Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

Other than what someone can pretend to be, do you see yourself as the One? do you see other-selves as the One? do you see what you consider victims as the One?

Or do you consider that there is no One Infinite Creator that explores Itself?

We're all One, and we're also distorted. Both are true.

...

[Minyatur]

Other than what someone can pretend to be, do you see yourself as the One? do you see other-selves as the One? do you see what you consider victims as the One?

Or do you consider that there is no One Infinite Creator that explores Itself?

We're all One, and we're also distorted. Both are true.

...

Then are any distortions unlike the One? or are they an exploration of what we all are?

[Monica]

Then are any distortions unlike the One? or are they an exploration of what we all are?

We've covered this ground before and reached a stalemate. It's irrelevant in regards to whether it's appropriate (or polarizing if you prefer) for an STO-oriented entity to essentially play the role of the STS entity, by offering negative catalyst. Since your views about polarity and catalyst are different from mine, I don't think we'll ever reach an understanding on this point.

...

[Parsons]

No it is not evangelistic thinking (at least I don't perceive it to be). More it was a logical assumption. Here we are consuming various forms of 2nd density manifestations in order to sustain our own personal manifestations. According to Ra, the concept of ingesting foodstuffs in the 5th density illusion is, "somewhat a central point".

Preceding the quote above is this...

43.20 Questioner: I’m guessing that it is not necessary to ingest food in fifth density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. However, the vehicle needs food which may be prepared by thought.
43.21 Questioner: What type of food would this be?
Ra: I am Ra. You would call this type of food nectar, or ambrosia, or a light broth of golden white hue.

So is it logical to assume that in 5th density, all entities are preparing food, not using their 5th density limbs (whatever that may look like), but using thought? Yes. That is if we hold any stock in the info that Ra offers us.

And beyond the 5th density, Ra describe food in the 6th aspect of the grand illusion at 43.24. "the nature of this food is that of light and is impossible to describe to you in any meaningful way as regards the thrust of your query."

So it is my logical assumption that in-between where we are now and the 6th density run of things (according to Ra that is), veganism as a practise, rather than an identity  would be collectively explored. 

The most important distinction for me lies between the concepts of "foodstuff" (which is objective), and "harvest" (which is subjective).

Okay, this is finally a new argument that I have not seen before, so I will respond.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are likening the "nectar/ambrosia/light broth" to eating a vegetable? If I'm off, ignore the following response.

All life from simple bacteria to plants to animals are 2nd density. This 'foodstuff' that Ra is describing is most definitely not 2nd density matter. So I don't agree with the assertion that we would collectively exploring veganism as a practice/identity. I would say we would collectively exploring eating this ambrosia that they attempt to approximate (which we do not have a word for in our language). So we would not be eating 2nd density life at all, which I would not define as vegan.

[Monica]

All life from simple bacteria to plants to animals are 2nd density.

Is the Neanderthal the same as the human who is ready for graduation to 4D?

This 'foodstuff' that Ra is describing is most definitely not 2nd density matter. So I don't agree with the assertion that we would collectively exploring veganism as a practice/identity. I would say we would collectively exploring eating this ambrosia that they attempt to approximate (which we do not have a word for in our language). So we would not be eating 2nd density life at all, which I would not define as vegan.

Will humans go from eating hamburgers to consuming nectar, all in an instant, like Poof?

...

[Parsons]

Both of those are rhetorical questions with no bearing on my line of inquiry. Plus it has been argued ad nauseam; I will not discuss it. I was asking Nicholas.

[Monica]

Both of those are rhetorical questions with no bearing on my line of inquiry. Plus it has been argued ad nauseam; I will not discuss it. I was asking Nicholas.

I understand that you were asking Nicholas some other questions but I am asking you these: I am wondering if you think we're going to go Poof into eating nectar, and if you think the Neanderthal is the same as a human nearing graduation to 4D.

...

