In regards to eating meat

[3DMonkey]

The ideas of viewing others as not wanting to evolve or that eating meat means that they are not evolving are not compassionate ideas, IMO.

I think evolving is a side effect.

I am kind of seeing it as a bubble, a sphere, an expanding field of awareness of "other". Expanding this field of perception, is like growing, but not the same as evolving. I really think evolving is a side effect of no longer "needing" what I would call "weight". Whether that be the weight of matter we ingest, or the weight of materialistic goods that we collect, it all seems to be weight that we slough off like an insect sheds its skin, possibly even changing its form.

I would say that I existed in the stage you are at, and would have continued if not for the health effects that appeared around age 38-39. So there may come a point where you are cornered by catalyst as I was, and be forced to make a choice. That would most likely cause a change, then after the change comes a shift in perception, which when permanent might be called "evolving".

So some of us on this thread may have intuitively made the change, I was backed in to a corner. Although, depending on your development as a soul portion, it may not even be on your "to do" list. However, I will assume it is since you are on this thread LMAO!

I totally get that. I can accept LIFE backing me into a corner. The thing for me personally is that I've tried all the health stuff you talk about. For me, it takes on a negative effect because I become obsessed with eating and my spirit lets in more "bad" stuff than food ever would. And, it may be my journey that I find myself in the same corner and THAT is what helps me change.

[Monica]

to respond to Monica's breezy assurance that "someone might have said something like that months ago, before you were even here," which I thought smacked a lot of the kind of faked political correctness that unity100 was recently complaining about.

Oh wow. I just now noticed the word faked.

It's not fake. Believe it or not, I truly do care about being careful to not hurt anyone's feelings. But it's rather difficult, to have a strong conviction about something that others disagree with. Vegetarians don't even have to say anything, and they get accused of being 'judgmental' when the meat-eaters take offense and get defensive.

I apologize if I inadvertently offended anyone. But I won't apologize for my convictions.

[Diana]

I totally get that. I can accept LIFE backing me into a corner. The thing for me personally is that I've tried all the health stuff you talk about. For me, it takes on a negative effect because I become obsessed with eating and my spirit lets in more "bad" stuff than food ever would. And, it may be my journey that I find myself in the same corner and THAT is what helps me change.

I am in agreement that "bad feelings" or judgments about what you are eating or doing health-wise is just as harmful as the "bad" food. I think progressing, if I may say that, to gentler ways of providing sustenance, ideally is a natural and accepted way of living, rather than denying one's self certain things. Some individuals live celibate lives because they have arrived at that naturally for various reasons; juxtapose this against the Catholic priesthood and the problems associated with denial of their urges.

[3DMonkey]

It is possible to love somebody but not love their ways.

I disagree. People are their ways. Either I accept what they do or I don't.

"I love him, but I hate what he does". No, you don't love him. You are being dishonest with yourself.

That is my opinion.

Then how do you decide how to act yourself?

And no one ever said hate. You can disagree with an action and not hate it.

I disagree with torture. I disagree that torture should be allowed. I do not hate the people that torture others. I love them but feel their actions should not be allowed because of its effects on society and others.

I think, perhaps, it is something you just simply do not understand. I am not being dishonest with myself when I say that I love the one who tortures. I see myself in them, them in myself, but I do not agree that those actions which we are both capable of should be carried out. There is no dishonesty.

Lol. Did you just say "disagree" = "not love"? I said "hate" because that is my equivalent to "not love".

So, I'm "not loving" you right now? Because I do disagree.

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

I would not choose to torture. If I saw someone being tortured, I would defend them. In all this doing, I do not love the torturer. That sounds ridiculous. I hate the bastard with my whole being (ask Norral about this ).

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

---

to respond to Monica's breezy assurance that "someone might have said something like that months ago, before you were even here," which I thought smacked a lot of the kind of faked political correctness that unity100 was recently complaining about.

Oh wow. I just now noticed the word faked.

It's not fake. Believe it or not, I truly do care about being careful to not hurt anyone's feelings. But it's rather difficult, to have a strong conviction about something that others disagree with. Vegetarians don't even have to say anything, and they get accused of being 'judgmental' when the meat-eaters take offense and get defensive.

