psychedelic chipmunk

In Estonia there's a closed community for parties, invitation based, to keep troublemakers out. No goa, though, more like prog / full onish , perhaps some forest or darkpsy. Not really my cup of tea. Wouldn't attend such events any more, any way.

Can''t wait to give this one a listen. Love the Journey through my head album a lot. For what ever reason I'm always like super late to Ephedra releases. Only recently found about Flying over the universe.

love the slowly releasing ones

and I support that stand with both hands. There are some gaps of logic in cause and effect, though. If the baby cows are immediately taken away from mama cow and the milk that's supposed to feed the calves is, let's call it, stolen - by which miracle of god do the baby calves survive or if they don't is it then implied that as the cow gives birth, she is (almost) immediately reinseminated? She would then, in theory, produce milk for the next X months. Wash rinse repeat? For number 3) I know a few instances where a newborn calf was executed because of some serious illness. Unfortunate, but you pick the lesser of two evils. Naturally, not harvested for meat. (Speculation) I assume the meat acquired from mistreated likely malnutrioned cows is low-grade. This is not in line with the interests of companies that deal with meat products, so I simply can't imagine this mistreatment being a widespread practice. It just doesn't make sense. It may very well depend on the scale of the farm, where some (less reputable) dairy companies hope to save money by taking some shortcuts only to have it slap them in the face. The EU regulations, for instance, are very strict regarding the quality of animal or dairy products (see here, for instance). So, I'm all for stopping needless slaughter. What or how does any of this have to do with veganism and meat eating?

The works of the dietitians are most likely credible. To elaborate: the actual research is not pop science, for sure. However, these compilation articles are pop science because of two main reasons. Imprecise language or incorrect use of references. The imprecise language is forgivable, since the aim is to also make this "readable" for the "general public". But then they should be very careful about what they claim. Wild claims are made BASED on legitimate works. This in turn leads the reader to believe that the researchers themselves make these claims. No, they don't. This is a problem. Climate change and flat earth business is irrelevant for this discussion. I am not working in nutrition, I am (among other activities) trained to read publications and see whether relevant works are correctly quoted or if the references allow certain claims to be made. One does not need to be a nutrition expert to be able to do that, thankfully. I never said "that the body needs meat to thrive" as you incorrectly quoted me. I merely said eat your food, your body needs it - which is a trivially true statement. I conveniently replaced the word 'food' with 'steak', so I admit, it was a trap. I mean no offense. Let us not act on prejudice, rather remain objective For whatever good it does you may claim the win for that argument. As for veganism*. It's similar to the situation between religious nuts and people that choose to believe in god, where veganism* represents the religious nuts that need to preach left and right.

