Why I am not a vegan

[Parsons]

So, in your view, acceptance is not a critical component of the Choice of service to others?

[Monica]

So, in your view, acceptance is not a critical component of the Choice of service to others?

I never said that. Acceptance is very critical. However, I think many people misinterpret Ra's explanation of acceptance.

Note: Post #175 edited to fix link:

Acceptance and Will

[Unbound]

So everyone who eats meat knowing suffering occurs has self-serving intentions, and you know this for sure? (Since you seem to blanket everyone with the same assumptions, even though you also stated you can't know the intentions and motivations of another.)

[isis]

Where I live, if you were tell someone that eating the meat from the farms that do the cruel standard practice means supporting the cruelty you'd get your booty kicked or worse


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17...16108.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_16762_the...ngdom.html

[Parsons]

So, in your view, acceptance is not a critical component of the Choice of service to others?

I never said that. Acceptance is very critical. However, I think many people misinterpret Ra's explanation of acceptance.

Note: Post #175 edited to fix link:

Acceptance and Will

Ok, I read that entire long thread about acceptance. Ra certainly uses the word, but I can find no supporting Ra quotes which redefine or 'explain' the concept of acceptance differently than the norm. I can only find some personal/subjective extrapolations on the concept of Acceptance contained in that thread, so I am not sure what you mean by "Ra's explanation of acceptance."

By the way, I would normally agree that the vast majority of the material can not be reduced to little snippets. More often than not, it is very important to understand the context of surrounding questions and sometimes the entire session. But my most recent Ra quote used is one of the best 'in a nutshell' descriptions of a concept in the entire material, especially because it specifies ALL catalyst and gives you the core concept of the Choice.

[Monica]

So everyone who eats meat knowing suffering occurs has self-serving intentions, and you know this for sure? (Since you seem to blanket everyone with the same assumptions, even though you also stated you can't know the intentions and motivations of another.)

You seem to be confusing blanketing people's intentions with an action being inherently STS.

What do you think? Do you think that knowingly, unnecessarily supporting cruelty is STS, STO, or neutral?

---

Where I live, if you were tell someone that eating the meat from the farms that do the cruel standard practice means supporting the cruelty you'd get your booty kicked or worse

Everyone who drives a car supports the oil industry (unless it's a 100% electric car).

---

I am not sure what you mean by "Ra's explanation of acceptance."

I have said all I can say about acceptance in that other thread.

By the way, I would normally agree that the vast majority of the material can not be reduced to little snippets. More often than not, it is very important to understand the context of surrounding questions and sometimes the entire session. But my most recent Ra quote used is one of the best 'in a nutshell' descriptions of a concept in the entire material, especially because it specifies ALL catalyst and gives you the core concept of the Choice.

I think that's a direct answer to a specific question, like all Ra responses, and not any more of a summary than any other statement. I don't think the concepts of Choice, 3D/4D, Acceptance etc. can be summarized by any single Ra quote.

[isis]

Where I live, if you were tell someone that eating the meat from the farms that do the cruel standard practice means supporting the cruelty you'd get your booty kicked or worse

Everyone who drives a car supports the oil industry (unless it's a 100% electric car).

When someone says 'I support such-and-such...' they're typically saying they are for such-and-such. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Telling someone they're for something that they're not for might rub them the wrong way - especially where I live. (Polk County - which I've heard is meth capital of the world.) Here you can't (safely) say, "everyone who drives a car supports the oil industry (unless it's a 100% electric car)." because of the way the word 'support' is typically defined.

In most (if not all) dictionaries, this is NOT the first definition of the word 'support': "to give assistance to, especially financially" this is: "to agree with or approve of"

[Jade]

I thought the Polk County I lived in was the meth capitol of the world....

[isis]

You live(d) in a county called "Polk" that you thought was the meth capital of the world?

