[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1646697342098.png (679.53 KB, 909x606, 3:2, Putin-With-Trump.png) ImgOps Google

What do you feel about the geo-political situation currently given that Donald Trump is no longer President, with Europe being mired in horrific war?

What do you think Trump would've done to both Americans and Europeans if he had remained in office, in terms of presiding over international conflict?

What do you make of Trump's recent comments about the chance of U.S. airpower directly bombing Russians, in particular?

Context: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese

Interestingly, a recent book by Trump former ally and former Attorney General Bill Barr says that Trump instructed his aides that he viewed a "good Tweet" as having "just the right amount of crazy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/mar/01/william-barr-memoir-donald-trump-tweets ). What do you think about that in terms of wartime? What Tweets would President Trump be putting out now, establishing international geo-political policy, were he still in office?
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


On the other hand, we can say with absolute certainty, there are financial ties from Ukraine to Biden.


Then it has not provided sufficient motivation to stop the war.  Or special operation, as applicable.


Perhaps, but it has seemed to influence quite an extensive response, and a whole lot of support in both arms and material.


File: 1645403368774.png (951.71 KB, 1280x832, 20:13, large.png) ImgOps Google

I'm not deeply a sports fan, so correct me if wrong, but I gather viewing sports is most engaging when many outcomes are about equally probable.

I'm also not a doctor, but I'm vaguely aware exposure to testosterone during development enhances some kinds of sports performance, at least in a general sense.

I am also aware that many sports group by gender -- based on the need for the two genders to have different performance profiles.  Transgenderism (and perhaps some medical edge cases, or interventions) can violate this need.

Which will win -- the model of gender necessary for sports to be both sexist and competitive, or some new categorization system in sports?

I'm mostly posting this because I see people are angry on Facebook, but Facebook isn't really a place to discuss -- more just a place to express emotion.
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>untransitioned transgender people
What is this category of people, then?  Is it populated by any who wish to participate in sports?

>"whatever makes them happy."
I gather sports folks are unhappy.  Progressive politics has broken their activity, and I suppose they will need progressive folks to find a way to fix it.

You bring up several ideas.  I don't think you see God as an authority in this case, otherwise I could ask how God thinks sports should be done.


Sports participation has a whole lot of inequalities that I'm not sure we even bother acknowledging.  At some point we've acknowledged that all people are not created equal and separated men and women to make competition more fair.  Now that those lines are more blurred thanks to modern science and social progression we are worried that things will become unfair.

The truth is that was never sufficient for making compeition fair.  The vast physical differences between people are much more granular and individual than simply separating people by gender.  Some competitions go a bit further with it by separating people into weight classes, and I think that's a good step.  Could maybe break it up even more, depending on the sport.


>I gather sports folks are unhappy.  Progressive politics has broken their activity, and I suppose they will need progressive folks to find a way to fix it.

I've yet to see any evidence that regular people really have a problem with transgender individuals, other than a fringe of hardcore conservative traditionalists making things difficult.

I get the sense that almost everybody in the U.S. goes by "let people live their lives to do whatever the hell they want so long as nobody else gets hurt" and views nanny type personalities as annoying bullies.


I don't have any general direction for this thread, but I would like to discuss this and get everyone's thoughts and feelings on it.

Edit to Clarify: Please do watch the whole video before having a discussion in the thread, thank you.
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Why is it necessary to watch the entirety in order to discuss a portion?

It's not necessary. However, as the creator of the thread, I clarified that I would like the participants to watch the whole video before discussing it's contents.

>I am not obligated to follow your instructions. That's never been a requirement for participation in any thread

Actually, you are. *I* created the thread, therefore I have some basic say over how I want my own thread to go. You are free to participate or not, and I am free to tell you to leave *MY* thread and tell you to go create your own tread if you don't like how I am choosing to handle my own thread.

I am also free to tell you to *leave* my thread, which I am doing now. Leave, my thread.


>It's not necessary.
Then I have no need to.

>Actually, you are. *I* created the thread, therefore I have some basic say over how I want my own thread to go.
Contrary to your presumption, creating a thread does not mean you get to rule over others, making unreasonable demands of them that you yourself admit are not necessary to discuss the thread's topic.