[Diana]

I have been reading what has transpired in this thread the last few days. I'm really amazed and not a little flummoxed.

Look, does NO meat-eater here understand what the vegan point of view is? Come on people. No one is pointing the finger at meat-eaters. No one is trying to "make the meat-eaters feel bad." It sounds like a grade school whine. We have differences of opinion, different points of view, different perceptions, and different awarenesses, all of us. Because this is true of everything, we can come here and discuss things to the mutual benefit of all, in an environment where we agree to discuss these things.

If anyone "feels bad" own your responsibility in feeling that way. Don't say: Someone made me. Countless times in threads like this I was attacked directly. Veganism has been attacked in these threads by those who seem to otherwise have very loving posts, calling us extremists and zealots as though we were likened to Al Quaeda. For God's sake, aside from the "free will, personal choice" idea, it cannot be argued that veganism is BAD for this planet or the beings on it.

What we have here are opinions and feelings on the subject. I would ask members who have recently been attacking others to stop, and remember that this goes both ways. Just because vegans are in the minority and not popular does not make it okay to be mean to us. Not that I care personally because I don't, but it makes the conversation counterproductive. Someone mentioned trolls—what do you think just outright complaining is doing here in this thread?

So what if the subject has been discussed ad nauseum? That we are still here talking about it justifies its existence. Evidently there is still catalyst and something to be learned. So if you just want to come here to whine and complain, think about why you are doing this.

And if we can, let's honor this catalyst and continue down this conflicted path (or not) with respect for each other, while also letting our true feelings surface for the good of all and our own selves, while claiming our feelings as our own and not blaming others for them.

[AnthroHeart]

I wonder if this nectar is sweet or salty.

[anagogy]

Veganism has been attacked in these threads by those who seem to otherwise have very loving posts, calling us extremists and zealots as though we were likened to Al Quaeda.

So implying someone is acting zealotous (as omnivores in this thread have implied) is mean, but implying someone is basically equivalent to being a murderer (as vegans in this thread have implied) because they eat meat isn't mean? Don't you see how that interpretation is a tad bit hypocritical?

I would ask members who have recently been attacking others to stop, and remember that this goes both ways. Just because vegans are in the minority and not popular does not make it okay to be mean to us.

If anyone "feels bad" own your responsibility in feeling that way.

Why do you interpret it as being mean?  Why are you choosing to feel bad over what was said?  Do you think their intent was to be mean to you?

[Diana]

Veganism has been attacked in these threads by those who seem to otherwise have very loving posts, calling us extremists and zealots as though we were likened to Al Quaeda.

So implying someone is acting zealotous (as omnivores in this thread have implied) is mean, but implying someone is basically equivalent to being a murderer (as vegans in this thread have implied) because they eat meat isn't mean?  Don't you see how that interpretation is a tad bit hypocritical?

I can see how you might interpret things this way. But it isn't accurate. That "vegans are zealots" was not implied, it was written and said explicitly (repeatedly). As for the implication that meat-eaters are equivalent to muderers, that is an unfortunate result of trying to get a point across about the way animals are treated by using the human equivalent. No one has accused anyone of being a murderer. I can understand that someone might feel this was implied. But it really isn't.

Perhaps you could suggest another way to get such points across without making these analogies?

I would ask members who have recently been attacking others to stop, and remember that this goes both ways. Just because vegans are in the minority and not popular does not make it okay to be mean to us.

If anyone "feels bad" own your responsibility in feeling that way.

Why do you interpret it as being mean?  Why are you choosing to feel bad over what was said?  Do you think their intent was to be mean to you?

I don't feel badly, as you will see if you reread my post. I don't think anyone's intent was "to be mean to me." First of all, I don't really care about that. Secondly, I was speaking in general for the sake of the thread and its efficaciousness.

There were some "mean" posts of late (in my opinion) which seemed to be very attacking to the vegan standpoint. I'm not trying to place blame, just pointing out that we might get further if we all take responsibility for our own reactions and feelings.