[Monica]

When someone says 'I support such-and-such...' they're typically saying they are for such-and-such. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Telling someone they're for something that they're not for might rub them the wrong way - especially where I live. (Polk County - which I've heard is meth capital of the world.) Here you can't (safely) say, "everyone who drives a car supports the oil industry (unless it's a 100% electric car)." because of the way the word 'support' is typically defined.

In most (if not all) dictionaries, this is NOT the first definition of the word 'support': "to give assistance to, especially financially" this is: "to agree with or approve of"

Yes, I see your point. I don't know of another word that is more accurate than support.

I meant primarily the definition to give assistance to, especially financially, but I think the other definition - to agree with or approve of - applies as well, at least to some degree. No one can deny that being killed is a violation of free will. No one can deny that animals don't want to be killed. That is obvious.

If it's not necessary, then why support it at all? It seems to me that eating meat anyway, when it's not necessary, indicates tacit approval.

[isis]

When someone says 'I support such-and-such...' they're typically saying they are for such-and-such. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Telling someone they're for something that they're not for might rub them the wrong way - especially where I live. (Polk County - which I've heard is meth capital of the world.) Here you can't (safely) say, "everyone who drives a car supports the oil industry (unless it's a 100% electric car)." because of the way the word 'support' is typically defined.

In most (if not all) dictionaries, this is NOT the first definition of the word 'support': "to give assistance to, especially financially" this is: "to agree with or approve of"

Yes, I see your point. I don't know of another word that is more accurate than support.

I meant primarily the definition to give assistance to, especially financially, but I think the other definition - to agree with or approve of - applies as well, at least to some degree. No one can deny that being killed is a violation of free will. No one can deny that animals don't want to be killed. That is obvious.

If it's not necessary, then why support it at all? It seems to me that eating meat anyway, when it's not necessary, indicates tacit approval.

GREAT REPLY!!!!!!!

[Unbound]

So everyone who eats meat knowing suffering occurs has self-serving intentions, and you know this for sure? (Since you seem to blanket everyone with the same assumptions, even though you also stated you can't know the intentions and motivations of another.)

You are confusing blanketing people's intentions with an action being inherently STS.

What do you think? Do you think that knowingly, unnecessarily supporting cruelty is STS, STO, or neutral?

I thought it was clearly stated that the polarity of any particular action in itself can't be determined? Yet here you are insisting that this particular action is, in itself, always, ever, polarizing STS. I simply don't agree with this interpretation, so your next question is convoluted. It is purely your own interpretation that says it is "inherently" STS. (That just sounds ridiculous to me.)

I think this whole argument is convoluted because it is so entirely black and white in its approach.

[Monica]

So everyone who eats meat knowing suffering occurs has self-serving intentions, and you know this for sure? (Since you seem to blanket everyone with the same assumptions, even though you also stated you can't know the intentions and motivations of another.)

You are confusing blanketing people's intentions with an action being inherently STS.

What do you think? Do you think that knowingly, unnecessarily supporting cruelty is STS, STO, or neutral?

I thought it was clearly stated that the polarity of any particular action in itself can't be determined? Yet here you are insisting that this particular action is, in itself, always, ever, polarizing STS. I simply don't agree with this interpretation, so your next question is convoluted. It is purely your own interpretation that says it is "inherently" STS. (That just sounds ridiculous to me.)

Nope, I never said that at all. Saying that an action is inherently STS isn't the same as saying that it is in itself, always, ever, polarizing STS. That would be true if I had said "Eating animals is always STS" but I never said that, and in fact went out of my way to clarify that. I'm not talking about a particular action by itself. Apparently you missed the qualifiers I added to the action:

knowingly, unnecessarily

---

GREAT REPLY!!!!!!!

I think this whole argument is convoluted because it is so entirely black and white in its approach.

Which is it? Convoluted or black and white? It can't be both.

[Jade]

You live(d) in a county called "Polk" that you thought was the meth capital of the world?

Don't mean to derail, but yes, indeed, I do live in a Polk County and Iowa is quite known for our meth (all the farms = easy access to ammonia).

