In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

You're presenting it as infallible. I didn't believe I was infallible when I presented my opinion back in 2009 either. I believed I was just making my case and spreading my beliefs, which I believed was an acceptable thing to do.

There is an entire field of science called nutrigenomics which is the "study of the effects of foods and food constituents on gene expression." There is no debate about "whether or not" food affects gene expression. It is true. How, exactly, food affects gene expression is debatable and fairly unknown.

So again you're claiming that you have knowledge of universal facts that are unquestionable.

Yes, nutrigenomics exists. Just like geology exists. Or physics exists. Or genetics exists. They exist in this reality. Are you saying these are debatable statements? That these sciences might not exist?

What's the difference between us?

The difference is in which of the infinite variety of qualities we are choosing to express in this moment. We each carry all of them within us.

That you're right and I'm wrong?

Right and wrong are only relative to a purpose.

Do you have a purpose to have a healthy body? If so, then it is right for me to tell you that you need a minimum of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram body weight, and it is wrong for me to tell you that your body requires less than it actually does.

If you don't have a purpose to have a healthy body, then it would not be right for me to tell you anything about protein, one way or another.

You're a fanatic too, just maybe a fanatic who happens to be correct. The emotional orientation seems to be the same.

Then, what is the difference between a fanatic who happens to be correct, a fanatic who happens to be incorrect, and a fanatic who blows up children with bombs? Do all three have the same emotional orientation? If so, what causes only one of them to be violent?

You feel the memory? You don't remember the memory?

Yes, the memory is in the format of a feeling. I could translate it into words in order to fashion a story out of it, but the truth is- I don't have any facts about that. Something about giving technology to people without the underlying information necessary to prevent abuse of the technology, and watching them destroy themselves with it.

You're just making an assertion and you have confidence that you're right. How is that any different from the behaviour of anyone?

Yes, you're right. I assert that nutrigenomics exists, which is the study of how foods interact with DNA in the human body. I have confidence that I'm right, and how it is different from some others is that I am stating a fact which I independently verified, and which is true.

You're splitting hairs. Sure, some people are lactose intolerant and others are not. But these are tiny details.

No, I don't think that I am splitting hairs. It is much more than lactose intolerance. It has to do with how your DNA is expressed. That is pretty significant. If you are interested to know how to support DNA expression in your body, I would highly recommend reading up on nutrigenomics. I'm sure you will love it!

But overall there are trends and I still believe there is a general template of an ideal diet that applies to everyone.

So- you're telling me that the way life on earth is set up is such that every person requires the exact same foods to be healthy? Wouldn't that be kind of odd?

Saying no one should be a fruitarian is a claim about who should eat what.

It is saying that the human body requires at least 23 different vitamins and minerals in order to function on a biochemical basis, and if you are interested in your body functioning correctly, then it is right for you to ensure that you are getting all 23 of these vitamins and minerals from your food sources, which cannot be done with fruit alone without ingesting extreme excess of sugar.

If one does not truly care about having a healthy body, then it is not wrong of them to ignore basic biochemistry in their food choices.

Saying there is no best diet is also a claim about who should eat what, just now it's a claim that what people should eat is something different for each person. Maybe you're right, but I'm trying to make the point that you're just expressing your own views. Maybe your views are better than mine but it doesn't seem like you're attacking my views but rather attacking the fact I said anything at all.

There is no attack. Only the observation that your words have made a major impact to the 100+ pages which constitute this thread. For all I know we are all much better off now for you having said whatever you said back in 2009. You are responsible for your own words, as am I, and there is no way for us to know in this moment what that impact is.

Personally, I believe that to the degree we are both being authentic to our values in this moment, is to the degree it will have a positive impact. Whether you or I agree is kind of a side item. But ultimately- I don't know.

I tend to agree with the psychologists who say that fanaticism is basically a hurt or lost child desperately searching for someone to love them. They take this early childhood drama and project it out onto the world. Their extremism is not rooted intellectually but rather emotionally. Fanatics are neurotics desperately trying to compensate for a sense of inferiority, unworthiness, or lack. They go to extremes because their emotional needs have not been met through normal channels.

Do you suppose that fanatics want to be fanatics? In other words, is that a genuine expression of who they are? Do you believe there is a way to heal this?

I was experimenting with all kinds of diets and I felt better on this diet than I ever had before. It was like a drug. I felt airy and euphoric and extremely energetic. It was an altered state of consciousness. Maybe I was dying and that is what dying feels like.

Thanks for sharing that. It is very helpful to me.

I had read all kinds of books debating and discussing nutritional issues and the paleolithic diet made the most sense to me.

Yes, I agree that overall the paleolithic diet makes a lot of sense. There are many connections to nutrigenomics there which I am sure you would find fascinating.

The veganism modification was a moral position.

I basically still believe the same things and I'm doing a form of the paleolithic diet today, just not a vegan paleolithic diet. I decided the meat component of the paleolithic diet is pretty hard to substitute with vegan alternatives and not worth the hassle.

So you have changed your moral position since then? How so?

What matters is not how you feel about the statement when you make the statement, but rather what you're saying.

So, if I were feeling angry and judgmental toward you with those earlier statements, it doesn't matter?

How I feel about my diet is not what got your attention. What got your attention is how I talked about it.

Yes, I would agree with that statement.

Entertainment, excitement, and to get attention. Only extremists and sensationalists are listened to. Dry people are boring and have no influence. I guess I've learned that a sensationalist style is persuasive. If you want your writing to actually affect anyone you have to write passionately.

So then, it is more important to you that people are affected, and not so much how they are affected?

Emotionally I think it's wrong for me to promote views on a field where I don't have an education. My 2009 self was confident he was making accurate statements. I still basically agree with my 2009 self, based on a whole bunch of books I've read, but I have no motivation now to try and convince anyone or spread my beliefs.

Thanks for sharing that information.

I believe that I am serving at all times. The question is, what am I serving?

Shouldn't that be "who"?

The "who" is a given, in my opinion.

Why can't my views stand of their own merit? Why do you have to denounce the fact that I expressed my views at all?

Perhaps you don't realize that I wrote a reply to you long ago. Here is the post. http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...1#pid46231

Clearly, you weren't around to answer it at the time, or just chose not to, is totally fine, in my opinion. It is when others began to reply on your behalf that confusion has ensued- and continues to ensue.

I think I'm searching for some kind of meaning to life or some kind of genuine truth.

Do you know that this truth and meaning is something to be found within you?