I do not think I am a hypocrite. Though I know none of us sees ourselves as clearly as we might.

[Monica]

This 'foodstuff' that Ra is describing is most definitely not 2nd density matter. So I don't agree with the assertion that we would collectively exploring veganism as a practice/identity. I would say we would collectively exploring eating this ambrosia that they attempt to approximate (which we do not have a word for in our language).

How do you know it isn't 2D matter? Has Ra explicitly stated that there won't be any plants in 4D+?

43.21 Questioner: What type of food would this be?
Ra: I am Ra. You would call this type of food nectar, or ambrosia, or a light broth of golden white hue.

Since Ra used the terms nectar, ambrosia, and light broth as the closest approximation, it seems to me that it might indeed be nectar from some sort of flower perhaps; ie., 2D matter. Broth just means juice of some sort. Broth can be from meat, but that would certainly Not be considered a 'light' broth! Light as in, Not heavy or oily.

So we would not be eating 2nd density life at all, which I would not define as vegan.

Although vegans eat plant-derived foods, the most important definition of vegan is that we avoid using or consuming any substance that came from an animal. By this definition, even if we consumed only this nectar, we'd still be vegan. There is No question that those in higher STO densities are vegan! (Likely Not true for higher STS densities!)

Then the question remains: Are we seriously going to just keep eating dead animals, and expect to go Poof and suddenly be living on nothing but nectar? That seems a bit like the Christian version of being raptured up. What about the evolution of consciousness?

...

[Diana]

This 'foodstuff' that Ra is describing is most definitely not 2nd density matter. So I don't agree with the assertion that we would collectively exploring veganism as a practice/identity.

43.21 Questioner: What type of food would this be?
Ra: I am Ra. You would call this type of food nectar, or ambrosia, or a light broth of golden white hue.

Since Ra used the terms nectar, ambrosia, and light broth as the closest approximation, it seems to me that it might indeed be nectar from some sort of flower perhaps; ie., 2D matter. Broth just means juice of some sort. Broth can be from meat, but that would certainly Not be considered a 'light' broth! Light as in, Not heavy or oily.

In any case, for speculation's sake, plants are closer to light via photosynthesis, which makes a case for plants as food being closer to light nectar.

[anagogy]

I don't feel badly, as you will see if you reread my post. I don't think anyone's intent was "to be mean to me." First of all, I don't really care about that. Secondly, I was speaking in general for the sake of the thread and its efficaciousness.

There were some "mean" posts of late (in my opinion) which seemed to be very attacking to the vegan standpoint. I'm not trying to place blame, just pointing out that we might get further if we all take responsibility for our own reactions and feelings.

I agree with you, which is why I wanted to point out that often we inadvertently choose to interpret alternate perspectives as attacks, when in fact they aren't.  The second we interpret a perspective as an attack, we've set ourselves at enmity with other.  

It just provided an opportunity to remind everyone that opposing perspectives or interpretations are not an attack, regardless of what side of the vegan/omnivore side of the fence we fall on.

[Night Owl]

I have to apologize for anything I would have said that made any vegan threaten. I also apologize has I've said way many too many things out of context but after a few days I've worked my ideas and came to a conclusion. I feel sad that this debate would still go about eating meat being bad or not that was not the point.
All my efforts were somewhat related to Monica and it was no offense and I will agree to anything you say that not eating meat is better than eating meat.

But I was only refering to the fact that you opened up yourself to a learning experience from both sides when you started those thread and you have closed your heart to those opportunities when they came to you just because those who had something to teach you were eating meat and their opinions maybe didn't have the same value to your eyes. I will take back anything I have said if you would just consider that and I would feel like I have made my duty if that makes you somehow reach some compassion for those whose lifestyle is different than yours that you judge it good or bad because their experiences have something worth learning from.