I apologize if I inadvertently offended anyone. But I won't apologize for my convictions.

I would guess that meat eaters are offended because they wouldn't say "you shouldn't "not eat meat". Which seems to be the premise when vegetarians say "you don't need to eat meat!"

[βαθμιαίος]

Oh wow. I just now noticed the word faked.

It's not fake. Believe it or not, I truly do care about being careful to not hurt anyone's feelings. But it's rather difficult, to have a strong conviction about something that others disagree with. Vegetarians don't even have to say anything, and they get accused of being 'judgmental' when the meat-eaters take offense and get defensive.

I apologize if I inadvertently offended anyone. But I won't apologize for my convictions.

With regards to faking, you wrote this, "I don't recall anyone on this thread ever saying anyone was 'wrong' or not evolving. (Well maybe one person did, but it wasn't me.)" and then assured Diana that you weren't thinking of her, even though she had already acknowledged saying something to the effect that meat eaters weren't evolving. That was what I found a little disingenuous on your part.

With regards to strong convictions, I appreciate your efforts to stay balanced and discuss an issue that you are clearly passionate about. I'd still be interested in your responses to the points I made in this post: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...8#pid61218

[BrownEye]

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

That doesn't work very well. I have a mandate that says you must not fart in my car or my kitchen. Failing that instruction does not change my love for the individual.

[3DMonkey]

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

That doesn't work very well. I have a mandate that says you must not fart in my car or my kitchen. Failing that instruction does not change my love for the individual.

Hahaha. You're right that doesn't work. (in all honesty, you accept the flatulence) Reminds me of a joke that ends something to the effect that vegetarians are challenging the cattle industry for global warming contributions of methane.

It should read "if I declare eating meat is unacceptable to me, I do not love them".

[Diana]

With regards to faking, you wrote this, "I don't recall anyone on this thread ever saying anyone was 'wrong' or not evolving. (Well maybe one person did, but it wasn't me.)" and then assured Diana that you weren't thinking of her, even though she had already acknowledged saying something to the effect that meat eaters weren't evolving. That was what I found a little disingenuous on your part.

I did clarify that I did not mean meat-eaters aren't evolving .

[3DMonkey]

With regards to faking, you wrote this, "I don't recall anyone on this thread ever saying anyone was 'wrong' or not evolving. (Well maybe one person did, but it wasn't me.)" and then assured Diana that you weren't thinking of her, even though she had already acknowledged saying something to the effect that meat eaters weren't evolving. That was what I found a little disingenuous on your part.

I did clarify that I did not mean meat-eaters aren't evolving .

We got that. You are clear. Proceed.

[Diana]

Hahaha. You're right that doesn't work. (in all honesty, you accept the flatulence) Reminds me of a joke that ends something to the effect that vegetarians are challenging the cattle industry for global warming contributions of methane.

Let's not group either vegetarians or meat-eaters into one slot. As a vegetarian, I make no such claim.

[3DMonkey]

Challenging was a poor word. It's a joke. Just a joke. Broccoli anyone?

[βαθμιαίος]

How can you joke at a time like this?

[3DMonkey]

OMG! quite literal LOL

---

great timing

[Bring4th_Austin]

Lol. Did you just say "disagree" = "not love"? I said "hate" because that is my equivalent to "not love".

Perhaps your definition of hate is not as extreme as others'. Hate, to most, is a seething emotion.

So, I'm "not loving" you right now? Because I do disagree.

I guess if that's how you work. If you don't love me because you disagree then that's your choice. It's not how I work, and it isn't due to dishonesty.

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

You seem to think it is persecution of a person and not protection of another person. It has nothing to do with persecuting a person. If someone could torture without another person being tortured, then go for it. I could care less. Indulge yourself in torture. But the fact that someone else has to be tortured means that I feel that action shouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with the fact that one person wants to do it, but rather that another person is being forced to participate in a situation they do no wish to be in.

I would not choose to torture. If I saw someone being tortured, I would defend them. In all this doing, I do not love the torturer. That sounds ridiculous. I hate the bastard with my whole being (ask Norral about this ).

