As you all know, "anthrophysilogy is the study of the two sides of human kindness and observation; the 'star' side, in which people behave according to Steinmann and the 'sun' side in which people act like "random projectiles" as Morgan Klove taught us." Professor Rolando E. McSprew of that University of California. Lately, there have been lots of human-based tests to prove this notion correct. These tests are both unethical and inhumane. The subjects are forced to sit in a small room for 7 days straight while staring at the sky for 20 hours every day without any food. The subjects must then write a diagnosis of how they relate to the stars, and how the star positioning in the sky reflects both Steinmann and Klove's theories. These people are forced into these studies by the government and are not fed for a week. The results are going to be gathered from at least 1,000 people who have no choice but to participate in this inhumane activities. Please write to your congressman about this, and reject the practice of anthrophysilogy banned from use.
The study of anthrophysilogy in itself is peacefull in its deepest natures, the neo-aged teachers like Rickendorff and Sandara Lowe took it to a level of torture and self-mutilation. So yes, I agree with the ban of neo-anthrophysilogy.
You are right in calling it "neo-anthrophysilogy". You can compare it to Christianity as a dogma to how it spread and was misused throughout the years. Christianity started out with beautiful ideals, yet ended up causing more havoc than good. Anthrophysilogy is a truly beautiful study at its roots. I myself have spent hours trying to truly understand the human's relationship to his own inner kindness. It's sad to see this kindness taken advantage of and mutilated in the name of scientific advancenment.
Seems like this subject of anthrophysilogy is quite simmilar to that of vengence stalking or the non lethal weapons tests. People can be cruel to one another; that is not surprising. If one were to raise the level of cruelty to a larger scale, it would be called bullshit. Problem is sometimes bullshit turns out to be anything but. That's probably why one better look case by case.