In short I hope being right will not block your heart from a learning experience in the future. And I tell you that sincerely and out of love because I have nothing to gain from this thread except the joy of seeing it reach compassion and oneness one both sides.

[Parsons]

@Diana and Monica, Ra does not explicitly say anywhere in the material that the food material consumed in 5th density is 2D material of any type, let alone plant matter. Fifth and sixth density are decidedly not third density. To say the food they describe is 2D plant matter is an assumption made with absolutely no backing.

Based on their vague description, there are three possibilities:

1) It is 2D plant-based matter that is created for consumption
2) It is 1D based matter that is formulated to the specific nutritional needs of the entity creating it
3) It is something entirely unknown because we are in a lower density.

Imagine trying to describe snow to someone who has lived in the desert their whole life that has never even seen open water and has never talked to someone who has. The only way you could describe it is to try to relate objects/substances the person already knows. You might try to describe it as "cold white salt that falls from the sky and melts when it's warm". Ra's description of this 5D food is going to be equally difficult.

My point is you cannot make the assumption that it is 2D plant matter based on the Ra material. It could be any one of those 3 possibilities. Assuming it is any particular of the three is pure speculation.

[Minyatur]

Then are any distortions unlike the One? or are they an exploration of what we all are?

We've covered this ground before and reached a stalemate. It's irrelevant in regards to whether it's appropriate (or polarizing if you prefer) for an STO-oriented entity to essentially play the role of the STS entity, by offering negative catalyst. Since your views about polarity and catalyst are different from mine, I don't think we'll ever reach an understanding on this point.

...

But beyond the illusionary separation, whether you eat meat or not, are you not what created every single pain and joy in creation for your own experience of it? Did you not create meat eaters to walk among them while not partaking in their acts? Did you not create these very victims just so that you could champion them?

It seems to me that you promote seperation just as much as you try to solve it. What other-selves do is what I do through the harvest of their path of experiences, what you do is what I do through the harvest of your path of experiences, what I do is what I do through my own path and harvest of experiences. All is One.

I do consider myself to be polarizing toward the STO path but I do not view the manner to do so to act as if I was not myself and as if I felt about things the same way some particular other-self among infinite others feels about them.

[Monica]

So implying someone is acting zealotous (as omnivores in this thread have implied) is mean, but implying someone is basically equivalent to being a murderer (as vegans in this thread have implied) because they eat meat isn't mean?  Don't you see how that interpretation is a tad bit hypocritical?

For the record, I have never called any meat-eater a murderer. I have used the term murder only in analogies, usually in response to people saying that animals chose to be tortured and killed. My analogy was to point out that this logic doesn't work, because humans choose (on some level) to be raped and murdered too, but that doesn't mean it's ok for STO entities to murder and rape humans, right?

The reason I have never said that animals are being murdered is that the term murder usually refers to the illegal killing of humans only. Soldiers kill other humans in war, but that isn't murder, in the legal sense. There is a broader definition of murder that does indeed apply to the killing of animals:

5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t

So, actually, I could say that 'meat' animals are being murdered and it would be accurate. Nevertheless, I have avoided using that term because 'the illegal killing of a human' is the more common definition.

I have, however, used the terms torture, rape, and kill in direct reference to animals, and I do mean those literally. Dairy cows are repeatedly raped, literally. The farmer puts on a plastic glove and literally sticks his arm all the way up her vagina, to artificially inseminate her. Rape means sexual violation. The farmer doesn't have to put his own penis in her vagina for it to be rape. He is violating her, and that is rape.

As soon as her calf is born, he taken away, and put in a tiny, dark stall, and kept anemic, all to make his flesh taste more tender. That's called veal. The milk that his mother's body produced to feed him is, instead, taken from her and fed to humans instead. Then the process is repeated. Dairy calves have to have babies in order to produce milk, so they are kept perpetually pregnant or lactating.

