Why I am not a vegan

[Parsons]

I'm not sure what you're talking about Monica, I wasn't that directing that at anyone.

[Diana]

I think it might be a good idea to step back and take a deep breath. I have just read a lot of name-calling.

I will say this: being vegetarian is difficult in this world for so many reasons. I feel that I must be so much more patient, allowing, tolerant, careful of my words and wording, and generally on guard all the time from being attacked by the mass population still ingrained in the system of raising animals for food.

At the same time I deal with the suffering because I am here and can't get away from it.

Putting aside for a moment the idea of having compassion for animals, I just don't see much compassion for vegetarians here at all. It's all about having compassion for those who choose to eat meat, and their free will, and how they handle it.

I, for one, would like to see a little empathy and understanding for the vegetarian point of view. I feel I have gone so far out of my way (which is good) to understand and "hear" and discuss with intention to really listen, all of the opinions here on this thread and others like it, from viewpoints that are not my own current ones.

I would love a little love here.

[Monica]

I'm not sure what you're talking about Monica, I wasn't that directing that at anyone.

You just used my name. You are making this about me. It isn't about me. It isn't about you. It's about the animals.

[Parsons]

I'm not sure what you mean by name-calling. I was just stating a bunch of words and directing them at nobody in particular.

Banana. Chair.

Now was I calling you or anyone else a banana or a chair? I was just stating random words.

Is there some kind of issue with this behavior, and if so, why?

---

I'm not sure what you're talking about Monica, I wasn't that directing that at anyone.

You just used my name. You are making this about me. It isn't about me. It isn't about you. It's about the animals.

I used your name only because you directly replied to me.

[Diana]

I'm not sure what you mean by name-calling. I was just stating a bunch of words and directing them at nobody in particular.

Are you honestly trying to say that the following is not name-calling?

Thread hijacker. Passive aggresive. Guilt tripper. Brow beater. Mindless zealot. Crusader. Solicitor. Indignant victim. Bigotry. Delusional. Devil's advocate. Controlling.

Just random words in this thread with no meaning? What did you mean by them then? If you directed them at no one in particular, what were they directed AT then?

---

Agree with Unbound.

Ridiculous, condescending, etc.

That being said, i think something positive can come out of the conversation. More awareness and consciousness which is always good. Having said that, i am appalled. i feel that basically accusing people of murder, assassination or whatever you want to call it is the epitome of self- righteous, fundamentalist attitudes.

Taking to the extreme, those kinds of mental ego traps are what is wrong with this world imo and causes the worst kind of separation which is in consciousness/ awareness rather than the material realm.

I can't discuss either because of that reason, there is abolutely no point in bringing an alternative viewpoint , or something else to seriously consider because you will end up being accused of murder! REALLY!!!?

I say all that even after having tofu for dinner last night. Discussing this has been good for me to gradually takes steps forward, but certainly not in a moralistic fundamentalist way, my purpose being to help others who know me open in awareness, not to judge them. And certainly not for me to consider myself more STO or spiritually evolved than them. The epitome of arrogance!!

Apparently you think harsh, accusing words are the loving answer to what you deem as accusing to you or a group (which is a perception).

As to the idea of murder, well, explain how it is not murder. No judgment here. I would just like to hear your side of it.

And why is it not worth discussing? You claim you have been helped yourself in this discussion.

[Unbound]

I think it might be a good idea to step back and take a deep breath. I have just read a lot of name-calling.

I will say this: being vegetarian is difficult in this world for so many reasons. I feel that I must be so much more patient, allowing, tolerant, careful of my words and wording, and generally on guard all the time from being attacked by the mass population still ingrained in the system of raising animals for food.

At the same time I deal with the suffering because I am here and can't get away from it.

Putting aside for a moment the idea of having compassion for animals, I just don't see much compassion for vegetarians here at all. It's all about having compassion for those who choose to eat meat, and their free will, and how they handle it.

I, for one, would like to see a little empathy and understanding for the vegetarian point of view. I feel I have gone so far out of my way (which is good) to understand and "hear" and discuss with intention to really listen, all of the opinions here on this thread and others like it, from viewpoints that are not my own current ones.

I would love a little love here.

I have all the respect in the world for the intention and path of vegetarians, I seriously have no issues at all with it and I support it for whomever feels it is most appropriate for them. This whole discussion from my side has never been about "meat-eating vs vegetarianism" although I know that is the focus of the thread, it has been about acceptance of different paths. I can see clearly that my path will never be "accepted" in this thread and I will continue to be accused of murder, but that doesn't mean I think the same towards vegetarians. I have only ever used the "plants are sentient" example as a way to establish an equality of ideas but there is no equality of ideas, there is emotions and dogma.

I praise your love, compassion and choices to eat what feels most appropriate to you, I do not praise the attacks upon my character. (Which I know you, personally are not doing, but I am speaking generally, of course...)

[Monica]

I have all the respect in the world for the intention and path of vegetarians, I seriously have no issues at all with it and I support it for whomever feels it is most appropriate for them. This whole discussion from my side has never been about "meat-eating vs vegetarianism" although I know that is the focus of the thread, it has been about acceptance of different paths. I can see clearly that my path will never be "accepted" in this thread and I will continue to be accused of murder, but that doesn't mean I think the same towards vegetarians. I have only ever used the "plants are sentient" example as a way to establish an equality of ideas but there is no equality of ideas, there is emotions and dogma.

I praise your love, compassion and choices to eat what feels most appropriate to you, I do not praise the attacks upon my character. (Which I know you, personally are not doing, but I am speaking generally, of course...)

Would you expect 'equality of ideas' if we were discussing human slavery or the holocaust?

---

Banana. Chair.

Now was I calling you or anyone else a banana or a chair? I was just stating random words.

Your sarcasm is a distraction.

Why are humans other-selves but animals aren't?

Why is your dog or cat an other-self, but cows, chickens, pigs and turkeys aren't?

[Diana]

I would love a little love here.

I have all the respect in the world for the intention and path of vegetarians, I seriously have no issues at all with it and I support it for whomever feels it is most appropriate for them. This whole discussion from my side has never been about "meat-eating vs vegetarianism" although I know that is the focus of the thread, it has been about acceptance of different paths. I can see clearly that my path will never be "accepted" in this thread and I will continue to be accused of murder, but that doesn't mean I think the same towards vegetarians. I have only ever used the "plants are sentient" example as a way to establish an equality of ideas but there is no equality of ideas, there is emotions and dogma.