This has never been true for any thread. Let alone one on townhall.

>I am also free to tell you to *leave* my thread, which I am doing now. Leave, my thread.
You're "free" to, sure. You can make whatever unreasonable demands you please.
But nobody has any obligation to acquiesce to your demands.


I disagree.

I can't see any particular historical lesson in which refugees are perceived as being treated better if they're of particular backgrounds.

Ethnically white refugees from countries such as Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, and Poland had a terrible time after WWII, many of them suffering from extreme hunger and other issues such as persistent unemployment. This was especially bad for those of Jewish heritage. It took decades for Europe to really recover.

During the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s, ethnically white refugees from Bosnian backgrounds, Serbian backgrounds, and such also did horribly. The international community didn't do a particularly good job in helping them. To say the least.

African refugees in a similar situation failed to get what they needed around the same time in terms of the Rwandan conflict. Same as with different catastrophes across the continent, really. In the 2000s and 2010s, mass exodus from Arabic speaking areas involved peoples of highly varied ethnicities and skin colors occurred. This triggered a political crisis such that different countries felt overwhelmed, the refugees suffering yet again in this circumstance.

If anything, I think that this is clear: refugees get treated awfully with extremely few exceptions, now in Eastern Europe being an exception so far due to the relatively small number of individuals moving about plus the extremely united diplomatic push that's anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine.

R.e. the video, I watched until the 10:30 mark and then had to stop due to a computer issue.


File: 1646698186255.jpg (69.69 KB, 464x343, 464:343, Pro-Mask-Message-At-U.S.-B….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In multiple states across the U.S., such as Texas, mask mandates are ending in location after location due to changing thought about the nature of the pandemic.

At least in Texas, reporting states that "the omicron surge is subsiding". "Hospitalizations are declining statewide after omicron drove them to near-record labels," it seems. Thus, mask policies have been altered all over.

Context: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/04/texas-schools-drop-mask-mandate/

The fundamental question of whether or not mask mandates for both children and adults were a good public choice is still debated. What do you think? Was it legally justified for state and local governments to force individuals to wear masks whether they wanted to or not? Was it practically a good idea? Should children have been subject to different rules in contrast to adults? What do you feel now that such policies are ending?

As an end-note, what do you personally do, in your own life... if you don't mind disclosing?
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Well that makes sense, I suppose.  I guess I'm just frustrated that I don't see more of this energy channeled into other topics.


I think you do, the trouble is there's rarely light shown on it.

Unfortunately we only really tend to hear about what the media tells us of.
I think the vehement portion of anti maskers, for instance, is not much greater than any other subject.  Anti mask more generally, and civilly, sure, but the "aggressive angry" response was, at least as I see it, rather limited.
In truth, I find this somewhat regrettable, rather than reassuring, but, it suffices to show what I'm getting at, at least.

The narrative makes up the numbers, more than the numbers themselves do.


The highly inconsistent and, really, haphazard commentary about masking from the U.S. federal government on down makes me rather uncertain and kind of skeptical about how well mass masking really changed things, myself. Common sense says that certain types of masks would help in some particular situations. Extremes such as forcing children to be masked even when separated from each other for hours on end... I'm not sure.

I suppose we won't really know the full scientific picture of what happened during the pandemic for multiple years? Probably? I guess so.


File: 1645288735695.jpg (1.16 MB, 3000x2226, 500:371, San_Francisco_California._….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

On February 19, 1942, a full eighty years to the day ago, then President Franklin D. Roosevelt decreed that all peoples of Japanese heritage on the west coast must report to interment camps. Formally issued as Executive Order 9066, the action has been studied for a long time. Today's anniversary, naturally, has brought up many reflections.

Twitter of Note:

> https://twitter.com/URDailyHistory/status/1494948870526095361

> https://twitter.com/ADL/status/1494764759782199299

> https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1495073593838944264

The last link is particularly interesting given the personal narrative.

What do you think about the historical legacy of what happened? Are you concerned that such things could return at some point in the distant future in the U.S., perhaps? Or the near future, even? Alternatively, have lessons been learned from the past?
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


What totalitarianism?
He didn't seem to do anything of the sort.

