Nahfets

Also a ruptured dantien is not unlikely if you practice a lot of Taoist training and keep on bating 

You are right but I'm not agreeing to comparing the subtle energy vampirism that happens between lower functional humans to what is going on with the subversive groups who works in cahoots with these demons to sexualize and prey upon the people on Earth. In ancient times these creatures got sent far far away, now they run rampant and are symbiotic with certain demonic worthshippers I don't dare name here due to the shear smokescreens and lies that have been intertwined into our culture these past centuries. 

Bacopa extract (brahmi) lowers sexual arousal, tongkat ali extract (pasak bumi) increases arousal. 

Also if you know any tricks to banish or get rid of a succubus they'd be welcome. I actually saw the one taunting me in an OBE as it thought I was about to start masturbation, it was black figure and felt very not friendly let me say that, dripping with the blackest ooze all over climbing the walls like a demon when it realized I spotted it and was astral projecting. Had to fight it to get back into my body. And it felt like it could affect even my dreams but also able to manipulate me psychologically and definitely not felt like a friend or passively evil. A very corrupt energy at the least. 

.

On 22.2.2023 at 4:40 PM, Taomeow said:

If anything is proff that big energy is one big scam it is the fact that they could easily setup hydrolysis hydrogen generating plant's on major vulcanic islands using the heat from the bedrock/vulcano to fuel cargo ships sailing on the routes CO2 free . 

This is the kind of joke that someone is laughing at albe it not I 

On 10.2.2023 at 8:52 PM, Nungali said:

 

No, I am refuting your claims of  ancient unknown vegetarian religion . Not asteroid impacts . You seem to be having trouble focusing on  your own subject matter here .

 

 

 

I would if written words made sound .  What I wrote was that average Earth temperatures went down ....  it was YOU refuting that all of the Earth was not frozen over . Now you have somehow morphed that into refuting a claim I never made about all of the Earth turning into Tundra .

 

( I know these types ; build a straw man attack it, make a pathetic unconnected argument and when shown to be wrong - off they go in a huff 'refusing to talk to you ' anymore   

 

 

 

 

Yep, there he goes .

 

Bye -bye .

 

 

 

I know there is a crater there . They are all over the place .  The one you linked to is old ;  "  age estimates for the new crater might be more like a hundred thousand to a hundred million years old. "   

 

No doubt they had a 100,000,000 year old vegetarian religion too !

I said all of Earth wasn't covered in tundra. You replied NO temperatures went down. I said this doesn't mean this happened then you blame me for making a strawman because you again tried to backtrack on your arguments. 

I said civilization is much older and were much more compassionate than now many of which I presume like you see the spiritual liniages in India and China today, were most like also vegan or vegetarian. One can only guess though, but refuting the evidence from all over the world from long skulls to meteor impact just makes you sound foolish really.

No the crater is not that old carbon dating in layers around shows nanodiamonds from around 12800 Years ago, the new one they found might be older hard to say but the one we're discussing is not that old.

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agpalilik

https://www.science.org/content/article/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans

You're dragging this on into the embarrassing 

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

No , world wide average temps went down .   Now you are going to claim 'science quakery' on that , arn't you ?

 

Isnt it 'curious' that on the one hand you cite science  ( actually  " our scientist  " .... ?  one assumes your 'home town' has its own scientist   )  lidar and NASA when it backs up your prejudices ... yet if it doesnt it automatically becomes  invalid and  "  doesn't suit their paradigm and most of them are afraid of their own precious careers to have a shread of decency  "  .... except for 'your scientist ' .

 

I dont suppose you realize how ridiculous that sounds to everyone else except you ?

 

 

 

.

You still refute the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs then alongside your fellow creationist as this is the kind of arguments they used to shun the new science back then too?

Because temperatures went down 12.800 Years ago it doesn't mean all of Earth was made into a tundra, listen to what you actually wrote. 

