Vegetarianism

[doc benway]

6 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Yes!  Some animals are raised in vastly better conditions than others.  Apart from the vegetarian route, those who want to practice compassion might choose to eat animals that lived in good conditions -- outside in the sunshine, eating species appropriate feed, etc. 

 

I try to do this when sourcing eggs as well. One issue in the US is that one really can’t believe what is claimed on packaging. There does not seem to be any oversight or accountability, just bribery…

[doc benway]

@Barnaby

Another caveat I’ll mention.

My teacher is vegetarian but cautions that we shouldn’t get too attached to anything, even abstinence. So when we have a tsok during retreats (ritual banquet), we are always offered a wide variety of food and drink, including some meat, cheese, and wine.

[EFreethought]

52 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

@liminal_luke sorry couldn't help myself  (I actually drink soya milk because dairy hates me  but this is still funny  ) 

 

I have always been a heavy milk drinker. In college I would sometimes drink a gallon a day when I was working out a lot. A lot of people thought I ate a lot of meat.

 

I have tried these milks based on nuts (almond, I think walnut, maybe another), and to me they taste like the nuts in liquid form. I could never finish a carton.

 

I was able to drink some vanilla-flavored oat milk, but then I read the label and it said there was a lot of sugar, so I went back to dairy. If other people like the other kind of milks, good for them.

 

My brother and sister are both lactose intolerant.

 

[Shadow_self]

20 minutes ago, EFreethought said:

 

I have always been a heavy milk drinker. In college I would sometimes drink a gallon a day when I was working out a lot. A lot of people thought I ate a lot of meat.

 

I think a lot of people use dairy as a source of workout fuel. I used to before it began to kick my ass  

 

 

20 minutes ago, EFreethought said:

I have tried these milks based on nuts (almond, I think walnut, maybe another), and to me they taste like the nuts in liquid form. I could never finish a carton.

 

[iinatti]

18 hours ago, steve said:

About 10 years ago my spouse and I made the decision to stop eating animals and birds.

 

Hard being a vegetarian without support from your partner / friends.   Having to make two meals every dinner can be a source of friction.  Going out is equally hard.  Business lunches can also be awkward.    

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by iinatti

[Lairg]

 

Where I currently live it is commonly felt that "country killed" meat is better than abattoir meat.  This may be because the animal is not terrified during the days before it is killed.  Fear hormones may be relatively similar across warm-blooded animals and thereby affect the humans through consumption.

 

I became a non-meat eater because I thought that meat was too expensive.  These days I think that there were other reasons.

 

One of ethical difficulties is eating animals that aspire to be as humans spiritually.  Dogs, cats, horses and elephants are often given as examples.   Certainly some of the old ladies living near me tell me that their dogs think that they are humans too.  There may be some karmic issues in eating our junior brethren.

 

Plants can get unhappy too.    One time the woman next door was heavily pruning a bush but the bush was not upset.  So I asked the woman what was happening.  She said that you need to talk to the plant as to a child - explaining what is happening and why.

 

Generally the group souls of animals and plants understand that humans have needs (even if distorted) and will not object to respectful and moderate consumption of their members.

 

Insects are a bit tricky.   Killing ants often produces an emotional blow-back but killing flies apparently never does.  I have checked this with various sensitive humans.  I need to investigate further.

 

The objective of this solar system seems to be right relationship.  Even apparently inanimate objects need respect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Lairg

[Nintendao]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

the bush was not upset

how could you tell?

Edited February 7, 2023 by Nintendao

[Kojiro]

From a moral standpoint I also feel vegetarianism is the best option, so as to not kill living beings in order to feed yourself. But from a nutritional point of view, I believe it is not the best option. Human beings can eat all kind of food: grains, veggies, fruits, meat, fish, etc. All this food can be nourishing if eaten properly and in moderation.

[Nahfets]

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.

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Nahfets

[Shadow_self]

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

 

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.

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

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

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

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

The mental gymnastics are very clearly laid out as above

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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

 

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

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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

 

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 

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

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

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

The animals want to befriend us at ANY GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE?

 

 

How friendly...

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

Plants have feelings too is just again blaming me for your own guilt again,

 

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. 

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

 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

 

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

 

Quote

Here is a summary of some research covered by Ms. Lawrence.

 

Plants are susceptible to anesthesia; lidocaine applied to roots works well to knock out plants.

 

Plants have social lives; they communicate with each other, react to what's happening to them and around them, and interact with other species including nonhuman animals (animals). For example, chemicals released by tomato plants encourage caterpillars to cannibalize one another.