I see. If we are to look at this with a backdrop of the Ra material, this is a blockage of green ray. Universal love is universal. It does not stop at the torturer. If you don't subscribe to that idea, it's fine, but to me, this is green ray blockage. This is described in depth by Ra and Q'uo.

However, it is not because of these channeled messages that I feel love. It is something I understood before discovering Ra. I never felt like it was appropriate to hate a person because they chose to act a certain way. We all have to potential to do the most horrendous things. We all exist as a torturer in potentiation.

For the record, I love and accept Norral's expressions on these forums, but I do not choose to express myself nor feel the way Norral does. This does not mean that I hate Norral.

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

Again, just because this is the way that YOU work doesn't mean it's the way EVERYONE works. You are projecting your own distortions on others. Just because others disagree with your choices does not mean they don't love you. You're not the one who gets to decide whether they love you or not. You can decide whether to accept that love, but the love is there.

Just because you personally cannot accept a person because you cannot accept their ways doesn't mean it is impossible for others. Monica loves you but does not love your choice to eat meat (nor mine for that matter). I love you but I do not love your choice to participate in systems which harm the Earth and its beings.

Just because you don't believe that it is love doesn't mean it isn't so. So, feel free to not feel the love, but it is there and always will be. That is the nature of universal love.



See? There's a heart. Undeniable proof that I love you!

[3DMonkey]

[/quote]

Lol. Did you just say "disagree" = "not love"? I said "hate" because that is my equivalent to "not love".

Perhaps your definition of hate is not as extreme as others'. Hate, to most, is a seething emotion.

So, I'm "not loving" you right now? Because I do disagree.

I guess if that's how you work. If you don't love me because you disagree then that's your choice. It's not how I work, and it isn't due to dishonesty.

You said "not love" = "disagree" when you said "It is possible to love somebody but not love their ways." and then said "You can disagree with an action and not hate it." So if disagreeing is not loving then perhaps you think I am not loving you. That's why I asked "So, I'm "not loving" you right now?"

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

You seem to think it is persecution of a person and not protection of another person. It has nothing to do with persecuting a person. If someone could torture without another person being tortured, then go for it. I could care less. Indulge yourself in torture. But the fact that someone else has to be tortured means that I feel that action shouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with the fact that one person wants to do it, but rather that another person is being forced to participate in a situation they do no wish to be in.

Yes, I do. It is persecution of the torturer. I see no way around that.

There are two relationships in there, as far as I am concerned. One between me and perp, another between me and victim.

I would not choose to torture. If I saw someone being tortured, I would defend them. In all this doing, I do not love the torturer. That sounds ridiculous. I hate the bastard with my whole being (ask Norral about this ).

I see. If we are to look at this with a backdrop of the Ra material, this is a blockage of green ray. Universal love is universal. It does not stop at the torturer. If you don't subscribe to that idea, it's fine, but to me, this is green ray blockage. This is described in depth by Ra and Q'uo.

However, it is not because of these channeled messages that I feel love. It is something I understood before discovering Ra. I never felt like it was appropriate to hate a person because they chose to act a certain way. We all have to potential to do the most horrendous things. We all exist as a torturer in potentiation.

I think to not allow someone their choices/actions is to not accept them, and that is green ray blockage.

Here, I'm simply owning up to some personal STS nature. I find it dishonest to say I am loving while I am restraining.

I think you are disassociating your love for a victim to be love for his/her perpetrator. It's not love, it is control, which is not acceptance.

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

Again, just because this is the way that YOU work doesn't mean it's the way EVERYONE works. You are projecting your own distortions on others. Just because others disagree with your choices does not mean they don't love you. You're not the one who gets to decide whether they love you or not. You can decide whether to accept that love, but the love is there.

Just because you personally cannot accept a person because you cannot accept their ways doesn't mean it is impossible for others. Monica loves you but does not love your choice to eat meat (nor mine for that matter). I love you but I do not love your choice to participate in systems which harm the Earth and its beings.

Just because you don't believe that it is love doesn't mean it isn't so. So, feel free to not feel the love, but it is there and always will be. That is the nature of universal love.

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about polarization and metaphysical implications. I'm talking about the archetypal structures in play within every decision we make. People. People can and will do what they want.

---

Again, you can't say you accept me without accepting what I do. What I do is who I am.