I praise your love, compassion and choices to eat what feels most appropriate to you, I do not praise the attacks upon my character. (Which I know you, personally are not doing, but I am speaking generally, of course...)

Thank you for your understanding.

Meat-eating vs. vegetarianism" has unfortunately become the focus of this thread. For me, it's about doing the least harm, and trying to flush out how best to do that. There is a lot of emotion around this subject, which is the biggest reason, in my opinion, to persevere.

I admit to not being above pushing buttons at times, which may be interpreted as controlling or even doing harm. I have admitted repeatedly that I don't consider myself very evolved in the scheme of things, but I endeavor to evolve. Interacting here (in general) is a good way to stretch limits and forge ahead.

As everything—in my mind—is equal, so are all ideas. It is the context and intention and focus that bring about shades and nuances of effectiveness, understanding, and awareness of a particular idea.

I hope you and others who feel their characters are being questioned can hang in here, and continue to evolve and explore these ideas. If there is any truth to the idea of wanderers, or light-workers, or souls here to help shift things by being the light and letting it flow out and spread, then an opportunity exists for work to be done right here, where the very souls who are here to accomplish these things are gathered.

[Shemaya]

Agree with Unbound.

Ridiculous, condescending, etc.

That being said, i think something positive can come out of the conversation. More awareness and consciousness which is always good. Having said that, i am appalled. i feel that basically accusing people of murder, assassination or whatever you want to call it is the epitome of self- righteous, fundamentalist attitudes.

Taking to the extreme, those kinds of mental ego traps are what is wrong with this world imo and causes the worst kind of separation which is in consciousness/ awareness rather than the material realm.

I can't discuss either because of that reason, there is abolutely no point in bringing an alternative viewpoint , or something else to seriously consider because you will end up being accused of murder! REALLY!!!?

I say all that even after having tofu for dinner last night. Discussing this has been good for me to gradually takes steps forward, but certainly not in a moralistic fundamentalist way, my purpose being to help others who know me open in awareness, not to judge them. And certainly not for me to consider myself more STO or spiritually evolved than them. The epitome of arrogance!!

Apparently you think harsh, accusing words are the loving answer to what you deem as accusing to you or a group (which is a perception).

As to the idea of murder, well, explain how it is not murder. No judgment here. I would just like to hear your side of it.

And why is it not worth discussing? You claim you have been helped yourself in this discussion.

Diana, you are very reasonable, easy to talk to and I admire your commitment to your convictions. You and Monica seem to have strong hearts for good and what it right. I respect that totally.

I have been vegetarian/pescetarian on and off for 9 years, way before I encountered these discussions on this forum. So I am not sure what group you are speaking of. My group is the planetary sphere, and more specifically humanity. That is one of the things I tried to bring up for discussion. It would be better to work together and communicate from that mindset rather than meat-eaters vs. vegetarians imo, as I said before.

I said it was the epitome of arrogance to judge my family and consider myself more spiritually evolved than them because they were eating flesh and I was not. If you are taking that personally, well that is your catalyst (and Monica's apparently, blah blah blah) not mine.

As far as murder, look it up in the dictionary. It is clearly defined there. So do you want people to be imprisoned for eating meat? That is basically what this line of reasoning leads to, eventually , laws would be made that prohibited the killing of animals if the killing of an animal is considered murder. If animals are equally our other-selves, in order to have a just society, we would have laws for murder apply to animals. I really am just saying that as food for thought, because I don't need to discuss it. In our current society, which is a huge mess of violence and injustice, that is a ridiculous pursuit, I personally feel, because there are so many many injustices that need to be dealt with for our society, and I feel the expenditure of energy would be better directed elsewhere, that is my opinion.

If you think my perception of fundamentalist thinking/ self-righteousness regarding Monica's posts is wrong; it's just my opinion based on how she responded to me and especially Unbound in this thread. Why does my opinion matter? It's not an insult, it's my perception of the strict, rigid adherence to veganism that I perceive from mostly Monica's responses in this thread. I felt that strict ,rigid adherence to a vegan viewpoint earlier in the thread when I brought up something new to discuss.

I am very familiar with fundamentalist thinking, many of the people I know are religious fundamentalists and I have always had a problem with that kind of thinking.

However, I would have to totally agree with the spirit of the discussion in that we have to change, as a society, to a food system that is sustainable, nourishing , holistic and based on love which includes nonviolence.

[Monica]

I said it was the epitome of arrogance to judge my family and consider myself more spiritually evolved than them because they were eating flesh and I was not. If you are taking that personally, well that is your catalyst (and Monica's apparently, blah blah blah) not mine.

The way it was worded by you and others, it seemed very clear that you thought that's what we were doing, despite us going out of our way to reiterate that we don't consider ourselves superior.

As far as murder, look it up in the dictionary. It is clearly defined there.

noun
1.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
2.
Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous:
That final exam was murder!
3.
a group or flock of crows.
verb (used with object)
4.
Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

#5 doesn't specify humans, but common usage implies that it refers to humans only. For this reason, I have avoided using that term. However, again I ask the question: Why does it apply to humans only? Not talking about legality here, but of spiritual principles.

So do you want people to be imprisoned for eating meat? That is basically what this line of reasoning leads to, eventually , laws would be made that prohibited the killing of animals if the killing of an animal is considered murder.

We are so far away from that, that it's a completely moot point.

If you think my perception of fundamentalist thinking/ self-righteousness regarding Monica's posts is wrong; it's just my opinion based on how she responded to me and especially Unbound in this thread.

So anyone who has any convictions or ideals is fundamentalist and rigid? If I think human slavery is wrong, does that make me fundamentalist and rigid?

Do you have any convictions about anything?

How about rape? or human murder? Is someone opposed to those things also 'fundamentalist and rigid'? Are those working to save children from predators 'self-righteous'?

Why does my opinion matter? It's not an insult, it's my perception of the strict, rigid adherence to veganism that I perceive from mostly Monica's responses in this thread. I felt that strict ,rigid adherence to a vegan viewpoint earlier in the thread when I brought up something new to discuss.

So what's wrong with that? Would you feel the same way about someone who had 'strict, rigid adherence' to the idea that murder or rape was wrong?