If anything the backlash seems to be a greater overstep against liberty.
Holding people without bail for petty crimes like trespassing is exceptionally severe.
Especially when it seems rather evident the event was known,  and rather than act on it, law enforcement stood aside,   If and still to this day insists that footage of the event must be restricted refusing numerous FOIA requests for the footage, and locking out trials from transparency,  even going as far as to put gag orders on people during them.


My impression was although Snowden's revelations were met with widespread pushback, given the processes of state data collection were secret, it would not be appropriate for American citizens to be aware of any effect of that push-back, and just as it was appropriate for state officials to have lied in the past to protect government data collection methods, potentially lying to the public would continue to be appropriate.


>the event
I don't follow the news a lot -- an event having to do with the lockdowns?

>establishing totalitarianism in the U.S.
Former President Mr. Trump did seem to prefer a more autocratic style where the head of state is less confined by law and tradition.  Totalitarianism is a profusion of state involvement in everyday life.  I suppose it's hard to guess how Trump would have continued toward totalitarianism, if that was a mission of his.


File: 1643997841825.jpg (50.99 KB, 960x640, 3:2, e2nescqzwqf81.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So, out of curiosity, what's going on there?
Texas has taken a very conservative stance against abortions.
There's been that entire discussion in schools about racism and what is labled as "CRT".
Now there appears to be a wave of banning of a lot of classical literature from schools.
And then I go on reddit and there's news of book burnings happening.

Is this a new disturbing trend? or has this been going on for a long time already and it's now only catching the eye of the internet?
Do you think this is also going to move northwards?
39 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I've given no hatred at any point in this thread. I've not even expressed a personal belief on such matters, not that you'd care to even know.

All you can do is lie.


I'm kind of bored with you, to be honest, but if there's any more conservative bile that you want to let loose, please do go ahead.

Seeing you conservatives behaving as you do helps a lot in terms of my own sense of trying to be pro-equality and pro-tolerance: it's helpful to know what I'm against.


I've literally only said your unproven claims provided without evidence are untrue.
That's hardly "conservative bile".
Hell, it's outright apolitical.

Sorry that I have the audacity to detest liars who make up things about me




So you may have heard of this, but I still feel like it is important to share. The Lacey Act is being passed in another bill, and what it basically does is ban the import, export, or across state lines, of almost all exotic animals and pets. And what I mean by that, is ANY animals that is not a cat, dog, or livestock.

My opinions aside on how I feel about this, I think it's important that everyone know about this because it is a gross overuse of power and not backed by, seemingly, any common sense or science. Even if you don't care about pets in general, this will DEVASTATE many peoples livelihoods and even a lot of conservation efforts.

Please take the time to watch the videos and share them, or look into it on your own. Thank you.


I'm concerned about the government making animal rescue efforts more difficult.

Context: https://www.wbay.com/2022/02/13/new-congressional-bill-potentially-restricting-exotic-pet-rescue-options/


File: 1643571555115.jpeg (46.9 KB, 600x314, 300:157, b5gPERRv.jpeg) ImgOps Google

A new poll found that 76% of Americans disapprove of Biden's plan to engage in racial discrimination in selecting a Supreme Court nominee.  What do you think Biden should do, and why?

3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Racial discrimination is wrong, regardless of whether you consider it "positive" or not



The proclamation gets him voter points.  It's actually entirely possible he simply doesn't choose a black woman now that he's already elected, but at the time it increased his chances of being elected by some unknown number.


The best way to approach things would have been for the President to have said: "I'm going to take into account personal backgrounds in terms of individual ethical character and diverse life experiences in order to prevent the Supreme Court from being bogged down into groupthink and cognitive bias from arguments that're excessively beholden to tradition".

And then, after appointing somebody (perhaps, yes, an African-American woman), remarking: "Her character and experience will make her an invaluable asset to the Court."

At least, that's what I think.


File: 1643333787826.png (390.48 KB, 800x533, 800:533, medium.png) ImgOps Google

A good pony is a pony who values state violence.  Probably a pony who is helped by state violence.  Probably a pony who would not even think the first sentence -- a good pony feels no impulse to analyze their goodness, they need only condemn badness.

