sugar coat things.

"Sugar, Glucose Syrup, Brown Sugar, Icing Sugar, "

lol

Except that's not food, so actually no one ate food

Cereal Grains (Whole Grain Wheat (35.0%), Maize Semolina (28.6%), Wheat Flour), Sugar,
Glucose Syrup, Wheat Starch, Brown Sugar, Sunflower Oil, Vitamins and Minerals (Calcium, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Iron, Vitamin D, Folic Acid, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin), Fat-Reduced Cocoa Powder (1.2%), Salt, Icing Sugar, Cocoa Powder (0.5%), Natural Flavouring, Raising Agent: Sodium Bicarbonate, Acidity Regulator: Tripotassium Phosphate, Maize Starch.
https://www.nestle-cereals.com/uk/en/products-promotions/brands/cookie-crisp-brand/cookie-crisp

Wait a sec... maybe Bill figured out he was getting whore'd out sell sugar, and that's why he made the prostitute joke at the beginning?

Hmmmm.....

"The more sugar the better"
"Oh they still have that (marshmellow sugar) - yeah - yeah - it's wonderful for kids"

WTF no wonder everyone is so fat.

What the fuck is this? An interview with Burr sponsored by Kellogg's, and General Mills, and Pepsi? (Yes, Pepsi owns Quaker Oats.)

Was Bill told that he was going to be in a Big Sugar ad for breakfast cereal masquerading as an interview?

I hope he was paid for appearing in that *commercial.

No, you miss the point.
Distinctions are important.
It matters hugely, recognizing the difference between violent rape and an uninvited shoulder rub, just as it matters making the distinction between a spanking and attempted murder....not just legally but rationally.

I wholeheartedly disagree that making those distinctions about gradients of wrongness in any way denies the ability to see that both are wrong.....except for the brainless who can't do both.

Public shaming IS a sentence, one that harms your job, finances, family, and future. I have no problem with fair public shaming, but lumping a bad date in with real rapists is as fair as lumping you in with kidnappers and murderers because you slapped a disobedient child's behind.

He denies he did anything to intentionally make her uncomfortable or pressure her, which is what she accuses him of.

NO SIR. THAT IS YOUR POSITION, you said until overboard sentencing becomes a problem, there's no distinction needed between bad sex and forced sex.
Yes, it's not cool, but it's also not abuse unless it is.

If, like this woman, she #metoo'd that you were an octopus that ignored all her nonverbal signals to stop, your denial wouldn't mean much, and most people would just call you a rapist....just like his denial means nothing to you and you're more than willing to let him be lumped in with rapists and abusers.

You lumped them together in your post about how making distinctions is out of fashion. It's like you said stop eating broccoli, sugar, and bacon, then balked when I said broccoli is good for you, you only meant deep fried candied broccoli. Come on.

Don't expect me to read what you mean and ignore what you write...I absolutely hate that.
Don't be sexually aggressive...do be weird.

Yes, distinctions matter immensely.

No, grading offences is proper, otherwise you put rape and going Dutch on a date at the same level because they both upset the date.

If the person goes on a long date with you, accepts an invitation to your bed, undressed and engages in sex, asks you to slow down a bit (which means continue, slower, which you do), and continues, sleeps over, and only later complains, maybe relationships aren't for HER. Her date did absolutely nothing wrong. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues in the dark 99.9999999% of the time....pretty much any time there's no gun to your head.