This amount of ignorance this subject has brought up, is just too much for me to spend my energy dealing with. The evidence is there, time will tell. 

https://astronomy.com/news/2019/02/theres-a-second-impact-crater-under-greenland

The asteroid is called Agpalilik in Greenlandic

48 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

The Younger Dryas comet catastrophe hypothesis, for those who accept it, actually speculates that it wiped out some Ice Age societies.  "Controversial" authors like Graham Hancock do go so far as to assert it destroyed an Ice Age civilization in North America.  While that's not impossible, I would really like to know what vegetarians may have eaten during an Ice Age which, for better or for worse, lasted for most of the last 400 000 years before the recent (indeed about 12 000 years young) warming.  So most of the last 400 000 years of our species' history (minus the most recent and evolutionally insignificant % of that time) were spent under conditions similar to, or more severe than, what the remaining reindeer herders in the tundra still live under today.  I suggest you inquire into what they eat. 

(Hint: not bananas.)  

 

 

You call it a hypothesis, we have the actual meteor on display in my hometown and our scientist has used lidar alongside NASA to uncover the crater beneath the ice. 

It is not a hypothesis it is scientific quackery and denial that is rampant in big academia today my friend.. 

Not only this they have shunned and ignored the people doing actual science and DNA screening on the longskulls because it doesn't suit their paradigm and most of them are afraid of their own precious careers to have a shread of decency. 

And no all of the planet wasn't covered in climates like the tundras why would you think that.

Iceacges don't mean all continents and places are cold it just means expansion of the polar sheets

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Back in what day and in what religion ?

 

PIE religions and  Siberian shamanism are the source of most religions today ; both where herders originally and, of course , ate what they herded .  Moving along with   what religions came out of these sources :

 

Zoroastrianism ;  herders and meat eaters , although they made legislation for animal reforms / treatment . They heavily influenced  Judasim, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i - all meat eaters the other branch developed Vedic religion, meat eaters until much later in their history and only some of them  .  The other stream ; reformed Bon , meat eaters .  Buddhists ?  some vego some meat eaters .

 

Then there is the far eastern stream ; Shinto, Confucianism , Taoism .... vego ?

 

So : Back in what day and in what religion ?

 

 

 

 

Civilization is much older than we're taught. it rebooted after the meteor struck 12.800 Years ago and after that the longskulls started to become hunted and murdered in most areas where they settled although they did manage to start some of their civilization again in places like egypt but most got lost so it was a shadow of what it used to be. 

This is just a fraction of the story of course much more are coming to light still. Even some pointing to advanced civilization dating back 100.000-300.000 Years ago even. 

We know very little about these periods and the cataclysms that shaped how we live today, but acting like reindeer hearders and goatherders were the source of our knowledge and history is ignorant of our actual past. 

There are several angles we can approach this argument from.

1. Difference between intentional and unintentional harm:

Vegans don't demand products that inherently involve violence (i.e. there are ways to source vegan foods without violence and exploitation, while non-vegans foods absolutely must involve violence and exploitation in some way).

2. Veganism minimises crop deaths:
While vegans absolutely should acknowledge that their lifestyles do cause harm, the solution to the practical solution to the problem of animals dying in crop harvesting is not to consume a diet that requires around 10 times more crops (due to the crops used to raised livestock) and maximises land usage, and then on top of that support the largest act of systematic oppression and violence in the history of this planet (2 billion animals murdered every single week via the meat, dairy, egg, leather, wool, and fish industries). There are also a lot of myths that go around that suggest vegans are actually responsible for more animal deaths than meat eaters. The Flaming Vegan debunks this myth excellently, using credible resources, in an article you can read here.

3. The farms of the world are run by non-vegans:
Anything to do with farming, currently, will have some form of harm involved, because of this Carnist food system we live under. If vegans ran the farms of the world, which will happen if we strive towards a vegan world, such practices as pesticide use and shooting "pests" will be eliminated entirely.

4. A certain amount of harm will inevitably be caused in order to maintain civilisation:
Unfortunately, whatever we do as humans to build an even half-decent and functioning society, there will ultimately be some collateral damage as a result of that. For example, we support the construction industry, despite the fact this causes guaranteed deaths every year. Essentially, telling a vegan their actions are as bad as a non-vegan's because of crop deaths, would be like telling someone who lives in a house that their actions are as bad as someone who pays a hitman to murder people, simply because construction is extremely dangerous results in guaranteed deaths every single year.

