In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

Tenet, if you know anything about science you will know that we KNOW very little. Even when talking about biology, we DO NOT understand metabolism. It is very, very complex.

What we know is that the (1) body requires at least 23 different vitamins and minerals for its metabolism, and (2) different foods containing these 23 vitamins and minerals are used by different bodies in different ways. That's about all we know "for sure". Beyond that is anybody's guess.

The hypothesis is that in order to truly know what one's body needs in terms of specific food choices, one must learn communicate with their body. I recognize that is a theory and not a proven fact.

However, I sincerely wonder what all the resistance I see here in this thread is to that. So I ask about it, rather than assuming I know what is going on in another person's mind. Then- I get resistance to the asking as well. I will leave it up to you to discern why that is.

---

If you're actually a scientific expert and not promoting your own fad diet called "listen to your body" then that's great. I think scientific experts with proven credentials should be given special responsibilities and extra credibility.

Yes, I am an expert. And no, I don't have my own fad diet book out there and I'm not trying to promote anything other than to suggest: listen to your body.

I am interested to know if people have success with this... or not. Perhaps some others reading in the background would like to share their experiences on this.

Shrug. That's my position.

Great! My position is that "scientific experts with proven credentials" have a responsibility to communicate the whole truth- insofar as science has been able to discern- and not leave certain parts out due to personal agendas and/or marketing schemes.

In my view, you as a layperson can say whatever you like. I do believe it would be better with a little caveat at the beginning. But otherwise, there is no issue I have with you sharing your opinions and experience.

For guru-types who "have a thousand little copycats who follow them around, do everything they say, obey blindly, trust them blindly, laugh at every bad joke, worship their images, buy all their products, send them all their money" as you so eloquently put it in another thread... I believe that is a different scenario.

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.

So is this one a scientific fact or just your opinion? You didn't say which. Some people might be confused.

Opinion. Do you disagree?

So what's the difference?

Beliefs and values. I was not writing in an "altered state of consciousness" brought on by too much sugar. Also, I was not writing out of a desire for "entertainment, excitement, and to get attention."

Is your official argument that it would be "too odd" to be true?

No, that is just a sidebar postulate.

Doesn't seem odd to me. Humans are a species who evolved for a specific environment. Most species all eat the same food.

As a species- the "specific environment" is the entire planet earth. As far as I'm aware, there is no other species found in such a wide variety of niches within the ecosystem- with the exception of domesticated animals. I think this has something to do with us being omnivores.

So your fanaticism is about these 23 vitamins and minerals then. The purpose of my rhetoric was to try to point out to you that you are asserting that something is unquestionably true. This is similar to what I was doing. The only difference between us is that I was wrong and you are right (hypothetically :p).

If you want to call me a fanatic for stating a basic fact of biochemistry, that is fine with me. If you actually have an argument why this basic fact is wrong, and/or some evidence to believe that it is wrong, please do share.

I haven't read the thread. What impact did my words have? You really think advocating for my diet on an internet forum has damaged humanity?

Nor have you apparently read my previous post where I said "For all I know we are all much better off now for you having said whatever you said back in 2009."

I do absolutely believe that fanatics are genuinely expressing themselves. I believe all expressions are genuine. I do not believe that non-genuine expressions exist. This is one of my fundamental psychological views. Fanatics can change over time like anyone and this change is also a genuine expression.

Fair enough.

Why do I constantly feel like a baseball being coaxed onto the T-ball stand?

I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with being mistrustful of others due to being taken advantage of by guru-types in the past. But I wouldn't really know.

I have changed my moral position slightly. I've decided that ensuring the health of the human body is more important than preserving the lives of animals. I still think it's wrong to kill animals but I also think the value of a thriving human life outweighs the life of an animal. Until conventional science recommends veganism and social norms make it practical, therefore, I'm gonna be conventional.

In comparison, I used to think that preserving the lives of animals trumped any minor health concerns and practical concerns. I also thought that the risk to the body was worth it to preserve the lives of animals. So my values have shifted and my morals along with them.

Thanks for sharing that.

I believed I was doing a service to humanity, just like you believe you are. You believe you are redressing a karmic imbalance.

So... you do want to help others? But you don't care if your methodology is actually effective in helping them or not?

I hope my participation in this cross-examination counts as service to humanity.

At the least, it is a great service to me. Thank you.

I think this is a bigoted statement that devalues the creation. Also you didn't mention whether this is "opinion" or "fact."

Bigoted? That's an interesting view. I will go within and contemplate that one.