Why I am not a vegan

[anagogy]

No, not at all. No one can ever win an argument with a vegan. Not possible. Nothing to do with me personally; could be any vegan...this is just a general statement. There simply isn't any justification for knowingly, unnecessarily supporting suffering. All of the arguments are in favor of self: self's desire for taste, etc. You can philosophize all day long about why you think animals 'should' suffer, but there is never any justification for participating in that suffering.

Completely ignored the question.  And just admitted to being completely close minded to any other perspectives because, afterall, "no one can win an argument with a vegan".

I find it funny that people will profess to subscribe to the LoA/YCYOR concept right up until the point that there is a negative circumstance they might have to take responsibility for, or a negative implication they might have to accept, and then there is a whole bunch of excuses like "well it wasn't working then, obviously".  People are oh so willing to take credit, and accept the positive circumstances, and implications, but never for the negative.

I have no idea what you're talking about, in regards to this discussion.

Sure you do.  But I'll break it down for you, anyway.  I said that you don't create animals reality for them.  You bypassed the discussion entirely saying it's been discussed before because you don't want to accept they do infact create their own circumstances.  You've said in the past you believed and subscribed to the "you create your own reality concept".  

Clearly, you don't really (which is okay, but not consistent, and also confusing when trying to find a common logical ground to debate upon).

And I'm not really interested in starting a new thread (discussing metaphysics), because I feel it is perfectly relevant to this one.  If you don't want to discuss it here, that is your loss, but it is fundamental to how I see the world, so there's no ground for further discussion if you don't want to address it.

You said we didn't influence animals, or something to that effect, then said we can only influence those with whom we are in 'vibrational proximity.' Well if both of your statements are true, then you were proving my point, because obviously the victimizer is in 'vibrational proximity' to the victim, so obviously the victimizer affects the victim.

Correct.  But if you were no longer a victimizer, the law of attraction would not draw you into situations where you be around victims.  The victims would attract a different victimizer.  You would be drawn to different circumstances and events.  Not sure what the significance of your influence is supposed to mean.  I'm guessing you were thinking if you get to the victimizers and convince them not to victimize, it would fix what you perceive to be the problem.  Nope, the victim will just attract another cooperative component to their victimness.  As I've said before, you don't choose whether they suffer or not.  Their consciousness decides that.

See, you say that but don't seem to understand that your very attention to the subject is increasing the momentum of it

Not as much as the people eating meat.

You might be surprised.

(.i.e. you are participating and supporting it by your mere attention to it).  Anything you push against becomes stronger.  You activate it in your vibrational field, and then focus on getting others involved, and all the while thinking you're beating this demon down, and the exact opposite is happening.  It's a lot like the old aphorism: "hate of war won't bring peace, only love of peace will bring peace."

Except...that's Not what's happening. Vegan activism is paying off. Meat consumption is down 12.2% in the US. Awareness must be raised. The activists succeeded in making slavery illegal, did they not? 

So what is the issue, meat eating, or animal suffering?  Of course, you think they're concomitant.  I've already told you repeatedly you don't create anyone's reality for them.  You don't want to hear that.  So you'll ignore it.  Also, statistics are very misleading when you understand how reality gets focused into being.  They are based on the false concept that you can separate yourself from the observed.  So meat consumption is down in the U.S.  It probably went up even more somewhere else to compensate (and in fact, it is increasing elsewhere...interesting how that works out).  Also, how exactly are they tallying that information?  You think all of it is getting reported?  That every single person is obtaining their meat from the same verifiable place?  You can't actually know, but you'll find evidence of whatever you sincerely believe.  But if it makes you feel better, more power to you.  It is clear you are no longer debating any logical/metaphysical points I raise, so I'm probably gonna bow out of this lost cause of a discussion.

Ah, more of the "But you're JUDGING" BS. As though having a conviction about something being wrong is the worst possible offense! Never mind that I've never personally judged anyone here, ever, but have only held my ground about the STS nature of their actions. If anyone feels judged, that is their own guilt, coming from within.

But regardless of whether it's judging or not, No matter how you slice it, judging someone for causing suffering is never as bad as actually causing the suffering.

Cause and effect aren't nearly so easy to pin down as you would like to believe.  But it sure is psychologically comfortable when you are firmly convinced you know which monster to chase down with your pitchfork.  You call my philosophy separatist, but it is yours that denies we are all one, and are thus all responsible for the darkness of this world (if you perceive it as such).

I won't be participating in that. This isn't about me. It's about the victims...the sentient beings who suffered so that all the meat-eaters here can have their bacon and hamburgers.

Who said it was about you?  Because I mentioned your name?  Why do you have to make it about you?  That's a better question.  And then, again, deflect the point being discussed?

I was talking about acceptance versus control.  I didn't make it personal, you did.