I am very familiar with fundamentalist thinking, many of the people I know are religious fundamentalists and I have always had a problem with that kind of thinking.

Even when it's applied to, say, murder or rape? Do you have a problem with that?

However, I would have to totally agree with the spirit of the discussion in that we have to change, as a society, to a food system that is sustainable, nourishing , holistic and based on love which includes nonviolence.

That is impossible to do without addressing the meat industry. It's the elephant in the room.

[Shemaya]

noun
1.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
2.
Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous:
That final exam was murder!
3.
a group or flock of crows.
verb (used with object)
4.
Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

#5 doesn't specify humans, but common usage implies that it refers to humans only. For this reason, I have avoided using that term. However, again I ask the question: Why does it apply to humans only? Not talking about legality here, but of spiritual principles.

You said below its a moot point since we are so far away from considering animal slaughter murder . And I said I did not need to discuss this point with you.

So do you want people to be imprisoned for eating meat? That is basically what this line of reasoning leads to, eventually , laws would be made that prohibited the killing of animals if the killing of an animal is considered murder.

We are so far away from that, that it's a completely moot point.

No it's not a moot point. You already said that animals are our equal other-selves, so by logic I can assume that you want to imprison/punish anyone who kills them in order to mete out justice.

So anyone who has any convictions or ideals is fundamentalist and rigid? If I think human slavery is wrong, does that make me fundamentalist and rigid?

No.

Do you have any convictions about anything?

Yes

How about rape? or human murder? Is someone opposed to those things also 'fundamentalist and rigid'? Are those working to save children from predators 'self-righteous'?

There is a difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. People who believe that their religion is the one true religion are self-righteous. Righteousness is what is right. Self-righteous is being moralistic and intolerant of the behavior of others.

So what's wrong with that? Would you feel the same way about someone who had 'strict, rigid adherence' to the idea that murder or rape was wrong?

Moot point, of course not. As I said, righteousness and self-righteousness are not the same thing. An example of self -righteousness in my opinion is when I discussed my chickens and you went on about people with backyard chickens "kill" them when they stop laying eggs. I couldn't even respond to that because it made me angry number one, and it was judgmental/self-righteous, imo, number two. Honestly, I was appalled then, but didn't say anything.

This a judgment from someone who is vegan who thinks raising chickens is bad/ wrong? Not sure what you think, but I got the impression you are not an advocate of backyard chickens.

However, from my point of view, it is a very righteous thing to do. It's a great way to get people to think about the issues. I tell them about my chickens and why I have them and then they are very quiet . Hopefully being thoughtful about the issues.

However, I would have to totally agree with the spirit of the discussion in that we have to change, as a society, to a food system that is sustainable, nourishing , holistic and based on love which includes nonviolence.

That is impossible to do without addressing the meat industry. It's the elephant in the room.

Besides these posts, what exactly are you doing to address the meat industry? I'd be interested to know of the activism you are doing.

[Monica]

No it's not a moot point. You already said that animals are our equal other-selves, so by logic I can assume that you want to imprison/punish anyone who kills them in order to mete out justice.

Then you assume wrong. I'm not even thinking about legality at all. All of my views have been from the perspective of spirituality, not legality.

The idea of imprisoning meat-eaters is absurd. Not because animals are worth less than humans, but because meat-eating is so ingrained in society.

Therefore it is moot.

So anyone who has any convictions or ideals is fundamentalist and rigid? If I think human slavery is wrong, does that make me fundamentalist and rigid?

No.

Why not? What is the difference?

Do you have any convictions about anything?

Yes

Are you 'rigid, fundamentalist and self-righteous' for having those convictions?

There is a difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. People who believe that their religion is the one true religion are self-righteous.

Agreed. But that doesn't apply here at all.

Righteousness is what is right. Self-righteous is being moralistic and intolerant of the behavior of others.

Then are you saying we should be tolerant of murderers and rapists? And never try to raise awareness about human murder and rape? (since that would be 'moralizing'.)

So what's wrong with that? Would you feel the same way about someone who had 'strict, rigid adherence' to the idea that murder or rape was wrong?

Moot point, of course not.

Why do you say 'of course not'? Isn't that a double standard? Why is it ok for you to 'moralize' about your convictions that murder and rape are wrong, but it's 'self-righteous, arrogant and judgmental' if vegans do the same?

As I said, righteousness and self-righteousness are not the same thing. An example of self -righteousness in my opinion is when I discussed my chickens and you went on about people with backyard chickens "kill" them when they stop laying eggs. I couldn't even respond to that because it made me angry number one, and it was judgmental/self-righteous, imo, number two. Honestly, I was appalled then, but didn't say anything.

You aren't answering my questions. Why is me pointing out the obvious (that backyard chickens are typically sold for meat) 'judgmental/self-righteous'? Is it not a fact that backyard chickens are sold for meat?

This a judgment from someone who is vegan who thinks raising chickens is bad/ wrong? Not sure what you think, but I got the impression you are not an advocate of backyard chickens.

What difference does that make? I told you that I actually support people who raise backyard chickens. I buy their eggs at the farmer's market. So it appears that you have made some assumptions here. If you got angry when I asked whether those chickens get sold for meat, that isn't may fault. It was an honest question.

However, from my point of view, it is a very righteous thing to do. It's a great way to get people to think about the issues. I tell them about my chickens and why I have them and then they are very quiet . Hopefully being thoughtful about the issues.

It isn't a black-and-white issue. I don't like that they are sold for meat. But we have to feed our dogs and cats, so for now I continue to support people like you. For you to twist that into me supposedly 'judging' you and being 'self-righteous' and then getting angry, are all your own perceptions/projections, not mine.

Besides these posts, what exactly are you doing to address the meat industry? I'd be interested to know of the activism you are doing.

I am in the alternative health business so I talk with many people on a daily basis. I bring up the issue only if/when it seems appropriate, usually in the context of health. Raising awareness one person at a time. I have participated in rallies in the past, but I no longer think those are effective. I support organizations who do billboards. (I don't support anyone doing any kind of vandalism.) Right now, I am spearheading a project to pay people to watch a 4-minute slaughterhouse video. This has been been done by others and has proven to be the most effective strategy ever, to raise awareness. People won't usually watch the videos on their own, but they'll do it for pay. We set up a table in public places and offer the pay-per-view to passersby. I think it's a brilliant idea!