Though I think our status as #1 in the world has probably slipped in the past decade or so actually, but the "capitol" is probably constantly in flux anyway.

[Unbound]

So everyone who eats meat knowing suffering occurs has self-serving intentions, and you know this for sure? (Since you seem to blanket everyone with the same assumptions, even though you also stated you can't know the intentions and motivations of another.)

You are confusing blanketing people's intentions with an action being inherently STS.

What do you think? Do you think that knowingly, unnecessarily supporting cruelty is STS, STO, or neutral?

I thought it was clearly stated that the polarity of any particular action in itself can't be determined? Yet here you are insisting that this particular action is, in itself, always, ever, polarizing STS. I simply don't agree with this interpretation, so your next question is convoluted. It is purely your own interpretation that says it is "inherently" STS. (That just sounds ridiculous to me.)

Nope, I never said that at all. Saying that an action is inherently STS isn't the same as saying that it is in itself, always, ever, polarizing STS. That would be true if I had said "Eating animals is always STS" but I never said that, and in fact went out of my way to clarify that. I'm not talking about a particular action by itself. Apparently you missed the qualifiers I added to the action:

knowingly, unnecessarily

---

GREAT REPLY!!!!!!!

I think this whole argument is convoluted because it is so entirely black and white in its approach.

Which is it? Convoluted or black and white? It can't be both.

"Knowingly, unnecessarily" is incredibly, incredibly vague, I don't see how those qualifiers cause it to be an STS action, especially if there is no work to control.

It's convoluted because it's black and white, this whole "one or the other" is what makes it so convoluted.

[isis]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=3875

[Monica]

"Knowingly, unnecessarily" is incredibly, incredibly vague, I don't see how those qualifiers cause it to be an STS action,

Gosh, I thought those words had very clear meanings. If the person knows that the animals suffer, and knows that eating meat is unnecessary, but does it anyway.

especially if there is no work to control.

The animals are being controlled and killed against their will. Controlling another entity is an STS trait.

It's convoluted because it's black and white, this whole "one or the other" is what makes it so convoluted.

Well, 'convoluted' means complicated/twisted/confusing/intricate/nuanced, whereas 'black and white' means simple/straightforward/lacking nuance. They have opposite meanings.

I've written enough on this topic here on B4 to make a book! You really think my views are black and white?

---

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

One's sex life is nobody else's business, unless they're imposing sex on a victim. 'Anything goes' between 2 consenting adults, but when an unconsenting victim is involved, then it's no longer 'personal.'

[Parsons]

especially if there is no work to control.

The animals are being controlled and killed against their will. Controlling another entity is an STS trait.

Only if the alternative wasn't feeding on another type of 2nd density life; which segues perfectly into what Tanner is trying to express:

It's convoluted because it's black and white, this whole "one or the other" is what makes it so convoluted.

Well, 'convoluted' means complicated/twisted/confusing/intricate/nuanced, whereas 'black and white' means simple/straightforward/lacking nuance. They have opposite meanings.

I've written enough on this topic here on B4 to make a book! You really think my views are black and white?

Yes, your views are black and white (overly simplistic) because your arguement conditionally ignores my above viewpoint that you must eat some form 2nd density life to survive. I say conditionally because you say 'yes, I understand I am eating life which has consciousness' but turn around and favor in your argument one form of 2D life over another, which is convoluted. So yes, you being black and white is convoluted in this context.

Moreover, your justification for being a bigot (noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions) is by definition controlling because as Plenum said, diet is a personal matter, which you are butting in to.

PS: If you try to repeat 'it is my business because you are controlling an animal by eating it', you will be ignoring my first point again which would lack any logic. I could turn that argument on you by saying that you are controlling vegetables by eating them.

[Monica]

especially if there is no work to control.

The animals are being controlled and killed against their will. Controlling another entity is an STS trait.

Only if the alternative wasn't feeding on another type of 2nd density life; which segues perfectly into what Tanner is trying to express:

It's convoluted because it's black and white, this whole "one or the other" is what makes it so convoluted.

