(11-18-2011, 03:24 PM)Pickle Wrote:

(11-18-2011, 03:13 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Some plants have some pretty obvious defense mechanisms.

For instance, a healthy and natural kale plant will grow thick little hairs on both the stems and leaves. This is to prevent bugs from eating it.

Is this a natural method of selection? Say to allow for the chance of a mammal to eat, rather than the insects? It may be that the natural habitat would allow for the insects to get their sustenance from all the neighboring plants, while keeping an extra level of defense in order to keep sustenance available for another species that coexists in the same area. The word Flourish comes to mind.

I would assume that it would be hard for species overlap if everything was eaten by insects. While at the same time, if the insect predators are eliminated the insects would be able to overpopulate and eat everything, including all mammals/us.

(11-18-2011, 05:38 PM)Namaste Wrote: The perpetual and rather non-sensical parallels being drawn with regards to eating plants however, is fruitless (pun intended)!

(11-18-2011, 07:09 PM)Pickle Wrote:

(11-18-2011, 06:52 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Is that wrong?

Not in itself. But I can say that most cases they did something wrong to get into that position. Such as............diet. ingesting the wrong thing. These days taking antibiotics can kill off the flora in the gut, which can end up fatal. This happens as a result of lacking in that bacteria to begin with, because of...........diet. lol

Things can turn full circle, it is always best to be informed. We are attempting to inform. Although even informing is sts.

(11-18-2011, 06:43 PM)Pickle Wrote:

Quote: (Aside from those rare medical exceptions.)

Another rare medical condition involves the need to ingest a relatives feces.

I think rare and need are key lol.

(11-18-2011, 07:14 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Plants have genetics, they strive to survive. I believe that just because we can't relate to their existence doesn't mean they have a different purpose in life.

(11-18-2011, 07:51 PM)Pickle Wrote: My opinion on the best nutritional info would be Gabriel Cousens.

(11-18-2011, 08:21 PM)Pickle Wrote: The feces comment was based on a medical "fix" to jumpstart the bacterial process. Which was the reason for getting it from a relative. It had to be pumped into the stomach because who in their right mind would eat it? But yeah, they would have died without that particular treatment.

(11-18-2011, 08:21 PM)Pickle Wrote: You know, I think I am watching a polarization actualization. I have been watching a lot of people suddenly put a lot of emotion behind their opinion. All over the net. It was especially seen in Unity100.

In my view polarization is not balance, but extreme polar opposites. This is all very interesting.

(11-18-2011, 08:52 PM)Pickle Wrote: Yes. Taking more of a stance, investing actual emotion into a concept. I was baffled at first watching Unity.

(11-18-2011, 05:38 PM)Namaste Wrote: Man, this thread grows fast...

But seems to go nowhere!

I think I'll join in again.

By divine design, humans need to eat. We have to eat something.

1) Consumption is part of many plant's reproduction/survival system, and hence encouraged
2) Sending gratitude to the plant before consumption is proven to nullify any response
3) Animals have emotions (fear), and a nervous system (pain)
4) Animals will avoid being consumed at all costs

It's quite simple - we either eat something that offers itself to being eaten, or we eat something that fears being eaten. Or both! We get to choose.

Trying to justify one's self regarding the consumption of meat, by using plants as a counter argument, holds no valid ground. Let's be honest, it's ridiculous. Ridiculous to such a degree that the discussion has managed to escalate to the use of petrol :¬)

If someone wants to eat meat - eat it! That's an entirely valid choice. The perpetual and rather non-sensical parallels being drawn with regards to eating plants however, is fruitless (pun intended)!

Can we all hug and get on with it?

(11-18-2011, 08:57 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Now can I close the thread?

(11-18-2011, 07:09 PM)Pickle Wrote:

(11-18-2011, 06:52 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Is that wrong?

Not in itself. But I can say that most cases they did something wrong to get into that position. Such as............diet. ingesting the wrong thing. These days taking antibiotics can kill off the flora in the gut, which can end up fatal. This happens as a result of lacking in that bacteria to begin with, because of...........diet. lol

Things can turn full circle, it is always best to be informed. We are attempting to inform. Although even informing is sts.

(11-18-2011, 09:03 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Do you want to? I was getting read to compose a reply but I'll let it go if you're about to close the thread.

(11-18-2011, 09:03 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(11-18-2011, 08:57 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Now can I close the thread?

Do you want to? I was getting read to compose a reply but I'll let it go if you're about to close the thread.

(11-18-2011, 08:06 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I agree 100%! He has the most balanced view, he has the best of both worlds, being both holistic and an MD, he is highly spiritually aware so he views diet from a spiritual perspective, and he has tons of experience with those who thought they "couldn't" be vegetarian because of meat cravings. He has a near 100% success rate 'curing' those who "tried but couldn't" be vegetarians!