2 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

 

 

They pretty much have. Incase you didnt notice. Your view is one that doesn't seem to be supported

 

No surprises there though

 

48 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Nahfets,

 

This is where most of these threads go, with someone claiming moral superiority.  You say you aren't judgmental but clearly you have a problem with people who have made different dietary choices than yourself.  You think your way is better.  I have no issue with people who make a decision not to eat animals for ethical, health, or any other reasons.  Do as you please.  I'll wager that most vegetarians are quietly respectful of others but a vocal minority try to tell other people what to do.  Please don't poke me in the eye, metaphorically speaking, with your carrot.

 

Thanks,

LL

Interesting how sustainability and preservation of nature and leaving a better planet for the next generations are left out of the argument. I'm not claiming moral superiority on the contrary, I know these things are a process on planatery levels. On the other hand my patience for listening to the same sinister groups keep fabricating new arguments to arm the hoards of people who are not willing to change their behavior for the planet nor for the animals, has dried up. And I'm addressing the arguments made and also trying to point to this being a major discussion on a global level about preserving the planet actually, and it's getting pretty dim tbh when you look at the imprints right now. 

Actually most religions back in the day supported veganism or vegetarianism tbh. although most of which has been watered down. You're being rather defensive and claiming that I act cultish now, when pointing out the obvious thing that people who call themselves animal lovers and refute to stop harming animals and acts aggressive at vegans just for doing their thing, is about unconscious shame and cognitive dissonance. Because it is, and has nothing to do with the millions of compassionate vegans and vegetarians around the world that have fought for animal rights and environmental issues for a long time now. Dismissing their points just because you've met some radical vegans is again just pointing to your own need to keep up your logical fallacy. 

You are really acting very childish now and lowering the bar for engaging is this discussion by a degree which I will not partake in as my point in refuting the wishful thinking and poor arguments have been made now for further readers of the thread to make up their own minds, not based on the meat industry's propaganda you are regurgitating. 

I used to get sick too but then I realized that I needed to learn about medicines. Most Eastern liniages made a big deal of making elixirs and Ayurvedic blends for engaging in the inner arts as this would help their system adapt and heal while they were putting in the work of increasing vibration and learning the techniques.

Our medicinal profession has been compromised in most of the West though, so we're not being told about how to do this, and doctors even in my country are often warning about supplements that are not harmful at all, while ignoring the countless issues from interactions and organ failure from their own medications. 

This is also why I've made the thread about using healing medicines as I know many have been kept in the dark about these things.

This is an interesting video on how deep the corruption runs:

35 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

The point was about doing the least harm

 

Things die so you can live. Every plant you farm, things die, and a lot of them.

 

If you've not conformed to a standard where nothing dies, you really aren't doing the least harm

 

 

No I am making the point things die so you can live.

 

That is all I said, and I am really not concerned about the "degree" when someone pretends to be about doing the least harm, yet takes shortcuts that suit them.

 

You can choose to go and forage and do the  "least harm" if you wanted to.

 

You choose not to do so.

 

You do what is convenient for you because it suits you, and then judge others because it doesn't conform to your level of "convenience". It reads as rather narcissistic  to be perfectly honest

 

That's basically the entire position you've taken, and the same one most vegans take who feel the need to lecture others take

 

 

The mental gymnastics are very clearly laid out as above

 

 

I really don't mind to be perfectly honest. It is a tangential point

 

 

Industry doesn't survive for such reasons. Industry is built on demand and supply.

 

If you truly wanted to reduce harm to as little as possible, you would promote the reduction the population so actual demand for all food products decreases.

 

You would also forage and not use any farmed products at all unless you farmed them yourself in the way you mentioned so that you knew no harm was being done

 

But of course people deflect from the point, typically because as above, it is inconvenient to suggest something like don't have sex untethered, and its even more inconvenient not to have all the things you like easily available and accessible 

 

 

There are plenty of militant vegans, just as there are militant Christians.