Well, 'convoluted' means complicated/twisted/confusing/intricate/nuanced, whereas 'black and white' means simple/straightforward/lacking nuance. They have opposite meanings.

I've written enough on this topic here on B4 to make a book! You really think my views are black and white?

Yes, your views are black and white (overly simplistic) because your arguement conditionally ignores my above viewpoint that you must eat some form 2nd density life to survive. I say conditionally because you say 'yes, I understand I am eating life which has consciousness' but turn around and favor in your argument one form of 2D life over another, which is convoluted. So yes, you being black and white is convoluted in this context.

Moreover, your justification for being a bigot (noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions) is by definition controlling because as Plenum said, diet is a personal matter, which you are butting in to.

PS: If you try to repeat 'it is my business because you are controlling an animal by eating it', you will be ignoring my first point again which would lack any logic. I could turn that argument on you by saying that you are controlling vegetables by eating them.

Did you seriously just call me a bigot??? Then said I ignored other points??? WOW it is you who have obviously ignored the voluminous information posted by me and the other vegetarians. We have addressed the plants issue repeatedly. We have also tolerated personal attacks while maintaining courtesy. We are guilty only of having convictions.

It's valid to say my comments are verbose. I can even understand how they might seem convoluted to someone who doesn't understand them. But ignoring counterpoints? To say that to someone who painstakingly addresses every point made? The plants issue has been addressed numerous times. I even posted multiple links, rather than repeat myself. To say I ignored that issue is verifiably false. It's just absurd. Laughable.

Your bigot comment is offensive, but I forgive you. I understand that it's easier to lash out at others, rather than face one's own feelings of guilt. I feel zero guilt about eating plants. Go ahead and try to guilt-trip me about plants. It won't work.

If anyone feels guilt about eating animals, that isn't my fault.

I won't be engaging in conversation with you, Parsons.

[Unbound]

"Knowingly, unnecessarily" is incredibly, incredibly vague, I don't see how those qualifiers cause it to be an STS action,

Gosh, I thought those words had very clear meanings. If the person knows that the animals suffer, and knows that eating meat is unnecessary, but does it anyway.

especially if there is no work to control.

The animals are being controlled and killed against their will. Controlling another entity is an STS trait.

It's convoluted because it's black and white, this whole "one or the other" is what makes it so convoluted.

Well, 'convoluted' means complicated/twisted/confusing/intricate/nuanced, whereas 'black and white' means simple/straightforward/lacking nuance. They have opposite meanings.

I've written enough on this topic here on B4 to make a book! You really think my views are black and white?

---

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

One's sex life is nobody else's business, unless they're imposing sex on a victim. 'Anything goes' between 2 consenting adults, but when an unconsenting victim is involved, then it's no longer 'personal.'

It's not the meaning of the words that is vague, it is their apparent implications and connotations. Also, "necessary" is decided by whom?

Also, yes, your views, at least as far as humans go, are black and white - "veggies good, meat bad". This is convoluted because it is not, in fact, so straight-forward so the presentation as such is misleading.

That's what really bothers me about your approach is that you act like it should be obvious, when it isn't. This is a constructed belief.

---

especially if there is no work to control.

The animals are being controlled and killed against their will. Controlling another entity is an STS trait.

Only if the alternative wasn't feeding on another type of 2nd density life; which segues perfectly into what Tanner is trying to express:

It's convoluted because it's black and white, this whole "one or the other" is what makes it so convoluted.

Well, 'convoluted' means complicated/twisted/confusing/intricate/nuanced, whereas 'black and white' means simple/straightforward/lacking nuance. They have opposite meanings.

I've written enough on this topic here on B4 to make a book! You really think my views are black and white?

Yes, your views are black and white (overly simplistic) because your arguement conditionally ignores my above viewpoint that you must eat some form 2nd density life to survive. I say conditionally because you say 'yes, I understand I am eating life which has consciousness' but turn around and favor in your argument one form of 2D life over another, which is convoluted. So yes, you being black and white is convoluted in this context.