(11-18-2011, 11:21 AM)Bring4th_Aaron Wrote:

βαθμιαίος Wrote:Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

(11-18-2011, 07:14 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Things evolve to where they have a better chance for survival. The better a being survives, the better chance it has to reproduce. It passes on whatever genes allowed it to survive to the next generation. The whole point of passing on genetics is to allow for a better chance of survival to the next generation.

(11-18-2011, 09:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Yes, this makes total sense! See... but we need to work at the level of craving. At a fundamental level, people crave meat because there is something essential that the meat provides to the body. This seems to go beyond the issue of protein, but is still kind of elusive.

(11-18-2011, 09:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:

(11-18-2011, 11:21 AM)Bring4th_Aaron Wrote:

βαθμιαίος Wrote:Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Would this apply to all entities, even down to the level of microbes?

Quote: Cravings for meat could have something to do with that: an obsolete need.

Or it could just be plain old addiction.

(11-18-2011, 09:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Yes, this makes total sense! See... but we need to work at the level of craving. At a fundamental level, people crave meat because there is something essential that the meat provides to the body. This seems to go beyond the issue of protein, but is still kind of elusive.

If we can fulfill that function in a different way... then I say go for it.

(11-18-2011, 09:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: But I don't know that we know what that is just yet. It doesn't appear that nature made this obvious... or has it been occluded from us?

(11-18-2011, 09:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: This gets me thinking back to the blood issue. Why blood? Why did the "gods" need blood in order to stay physical? I know mainstream science portrays this taboo against blood as an elaborate fabrication that protected the spread of disease from consuming blood. But I am more inclined to believe that some shenanigans went on that are accurately portrayed in our myths.

Maybe our inability to get past this issue has something to do with collective amnesia about what was really going on back then?

(11-18-2011, 09:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Also, if you happened to restate your views on eating rodents or insects I missed it! (Chances are it is in this thread somewhere at least 10 times but I have no idea where.)

(11-18-2011, 09:22 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Would this apply to all entities, even down to the level of microbes?

(11-18-2011, 11:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 1) Herbivorous species like rabbits, antelope, deer, etc. need predators in order to maintain a healthy population. With many species, humans have played and continued to play the role of predator. This bothers many sensitive people, but I don't see anything inherently negative about it. In fact, I see it as positive in that humans are playing an important role in maintaining the health of those species. The situation is similar with domesticated animals. Animal-lovers don't want to see cows slaughtered, but if cows weren't slaughtered there would be no cows, or many fewer -- humans would stop keeping them, and they have died out in the wild.

(11-18-2011, 11:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 2) There has been much research about the importance of nutrient-rich foods (meaning animal products, especially often-neglected items like kidneys, etc.) in an optimal diet. I'm not an expert in this area but I believe that, just as vegetarians and vegans can and do point to research that supports their diet choices, so can people who eat meat and other animal products point to research that supports theirs. One source I'm somewhat familiar with is Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Institute. Mostly I know about them because of their strong advocacy for fresh (raw) milk, which I'm also in favor of, because we have a Jersey cow.

(11-18-2011, 11:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 3) The idea that we should consider ecosystem health and long-term sustainability in our food choices doesn't seem at all ridiculous to me. And yes, petroleum plays into that. Grass-based animal husbandry is actually one of the most sustainable and fewest-input-requiring methods of food production available to us.

(11-18-2011, 11:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 4) A lot of the arguments against eating meat seem to come down to "it's obvious that it's good to eat plants but not good to eat meat." I don't really know how to respond to those arguments other than to say, "it's not obvious to me."

(11-18-2011, 11:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 5) The various ideas put forward to suggest that Ra implied that we shouldn't eat meat (plant vs animal individuation, 4D diet, etc.) are also not compelling to me.

(11-18-2011, 11:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 6) The idea that it's a worthy goal to try to convince meat-eaters to stop eating meat reminds me of Ra's quote about those attempting to "improve" society: "Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration."

(11-19-2011, 01:26 AM)Pickle Wrote: Cousens is much easier to read than listen to. My wife loves the reading, but hates listening to him.

(11-18-2011, 11:34 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: humans have played and continued to play the role of predator.

Quote:Mostly I know about them because of their strong advocacy for fresh (raw) milk,

Quote:The various ideas put forward to suggest that Ra implied that we shouldn't eat meat (plant vs animal individuation, 4D diet, etc.) are also not compelling to me.

Quote:The idea that it's a worthy goal to try to convince meat-eaters to stop eating meat reminds me of Ra's quote about those attempting to "improve" society: "Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration."

(11-19-2011, 01:53 AM)Pickle Wrote: I might understand human breast milk, but I don't understand how there could be some need from another species.

(11-19-2011, 01:53 AM)Pickle Wrote: To convert others is sts. Of course, if those others came into the thread willingly, that muddies the waters a bit............

(11-19-2011, 03:03 AM)Pickle Wrote: Now here is a strange thought for monica.

I just might care about a tree more than an animal.

(11-19-2011, 03:03 AM)Pickle Wrote: But, that doesn't change the fact that leafy greens are what I will eat.