I don't think I'm a good pony. I don't think I can become one.  It's too late.

I'm sorta stuck.  Maybe the best I can do is to not bother anypony.
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1643934007841.png (67.33 KB, 250x250, 1:1, thumb.png) ImgOps Google

>You've assumed the state defines good and bad.
Right, I've not attempted an argument because I don't have one that's genuine.

I can give you four conventional arguments for state power, if you like.  See if any appeal:

1) State leadership is divine.  Or for a secular state, experts.

2) The state might not be perfect, but it protects you from the next worst thing that would fill the power vacuum if the state dissolved.

3) The state's morality is linked to the morality of the majority of individuals.  You have to trust the state accuracy carries out the will of the majority and that the majority have good sense, of course.  Applies to democratic states.

4) In making use of state services or occupying state territory, you have bound yourself in respect and obedience toward state power.  You consented.


Save for the first, none of these guarantee universal morality in the state.

A state can, for instance, become worse than the alternative. Thus the plethora of revolutions and rebellions throughout history, seeking alternative to exactly that.

Likewise, the 'majority of individuals' depends heavily on where you are, not to mention states have a nasty habbit of working hard to ensure unelected members of the government gain power and no longer have to answer to the people anyway.

And of course, consent can be revoked.


>Thus the plethora of revolutions and rebellions throughout history, seeking alternative to exactly that.
Good point.  Most believe the American Republic is/was better than the British Empire.  Maybe that's PR, I don't imagine the British are much more upset with their government today than Americans are with theirs.  But if revolution is valid, it calls into question any state.

>no longer have to answer to the people anyway
Right.  America isn't even suppose to be a democracy anyway.  It's democratic, which I gather means the citizens may provide some input by voting.  But the actual majority needn't decide things.  And this was by design -- few of the founders trusted majority rule, and explicitly not rule by the majority of subject humans.

>And of course, consent can be revoked.

Right.  Locke and Hobbes wrestle with this problem.  People might consent to government when no great sacrifice is involved, but how do you hook subjects into fighting a war or paying taxes?  You need a social contract that is hard to revoke.  Probably you need a bit of a threat to maintain leverage.


I suppose I can admit, while I can poke holes in other systems of ethics, I don't have a explicit ethical system for myself.  Maybe asking a state to justify the violence is unfair.  I do not attempt to justify my actions.

I know people don't want me to criticize the state.  States exist nearly everywhere because people like them and feel they are a source of authority.  But I don't feel good about violence and it's hard to know what to do with the unsettled feeling.  I try to be a good, respectful person/pony.


File: 1642963743943.jpg (105.79 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, 20200830_191415.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm surprised none of all you alls with your politics and your opinions are talking about the Chinese dumping on the US for interfering in their domestic affairs by supporting Lithuania.

Per various party representatives and state media outlets, "Lithuania stands against universal principles and justice" and that Lithuania is "a mouse or even a flea" that “will pay a heavy price" and "shall be relegated to the garbage bin of history" as it had “gone its own way in defiance of the will of the 1.4 billion Chinese people.”



I suppose China doing awful things just doesn't feel like news.  There isn't really a discussion to be had about whether China's doing awful things.  It's been happening for about as long as I can remember and it'll probably keep happening forever and there's nothing anyone can do about it.  Probably not even the Chinese.


Now I'm curious, what's Russia's take on this?


File: 1641861922622.png (253.81 KB, 1156x1024, 289:256, large.png) ImgOps Google

Through pretty much my whole childhood and early life, I was considered smart.  Someone said I was probably the smartest person to graduate my school.  The implication, of course, is that I'd go on to some kind of greatness.

I feel like I've spent a good deal of energy trying to undo this expectation.  I don't think I'm *that* smart, and even if I am, looking back and nearly always seeing my productivity or progress as below par is not helping.

I'm writing here because I think this might be a shared concern and it's hard to write about this without feeling like I'm bragging somehow (this is one case where not having a name is kinda nice).

I need to stop being "smart."
7 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1641949278283.jpg (54.82 KB, 1249x1024, 1249:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I think I agree with most everything you say.  It is good to get a sense that I'm not alone.

