Jump to content
Avant Labs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About plornive

  • Rank
  1. A new trite thread that now asks:

    I post regularly on elitefitness.com and occasionally on bodybuilding.com
  2. For the last few weeks, I have been living off of oatbran, apples, whey protein and one bison-cheese-burger (whole wheat bread, nonfat cheese, tomato) per day. Its really quick and almost as easy as shakes to me. Instant oats would make it even more convenient. I cook 6 bison (bufallo) patties on the weekend and pre-load some whole wheat bread with cheese and tomato. Pop it into the microwave for 30 seconds and it is very good and quick. It gives me enough filling whole food per day.
  3. I got very very lean once. Lost unnecessary amounts of muscle in the process. I think a better way to put it is that extreme and/or extended leanness is not good for me nuts. Anyone else have this?
  4. I want to add that my nuts get bigger when I bulk. This is an issue not considered enough by most people.
  5. Morality

    I have been thinking about this for the past few days. Since I am overloaded with work right now, I can't spend a lot of time explaining my thoughts, but here goes... I agreed with most of what you said. I want to clarify that I have respect for people with morals --- people with principles and social/nonsocial protocol. I understand why one person would have a lack of respect or disrespect for someone whom lacked these qualities. Being immoral may be unnatural and inorganic to humanity and society. It may be counterproductive to the obvious function of society. I think you may have initially been talking about the academic denial of the validity and/or existence of morality. I am talking about the denial of the universality of morality, *IN ACTION* and perhaps in thought, while acknowledging it's practicality and existence. Let me explain... I am just trying to figure out for myself why any individual should or should not necessarily come to a rational conclusion to be moral. While morality seems to be collectively advantageous, it does not seem to always be individually advantageous. It seems practical to move in and out of morality at will --- to be somewhat "flaky", if you will. It seems practical to view morality as a device or method to be used when practical. This takes universality out of it and replaces it with generality. This paradigm could support the total rejection of universality, *in theory*. To be honest, I am not really debating or arguing with you --- I'm mainly looking for insight. How do you view people who are relatively immoral, or people who lack morals? It seems perfectly rational to reject morals at will and replace it with pure self-interest (including self-interest that coincides with morality). I ask this again in a different context, and I am looking for insight rather than debating: What more is the rejection of morality than just playing by different rules? I hope I interpreted your reply accurately.
  6. Morality

    I'm confused by what you mean exactly, but I will attempt to comment. I regard morality as an invention of living creatures. Therefore, while a system of morality may be universally defined, it is only relevant to those who subscribe to it. For example, defining morality as something that works for the common good of society is just an idea. Some people may not subscribe to that idea --- this has nothing to do with dismissal and everything to do with preference. I wonder why anyone would believe that morality is anything more than a practical idea. Not subscribing to a particular moral idea may simply be preference. Choosing to not subscribe to all moral ideas may just be choosing pragmatism over universalism --- while morals are obviously practical in some regards, not everyone wants to be practical in those regards. Some people feel constricted by universal morality. Some people derive more benefit by being immoral according to an idea of universal morality. So, what is "dismissal"? Are people who "dismiss" universal morality unintelligent? Are they absolutely wrong? Or, do they simply play by different rules?
  7. Morality

    Many of the philosophical questions on this board seem to revolve around morality. Many times, it is apparent that peoples' opions differ almost exclusively as a result of conflicting moral suppositions. So... Morality. What is it? How does it work? I'll start. I believe that morality is a set of social and biological forces that influences how we interact as social creatures and keeps us working together efficiently. Monkeys, birds and humans are all born with social emotions and possibly morals. A child may be taught that it would be wrong to kill his/her mother, but this moral idea also seems to be biologically innate. Generally, I believe that people are happier when they follow the moral ideas given to them by society and biology. A certain level of immorality and/or redefining of morals to one's mind/opinion/liking is also probably very healthy. Religion, law and popular culture are all either influenced or controlled by morality. Religion, in my opinion, is a tool of morality. Religion encapsulates, solidifies and enforces morality. As indicated above, morality includes the solidification of society --- conformity. Religion may also divide as well as conform people. Law is another method of keeping people in line. Law is not completely inclusive of others' ideas of morality, but is simply one component of mine. Since it keeps society together in a way, it is morality. Popular culture propagates values and conforms people similarly to religion. On an international level, as stated in another post regarding violence, I believe that morals are propagated and defined by force and power. Morality is just a hindsight explanation and/or justification of events.
  8. Is violence never the answer? Say's who?

    On a societal level, windwords7, I can't think of a practical way to allow any form of violence in settling disputes. One key reason not to allow this is that the accused are supposed to be presumed not-guilty until proven guilty. This is an important and practical feature of our legal system in the US. In my opinion, only in cases of short-term necessity should violence be allowed. An example is self-defence. That being said, I may break the law to further my own interests. Law does not necessarily mirror society's or my own moral code --- it is a tool to keep society in order in my opinion. Additionally, I reserve the moral right to tell others to live within boundaries I exceed. This is a system of confidence and thresholds, and my incursions will not disturb this system. This may sound arrogant or cheap but it seems to be the rule more than the exception. On an international level, I believe that force creates, shapes and changes morals within boundaries. Western, and especially US, values trump asian, muslim, african morals on an international level. When Pearl Harbor was bombed, the US was pissed at Japan for not abiding by their morals of warfare. If the US does not abide by others' morals, no one can do anything about it. I believe that violence is necessary for most nations to be successful (prosperous, healthy, wealthy, etc.). Within boundaries, morality is interpreted, changed or created to support the action of financially powerful nations. In this case, the question of whether violence is moral or not is irrelevant in my system of belief. The "boundaries" that I speak of above probably arise for a number of reasons. Many morals are fairly static. Many are controlled by the so-called moral "fabric" of society. Many have been put into the time-capsules of religion.
  9. Non scheduled drugs

    Is liquidex scheduled?
  10. Another Trite Thread That Now Asks:

    Techno (trance, goa, Ass 'n Titties style house), death metal, rap in the car sometimes, and I can play jazz with my sax but don't enjoy listening to it or playing it anymore.
  11. Name Origins

    Plornive: The name of my character in a role playing game. He was an insane English vampire with the powers of invisibility and black tentacles. He kicked ass so I kept the name.
  12. The police state that is the good 'ol USA

    This helps to solidify my belief that reasoned arguments have no place in politics.
  13. Cheat Meals / Cheat Days / Refeeds

    I am using nicotine right now. It really seems to help. I am also NOT doing any refeeds. I try to eat enough carbohydrates to support my lifting on a DAY to DAY basis. I'm making more progress this way than doing a more extreme caloric deficit and having a carb-up day.
  14. transport cells

    I have thought of that. There is one that not only decreases insulin sensitivity, it also causes apoptosis of adipose cells. The only problem would be that it would have some negative effects in muscle tissue, so one would have to be careful with the dosing. And what substance is this? Is the insulin resistance local if applied transdermally?
  15. leptigen question

    I don't know, but bromocriptine simulates a subset of the results of leptin expression, which is useful for people who are leptin resistant.