---

To say, 'I'm a really nice guy in reality, I just can't stop abusing my wife' is just false. I'm not really a nice guy, I'd be an abuser. (I do not abuse my wife. As for me being a really nice guy... I don't know, lol)

---

See? There's a heart. Undeniable proof that I love you!

See? You do accept my choices.

[BrownEye]

To say, 'I'm a really nice guy in reality, I just can't stop abusing my wife' is just false. I'm not really a nice guy, I'd be an abuser. (I do not abuse my wife. As for me being a really nice guy... I don't know, lol)

In the metaphysical sense you can abuse without abusing. The recipient of possession may be fully unaware of their actions.

[3DMonkey]

To say, 'I'm a really nice guy in reality, I just can't stop abusing my wife' is just false. I'm not really a nice guy, I'd be an abuser. (I do not abuse my wife. As for me being a really nice guy... I don't know, lol)

In the metaphysical sense you can abuse without abusing. The recipient of possession may be fully unaware of their actions.

Agreed. .... "Know thyself" is the best plan in that regard.

[Diana]

It is possible to love somebody but not love their ways.

I disagree. People are their ways. Either I accept what they do or I don't.

"I love him, but I hate what he does". No, you don't love him. You are being dishonest with yourself.

That is my opinion.

I don't hate the torturer as the torturer is learning his or lessons and has free will to do so (even responsibility, which belongs to no one else). I can say that I am opposed to torture, as a way to live or behave in general, and still accept that the torturer has the free will to torture. I also recognize that, from the point of view of the higher selves, the torturer may be learning something which the tortured has agreed to help with, and which the torturer has agreed to, reciprocally, to help the tortured.

I run into trouble accepting that animals are in a mutual torturer/tortured agreement, although there are theories that this is true. And if the animals are 2D, would it be possible for them to be in this agreement?

I admit to a weakness of wanting to assist the natural process of evolution along . Living here is difficult, or at least it is for me.

[3DMonkey]

It is possible to love somebody but not love their ways.

I disagree. People are their ways. Either I accept what they do or I don't.

"I love him, but I hate what he does". No, you don't love him. You are being dishonest with yourself.

That is my opinion.

I don't hate the torturer as the torturer is learning his or lessons and has free will to do so (even responsibility, which belongs to no one else). I can say that I am opposed to torture, as a way to live or behave in general, and still accept that the torturer has the free will to torture. I also recognize that, from the point of view of the higher selves, the torturer may be learning something which the tortured has agreed to help with, and which the torturer has agreed to, reciprocally, to help the tortured.

I run into trouble accepting that animals are in a mutual torturer/tortured agreement, although there are theories that this is true. And if the animals are 2D, would it be possible for them to be in this agreement?

I admit to a weakness of wanting to assist the natural process of evolution along . Living here is difficult, or at least it is for me.

Making a choice not to torture is personal. That's all there is to it.

I'm not sure I agreed to "this"!

Did Lactobacillus acidophilus choose its role?

[Monica]

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

When you tell your children to not lie or steal, you aren't loving them?

Monkey, don't you tell your children to be good people and not cheat/lie/steal because you love them and want to teach them properly?

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

Well that's you.

Please don't assume that others feel as you do.

Just because you cannot love someone you disagree with, doesn't mean I can't.

I would guess that meat eaters are offended because they wouldn't say "you shouldn't "not eat meat". Which seems to be the premise when vegetarians say "you don't need to eat meat!"

Please re-read those 2 statements:

"you shouldn't "not eat meat".

"you don't need to eat meat!"

What's different about them?

The 1st uses the word should. It's an opinion. It's subjective.

I have never told anyone that they should or shouldn't do anything. That is for them to decide.

The 2nd says "you don't need" which I have never said either.

What I did say is that most humans do not need to eat meat. Unless they have an unusual medical condition, they don't need meat.

This isn't an opinion. It is fact. It has been scientifically proven.

I have no idea whether the person I'm talking to has an unusual medical condition, so I would never tell them they shouldn't eat meat. I will only say that most humans don't need meat.

[Bring4th_Austin]

You said "not love" = "disagree" when you said "It is possible to love somebody but not love their ways." and then said "You can disagree with an action and not hate it." So if disagreeing is not loving then perhaps you think I am not loving you. That's why I asked "So, I'm "not loving" you right now?"