The reason I participate in these discussion here on B4 is because I feel it's very important. If otherwise 'spiritual' people continue to be blind to this issue, then what hope is there for the rest of the world?

[Parsons]

I'm not sure what you mean by name-calling. I was just stating a bunch of words and directing them at nobody in particular.

Are you honestly trying to say that the following is not name-calling?

Thread hijacker. Passive aggresive. Guilt tripper. Brow beater. Mindless zealot. Crusader. Solicitor. Indignant victim. Bigotry. Delusional. Devil's advocate. Controlling.

Just random words in this thread with no meaning? What did you mean by them then? If you directed them at no one in particular, what were they directed AT then?

Name calling to whom? I am being general as not to single anyone out. I thought that behavior was acceptable since my behavior has been called 'STS', supporting cruelty, etc, but only indirectly so as not to offend. Am I not allowed to use the same tactic?

Or is employing that tactic inappropriate in general?

I'll only concede that was directed at someone in particular if everyone involved concedes that indirect name calling is still name calling.

[Monica]

Name calling to whom? I am being general as not to single anyone out. I thought that behavior was acceptable since my behavior has been called 'STS', supporting cruelty, etc, but only indirectly so as not to offend. Am I not allowed to use the same tactic?

Or is employing that tactic inappropriate in general?

I'll only concede that was directed at someone in particular if everyone involved concedes that indirect name calling is still name calling.

Eating an apple is inherently STS. Anyone who eats apples is knowingly engaging in STS activity.

[Jade]

Hmm... I personally feel that what you describe, Monica (paying people to watch slaughterhouse movies) is an STS act. Getting someone's consent to traumatize them in a way which makes them change their behavior sounds pretty STS to me. The lesser of two evils no doubt, but the core of the action seems to be more about control. A loose analogy that comes to mind are anti-abortion activists - their heart is in the right place (saving unborn babies), but their means of going about it are about manipulation instead of love and acceptance.

Much of this thread has made me sad, as I think there has been way too much goading going on to be conducive to a contemplative outcome. Both parties have hyperbolized too far and have thrown a serious and considerate argument down the drain. I have another analogy to offer: The Ebola Thread. Sbrawkcab posted with an extremely overwhelming feeling of compassion towards the perceived "innocent" victims of Ebola and asked for help in a way that he believed was the most simple and effective. He was immediately met with contradiction that his concerns were invalid on a higher level. This wasn't the response he was anticipating (the wisdom over the compassion) so he got hurt, and then angry. Throw in some "mmm mmm dead Ebola'd Africans taste delicious" and you have this thread.

[Shemaya]

Then you assume wrong. I'm not even thinking about legality at all. All of my views have been from the perspective of spirituality, not legality.

The idea of imprisoning meat-eaters is absurd. Not because animals are worth less than humans, but because meat-eating is so ingrained in society.

Therefore it is moot.

I think not.

Why not? What is the difference?

What, the difference between someone who is vegan, and someone who has basic human morals? That's a pretty absurd question.

Are you 'rigid, fundamentalist and self-righteous' for having those convictions?

I don't think so. You tell me.

Agreed. But that doesn't apply here at all.

I think it does

Then are you saying we should be tolerant of murderers and rapists? And never try to raise awareness about human murder and rape? (since that would be 'moralizing'.)

Absolutely not. I am not in any way opposed to moral standards.

Why do you say 'of course not'? Isn't that a double standard? Why is it ok for you to 'moralize' about your convictions that murder and rape are wrong, but it's 'self-righteous, arrogant and judgmental' if vegans do the same?

Monica you are making a really strong generalization and assumption here. I am talking about what came across to me in our discussion here in this thread, not "vegans". This does not apply to vegans as a group, in fact I think vegans should stop thinking of themselves as different or set apart from meat-eaters. We are one humanity and we need to start acting that way. One Earth. One humanity. We need to create a food system that works for everybody and is nurturing, sustaining and loving.

You aren't answering my questions. Why is me pointing out the obvious (that backyard chickens are typically sold for meat) 'judgmental/self-righteous'? Is it not a fact that backyard chickens are sold for meat?

Well then. I am not answering your questions?
I wasn't aware that people sell their chickens. In fact, I adopted 3 old ones that someone needed a home for and that is how I got started with it. If you care so much for these animals, why don't you adopt the old ones like I did?

What difference does that make? I told you that I actually support people who raise backyard chickens. I buy their eggs at the farmer's market. So it appears that you have made some assumptions here. If you got angry when I asked whether those chickens get sold for meat, that isn't may fault. It was an honest question.

As have you made a ton of assumptions. And it makes a difference because if you are making judgments about people who raise backyard chickens, I don't think that is helpful to your cause at all, I think it really hurts the cause of a sustainable and nurturing food supply.

It isn't a black-and-white issue. I don't like that they are sold for meat.

Well, like I said, you could put your money where your mouth is and adopt some, like I did, and encourage others to do the same.

But we have to feed our dogs and cats, so for now I continue to support people like you. For you to twist that into me supposedly 'judging' you and being 'self-righteous' and then getting angry, are all your own perceptions/projections, not mine.

Well we have to feed humans too. There are millions, billions of starving people. The children's home we support in Kenya has 100 kids. I was able to visit them. They have a cow, and would like to get enough money to get chickens for the eggs, which I fully support, financially and otherwise. I twisted nothing Monica. You clearly have said you support them "for now". I can definitely sense some judgment there, deny it if you want, it doesn't really matter either way. I just hope you will change your mind about the chickens, it is a really great way to get people to break out of the system , AND feed the hungry people of the world.

Right now, I am spearheading a project to pay people to watch a 4-minute slaughterhouse video. This has been been done by others and has proven to be the most effective strategy ever, to raise awareness. People won't usually watch the videos on their own, but they'll do it for pay. We set up a table in public places and offer the pay-per-view to passersby. I think it's a brilliant idea!

Well at least that's something. I suggest you get involved in some legal action too if people are that passionate about there cause.




Spiritual people are not blind to this issue. You are making a big judgment/ assumption there and it would be helped by making the assumption that spiritual people care, are loving, and want a better world for all of us.