Fair enough, I'll bite. What you posted is a pop science article and it aptly demonstrates what I mentioned earlier. For the sake of discussion, pop science has no peer review that's worth mentioning. Among the references are actual researches with their own goals and conclusions - these are certainly peer reviewed. As for the article A few excerpts. Vegetarians generally consume as much iron as, or slightly more than, omnivores. Said to be the concluded from [16]. Let's see [16], then. The purpose of [16] is clearly stated in their abstract - the study of bioavailability of iron and what controls (or inhibits) absorbtion - groups of Dutch people seem to be tested. [16] is obviously being quoted out of context for they make no such claim. There is no way of knowing, in general, that either one consumes more iron than the other. Rather, it is important, that either diet could provide sufficient amount of iron. The article poses an empty statement to meet some necessary word count or some such. ------------------------- Many scientists are calling for a substantial reduction of livestock products in the diet of humans as a major way to reverse climate change. Wrong. The following conclusion is arrived at in [107]. Conclusions Consuming a more plant-based diet could to an extent alleviate the negative environmental impacts related to food production. As a method to feed ourselves more sustainably, behavioural adjustments appear to be a very important tool. They make no certain claims, rather suggest that this is worth investigating and I agree, but this does not imply what was said in the article. ------------------------- I also found this gem In addition, beef production generates considerably more manure waste than from any other animal food production. This is said to be [108], which contains political statements in its conclusion. A big nono, so we'll regard that as a tongue-in-cheek essay. As for manure itself, it is a fertiliser Around here, that's how seasonal agriculture functions. The land is fertilised with captured manure. Live stock is as essential to plant life as it is to live stock. ------------------------- So, by now I think we get the picture. It is not about which diet is 'better', rather which diets are suitable for which people. As a prevalent characteristic of many references of the article - the goals of those works are to study the effects of either diet and to find balance. As an extreme example there is a certain condition that may cause (near) paralysis for people on a daily basis. Consuming more meat products significantly alleviates the condition (this is a recent discovery by G. Pilz based on relevant theory, he recently gave a talk in our university and as he himself suffers from this near paralysis condition, he applied the theory to narrow down his diet very quickly to determine which products he should discard). We should distinguish between veganism and veganism*. The latter is a political crusade, while the former is merely another way of life. I know people who have tried vegan diets for months only to end up more in despair and I also know people who have no problems with having only plant foods. Lots of interesting research is carried out on the subject of diets, but the crusaders are incorrectly quoting these discoveries. This is no surprise, though, while the meat eaters don't have their clips of loons with flamethrowers burning down bushes of berries, plenty of pop science has been written against vegan diets. It is not so well-known simply because it's not the stance promoted by the propaganda machine. Don't become a crusader, please. If your diet works for you, then all is well. As long as you are honest with yourself, you shouldn't get into health trouble. Now, I need me a lamb leg, baked potatoes, some tomato salad and lots of gravy. Have fun

I am firmly rooted in the 90's goa trance. Don't bring out the big guns right away. Koxbox is definitely too strong, too bassheavy, too technical. Be gentle, give em something like Jaia - Mai Mai

The movie is biased, it presents exactly the same message as the movie Earthlings. Everybody in their right state of mind realises such treatment of animals will yield VERY poor product - be it meat or dairy products or eggs or what have you. Therefore, it is not a sensible course of action (therefore anyone interested in lasting business won't do something like this). I won't even get into the lack of proper research presentation in either movie. Let's overcome the cognitive dissonance and recognise propaganda for what it is, ok? Great. I wasn't able to find any relevant work on the claims of either Dietetic institution and I don't mean a pop-science article, rather I mean the reports of the specialists that carried out this research. My guess is that the people behind the research are more interested in finding alternative sufficient food sources and their work is being ripped out of context. It is customary to state in the abstract of a report the purpose of research at hand. Pop science articles are known to use legitimate works and results falsely to promote whatever propaganda seems profitable at the time. On skimming the BDA's article it is mentioned that the BDA provides excellent nutritional advice by dietitians based on (you're gonna love this part) evidence. Well, that's reassuring, but where do I find the research of these scientists? I should not even waste more time on reading articles without actual references Cognitive dissonance check!

Was listening to Godford's Twisted, never gets old. Combing through the 90s goa selection. I have so much material from that era and yet it looks like I've barely scratched the surface.

Can't imagine my diet without a hint of meat or fish. The various documentaries (of cows or pigs or whatever) that show you which atrocities are committed by so and so are a red herring (as an argument). Appeals are made to the viewer's emotions. Furthermore, extreme examples aren't convincing, either. I'm now supposed to believe that's how all the slaughterhouses in the world work, is that it? One must be aware of potential contamination issues, though. At least in the developed countries, we have dedicated institutes for that. Long story short, eat your steak, your body needs it.

Wait what, the same group that released UX late 90s? Sounds totally different by the teaser. I like the dark vibes, though. I am such a dark dark dark person

Anybody recognise the track that starts at 56:08 ? I checked the tracks I didn't know in the "music in this video" section and nothing. This guy never released tracklists :/

That's all in the previous life. Besides, goa trance isn't widely known around here.

Technossomy, b*tches!