 

NONE of this behaviour heightens anything, it devolves into mud slinging and the usual crap you see (Like projecting guilt onto people, and attempting to instill it in them,  even when its not there. That's actually a shared characteristic of both) 

 

FYI you are coming across as extremely judgemental, to the point you are assuming automatic guilt on people who feel no such guilt.

 

Everyone is entitled to set their own standards and have no need to conform to yours because you want to sit on some pseudo ethical pedestal

 

 

The animals want to befriend us at ANY GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE?

 

 

How friendly...

 

 

If I had guilt over this maybe, but I do not. Please do not fabricate lies about me.

 

Understanding psychological mechanisms to the degree I do, I am beyond cultish tactics thankfully. 

 

 

Ah the vegan propaganda, of course (vegan bodybuilding no less!!) 

 

Well you see there's actually an entire branch of science dedicated to this topic,  and its fairly well established plants are not only sentient and conscious, but even have senses

 

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/plant-senses/

 

Summary of some of the things mentioned above from the other article

 

 

But ok, continue reading the vegan propaganda and ignoring the actual science related to the topic, as long as it helps reinforce the worldview that you conform to (even if it is rife with fallacy) 

 

The issue is assuming that consciousness is generated by biological structures, which by all accounts is a fabricated lie, and anyone willing to look at the evidence knows this to be the case.

 

Expressions of consciousness are dimensional, not categorical

 

 

By all means conform to the standards as mentioned above then

 

Forage everything and anything else grow and farm it yourself to do the least harm in accordance with the standard you set. And I wish you godspeed in having a productive live in todays world whilst doing so  

 

See, little to no vegans actually do that.

 

So its not about doing the least harm. It is about doing as little harm as you want to do, and in most case,  pretending that is the benchmark for doing the least harm

 

Everything appears that way with veganism, but as soon as you prod or poke, the entire premise of "do the least harm"  cracks and crumbles when you expose the reality of the situation.

 

Come back down to the premise of "do as little harm as you personally feel comfortable with" and then a reasonable conversation can be had, but that requires many of the people aforementioned to come down off that pseudo ethical pedestal they put themselves on

You are grasping. Being perfect in one sweep is not the objective, just like cultivation it is about gradually returning to compassion and reducing ones imprint of suffering. 

You call it vegan propaganda while you refuse to acknowledge that big agro and the industry is probably the one who are most actively doing propaganda in this field and subject of discussion.

All the major spiritual liniages talks about not eating meat and reducing suffering but hey I suppose they are all wrong because a few studies that haven't been able to reproduce shows that plants are just just animals. 

They are not. 

Using chemicals to show a chemical reaction in plants doesn't show a nervoussystem or noiceptor reactivity on the contrary it is showing that plants react to chemicals like fungi or minerals only in a more intricate system. 

You are saying you are refusing to debate this issue without coming from a perspective of some sort of omniscient entity that does no harm, as a justification of ignoring the suffering taking place in the foodchain right now. If you really care so much about plants and their feelings you should go vegan as more plants are being used to farm and feed animals than to produce the vegans food. But the argument you're using only applies to others I suppose? 

Then you resort to showing one instance of a cow resting being shocked and kicking while ignoring the pleatora of contrary

evidence proving my point that animals are loving creatures who love us way more than we deserve. 

Being on a pseudo peadestal of ethics is projection as people get defensive when you actually propose that we should be more compassionate both for the animals but also for the climate. 

When you really disect the discussion you find that most unreasonable anger and moral highground is being taken from the standpoint you're defending actually. Most vegans aren't angry and full of feelings of moral superiority but is very constructive in their critisisms and proposals, but then the industry and people full of anger and shame find that one vegan who is radical and uses them as an example as to why they should ignore all vegans. It is a very old dynamic when things change, and draws many parallels to the discussions had when slavery was about to become outlawed when you really know history

Here's a clip showing how they even protect us at any given instant too. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ogpb2nOuI

15 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Well its really about acknowledging the truth

 

Whether you are a vegan or an carnivore, things die so you can live

 

If one doesn't like it,  I guess they could go foraging and see how long they last on that.

 

Interesting experiment. Have you ever tried it? 