Perhaps "love their ways" is a poor way to word it? I think it's differing definitions of hate that is causing confusion here. Again, to me, hate is a seething emotion. To not love does not mean to hate.

For semantics sake, I'll just reword the whole thing.

It is possible to love someone but disagree with their actions.

(key word is actions)

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

You seem to think it is persecution of a person and not protection of another person. It has nothing to do with persecuting a person. If someone could torture without another person being tortured, then go for it. I could care less. Indulge yourself in torture. But the fact that someone else has to be tortured means that I feel that action shouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with the fact that one person wants to do it, but rather that another person is being forced to participate in a situation they do no wish to be in.

Yes, I do. It is persecution of the torturer. I see no way around that.

There are two relationships in there, as far as I am concerned. One between me and perp, another between me and victim.

While the torturer may feel persecuted because he is not allowed to torture, the intent of the disagreement is to protect the one being tortured. Like I said, if one could torture without another being tortured, I'd have no problem with it. It is about protection and not persecution. I do not wish to inhibit the torturer from expression, but above that I wish to protect the one being tortured. It is not about "hate" for the torturer, like you feel, but rather love for both torturer and the one being tortured. I don't think there's much debate that being tortured causes more suffering than not being allowed to torture.

If you feel the suffering is the same, it's your right, but nothing in any of this means I don't love the torturer.

I think to not allow someone their choices/actions is to not accept them, and that is green ray blockage.

Again, I have no problem with the torturer torturing if it were not causing suffering which cannot be avoided by the one being tortured. I am not disagreeing with their desire to torture, but rather the suffering of the one being tortured. It is not about stopping the torturer from torturing but rather protection the one being tortured from suffering.

Here, I'm simply owning up to some personal STS nature. I find it dishonest to say I am loving while I am restraining.

I'm not sure where the dishonesty is. Could you point out where there is a lack of honesty given the torturing scenario? I'll spell out my perspective again.

I am not restraining the torturer because he wishes to torture. I am protecting the victim from suffering. The victim has no choice but to be tortured and suffer. Restraining the torturer from torturing does not cause as much suffering as torturing. The torturer can choose not to torture, the victim cannot choose to not be tortured. If I could allow the torturer to torture without another unwillingly suffering, I have no problem allowing it. Since there is a helpless victim, I do not allow it. The seed of this dis-allowance is not to restrain the torturer but to protect the victim.

What about this perspective is dishonest?

I think you are disassociating your love for a victim to be love for his/her perpetrator. It's not love, it is control, which is not acceptance.

I'm not sure where you land on that conclusion. Again, I love both victim and perpetrator. The victim is suffering. To stop that suffering, we dis-allow the perpetrator from torturing. I do not control the perpetrator because I wish to control their actions. I control the perpetrator because I wish to protect the victim. The perpetrator is controlled out of protection for an other-self.

The actions of the perpetrator are protected up to the point where they cause unavoidable suffering.

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about polarization and metaphysical implications. I'm talking about the archetypal structures in play within every decision we make. People. People can and will do what they want.

Again, you can't say you accept me without accepting what I do. What I do is who I am.

You can't tell me what I can and can't accept. If that's how it is in your mind, then so be it. But I accept you while disagreeing with your choices. It is how it is. And there is no dishonesty there. That is as honest as I can be.

Any action you take which I disagree with has nothing to do with you AT ALL. It has only to do with the VICTIMS OF YOUR ACTIONS.

To say, 'I'm a really nice guy in reality, I just can't stop abusing my wife' is just false. I'm not really a nice guy, I'd be an abuser. (I do not abuse my wife. As for me being a really nice guy... I don't know, lol).

Being a "nice guy" has nothing to do with whether I love you or not. Abusing your wife has nothing to do with whether I love you or not. The action I disagree with is the one which causes suffering in your wife. I do not disagree with your abusive nature, but rather the fact that there is a helpless victim being abused. I accept your abusive nature while protecting the victim.

See? There's a heart. Undeniable proof that I love you!

See? You do accept my choices.

I do! I just disagree with them.