So yes, cows are literally raped. And, factory-farmed cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys are literally tortured for most of their lives. Those lucky enough to be raised on 'humane' farms aren't tortured, but many of them are still mistreated, and all of them are still killed against their will. Former farmers and ranchers have testified that there is No such thing as 'humane' meat.

These are all FACTS. None of these facts have ever been stated in the form of 'meat eaters are murderers and rapists OF ANIMALS' but that is the logical implication, obviously.

Notice that I specifically said OF ANIMALS. No one has ever stated or even implied that meat-eaters are murdering or raping humans. Only animals. So why is anyone offended? We're only talking about animals here. Animals don't matter, right? So why not murder and rape them? Why get offended if someone implies that that is what's happening, when animals are raised and killed for meat and dairy? After all, it is literally TRUE, so what's the big deal?

Here's the key though: If it is OK to rape, kill and eat animals, since they are 'just 2D' then why would it be offensive to say that one is murdering and raping animals?

I mean really, think about it. The meat-eaters have been arguing that it's ok to eat meat because animals are just like plants, just 2D. Some have said they aren't sentient, others have said it's ok to rape, torture, kill and eat them because they 'chose' it, etc. So if those things are true, then what's the big deal? Why would anyone be offended if we simply say it like it is?

So on the one hand, the meat-eaters are arguing that it's ok to rape, torture, and kill animals, but then on the other hand they get offended if we use those words? If animals are just lowly 2D entities, like blades of grass, then why does it matter?

You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, argue that animals are the same as lettuces, and then on the other, be offended if we imply that meat-eaters are murdering and raping animals. Would you be offended if we said you were murdering and raping lettuces? No, that would be absurd! But if lettuces and cows are exactly the same, then what's the big deal how we describe the process of turning them into 'food'?

I invite you to think about that.

Why do you interpret it as being mean?  Why are you choosing to feel bad over what was said?  Do you think their intent was to be mean to you?

I don't feel bad at all about what was said. It bothered me in the early days, but I quit letting it bother me years ago. But there is a big difference: Many of the meat-eaters have repeatedly attacked US as people, with various insults regarding us personally, whereas we haven't done that to any of you.

We have merely stated the FACTS about the process of how animals get turned into meat and dairy. They don't do so willingly. It's a bloody mess. It's extremely cruel and violent. Those are facts. Interpret those words as you wish, but they're facts.

...

[Monica]

I have to apologize for anything I would have said that made any vegan threaten. I also apologize has I've said way many too many things out of context but after a few days I've worked my ideas and came to a conclusion. I feel sad that this debate would still go about eating meat being bad or not that was not the point.
All my efforts were somewhat related to Monica and it was no offense and I will agree to anything you say that not eating meat is better than eating meat.

But I was only refering to the fact that you opened up yourself to a learning experience from both sides when you started those thread and you have closed your heart to those opportunities when they came to you just because those who had something to teach you were eating meat and their opinions maybe didn't have the same value to your eyes. I will take back anything I have said if you would just consider that and I would feel like I have made my duty if that makes you somehow reach some compassion for those whose lifestyle is different than yours that you judge it good or bad  because their experiences have something worth learning from.

In short I hope being right will not block your heart from a learning experience in the future. And I tell you that sincerely and out of love because I have nothing to gain from this thread except the joy of seeing it reach compassion and oneness one both sides.

I am quite accustomed to meat-eaters using me as a scapegoat, rather than facing their own consciences. But this discussion isn't about me. Thank you for your offer but I decline. Let go of any perceived duty on my behalf. Peace to you.

...

[Monica]

@Diana and Monica, Ra does not explicitly say anywhere in the material that the food material consumed in 5th density is 2D material of any type, let alone plant matter. Fifth and sixth density are decidedly not third density. To say the food they describe is 2D plant matter is an assumption made with absolutely no backing.

Based on their vague description, there are three possibilities:

1) It is 2D plant-based matter that is created for consumption
2) It is 1D based matter that is formulated to the specific nutritional needs of the entity creating it
3) It is something entirely unknown because we are in a lower density.

