Earl Grey Ghost

Here is an idea of what is going on: https://tmblr.co/Z-nDQr2eaDTVJ

Then my statement of "whether you are or not..." applies, which insinuated that I left open to the idea that you weren't. So there's that. What this all comes down to is culture. Choice. That's what we keep saying. None of us are telling you you're wrong in choosing your particular diet. Just some of the claims you're making on technical or scientific levels. What you do, is up to you. What other cultures do, is up to them. Healthy or not healthy. You have to realise that with evolution comes deviations. One culture, might have adjusted to eating one particular diet, and because of the adjustment---they are healthy by most standards. That doesn't mean that it works for everyone. Just like, not everyone works off of a high protein diet as I do. But if you look at India now. They eat meat. Not cow, for obvious reasons, but they do eat meat. At some turning point in society they changed their diet. You also have to realise you're quoting "ancient" times. People have evolved way past that and our dietary and health needs have changed because of that. What might have been healthy back in ancient times, certainly isn't today, or at least not as much so. This goes beyond food to even medicinal practices! You are missing the fact that there's this huge evolutionary gap. This huge biological adjustment period that has shifted countless times as societies and agriculture changes.

This seems like you're trying to argue, whether you really are or not. Personally, I won't get into this with you, as an individual in the science field because I can already see it's going to be like talking to a brick wall on the matter. You've made up your mind, and that's fine. But badgering others about why they chose this or why they chose that----personally I don't see anyone who eats meat on here constantly asking you "but why do you not eat meat? Why? Why? Did you know that------" Only you seem to be doing that. But to make a point with this, yes, for a while humans did eat merely plants, but that was before hunting/gathering started up. These are extremely primitive, and barely off the branch of monkey/ape at this point. So when people want to quote that, I laugh because as with all animals---we evolve. If the need for meat wasn't needed at all, humans wouldn't have began hunting. Just like the snake saw no evolutionary need for legs, so they never adapted them. Same concept. There was a key nutrient or element that was missing enough from the diet of early, early humans where they needed to adapt. Thus the hunter/gatherer society began, and meat became a staple. While I agree that you shouldn't overindulge in meat because that can be harmful (overindulging in any food is unhealthy), I certainly don't believe that it's necessary to cut it out completely. Again, that is purely, choice. There is no doctor that will straight up tell you "cut meat out of your diet, if you eat meat, you're unhealthy."

So here's the thing with this topic, and a lot of people refuse to believe this is true but here it goes: Everyone has a masculine and feminine side reguardless of your gender/gender identity This is because "masculine" and "feminine" are just words. Now in definition masculine is: " having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men, especially strength and aggressiveness." But note that it says "traditionally", which is not definitive. Such as this definition says: "As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex. Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods." Note the last part says "standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods." Nowadays most men wouldn't find it "masculine" to have bows on their shoes, or ruffles in their shirt. But it was back in the day. Now it's seen as more feminine to have bows and ruffles. High heels in fact were originally for men. Now they are seen as feminine and only for women. Feminine is defined as: "having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness." Again there's that word "traditionally". And of course what is considered feminine varies from cultures and historical periods, that too goes without saying. So the best way for someone, in my opinion to view these two things in a healthy manner within themselves is to embrace both. I know I do. For example, I'm a male but right now, I have on pink nail polish. Pink is one of my favourite colours. I tend to like nail polish from time to time. Now, I don't crossdress, but I've also worn make-up, especially eyeliner. Hell, there are guys on here that are already (by social standards anyway) embracing a feminine side and that's watching the MLP show! That's considered feminine by the majority of society and no one here gives a flying frick. I find people who try to adhere to these strict social constructs tend to limit themselves. Now, if you naturally like masculine or feminine things, that's fine. But there's no reason to not explore the realms of both. Even within the balance of the universe there are these " masculine" and "feminine" qualities, that don't really denote specifically male or specifically female. They are just balancing strength and assertiveness with gentleness and beauty.

Of course I eat meat. It's one of my favourite things to eat. Now, don't get me wrong, I love fruits, and some vegetables. But since I run off of a very high protein diet, meat is my favourite place to get it from. I also like my meat pink (except for chicken, and pork, they obviously have more of an inclination to sickness when not done through), but my steaks, you better give it to me bleeding on a plate, or it better bleed when I poke it. Juicy and flavourful. Animals eat other animals. Humans are animals. Omnivores, which humans are listed as eat both animal and plant. Which means we also have canine teeth. It's for shredding up meat, our back teeth, for grinding. If we were meant to only eat one or the other, our teeth and jaw structure would reflect that. Personally though, I don't care what you choose for your diet, but I hate moral highhorsery. No one is better or worse than another just because of their choice to eat meat or not. Now, with that said... keep in mind, I am also for ethical and humane treatment of slaughter animals. I don't believe torturing them is morally right. Let that be known. I am aware of how horrible they are treated in some places, but me gong on a meat strike isn't going to change that. I can still eat meat and advocate for better treatment of slaughter animals.

Best picture is best

CLOSED

You know what, you're right about me contradicting myself. I guess conversationally in my head what I meant to say didn't come out right on text lol, so I'll try to make myself more clear, while I do agree that it shouldn't matter who your heroes are, male or female----I on a personal level, do wish there were more male characters just mainly because that's just me. While I do think it doesn't matter, for me, it does. So again, from my own perspective, yeah, I find it hard to relate to female characters. I can see great qualities that they have and find them commendable, but I can't relate. My comment was my own personal feelings of it, and why I think there should be more male characters in the show, because I'm sure there's someone else out there like myself. Everyone's got that thing about something where they go "yeah, it doesn't really matter, but it matters to me, so here's what I think". I find it too overly dominated with female characters, but obviously not the point where it makes me not want to watch it, it's more of a slight irk. Especially because there has to be more male ponies in the world as you wouldn't have more little ponies without them! So I guess, the science part of my brain goes, "how are there not more males? And if they are, what's the issue with more being depicted?" Which also is quickly tagged along by the thought I have of, Why is Celestia a Princess and not a Queen? Wouldn't her rank go up if she was the only Monarchy in charge? Her sister, obviously being younger, would still be a Princess, but with lack of a King or Queen, that would make Celestia the Queen. We have Queen Chrysalis, why not Queen Celestia? It doesn't make sense. Lastly when I said what I did about the friendship thing---I said can OR will, and I emphasised those. I'm not saying it's a huge possibility, or even a thing, I was just "thinking out loud". Do I really think that'll be a thing that pops up? Phht, no, not really, no. I was just adding to the table a 'possibly', 'maybe', or a 'what if' sort of comment.

I can't say I'm familiar with that character, but I'm going to guess he has decent skill. Up against my avatar, he has no chance, up against me, well I might struggle.

765

Hmm, 6/10, because it rarely changes, but I gotta give points for subtle text changes and trippy guy.

9/10! I like Soarin, and I really like the effect!

Known for fun YGO cards! (I love that website by the way, I've spent hours on there before XD)