 

Plants display cognition—flexible and goal-directed behavior. When climbing a pole, a clever bean makes "broad, circular sweeps of their surroundings, growing as they go. As they home in on a pole, some beans will suddenly lunge towards it like a drunken pub-goer taking a swing at someone. It is a rapid, directed change in behavior. This suggests the plant isn’t simply running a pre-programmed pole-seeking sequence." Researcher Paco Calvo who works at the Minimal Intelligence Laboratory at the University of Murcia in Spain, suggests this might show that the bean knows the pole is there but he cautions we need more research. He and his colleagues have shown that lunging by beans is accompanied by spikes in electrical activity, hinting at a possible "level of sentience" by brainless plants.

 

Plants may be conscious. Calvo believes the flexible behavior displayed by plants suggests that they may have "unique, subjective experiences." When the ways in which plants grow are combined with the fact they have electrical signaling, it's reasonable to posit they have some type of consciousness, possibly explained by what's called integrated information theory. This theory views consciousness as the capacity to integrate different aspects of experience into a whole.

Plants can learn and remember. One study showed plants can learn to grow toward a breeze, sort of like Pavlovian conditioning shown by dogs. However, there is a good deal of debate about how robust these data are because of failures to replicate the findings. 

 

Plants have personalities. Based on "genetic hardwiring and behavioral flexibility," individual violets can be labeled bold or cautious depending on how long they fold their leaves after being touched.

 

Domesticated plants tend to be "less canny and independent" than wild relatives. Lawrence writes, "Wild vines, for example, can scour their surroundings for something to climb and rapidly scale up it. In contrast, domesticated vines flounder unless they have trellises or poles placed next to them. You might think of them as the pampered lapdogs of the plant world." When domestic plants go wild, they behave more like wild members of their species. (Domesticated animals tend to be more docile than their wild relatives.)

 

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

 

26 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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.

 

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

[Nahfets]

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

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Nahfets

[Nahfets]

 

[C T]

I've known a few vegans over the years. Even lived with one for a decade or so. Most of the others I'd befriended when living in Buddhist communes and retreat centres. We get along amicably, and I deeply enjoy vegan meals when dining out with my ex. 

 

Some of the fellow vegan members of the communities I spent time in do full time solitary retreats, meaning they live isolated from the rest, doing their respective practices from like 4am to about 9pm daily. Some of them unfortunately get quite ill at times, mainly because they picked up hepatitis while on pilgrimages, mostly to India and the general Himalayan regions. 

 

Somehow, whenever their illnesses recur, their existing vegan diet could never provide sufficient nutrients to aid recovery. For most, only a period (daily intake over a week or two) consuming bone broth and liver helps in regaining some colour in their cheeks. 

 

They never consider it as a moral dilemma. It is what it is, they say. They add the issue arises mostly if we dwell on it and something festers, leading to a dukkha of subject/object split. This is an infinitely more problematic struggle than any dietary stance one chooses to adopt. Or naught. 

[Nahfets]

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:

 

[Shadow_self]

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

 

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. 

 

The whether one eliminates animal products, or simply reduces them you should have no problem, right? 

 

Seems like gradual reduction varies by individual, something most vegans arent happy with

 

Funny how the goalposts are shifting. Again (sigh) 

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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.

I dont refuse to acknowledge anything. I am quite aware of what propaganda is. I can suggest a rather lengthy book on the topic if you need insight

 

And all industries do it. I just find it rather odd you cant recognize it when you post it

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

Eh no, they do not. The Aghori eat dead human flesh, which is a level above animal

 

Pretty sure the bible talks about loaves and fishes, milk and honey and so forth

 

Some focus on it, others don't.

 

Jains are the ones that really prioritise it to be perfectly honest. And a vegan is not a Jain by any means. 

. 

Here is the problem with things like : "all" "least" . The are all polarized positions, black and white.

 

If you haven't noticed, the world is rather varying shades of grey

 

Nobody said plants were animals, please stop inventing strawman's and going into the realm of logical fallacy, its a very immature thing to do

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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.

 

I don't need to come at it from any angle, because I am not arguing anything except the hypocrisy.

 

I'm a person who believes reduction in whatever form a person themselves deems fit for their situation is perfectly fine

 

Im super aware of the suffering inherent in the food chain.

 

It doesn't change my position, nor does the stack of logical fallacies that are falling one after the other like dominos with each statement you make

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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? 

 

I never said I cared about the plants. Another strawman.

 

The argument I am making is rather straightforward.

 

The argument of consciousness and sentience does not apply, because evidence exists counter to it

 

Simple really

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

YOU SAID EVERY INSTANCE  

 

All I needed to do was provide one example to refute that

 

See I know animals can be loving. 

 

I am also not silly enough to think they always are. A common fallacy employed by vegans, but the evidence suggests otherwise

 

Are you shifting the goalposts again to "in most cases" now? You are very fond of that particular fallacy I noticed

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

No, I said that because you are projecting false guilt on others who dont (and shouldn't) feel any because you believe they should...that's the worst type of cult like manipulation.

 

They use guilt as a means to control, its a rather persistent tactic in the Dark Triad also.

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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.