Imagine trying to describe snow to someone who has lived in the desert their whole life that has never even seen open water and has never talked to someone who has. The only way you could describe it is to try to relate objects/substances the person already knows. You might try to describe it as "cold white salt that falls from the sky and melts when it's warm". Ra's description of this 5D food is going to be equally difficult.

My point is you cannot make the assumption that it is 2D plant matter based on the Ra material. It could be any one of those 3 possibilities. Assuming it is any particular of the three is pure speculation.

I notice you didn't include meat as an option. Why not?

...

[Parsons]

I notice you didn't include meat as an option. Why not?

I will not answer your loaded questions; please rephrase.

[Monica]

I notice you didn't include meat as an option. Why not?

I will not answer your loaded questions; please rephrase.

WTF? Loaded questions?? I ask a simple question and get an inflammatory response. Again, WTF??

Why do you list 3 options but don't include meat as an option? Why wouldn't 4D+ entities be eating beef broth?

...

[Night Owl]

I have to apologize for anything I would have said that made any vegan threaten. I also apologize has I've said way many too many things out of context but after a few days I've worked my ideas and came to a conclusion. I feel sad that this debate would still go about eating meat being bad or not that was not the point.
All my efforts were somewhat related to Monica and it was no offense and I will agree to anything you say that not eating meat is better than eating meat.

But I was only refering to the fact that you opened up yourself to a learning experience from both sides when you started those thread and you have closed your heart to those opportunities when they came to you just because those who had something to teach you were eating meat and their opinions maybe didn't have the same value to your eyes. I will take back anything I have said if you would just consider that and I would feel like I have made my duty if that makes you somehow reach some compassion for those whose lifestyle is different than yours that you judge it good or bad  because their experiences have something worth learning from.

In short I hope being right will not block your heart from a learning experience in the future. And I tell you that sincerely and out of love because I have nothing to gain from this thread except the joy of seeing it reach compassion and oneness one both sides.

I am quite accustomed to meat-eaters using me as a scapegoat, rather than facing their own consciences. But this discussion isn't about me. Thank you for your offer but I decline. Let go of any perceived duty on my behalf. Peace to you.

...

I apologize for saying I have nothing to gain from this thread as I was mainly talking about the fact nobody is gonna teach me that there is much animal suffering I already know. I said that mainly to express that I speak on an impersonal level when in this thread. But that doesn't mean it cannot change. If you do have someting to teach then go on I am more than willing to learn as I am willing to teach but this is a two-way process. You seek to unslave animals from man, I seek to unslave man from man himself and by doing that, unslave myself as well because I am every other selves.

Nobody is using you as a scapegoat. In fact I do think this discussion is about you since you started the vegan threads and you reject the learning opportunities you have yourself called upon at the beginging. And I don't perceive any duty on your behalf. I don't understand how you can somehow accuse meat eaters of fleeing from facing their own consciences and not see how that is also your case. But you are right that it should not be about you, so I'll move further with relevant philosophical content.

Something I would like you to tell me is how do you expect someone not to be in the sinkhole of indifference at all. I mean you can polarize positively on a subject like meat but there is probably infinite other subjects one can not even be aware of that he lies in the sinkhole. How does one expect not being in the sinkhole at all? How can one judge others for being in that sinkhole if one cannot perceive every possibilities for him to be in that sinkhole? I could be a vegan but there is so much people I have not helped on this planet. I have not helped anybody victims of famine, tsunami, hurricanes, war, diseases. Would becoming a vegan make me STO by default regardless of all that happening since I am born?

Let's say I become a vegan, does that affect my polarity if I don't try to convince everybody else that they also should? Then it becomes: How does not doing something bring you polarization? Is that even valid? What is common ground necessary to even answer that properly? In fact only based on how I feel I can find compassion to any kind of suffering that it is animal or human. But to victimize them I would to have to dive really deep in the illusion that there are in fact other selves when there is only one.