[Diana]

I said it was the epitome of arrogance to judge my family and consider myself more spiritually evolved than them because they were eating flesh and I was not. If you are taking that personally, well that is your catalyst (and Monica's apparently, blah blah blah) not mine.

I misunderstood you there. But I did not take it personally. I don't take any of this personally.

As far as murder, look it up in the dictionary. It is clearly defined there. So do you want people to be imprisoned for eating meat? That is basically what this line of reasoning leads to, eventually , laws would be made that prohibited the killing of animals if the killing of an animal is considered murder. If animals are equally our other-selves, in order to have a just society, we would have laws for murder apply to animals. I really am just saying that as food for thought, because I don't need to discuss it. In our current society, which is a huge mess of violence and injustice, that is a ridiculous pursuit, I personally feel, because there are so many many injustices that need to be dealt with for our society, and I feel the expenditure of energy would be better directed elsewhere, that is my opinion.

No, I don't want people imprisoned for eating meat. I think that might fall under hyperbole. It's taking the idea too far and making assumptions. I think the question of "murder" sounds dramatic, but it's also just academic and logical (from my view point). I don't, personally, see any difference in regards to life (not legalities), between needlessly taking the life of an animal or a human. I don't believe humans need to eat meat, therefore, it is not necessary. It must be considered, as I have pointed out before, that all sentient beings have instinctual ties to their tribe; so there is more gut reaction in general to harm being done to one's own species, which probably accounts for some of the disconnect going on in regards to using animals.

But I really don't want to get so dramatic about it. It boils down to respect for all life to me. Not just humans.

If you think my perception of fundamentalist thinking/ self-righteousness regarding Monica's posts is wrong; it's just my opinion based on how she responded to me and especially Unbound in this thread. Why does my opinion matter? It's not an insult, it's my perception of the strict, rigid adherence to veganism that I perceive from mostly Monica's responses in this thread. I felt that strict ,rigid adherence to a vegan viewpoint earlier in the thread when I brought up something new to discuss.

To me, "fundamentalist thinking/self-righteousness" is an insult.

You say "why does my opinion matter," so then, why does Monica's? I say let her have her opinion.

I am very familiar with fundamentalist thinking, many of the people I know are religious fundamentalists and I have always had a problem with that kind of thinking.

Me too. It's not just religions, the media is telling everyone what to think and anesthetizing them into doing it.

But I don't think standing up for animal rights is like witnessing for a fundamentalist religion. First of all, religion is mostly fiction (in my opinion) and seems to be nothing but horrifically stupid dogma and control (I freely admit to an abhorrence of organized religion). Animal rights activists are more like the activists for slavery, or women's rights, or racial rights. Animal rights activists are just trying to bring awareness and protection to a victimized group.

When there are great changes that need to happen, such as the abolition of slavery, unfortunately it has to get in people's faces. Historically, there seems to be the need for a huge initial thrust to get things noticed and moving.

However, I would have to totally agree with the spirit of the discussion in that we have to change, as a society, to a food system that is sustainable, nourishing , holistic and based on love which includes nonviolence.

Absolutely.

[Patrick]

For those of you who only feel well on a low-carb diet (such as myself), I would like to share with you an interesting quote.

...we would note that not only the animals but the plants also are growing within the creation of the Father, blooming and dying at a rhythm of their own. In a very real way, it is as much of an offense, one may say, to pluck a bean or dig a potato from the ground as it is to slaughter an animal, for you have interrupted the cycle of its life and its dancing with the Creator as you do so...

So the solution I put into practice is this; I simply say thank you for their sacrifice, to the animals I eat, just as much as I do for plants. Thank you for allowing me to continue my incarnation. They are the Creator just as much as I am and just as much as you are.

[Monica]

For those of you who only feel well on a low-carb diet (such as myself),

There are ways to do low-carb without eating animals.

I would like to share with you an interesting quote.

...we would note that not only the animals but the plants also are growing within the creation of the Father, blooming and dying at a rhythm of their own. In a very real way, it is as much of an offense, one may say, to pluck a bean or dig a potato from the ground as it is to slaughter an animal, for you have interrupted the cycle of its life and its dancing with the Creator as you do so...

Q'uo is consciously channeled by Carla, who has her own biases like everyone does. I don't take consciously channeled info as authoritative, because it is distorted by the person channeling it.

---

Why not? What is the difference?

What, the difference between someone who is vegan, and someone who has basic human morals? That's a pretty absurd question.

No, what is the difference between having convictions about saving younger 2D selves, in contrast to having convictions about saving human victims?

Are you 'rigid, fundamentalist and self-righteous' for having those convictions?

I don't think so. You tell me.

Then that is a double standard. You say I am 'rigid, fundamentalist and self-righteous' because I speak up on behalf of animal victims, yet you think you aren't those things also in regards to your own convictions. That is a double standard.

Agreed. But that doesn't apply here at all.

I think it does

If so, then women championing rape victims, those fighting to end slavery, or those who helped the Jews during the holocaust, and everyone else helping any other victims, are all 'rigid, fundamentalist and self-righteous'.

Then are you saying we should be tolerant of murderers and rapists? And never try to raise awareness about human murder and rape? (since that would be 'moralizing'.)

Absolutely not. I am not in any way opposed to moral standards.

Why, then, are you opposed to us speaking up for our own moral standards?

Or is it only YOUR personal standards that you respect? You do not respect the convictions of others?

Why do you say 'of course not'? Isn't that a double standard? Why is it ok for you to 'moralize' about your convictions that murder and rape are wrong, but it's 'self-righteous, arrogant and judgmental' if vegans do the same?

Monica you are making a really strong generalization and assumption here. I am talking about what came across to me in our discussion here in this thread, not "vegans".

What if this was a discussion forum about, say, rape? And there were members who said rape was ok? What if you felt compelled to speak up for rape victims, and then someone told you that you were 'moralizing' and 'rigid and self-righteous' for championing the victims?

This does not apply to vegans as a group, in fact I think vegans should stop thinking of themselves as different or set apart from meat-eaters.

Vegans aren't setting themselves apart. Vegans are championing the oppressed...the victims. The oppressors don't like that, just like slave 'owners' didn't like the freedom activists.

We are one humanity and we need to start acting that way. One Earth. One humanity.

Only humans? What about our younger 2D other-selves? Why not include them too?

We need to create a food system that works for everybody and is nurturing, sustaining and loving.

