Why I am not a vegan

[Unbound]

There is no reasoning with unreasonable people, so I see no need for further discussion on my part.

How convenient. Fling a direct insult and then walk away. I just asked you an honest question, and you respond by saying I'm unreasonable?? You can disagree all you want, but telling me I'm unreasonable is absurd. All of my points have been based on reason.

The honest question is this: Did you find that last video off-putting? I'm sincerely trying to understand you point.

Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WOao_U1Sys

(Note: It's not what you think. Please click on it.)

Can someone please explain to me whether this video is offensive or off-putting, and if so, why? Thank you.

---

We accept suffering and cruelty as important catalyst in our own lives in order to evolve and grow in understanding. Who are we to deny the privilege of pain and suffering to other creatures?

We are (prsumably) STO beings, that's who. Yes, suffering and cruelty do serve a purpose here, on this school for juvenile delinquents. This is one of the harsher planets, apparently. But it is in our job description to develop compassion and serve others. (That's why it's called STO!)

STS entities serve a purpose too. It is their task to inflict pain, suffering, fear and domination.

Using the lettuce analogy, sure you can regrow plants from cuttings and perhaps it is the same soul, able to exist in different bodies. Isn't that what we all are?

My understanding from the Law of One is that the consciousness of plants is not yet differentiated into individual souls, with the exception of some ancient trees who have developed sentience.

That is the crux of the argument. Plants are 2D and once they develop self-awareness, that is the criteria for graduation into 3D. 2D is a veeeeeeeerrrrrry long density! At the very end of 2D are the ancient trees and higher 2D entities - animals!

So in the case of plants, there isn't yet an individual soul to reincarnate. It's a group consciousness; ie. the entire lettuce kingdom is aware, but an individual lettuce isn't. Think of the hairs on your head.

So yes, of course tests show a consciousness. There is definitely a consciousness. But it isn't an individual consciousness.

Now, think about this: What kind of monster evil Logos would design a system in which each blade of grass could feel pain and fear, but could do nothing about it? That would mean the whole planet is in constant pain from all the humans and animals walking on the grass! That seems obscene to me.

It is reasonable to understand that if an individual consciousness had reached the point of sentience, then it would no longer incarnate into a plant which cannot move, but into a body suitable for its development: an animal body which can run, fly or swim away from danger, in order to preserve its individual self.

When a cow is murdered, i'm sure it's soul or conciousness will go where it needs too- whether another new body of a cow or perhaps now even 'graduated' to our density thanks to our help.

Sure. Does that mean we should help murder it?

At the end of the day, there will never be proof either way because the nature of conciousness itself can't allow it. We don't know what plants, animals, or even other humans really perceive.

But that's not true. We already have plenty of proof that animals feel pain, fear and other emotions, just like we do.

We don't yet know about plants, but we already know, most definitely, about animals.

That is the whole point of the vegan side of the debate. Why knowingly support the pain and killing of beings whom we know feel pain, just because plants might also feel pain?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It makes even less sense when one takes into consideration what Jade just said - there is a 97% increase in plant death by eating animals. That is the epitome of unreasonable!

---

I agree there is differentiation in awareness and self-consciousness but I have a hard time thinking of it in terms of "less" or "more".

No one is suggesting less or more. It's not about assigning a value. It's about whether there is individual sentience. This is important because it is a clue as to whether the entity was designed to nourish other entities, or was it designed as an individual who chooses to run, fly or swim away from other entities. I submit that the designers of this planet are smarter than we are and had a reason for designing the bodies as they did.

A simple, logical, reasonable design: Entities that are individually sentient incarnate into bodies that can run, fly or swim. It's quite reasonable if you think about it.

No, it is not reasonable except by your own form of reasoning. I believe trees can be individually sentient as well so that whole point falls apart for me.

Also, how about plankton? Clearly a creature designed as nourishment, but they can move.