Nevertheless know that on a personal level the more meat I eat the more I find it tasteless. I don't eat that much meat but what I would really have a concern getting rid off is dairy products. Is there really no way to have clean healthy biological dairy products without enslaving animals?

[Monica]

Nobody is using you as a scapegoat.

With all due respect, these meat threads have been going on for about 4 or 5 years now, well before you were even a member. It's not just me; vegans in general are used as scapegoats by meat-eaters. It's very common.

In fact I do think this discussion is about you since you started the vegan threads

No, it isn't about me. And No, I didn't start this thread, and in fact, I didn't start most of the meat threads.

and you reject the learning opportunities you have yourself called upon at the beginging.

I suggest you read the forum guidelines. Discussions may NOT revolve around any member on a personal level without that member's permission. I don't give permission. So this conversation is over.

Something I would like you to tell me is how do you expect someone not to be in the sinkhole of indifference at all. I mean you can polarize positively on a subject like meat but there is probably infinite other subjects one can not even be aware of that he lies in the sinkhole. How does one expect not being in the sinkhole at all? How can one judge others for being in that sinkhole if one cannot perceive every possibilities for him to be in that sinkhole? I could be a vegan but there is so much people I have not helped on this planet. I have not helped anybody victims of famine, tsunami, hurricanes, war, diseases. Would becoming a vegan make me STO by default regardless of all that happening since I am born?

OK those are valid questions, on topic.

Neither I nor Diana has judged any of the meat-eaters personally. We have never said that anyone is STO/STS, or that their total, overall polarity is x% or anything of that nature. We have spoken only of the inherent characteristics of the choice to ignore or support the suffering of sentient beings.

Speaking for myself, I think that for an unawakened person to eat meat/dairy, there is probably very little polarizing going on, if at all, because they are doing something they've always done and never questioned.

But, for someone who is aware of the suffering of the sentient beings who end up as meat and who produce the dairy, by extreme suffering against their will, to ignore that suffering or, worse, continue to support it, is, in my opinion, an inherently STS act, because it is choosing one's comfort/taste/desire at the expense of another sentient being, which is the very definition of STS.

Does this mean that the person is STS oriented? It is impossible for anyone to assess the overall polarity of another. Polarity is based on many choices, on a moment-to-moment basis, and there are many opportunities to choose STO (compassion-based decisions) vs STS (self-serving decisions). Therefore it's impossible for me or anyone else to answer your question about your particular polarity.

Let's say I become a vegan, does that affect my polarity if I don't try to convince everybody else that they also should? Then it becomes: How does not doing something bring you polarization? Is that even valid? What is common ground necessary to even answer that properly? In fact only based on how I feel I can find compassion to any kind of suffering that it is animal or human. But to victimize them I would to have to dive really deep in the illusion that there are in fact other selves when there is only one.

In my opinion, that right there, that you just said, is one of the most commonly MISunderstood concepts in the Law of One (along with acceptance). Many people continue to insist that there aren't other-selves, that nothing matters, it's all illusion, etc. because "there is only One."

Yet, if that were true, then why did Ra go to such great lengths to explain polarity, the 2 paths, the density of Choice, and the concept of self/other-self?

To say that All is One does NOT negate the apparent separation of selves and other-selves. This is the apparent paradox, and understanding lies in the resolution of paradox. There is BOTH separation AND Oneness. There is BOTH distortion AND the Undistorted. True Oneness INCLUDES all that is, and that includes distortion/separation/illusion. It is an illusion that nothing matters because there is an illusion! Of course nothing matters, and of course everything matters!

Nevertheless know that on a personal level the more meat I eat the more I find it tasteless. I don't eat that much meat but what I would really have a concern getting rid off is dairy products. Is there really no way to have clean healthy biological dairy products without enslaving animals?