Language sucks. I feel there is not a good way to get this point across. It is easy to mis-speak. To say I don't "love your ways" is wrong. To say I don't "accept your decisions" is wrong too.

To disagree with your decisions because they cause suffering, that is the ultimate message here.

[Monica]

With regards to faking, you wrote this, "I don't recall anyone on this thread ever saying anyone was 'wrong' or not evolving. (Well maybe one person did, but it wasn't me.)" and then assured Diana that you weren't thinking of her, even though she had already acknowledged saying something to the effect that meat eaters weren't evolving. That was what I found a little disingenuous on your part.

Well I already acknowledged that was poor judgment on my part.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Making a choice not to torture is personal. That's all there is to it.

How is restraining a desire to torture personal? Torturing is an action which involves an other-self. There's nothing personal about it. It involves more than just yourself.

[3DMonkey]

I would love my son if he murdered my mother.

---

Oh wait, that's a bad analogy. You should get my point anyway.

[Tenet Nosce]

At present, we don't have any scientific basis from which to discern who is who with respect to the necessity or degree of meat-eating. Certainly, most Americans eat too much meat, period.

But science also (of course) overlooks the possibility that the dietary needs of the human body may be in a state of flux. Perhaps what was true 100 years ago is no longer true!?

In my experience, what I have found to be true about making dietary changes is that the ones that truly matter- the ones that stick- are those which come as a result of changes in my state of consciousness.

Although I have found a very clear trend toward less meat-eating, there are still times when I have a craving for meat and I see no real reason to attempt to deny such a craving. I simply observe it for what it is. I will also note these cravings appear to be coming upon me less often.

But to be honest, I view this dichotomy of meat-eating vs. vegetarianism to be a bit off-point. It may be more fruitful for humanity to start thinking more in terms of a land-based vs. sea-based diet.

The sea is amazing, if we let it do its' job. Ironically, the reason that the sea is malfunctioning has largely to do with humanity's insistence upon land-based agricultural practices.

The sardine, for example, is a wonderful and unique food. It is especially high in omega-3s, calcium, zinc, and vitamin D. These nutrients are all hard to come by in food. So it is very convenient for nature to have put them all together in the same place.

A sardine, for example, could be used as a measure of currency. Since it contains a rare combination of materials that are inherently valuable to human life.

In my opinion, this would be a rather high purpose for the sardine. And I certainly would not lose sleep at night over the taking of the life of such an animal.

[3DMonkey]

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

When you tell your children to not lie or steal, you aren't loving them?

Monkey, don't you tell your children to be good people and not cheat/lie/steal because you love them and want to teach them properly?

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

Well that's you.

Please don't assume that others feel as you do.

Just because you cannot love someone you disagree with, doesn't mean I can't.

I would guess that meat eaters are offended because they wouldn't say "you shouldn't "not eat meat". Which seems to be the premise when vegetarians say "you don't need to eat meat!"

Please re-read those 2 statements:

"you shouldn't "not eat meat".

"you don't need to eat meat!"

What's different about them?

The 1st uses the word should. It's an opinion. It's subjective.

I have never told anyone that they should or shouldn't do anything. That is for them to decide.

The 2nd says "you don't need" which I have never said either.

What I did say is that most humans do not need to eat meat. Unless they have an unusual medical condition, they don't need meat.

This isn't an opinion. It is fact. It has been scientifically proven.

I have no idea whether the person I'm talking to has an unusual medical condition, so I would never tell them they shouldn't eat meat. I will only say that most humans don't need meat.

You are absolutely not listening to what I'm saying.

[Oceania]

blue algae is great.

[3DMonkey]

Abridgetoofar said "It is possible to love someone but disagree with their actions."

I agree. What I am saying is that I do not accept a person if I do not accept their actions.

---

To disagree is to say "yeah, that's not for me".

[BrownEye]

I would love my son if he murdered my mother.

---

Oh wait, that's a bad analogy. You should get my point anyway.

My eyes are watering.

[3DMonkey]

Making a choice not to torture is personal. That's all there is to it.

How is restraining a desire to torture personal? Torturing is an action which involves an other-self. There's nothing personal about it. It involves more than just yourself.

The choice is personal. Will I hurt or won't I? My choice.