 

 

Magic wands dont exist sadly (what fun they would be though right  ) , and I've yet to see a trend in the carnivorous or omnivorous community where a position self proclaimed ethical superiority was taken

 

Then again, there isnt as much propaganda surrounding it, so, that might be a factor 

 

 

Suffering is inherent. Its more important to ask why that it is to say it shouldn't be. The latter is common sense, but tells us nothing about how to reduce it.

 

 

Acknowledging the suffering and feeling guilt and shame are not related.

 

I acknowledge the suffering and I feel no guilt or shame. I'm very aware of it.

 

Do you acknowledge the suffering and feel guilt and shame for all the bugs that were crushed for your food? 

 

 

No it addresses the elephant in the room that  a life is a life and to overlook that fact is to live in denial to support ones perception of their own moral standing

 

The bug that gets squished while digging up you vegetable has the same worth as a life that gets ended when a cow gets slaughtered.

 

Either way a life is lost so you can eat. There is no way to get away from this fact.

 

By the way, plants are sentient too

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/202209/the-inner-lives-plants-cognition-sentience-and-ethics

 

I wonder if the militant vegans knew this, would they recoil at their salad in disgust, now viewing it as some kind of dismembered collection of plant carcasses?  

 

 

Yep my uncle runs a biodynamic  organic garden, no animals at all are killed.

 

I've seen it, I've participated, eaten the food from there, its great. He's not a vegan either, he's just mindful

 

Heres' the problem, its not scalable to to global population with the current distribution of resources and wealth

 

Now its not an ethical problem, its something else (business, economics and politics) 

 

So before you even begin to talk about ethics, you'll need to figure that one out

 

And about this point, is where all the idealistic thinking starts to fall apart, because you soon realize while it is great in theory, it will never work in practice as long as the world is the way it is

 

 

I think people are just stating the obvious to be honest

 

Here's an honest suggestion . We can all keep it in our pants as a species.

 

Less procreation = less demand, and with less demand industries start to wither.

 

If the industry is the issue, and the industry survives by demand, then decreases the demand.

 

Simple right? 

 

Ive yet to see any reasonable suggestions from anyone taking this position here

First of all the amount of animals killed are far greater from meat eaters due to not only the farm animals themselves but also the major devastation from fields grown to feed the animals. This you seem to avoid addressing while going at vegans killing insects while it's actually meat eaters who are the ones responsible for most of the insect killing. 

The reason this is still in effect is because people use such mental gymnastics to avoid tackling the issue of both reducing suffering as well as reducing climate impact of the food. 

How much fresh water do you think is used on crops versus farmed animals plus the food they consume?

Industry survives like evil does because good men and women do nothing. 

I'm not judgemental here, although your arguments like calling it militant vegans are bordering on projections and I do know that this is a process of hightening the vibration of the planet as a whole. 

All the while there's no going about it, the way we treat animals who only wan't to befriend us at any given circumstance is mirrored by our own fates in the longrun so this is just as much an issue of healing for all of us not only saving the animals. 

Plants have feelings too is just again blaming me for your own guilt again, plant's are very little sentient maybe but there is something called symbiotic relationship and predatory relationship and what we're perpetuating right now i beyond predatory. Plants have different strategies as to help us with medicines and useful nutrients if you really wan't to get nerdy about it read this: 

https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/plants-have-feelings-though

Plants are different to animals. Plants aren't sentient - they have no brain, no nerves, no central nervous system, and they have no ability to feel 'pain' or react in a conscious way.

Plants can react to vibrations and chemical stimulus, but this isn't a conscious act, it's autonomic. However, we do know that birds, mammals and fish have well-developed nervous systems and pain receptors. Like us, they show pleasure and pain and they present comparable evidence of fear and well-being. Animals cry out in pain, they nurse wounded body parts, and they seek to avoid those who have hurt them in the past.

Veganism is about doing the least harm. it's a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation to animals.

And if you do genuinely care about plants, realise that it still takes around 4lbs to 16lbs of plants to make just 1lb of meat, so vegans still consume less plants overall anyway.