Yeah, I had a rough time getting off dairy too. Most people do, from what I hear. Meat was easy for me, because as soon as I made the connection, I was totally grossed out by it. But dairy is soooooo creamy and yummy, and it was easy to justify in my mind that it was only a 'byproduct' of the meat industry and therefore 'not as bad.' It was also a comfort food for me, along with wine.

What finally got me off dairy was my friend Pablisimo, with whom I had a very lengthy email conversation about our addiction to dairy. I will share it with you, with his permission.

...

[Parsons]

WTF? Loaded questions?? I ask a simple question and get an inflammatory response. Again, WTF??

Why do you list 3 options but don't include meat as an option? Why wouldn't 4D+ entities be eating beef broth?

I am more than happy to discuss this with you in a straightforward manner, but I am not willing to play games anymore (such as playing the victim 'wounded by my words' or asking clearly loaded questions).

I will answer when you ask me in a non-highly emotionally charged manner that describes the reasoning behind your question(s).

[Monica]

WTF? Loaded questions?? I ask a simple question and get an inflammatory response. Again, WTF??

Why do you list 3 options but don't include meat as an option? Why wouldn't 4D+ entities be eating beef broth?

I am more than happy to discuss this with you in a straightforward manner, but I am not willing to play games anymore (such as playing the victim 'wounded by my words' or asking clearly loaded questions).

I will answer when you ask me in a non-highly emotionally charged manner that describes the reasoning behind your question(s).

LOL! I mean, WTF??? again! I never said anything about feeling 'wounded by your words' and I'm No victim! Where did you get that?

If you think you can know what emotions I'm feeling by the words I type, gosh, you couldn't be more wrong. The only emotion I'm feeling right now is incredulous laughter.  

Honestly, you're the one who seems to be playing games here. I have No idea what you're talking about, and I really don't see how much more straightforward I can be. I asked some simple questions. Last I checked, this was a discussion forum. Good heavens, I explain my reasoning a LOT! and when I ask you to explain your reasoning, you accuse me of Not explaining my reasoning??? HUH? Heeeellllllooooooo I already did that. Now I want to know your reasoning for your statements, see? That's how discussions work!

If you don't want to discuss, then don't. I really don't care, and I won't be participating in your drama. But don't put the blame on me. I have done nothing to you.

(Note: I put WTF in all caps because, well, WTF always belongs in all caps! So does LOL! Not to be confused with an 'emotionally charged' state! )

...

[Night Owl]

But if dairy products are biological and local products are they also enslaving animals? Is there any way to have access to those products without enslaving them or without being a bad person?

[Parsons]

(Monica) You jumped in when I was trying to ask Nicholas something. Since you seemed to need to dominate the discussion, I decided to see if there was some way to discuss that specific point in a non-bombastic manner. Since I have tried multiple times now to get a non-emotionally charged / loaded response out of you and have gotten no-where, I guess we can't have an adult conversation.

[airwaves]

But if dairy products are biological and local products are they also enslaving animals? Is there any way to have access to those products without enslaving them or without being a bad person

Look here everyone. The zealots have convinced a wanderer that he is a bad person. Sounds like something a sts entity would do. A healthy discussion right? Very insightful glance at the community now as compared to where it was when we first joined up here 7 years ago.

[anagogy]

But there is a big difference: Many of the meat-eaters have repeatedly attacked US as people, with various insults regarding us personally, whereas we haven't done that to any of you

I accept that that is your interpretation of what was said, but I do not accept that is what actually happened (maybe in certain rare instances).  I'm positive that if you actually questioned the intent of virtually any previous poster whom you interpreted as personally attacking you, their intent had nothing to do with attacking you, personally, but rather simply pointing out an alternate perspective.

It's easy to confuse the two.  People often instinctively interpret the opposite viewpoint to theirs as an personal attack.  It's human nature.  I also think people oftentimes (perhaps even unconsciously) play the "personal attack victim" card to deflect relevant points, so they don't have to put forth a logical counter argument.