That is impossible while still raising animals for meat, torturing and killing them. That's simply not loving, no matter how you slice it.

I wasn't aware that people sell their chickens. In fact, I adopted 3 old ones that someone needed a home for and that is how I got started with it.

Good for you. If you re-read my original post about the chickens, you asked what I thought and I said I support backyard chicken-raising, and I even explained how I disagree with most vegans, because of my childhood being around chickens and observing that the hens lay eggs anyway. I then ASKED you what happens to the old chickens after they no longer produce eggs, and told you that my only concern was that they may get sold for meat.

There is NO WAY that original post was judgmental towards you! I answered your questions fairly and honestly.

As have you made a ton of assumptions. And it makes a difference because if you are making judgments about people who raise backyard chickens, I don't think that is helpful to your cause at all, I think it really hurts the cause of a sustainable and nurturing food supply.

That is absolute BS. My original post about chickens wasn't judgmental, and I made no assumptions about your particular chickens.

Well, like I said, you could put your money where your mouth is and adopt some, like I did, and encourage others to do the same.

I have been very patient but your sarcasm and continual jabbing are really getting old.

Well we have to feed humans too.

The planet can sustain a LOT more humans by feeding plants directly to them, instead of feeding plants to farm animals then eating the animals. The meat industry is extremely inefficient. This is well documented.

Spiritual people are not blind to this issue. You are making a big judgment/ assumption there and it would be helped by making the assumption that spiritual people care, are loving, and want a better world for all of us.

Been there done that. See the original meat threads, from several years ago, that went on for many months.

I was appalled at the end of it, when I realized just how much denial is here with 'spiritual' people.

I tiptoed around for years. I have been courteous but I'm no longer tiptoeing. I haven't made any direct insults towards anyone, yet several people continue to be sarcastic and fling insults.

I am appalled at the lack of courtesy displayed here. And NO, I cannot be accused of that. I have consistently spoken of ideas and concepts, NOT individuals. That is a fact.

---

Hmm... I personally feel that what you describe, Monica (paying people to watch slaughterhouse movies) is an STS act. Getting someone's consent to traumatize them in a way which makes them change their behavior sounds pretty STS to me.

No one is being forced. It is truth. It is real. We cannot 'make them' change. We're only paying them $1 so there's no taking advantage of desperate people either. And if killing and eating animals is no big deal, then it shouldn't be traumatizing to anyone.

[Shemaya]

Then that is a double standard. You say I am 'rigid, fundamentalist and self-righteous' because I speak up on behalf of animal victims, yet you think you aren't those things also in regards to your own convictions. That is a double standard.

No Monica, you totally misunderstand. I did not say that because you speak out for animals. In fact I said that I admire your strong heart for what is right and good. I said what I said because of your method of argument and debate. It seems to me that you are not that open to other viewpoints in this subject. Am I wrong about that? So being closed ,in my view, is like being rigid.

Not sure what double standard you are talking about, I am not putting my convictions up for debate here as you are.

At any rate, no sense in discussing further. You are obviously not interested in feeding hungry children in Africa or finding common ground for agreement on this issue.

Additionally, you keep comparing what you are doing here on a random internet forum to abolitionists and civil rights activists. Really no comparison, they did much much more than debate with people on an internet forum. They showed up marching in places like Washington, made huge sacrifices to make the changes they believed in. They were able to convince others by the power of their love and compassion in action ( not by empty verbage) to make societies needed changes. In fact in the civil war 750,000 people died! Sacrifice! If you are going to invoke those powerful social movements get some oomph behind it and get involved to make the changes needed. March on Washington, call your legislators, get those feedlots and torturous factory farms abolished. That is something I could get behind for sure. But this endless unfruitful dialogue is no where near the sacrifices those people made for their causes.

---

[Billy]

What about the idea that the best way to change the world is by transforming your inner self (be the change you want to see in the world)? Or is that just a cop out? Or does it need to be balanced by direct action? I feel guilty for not being more active and I guess the above is a way for me to justify my non action. Maybe I need to get off of my ass.

[Shemaya]

What about the idea that the best way to change the world is by transforming your inner self (be the change you want to see in the world)? Or is that just a cop out? Or does it need to be balanced by direct action? I feel guilty for not being more active and I guess the above is a way for me to justify my non action. Maybe I need to get off of my ass.

Hi Folklove,
I think we do need an inner transformation. I know I need/ needed one. The spiritual path is about the inner transformation, which in our violent and oppressive world, is a lot about forgiveness and raising our awareness/ consciousness, from my experience.

However, that statement is sometimes used as a cop out, I think, too. Ghandi, who was one of our greatest spiritual leaders, was all about action ( and also a strict vegetarian). He organized and led a successful social movement of nonviolent protest, engaging all sorts of different people from all walks of life. He led by example and action, confronting the injustice of their time. They were able to overthrow the British colonizers/ oppressors.

There is still so much work like that to be done! We need a million Ghandi's! I think in order to bring 4D for humans, action in confronting our economic slavery, political oppression and spiritual suppression is absolutely needed.

[Monica]

No Monica, you totally misunderstand. I did not say that because you speak out for animals. In fact I said that I admire your strong heart for what is right and good. I said what I said because of your method of argument and debate. It seems to me that you are not that open to other viewpoints in this subject. Am I wrong about that? So being closed ,in my view, is like being rigid.

Is it 'rigid' to stand firm that rape and murder are wrong?

Ok, if you want to use the word 'rigid' for people who think murder and rape are wrong, then fine, I am 'rigid' that eating meat isn't necessary for human health, and to eat meat anyway, while being aware of the cruelty, is STS.

OK, I will admit to that, along with being 'rigid' that murder, rape, pedophilia, war, and other atrocities are also wrong.

It is fashionable here at B4 to say "there is no right or wrong' because Ra said that in 6D there is no right or wrong.

We aren't in 6D. We are in 3D. Here, some things are wrong (for an STO entity anyway).

Knowingly contributing to the suffering of other entities is wrong.

What does 'wrong' mean?

In Law of One vernacular, it means STS for an STO being. (What is wrong for an STO might be right for an STS.)

Beyond that, there is a lot of wiggle room. I'd say Diana and I have been pretty damn accommodating and patient, even flexible. You seem to forget that we are the minority here and in the everyday world. We must deal with meat-eaters every single day. We must see bloody body parts of our friends every time we shop at the grocery store or eat out at a restaurant, or even watch tv.