Moreover, your justification for being a bigot (noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions) is by definition controlling because as Plenum said, diet is a personal matter, which you are butting in to.

PS: If you try to repeat 'it is my business because you are controlling an animal by eating it', you will be ignoring my first point again which would lack any logic. I could turn that argument on you by saying that you are controlling vegetables by eating them.

Did you seriously just call me a bigot??? Then said I ignored other points??? WOW it is you who have obviously ignored the voluminous information posted by me and the other vegetarians. We have addressed the plants issue repeatedly. We have also tolerated personal attacks while maintaining courtesy. We are guilty only of having convictions.

It's valid to say my comments are verbose. I can even understand how they might seem convoluted to someone who doesn't understand them. But ignoring counterpoints? To say that to someone who painstakingly addresses every point made? The plants issue has been addressed numerous times. I even posted multiple links, rather than repeat myself. To say I ignored that issue is verifiably false. It's just absurd. Laughable.

Your bigot comment is offensive, but I forgive you. I understand that it's easier to lash out at others, rather than face one's own feelings of guilt. I feel zero guilt about eating plants. Go ahead and try to guilt-trip me about plants. It won't work.

If anyone feels guilt about eating animals, that isn't my fault.

I won't be engaging in conversation with you, Parsons.

I feel no guilt about eating animals or plants, and I view both as experiencing suffering, so why am I wrong?

---

black and white
if you think facts or situations are black and white, you have a simple and very certain opinion about them, often when other people think they are really more complicated

[Plenum]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=3875

thanks isis. You always know how to find the right words

[Diana]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

No, it isn't.

Sex involves 2 people (usually). Those two people are the only life-forms involved (unless they make a baby).

Diet involves other life-forms, of which their life force must be taken when one eats.

Simple. It's not the same. Diet may be a personal choice, but it's not just personal. It affects more than one's self.

[Unbound]

Nearly everything affects more than one's self.

[Diana]

Nearly everything affects more than one's self.

Oh, come on, Unbound. Geez. Using this thinking, we could never discuss anything.

This statement is inherently true, but the levels of affectation vary greatly. Do you mean to say the effects of having sex with one person are even similar to the effects of killing a living being? For the sake of this discussion, could we be a little less vague?

[Unbound]

I don't think the effects of any action are the same as any other. This isn't about whether or not there are similar or common effects, it's about whether one kind of effect is "better" or "worse" than another.

I will be completely honest that it was years ago that I swore off the whole "better-worse" dichotomy, so I have an exceedingly hard time thinking of things in that fashion.

[Diana]

especially if there is no work to control.

The animals are being controlled and killed against their will. Controlling another entity is an STS trait.

Only if the alternative wasn't feeding on another type of 2nd density life; which segues perfectly into what Tanner is trying to express:

It's convoluted because it's black and white, this whole "one or the other" is what makes it so convoluted.

Well, 'convoluted' means complicated/twisted/confusing/intricate/nuanced, whereas 'black and white' means simple/straightforward/lacking nuance. They have opposite meanings.

I've written enough on this topic here on B4 to make a book! You really think my views are black and white?

Yes, your views are black and white (overly simplistic) because your arguement conditionally ignores my above viewpoint that you must eat some form 2nd density life to survive. I say conditionally because you say 'yes, I understand I am eating life which has consciousness' but turn around and favor in your argument one form of 2D life over another, which is convoluted. So yes, you being black and white is convoluted in this context.

No. It's not convoluted. Ad nauseum....here we go again:

1. In killing and eating animals, we know as far as we possibly can know, that they DON'T want to be tortured and maimed and killed. Not true of plants. We do NOT know this though we may surmise it or hypothesize.

2. In raising animals for food, we actually consume MORE PLANT LIFE than we would if we only ate the plants.

Is there something about this someone here doesn't get? I'm not trying to push buttons or be domineering. It seems very simple to me.