 

I've no anger at all, to be perfectly honest I reduced my consumption of all things over time, to the point I eat less than I should as a grown man,

 

I think that's a far better strategy, care to argue that it isnt? 

 

However I find it utterly hilarious when vegans claim to be about the least harm possible, yet fail to acknowledge their lifestyle incurs significant harm to animals too. 

 

I also find it totally hilarious when someone claims to be primal, and buys all their food in a supermarket, instead of running around naked, unshaved chasing an animal with a poorly made spear, having not eaten for several days

 

So don't worry, its not just vegans I find funny, it is all the polarised people   

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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.

 

I know plenty of people who are animal lovers that believe anyone doing anything to reduce harm is doing their part and its more than acceptable. I tend to listen to those folk, who are rather reasonable, rational and logical

 

I tend not to listen to people who preach, proselytize and employ all manner of cult like tactics to reach deep into peoples psyche's and try to manipulate them via emotion. A large majority of the vegan population fall into that category

 

And veganism is very radical. It excludes all animal products. In a world where these things are heavily embedded in society, it takes a polarizing stance (radical).

 

12 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

 

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

 

 

 

Nice video...You know whats not so nice? When animals attack humans. And it happens all the time

 

I will spare TDB from the rather unsettling videos. Here's a close miss where an eagle goes for a young girl but is caught in time before doing damage

 

 

 

Of course if someone wants to see what humans often suffer when interacting with animals, they could google that. Im sure its nothing anyone who hasn't got the blinkers on isn't already aware of of course.

 

There was a rather successful TV show in the 90s about it "When animals attack" if I recall

 

Please drop the rather untrue narrative that animals are these loving caring creatures.

 

The truth is, as  always is rather in the grey middle than the polarized black/white positions.

[Nahfets]

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. 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Nahfets

[liminal_luke]

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

[Mandrake]

On 05/02/2023 at 8:53 PM, Shadow_self said:

 

Rather curious western esoteric belief

 

 

 

The mandrake drawings we see everywhere arent without their background  

 

 

After all, Paracelus's ens vegetalis, is just another name for the etheric body  

 

Just thought id drop that in for fun  

 

AAAAAAAaaAAAA! You found my nudes!!

 

 

M

[Barnaby]

24 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

This is where most of these threads go, with someone claiming moral superiority. 

 

Too easy.

 

This thread began on an issue of Buddhist ethics and practice.

 

It then got dragged – kicking and screaming – through Klaus Schwab, the WEF, anarcho-primitivism, and the rights and wrongs of veganism. With an all too familiar pitbull mentality.

 

I hereby pronounce it dead.

[doc benway]

1 minute ago, Barnaby said:

 

Too easy.

 

This thread began on an issue of Buddhist ethics and practice.

 

It then got dragged – kicking and screaming – through Klaus Schwab, the WEF, anarcho-primitivism, and the rights and wrongs of veganism. With an all too familiar pitbull mentality.

 

I hereby pronounce it dead.

 

Too true @Barnaby

All too true

One option here is to open a Personal Practice Forum where you can host discussions and have moderator level control over who participates and what is posted. If you are interested in that, let me know.

[Mandrake]

On 05/02/2023 at 11:45 AM, Barnaby said:

In reflecting on the 8 precepts, it feels clearer and clearer that vegetarianism is the natural consequence for me of the first precept against killing.

 

I’d be curious to know how fellow bums feel about this and apply it to their lives…

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Barnaby,

 

Keeping this on a personal level and not a great general debate:

In Buddhism, Sila functions to help you with your samadhi and prajna. In simple terms, do that which improves your meditational practice. Avoid that which disturbs it.

What is that for you? Only you personally can answer that. Some of these things don't require complicated answers or debates because the effect of abstaining doing something is that you are relieved from the need to question your actions while on the meditation cushion. And that's it. No need to turn it into an ideology or preach it to anybody. Support your meditation with your lifestyle. Live in such a fashion so that you, Barnaby,  carry peace and unbotheredness with you to your cushion.

 

The injunctions and recommendations regarding food really vary according to shool and branch so I'd suggest you stay with what pertains to your practice.

 

 

M

[Nahfets]

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. 

[Shadow_self]

 

 

1 hour ago, Nahfets said:

now for further readers of the thread to make up their own minds, 

 

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

 

No surprises there though

 

6 minutes ago, Mandrake said:

The injunctions and recommendations regarding food really vary according to shool and branch so I'd suggest you stay with what pertains to your practice.

 

Would agree with this

 

We use mixtures of meat eating and vegetarian diet (well for me its vegan as dairy is out) according to whether the goals of the period of practice are.

 

It usually works quite well  

[liminal_luke]

3 minutes ago, Nahfets said:

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. 

 

There's a lot that could be said but Barnaby has pronounced this thread dead so I guess I'll let it lie.

[Nahfets]

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