> I hope to continue with my higher education and achieve career goals that, I guess, would fit with the stereotype of being a "smart person".

Wish you the best of luck.  :)  What are you studying?

My experience with college was pretty mixed.  While this may not be acceptable to everyone, I've found college is not my route to a career.  My life has become more "who is going to stop me," rather than "who approves."  I think I'm happier that way, seeking the approval of others is a questionable project anyway.


I'd prefer not to talk about my plans in depth when it comes to studies and whatnot right now, honestly, since things are rather in flux.

Regardless, I'm glad that you're achieving real happiness now, and I hope that I and others here will be the same.


File: 1642631548628.jpg (261.83 KB, 1304x917, 1304:917, Screenshot_20210427-100954….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Success in life is much more a matter of luck than most are willing to accept.

Opportunity is not evenly distributed around the world, nor is it infinite, and many are explicitly barred from access to opportunities.

And even if exploiting opportunities would require effort and skill (once you have access to opportunities of course), the gains one makes from those opportunities does not necessarily depend on the skill or intellect required to take advantage of thise opportunities. Plenty of average or below average people can be (and have been) momentously successful without even really needing to be geniuses or gifted (or even understand how they are successful for that matter) and plenty of highly competent people flounder in life, because of that fundamental unequal distribution of gainful opportunities.

Competency doesn't really matter that much when the universe is fundamentally unfair and more chaotic than we are comfortable accepting.


File: 1642207703789.jpg (101.89 KB, 835x657, 835:657, 2715092.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What current data do you think will be important in the future?  Especially data that you might be able to collect and store yourself?

Sometimes I think if you could put a Go Pro on a typical person from 3000 years ago for 24 hours or something, that would be a trove of information for historians.  So one answer to what additional data might be important is in terms of long-term posterity.

Now a lot of data is collected about us and the environment already.  Maybe too much, so it's possible there is no answer to the question, or a better question is what data should we delete to help future people understand what was really relevant.

Another way of answering the question would be in terms of your future self or family.

I'm struggling to state what I mean clearly.  In some part, it's about predicting what will change in the future, both long term and short term -- what we consider obvious today that will be obscure in decades or millennia.  Or just what might be fun to reminisce about.


File: 1642214245688.jpg (367.38 KB, 2500x1563, 2500:1563, wuhan-inst-vir.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>What current data do you think will be important in the future?
Data relating to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of SARS-CoV-2.


That does sound interesting.  I am ordered to take a test for SARS-CoV-2, which is connected to this topic a bit.  I am a long way from this facility, though.


File: 1640219840735.jpg (154.65 KB, 563x1024, 563:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I was listening to the radio on the way home from my parent's place, and I think it was Tucker Carlson.  He was talking like China was America's enemy.

If China were an enemy, we'd no longer be able to legally offer any citizen of that Republic Aid and Comfort.  You could give them Aid or Comfort -- "I'm sorry you're having a bad day."  But if you do both, you are of course a traitor.

So the question is: who gets to decide who America's enemies are?  Radio talk show people?  Democratic consensus of American citizens?  The President?

And question two: who's on the list?
25 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>If I help out an elderly Asian neighbour, I deserve to be executed?
Only if (1) the neighbor is an agent of an enemy state, (2) you actually help the neighbor in his capacity as an enemy, and (3) your intention was to help him in his capacity as an enemy.

>People who support minorities tend to be seen, for example, as traitors.
Depends what you mean by "support".  Ultra-far-right white nationalists have said things like "Miscegenation is betraying your own race", but they are a tiny portion of the population.


Looking for a list of the current enemies of the US.  My assumption is the list is not empty, and that being such an important matter, it should exist.

>traitors deserve the death penalty
>speak of traitors in the more ideological sense
While the constitution should have added "in their capacity to make war" or something, I gather the intent in defining treason was to prevent people being executed for wrong-think.  I suppose the right wing is just using hyperbole, though.  Executing people in hyperbole is acceptable.

I don't think it's a valid political position of either party to have prejudice against protected minorities.  Other kinds of minorities may be hated, yes.


I suppose to you the left wing reaction to the January 6th protest just it didn't happen, then?