And we must keep our mouths shut most of the time, if we wish to still function in society.

Cut us some slack. We have to put up with a whole helluva lot more than you do, yet we maintain courtesy, without insulting anyone directly like you do.It's a delicate balancing act we must perform, every single day. Hell yeah we are firm in our stance that unnecessarily eating meat is wrong. WRONG!!!

If you think we are like born-again fundamentalists for having that conviction, that is your perception and you know what? I frankly don't care. It's getting old.

The meat discussions always, always, always end up at this point. Meat-eaters cannot seem to discuss the topic, but ALWAYS end up turning the discussion around to insulting the vegetarians. They always end up making it about US instead of the topic at hand.

You know what? Even if we WERE narrow-minded, rigid, fundamentalist, controlling, delusional, mindless zealot, bigoted, and all the other insulting things we've been accused of, SO FUCKING WHAT? That still does not change the fact that meat-eaters are doing something that is CRUEL and UNnecessary.

Meat-eaters can dance around this all day long but it's not gonna change.

Meat-eaters can keep pointing the finger at us, but their other 4 fingers are pointing back at themselves.

At any rate, no sense in discussing further. You are obviously not interested in feeding hungry children in Africa

You know, I had felt ZERO emotional charge this whole time, even when Parsons called me a bigot. I actually laughed at the absurdity of his ridiculous insult.

Until now.

I confess you have finally succeeded in getting a rise out of m e. HOW DARE YOU say I am not interested in feeding hungry children????

To say that out of the blue...when we weren't even talking about starving children...it is clear that your intention was to insult. I mean, WTF???? WHERE did that even come from?

That is extremely obnoxious and offensive!!! Especially when you KNOW that the meat industry is a major factor in causing the food/sustainability crisis in the first place! When forests are being cut down at an alarming rate to satisfy humans' lust for flesh, at the expense of the indigenous peoples' natural habitat....when you KNOW that it takes many orders of magnitude more resources of water and other resources to produce 1 lb. of meat as compared to a lb. of plant food...when most of the world's food is being fed to farm animals instead of to starving children!

Save Starving Children - Quit Eating Meat

And I have stated these things repeatedly.

For you to now say such an outrageous thing...projecting ANY lie onto me is offensive, but this is exceptionally offensive.

If you want to be treated with respect, then be respectful yourself. I can respect the person overall while still disagreeing about the meat issue. But I have zero respect for people who did what you just did, or what Parsons has done also.

Congratulations! You finally pissed me off. And you have completely derailed this thread. Are you happy now?

Additionally, you keep comparing what you are doing here on a random internet forum to abolitionists and civil rights activists. Really no comparison, they did much much more than debate with people on an internet forum. They showed up marching in places like Washington, made huge sacrifices to make the changes they believed in. They were able to convince others by the power of their love and compassion in action ( not by empty verbage) to make societies needed changes. In fact in the civil war 750,000 people died! Sacrifice! If you are going to invoke those powerful social movements get some oomph behind it and get involved to make the changes needed. March on Washington, call your legislators, get those feedlots and torturous factory farms abolished. That is something I could get behind for sure. But this endless unfruitful dialogue is no where near the sacrifices those people made for their causes.

That too is offensive. So you were trying to trap me, eh? When you asked what else I am doing, apparently that isn't enough, so now you are telling me other things I should also be doing?

In the first place, they didn't have an internet back then. If they had, they surely would have used it.

Secondly, I DON'T ANSWER TO YOU. I intentionally did NOT tell you all that I do, because I knew you'd pick it apart. I told you some of what I do, in an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. You just proved your true intentions in asking me what I do. None of your business what sort of activism I do! Did you really think I was going to tell you everything? Think what you like. You're not down here in the trenches working for this cause, and don't even agree with the cause itself, so you have no business judging what we do. Again, HOW DARE YOU even begin to judge my activism! and say it doesn't compare to what other activists did, while at the same time arguing against the very cause itself. I mean really, what balls you have!

Thirdly, this forum is supposedly inhabited by 'Wanderers' though I seriously doubt that anymore. So-called 'spiritual' people ought to be able to understand simple concepts like cruelty and compassion.

But ironically, most vegetarians/vegans have never even heard of the Law of One, yet they get it - they 'get' the concept of compassion towards animals!! while most people here don't.

So maybe you are right about that part. Maybe this is a supreme waste of time.

But no, I don't think so, because the meat threads consistently get the most hits out of all the discussions here at B4.

There are usually only a handful of meat-eaters defending their actions and insulting us, but obviously there are MANY lurkers.

It is for them that I continue, not for those who continue to defend that which cannot be defended.

[Parsons]

These threads get a lot of hits because:

1) A handful of members are very active in the thread. Every single time someone checks the thread, posts a quick reply, edits a post, or even hits the preview button (again, every single time, not just the first time), it counts as a view. For instance, I will click the preview button 2-10 times before I post this.

2) Threads where discussions get heated tend to get a lot of views for the afformentioned reasons but also a lot of people (myself included) have a difficult time not checking a thread when an argument doesn't hold water or simply can't look away from conflict. I have tried to stop checking this thread all together several times but keep coming back because of that.

3) This thread can be viewed without an account, which means Google and other search engines will index the thread ASAP after each reply is posted. That does NOT mean someone is Googling something and clicking this thread; it only means Google has cached new posts in their search results. This alone will account for the majority of the views. I have seen many threads with only 10-20 replies get over a thousand views because of search engine indexing.

[Monica]

when an argument doesn't hold water

Ah, that explains it! The meat-eaters' arguments don't hold water and that's what makes these threads so popular...ah ok thanks.

[Diana]

At any rate, no sense in discussing further. You are obviously not interested in feeding hungry children in Africa or finding common ground for agreement on this issue.

Monica answered this as it was directed at her. But I feel compelled to say something. The above is a very low blow in addition to being made up and inaccurate. I personally don't know anyone as involved in actually taking action to help the world as Monica is.