Moreover, your justification for being a bigot (noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions) is by definition controlling because as Plenum said, diet is a personal matter, which you are butting in to.

Nice Parsons . . . calling Monica a bigot.

First of all, what Plenum said is an opinion. So one cannot say it is a truism, fact, axiom, or any other authority. I certainly do not agree with it.

People, every day, every minute, are expressing their opinions. Is it not okay for Monica to do so here, in this open forum, where someone else has brought up the subject, and presumably wanted comments?

Monica has her opinions (as does everyone here because this is a forum!), but she is also very well researched on this subject and has facts as well.

On the other hand, why become so defensive as to attack?

[Unbound]

I had a thought, kind of irrelevant to your post, but goes with the thread.

My theory is that this is actually breeding and feeding souls which will go on to be incredibly compassionate. The animals whom are experiencing the suffering, when their mind/body/spirit evolves to the point of being self-aware, will have an innate sense of what suffering is like and so will naturally be more inclined towards compassion.

I honestly see all of the horrible suffering and torture in the world as a enourmous catalyst for compassion.

---

(Also, I am not arguing for or against meat eating anymore really, not that I was from the start, as I know for myself what feels compassionate and right for me, but I am curious about implications on a long-term scale.)

[Diana]

I don't think the effects of any action are the same as any other. This isn't about whether or not there are similar or common effects, it's about whether one kind of effect is "better" or "worse" than another.

I will be completely honest that it was years ago that I swore off the whole "better-worse" dichotomy, so I have an exceedingly hard time thinking of things in that fashion.

I said nothing about "better or worse." I don't even subscribe to "right and wrong."

Within the context of this discussion, I am concerned with things such as:

1. Being a good caretaker of the planet that supports life, including ours.

2. Causing the least amount of harm. There are simply some things one can't avoid, like inhaling microbes. Though as far as harm goes, I have only my limited understanding: I KNOW harm is caused to animals in a big way, for instance.

So, regarding the idea of effect, yes, everything affects everything. So how is one to proceed in 3D? We have attributes such as discernment and compassion. We could just "be" and not participate at all. That's fine.

Please explain what you mean by saying that everything has an effect within the context of this discussion: sex vs. or and, eating animals.

[Unbound]

Suffering isn't only physical. Sex can cause lots of emotional and psychological suffering even when it is originally consensual.

My point is that suffering is laced throughout the world and there are many, many, opportunities for compassion and loving action.

---

I guess my real argument is that someone doesn't have to be vegetarian to be a compassionate, loving individual and care about suffering or its alleviation. To label everyone who eats meat as not that as such is to lack compassion for those individuals.

[Diana]

I had a thought, kind of irrelevant to your post, but goes with the thread.

My theory is that this is actually breeding and feeding souls which will go on to be incredibly compassionate. The animals whom are experiencing the suffering, when their mind/body/spirit evolves to the point of being self-aware, will have an innate sense of what suffering is like and so will naturally be more inclined towards compassion.

I honestly see all of the horrible suffering and torture in the world as a enourmous catalyst for compassion.

---

(Also, I am not arguing for or against meat eating anymore really, not that I was from the start, as I know for myself what feels compassionate and right for me, but I am curious about implications on a long-term scale.)

I agree this is a possibility and makes sense.

Humans have learned from their own sufferings in much the same way.

I, for one, would like to evolve past this sort of catalyst. One does not NEED to learn from suffering, though it is very effective. And I personally will not participate in a learning process that works by inflicting suffering (that's just me).

Let me take this theory a step farther, using parent/child as the subject. A child will learn from a parent very quickly not to do certain things, and to do certain things, out of fear, when the parent bullies and physically/mentally abuses. A child will also learn the same things out of love, when taught by a loving parent. This child will do things then out of love and acceptance, and not fear.

The child who learned out of fear will then have to exorcise the fear. How many adults are walking around with a wounded inner child?

So the cows tortured and killed may awaken to compassion, but it will awaken from fear, not love. Compare that to the pets who evolve to 3D because they are so loved.