File: 1638792229941.jpg (21.52 KB, 500x261, 500:261, 9b35280744059c374c7e9dd6cd….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I hate that for weight concerns you get referred to a dietician charging 100 dollars per session just to take your weight and tell you you need to eat more greens and less sugar.
Or you get referred to a personal coach where you pay to set up an exercise session and a step counter or get the advise to sign up for a gym membership that costs even more money.

I feel like you can get a lot more people motivated to watch their diet and exercises if there would be a promoted dedicated schedule to meals and exercise, freely available, trustworthy and adjustable to the needs (time consumption and low on expenses and if possible a little mindful of the comfort) for the individuals.

I would guess those are already readily available, but I haven't really seen anyone being forwarded to those.

Show that losing weight can be manageable, comfortable and still light on the finances. You could really tackle the issue with obesity that way.
14 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1639733840171.png (245.39 KB, 425x422, 425:422, is this another interventi….png) ImgOps Google

> Nutrition is very complicated.  
One of the extra reasons why I find dieting "hard". You think you found some food that is good for you and tastes great and then some article comes along to tell you that that food item is the worst and here's why.
All the more reason, I feel, to have ready access to a diet plan and/or exercise plan from a reliable source.

> or example, low-fat yogurt
I have always wondered what to do with creamy yoghurts like Greek yoghurt. I like the taste of its creaminess and I suppose if it doesn't taste sweet, it isn't completely enriched with added sugars. But the texture does tend to feel like it may not be totally okay.
I suppose that is the fat yoghurt vs low fat yoghurt debate.
I have been informed one time that in cooking cream you better pick soy / low fat variations over the fatter ones.


File: 1640681367313.jpg (66.05 KB, 192x218, 96:109, 8788.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It's one of those things where it gets harder to do the worse it is for you, which is unfortunate. Like, for me, I've kept myself in decent shape, I'm relatively active and fit, and my genetics so far have let me eat as much as I want without ever having to worry about getting fat, but there's people who put on weight a lot easier, obviously. As you put on weight, you become less inclined to work out, the less healthy you are, the more working out feels like a burden, and the more actual risk it poses to you. E.G. damage to your knees or having heart problems from over-exertion. So it's kindof of momentum problem.

And yes, there's scummy people who will prey on those looking to find solutions. Such, unfortunately, is life.

I wish more people had access to swimming. Swimming is a great way to work out if you're not in good shape. It's astronomically easier on the joints, it keeps you cool while you work out, it's a balanced workout, it's just great. Pools are expensive tho, and not everyone is in places where it's warm enough to do comfortable, so that's a real shame. Most important thing imho is just finding something that burns calories that you enjoy doing. Doesn't matter if it's not super efficient or whatever, the fact that you'll actually do it is the key.

There's some interesting new data about how gut biome effects cravings, too, which also leans into that vicious cycle. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-tell-their-hosts-what-to-eat/
The more you eat crap, the more you crave crap, but it can work the opposite way as well.

Ultimately, calories in, calories out for loosing weight. It's not that simple, obviously, but it's a very practical approach for the vast majority of people. Also eat better food.


File: 1640872826428.png (30.52 KB, 313x350, 313:350, Screenshot from 2021-12-30….png) ImgOps Google

Fortunately I burn a lot of calories.

Unfortunately, my diet is a lot of junk.  A few years ago I recorded everything I ate with MyFitnessPal and sodium was through the roof.  Sugar was pretty high, too.

I made some changes after that, but now I'm back to old habits.  Probably need to chart it again.  I find just having to record everything makes me make *slightly* smarter choices.  But it's hard to stick with it.

Sounds like maybe you're looking for something like a weight-loss mentor.  I'm not quite sure.  I do feel a bit overwhelmed when thinking about trying to eat healthy.  It's like, every food has someone who will tell you it's wrong.

When it comes to bringing salt down, I usually end up eating rice and beans, with some vegetables and low-sodium condiments.  Salt has no direct bearing on weight loss, so we have somewhat different goals, true.


File: 1640421295605.jpg (210 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Merry Christmas, Friendly Beasts of Townhall

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Next
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]