And I respectfully disagree.  This is about the lessor of two evils and a slow progression towards sustainability. Not about waving a magic wand and pretending to be perfectly ethically superior. Or on the contrary going for arguments against the reasonable standpoint that we should create as little suffering as possible. 

Acknowledging the suffering from farm animals and big agricultural devastation here many feel guilt and shame and the thought of being the one to break a family cycle of depending on meat, is for many too much. Thus this argument that planting a field kills more which is the same as saying just give up there's no ethical way of doing it, appeals as a shelter for the guilt of not being in compassion and fighting for the rights of other sentient beings. 

There's tons of projects trying to spread bio-dynamic and organic way of planting in coorperation with nature alongside the insects etc. This is being made by the same people who tried to reason with the establishment in the 60's-80's about environmental issues. Again people are diverting blame and going for the lower hanging fruit of critique the perfection instead of actually being productive about it and trying to come up with solutions and helping out the billions of beings caught in slavery and daily hell. 

This is not coming from a position of moral highground this is just pointing out that this is not a cycle that is helping out humanity in any ways it only sees to further our own destruction. 

Edit: Also the farmland used intensively to produce fodder to the farmed animals is way out of proportion compared to the land that would be used to produce the same amount of plantbased food. Ergo this approach kills substantially more animals and also creates way more suffering for the enclosed animals too. 

Stuff like vitamin b6 and b12 can be easily produced from yeast and aminoacids is super easy and cheap to produce largescale also. 

32 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Vegans, for whatever reason seem to gloss over this point. 

Mental gymnastics this argument. 

Do you really think that a biodiverse grown field of organic grains creates less suffering from the few insects that die while harvesting?

We're not talking big agro's way of growing shit now, we're talking proper soil managment and actual organic fields with flowers grown on the side of each field to help with biodiversity excatly for the insects. These things are being done in many places, often by vegans who have been calling for compassion and sustainability for decades even before it got so hyped. 

People like to avoid the shame of contributing to factory farming, this is nothing new, but do go ahead and watch the trailer for Dominion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9NiOwibz14  the full movie is also free on YT.

Using arguments such as farming kills insects and thus factory farming is even stevens is just delusional when you know what is actually going on. You can't apply perfectionism to all vegans as an excuse for dismissing their objective. (You're still killing a bunch of bugs thus veganism is debunked) it's sort of not the argument we should expect from grownups really. 

13 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

That's why I don't want it. ;-) I want just enough to satisfy myself that chi projection exists.

Stop looking start practicing

This is sorta where we're at, and yet told to stop worrying about it. 

29 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

And so we divide ourselves up into easily controlled factions.  If you're not a sufficiently ardent supporter of my pet cause you're the enemy -- or so we're led to believe.  To me this is the opposite of pluralism.  It's the opposite of diversity and the end of freedom.  

This is very well put.

And exactly the black rights movement has too been exploited to the same means as to keep the divide and maintain status quo. Look at what kind of hiphop music is pushed now a days, materilistic and sexualized content which only become shown in the statistics as to who buys more useless crap and still feels like shit. You guessed it black youths. 

Manufacturing anger is a good way of putting it as people are guided to keep the smokescreen up for these people to hide their dealings under as well as keep perpetuating the surpressing of vulnerable groups. Often themselves

.

16 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I'm trying but I think I have a hard time following your meeting. Could you give a more specific example?

It is a political move that makes sure the population stays divided instead of applying pressure on the rulers at be. They pride themselves with borrowed/stolen feathers of tolerance while their objective is really about turning people against eachother so no real social movements will spout. Social movements that otherwise try to end the systemic violence towards minorities through poverty traps, or wars on nations due to oil and geopolitics. 

They did the same in Southamerica to stifle first nation rioting and now they're doing it again to divert attention and divide the public and try to dominate what constitutes tolerance and freedom in the mind of the next generation.

I sincerely feel sorry for the people who's issue has been highjacked by these people for their dirty games this should not be allowed in any way is sort of my point and clearly it's working to manifest the dichotomy of American politics in the minds of youth all around the world at the moment who yell at eachother instead of mobilize their efforts to reform the system. 

We're seing these meassures because they had expectations that riots will form if they don't manipulate this group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SIqLAR5M08