Additionally, you keep comparing what you are doing here on a random internet forum to abolitionists and civil rights activists. Really no comparison, they did much much more than debate with people on an internet forum. They showed up marching in places like Washington, made huge sacrifices to make the changes they believed in. They were able to convince others by the power of their love and compassion in action ( not by empty verbage) to make societies needed changes. In fact in the civil war 750,000 people died! Sacrifice! If you are going to invoke those powerful social movements get some oomph behind it and get involved to make the changes needed. March on Washington, call your legislators, get those feedlots and torturous factory farms abolished. That is something I could get behind for sure. But this endless unfruitful dialogue is no where near the sacrifices those people made for their causes.

---

This makes no sense at all. On the one hand, Monica does TOO much by expressing her opinions—which by the way, include a LOT of facts—and are perceived as rigid and fundamentalist, but on the other hand, you would respect her if she did MORE (which you don't know that she doesn't). I realize from your posts, that you take issue with the way Monica expresses herself, but perhaps you could forgive her for "rubbing you the wrong way." We are all different. And Monica feels (com)passionately about this.

I would love to get back to the issues at hand in the thread. But it seems to be inevitable that this subject churns up volatility. I was very disappointed that the first thread, In Regards to Eating Meat, was shut down. I will never understand why in a place that flows from the Ra Material and the LOO, where "catalyst" is presumably understood, a thread should be closed because it got too heated. What's wrong with that? If someone steps over the guidelines, then deal with that, don't shut down the venue where catalyst is working its magic for us all.

I never did like that new-agey "all is well" and "anger is bad" and "let's just smile and be happy" BS. Anger just is, when it is. And "all is well" may be true for beings so advanced they actually KNOW this from a much larger perspective. And smiling and putting on a happy face when inside you are stuffing down real feelings is folly in my opinion.

So I say, let the discussion continue, but may we all stay focused on the ideas here, and try to be honest with ourselves and others. May we be respectful, and not jump to conclusions when we are triggered.

Let's discuss a topic of great importance in an effort to gain, and participate in adding to, enlightenment on it. This will include facts and opinions and points of view that will trigger us. So what? Let the triggers fly. We may be making more work for the mods in doing so, but I'm sure they'll forgive us.

[Nicholas]

I would love to get back to the issues at hand in the thread.

Me - Yes I found value in the initial offering by GS because since then I have purchased some B12 supplements from my local natural store.

I will never understand why in a place that flows from the Ra Material and the LOO, where "catalyst" is presumably understood, a thread should be closed because it got too heated. What's wrong with that?

Me - Because Ra were (humble) messengers of tLoO, that chose not to use divisively or emotionally charged rhetoric aimed at controlling the way Don, Carla and Jim thought or felt.

40.14 ↥ Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the most or the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?

Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self. In addition, though this has not been mentioned, for this instrument is not in need of purification, those entities in need of purging the self of a poison thought-form or emotion complex do well to take care in following a program of careful fasting until the destructive thought-form has been purged analogously with the by-products of ridding the physical vehicle of excess material. Again you see the value not to the body complex but used as a link for the mind and spirit. Thus self reveals self to self.

I never did like that new-agey "all is well" and "anger is bad" and "let's just smile and be happy" BS.

Me neither, however since reading and re-reading tLoO I think I understand the new-agey crews (fear of their own shadow) attempt to mitigate their shortcomings with the happy happy persona.

The "mods" however are not as unenlightened as you assume (imo).

The essence of a 'comm''unity' lies in its ability to understand and tolerate different viewpoints because of the bigger picture. That being an opportunity for service to self entrepreneurs to exploit any division that might arise.

Therefore if the "Bring4th" mods intervene, is it not to preserve the essential idea that inspired this website into being? That being to foster a community for souls that feel lost and left out?

The meat eating topic is as divisive as it can get and I truly appreciate Monica's sharing of her vast amount of research into this topic. I believe I am correct in assuming we also share the same avatar picture, and if so I also can relate to Monica's empathy for all that Mother Earth gives birth to.

A mother's essence is to protect and nurture life and I appeal to all that wish to carry on in this thread to recognise the origins that Life protecting efforts spring from.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX3kJYk1EXM#t=1876

[Ashim]

Knowingly contributing to the suffering of other entities is wrong.

Why does suffering exist?
Why is causing suffering wrong?

What about wisdom over compassion?

Remember 'right' or 'wrong' has no place in unity.

Have you really thought about this Monica?

[Monica]

Knowingly contributing to the suffering of other entities is wrong.

Why does suffering exist?

To provide catalyst. STS entities serve the Creator by doing the dirty work of causing suffering. Theirs is a bloody path...

Why is causing suffering wrong?

It's not...for STS entities.

It is for STO entities.

What about wisdom over compassion?

Wisdom doesn't negate compassion. Wisdom is added to a foundation of compassion.

But many people here think that compassion is to be tossed out...that is folly, not wisdom.

Remember 'right' or 'wrong' has no place in unity.

As I said, there is no right or wrong in 6D. However, there IS here in 3D!

Have you really thought about this Monica?

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shemaya]

Monica, I am not judging you on your activism. I guess I sure did hit a button there. Hopefully you will eventually forgive me, I know I don't feel harmed or hurt by "being rubbed the wrong way" as Diana put it.

Initially, I had a few points that I wanted add to the discussion that I thought were missing out of the whole picture. And of course I am coming from the point of view that veganism (no animal products for sustenance ever) is not for everybody at this moment in existence.

My hope, my prayer, my dream is that enough people on this planet can join forces and change the oppressive, enslaving, food system that we have. That somehow as a species , we , together can create a nurturing, sustaining, and compassionate system to provide sustenance for the multitudes. Even Christ himself gave people fish to eat, but that is beside the point. Even Ghandi drank milk, he felt he needed it to recover from illness.

You being the passionate, compassionate powerful woman that you are could be like Ghandi, a leader in such a social movement. However mostly what I hear from you, and I know you have written thousands of words here so I am not disregarding that effort at all, is the message " Stop eating meat". I just don't agree that the answer is that simple at this moment in time, and obviously it is divisive. True, rich Americans have access to whatever they need for nutrition, but there are many limitations with regard to the developing world.

I understand distress and deep grief and deep sorrow. I know what that feels like. I know this has been a challenging road to follow for you and others.

If my viewpoint or thoughts are not heard or unwelcome, such is life when interacting with others. I joined the conversation because there was something I wanted to say. And I accept the catalyst for myself to work through my distortions, as well as hopefully being catalyst for others. That's it. Be well.