In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

I will instead simplify my opinion on this to the extreme.

I am saying that the scientific community does not agree with itself on that subject. In fact it does not agree with itself on any subject as far as I am aware of. So the consensus you appeal to does not exist.

I agree, if you are referring to any specific diet. You are absolutely correct that there's no consensus on any diet, at that level of detail.

I could argue that there is consensus on certain basics, like the need for certain vitamins, minerals and protein, but I agree that there isn't consensus on the exact amounts of said nutrients.

But the fact that the human body requires certain nutrients isn't up for debate. Neither is it up for debate that every nutrient, with the possible exception of vitamin B12, known to be needed by the human body, is readily found in plant foods.

What is debatable is the amounts needed, and method of absorption.

I'll stop here since I know you don't want to go any further with that. I was just replying to your 'simplified' comment with my own 'simplified' comment.

And I will add just a few more simplified comments:

Regardless of whether there is consensus or not, simple observation tells us that most people aren't healthy. Just look at the epidemic rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Statistics show that vegetarians have decreased risk of all those major diseases.

This doesn't prove vegetarians are getting all the nutrients they need. It's possible that they could still lack certain nutrients. (This would depend on the individual, of course, and that is the part the experts aren't in agreement on and we should thus avoid in our discussion.)

But it does prove that, in general, they are, at the very least, healthier than meat-eaters.

In other words, even if it can't be proven they are perfectly healthy, it can easily be proven that they are, at the very least, as healthy, and in fact healthier than, meat-eaters. This isn't debatable; it's fact.

Even if you were to tell me it's not fact, because you find flaws in the statistical analyses, all you'd have to do is conduct your own poll among any random group of vegetarians, and compare that to any random group of meat-eaters. Worst case scenario is that they'd be about the same. Far more likely is that the vegetarians will overall be healthier (fewer medications etc.).

So logically, this makes the whole 'we need meat' argument moot.

I don't know for you, but I'm not really interested in this. I've done it before and nothing good ever resulted.

Same here! I'm not up for that either! Let's stick to general opinions and avoid the statistical analysis of studies the 'experts' can't even agree on.

I hope I was able to clear that up.

Yes, thank you.

I am currently re-evaluating my views on this, like I am for activism.

Cool! I admire that.

I think we will have to discuss euthanasia to make inroads on this one.

I touched on that in my last post.

There is a misunderstanding here. Maybe it came from English not being my first language. What I meant was that equating meat eating with supporting factory farming is not letting people reach such a conclusion by themselves. I'm not saying that I agree with such a conclusion, but it would certainly help your cause if people started equating meat eating with maltreatment of animals for themselves. I am simply saying that IMHO concentrating your arguments on the treatment of animals without implying that meat eater are supporting it, would give much more of the results you are after, with much less efforts on the part of the activists.

We did that in the beginning of this thread. After 3+ years, this thread has been through many phases.

I'm not really talking about pain here. Just the wanting to die or not. I understand your point of view. I agree to let it go.

OK. I invite you to read the whole thread. There is a great deal about plants that might interest you. Some of it is very insightful!

I'm probably just stuck on semantics here Monica. Because I'm felling sorrow right now. Which means our misunderstandings are hurting us both. I don't like that.

I don't either. And I agree, sometimes it's just semantics.

Like in this case. What I mean by killing, in this context, is forcefully taking the life of another. When done to a human, we call it murder.

When someone has their beloved pet dog euthanized to stop his suffering, we consider that an act of mercy. That's an entirely different situation.

Raising an animal for food, then killing it, is forcefully taking its life. It's not murder, because that is a term reserved for humans. So what is it? There is no word for it. The closest term would be slaughter, which implies an acceptable action, for turning animals into meat.

I meant the 2d part of our 3d illusion. The 2d mind/body complexes getting catalysts from us.

Ah. Yes, true. In my original statement, I was referring to the worlds that will be inhabited by these 2D cows, pigs and chickens, when they graduate to 3D. Beings that died in such a state of abuse, will likely inhabit a violent world with much suffering, it seems to me.

I don't want to contribute to such a possibility. I think it would behoove us to consider it, because if my speculation is correct, that's a horrible thing to be responsible for.

We are ONE you and I, Monica. Yes really!

This is what I mean: "You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game. This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love; can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit beingness totality."

THIS is what I am trying to express with every one of my posts.

Ah, ok! I view that quote as being metaphorical. I thought you meant literally, like it doesn't matter what we choose because it's all just a game anyway.

That's what I'm saying yes. Your intent when you buy it is what counts. Incidentally, I also do not believe that we can vote with our wallets.

To a degree, yes. But it seems really inefficient, to have to override the negativity, once one is aware of it.

We don't always have a choice about where to shop, bank, or work. Sometimes one might have to take on a job that isn't in alignment with one's ideals, in order to feed their family. In such cases, intent can override whatever negativity that company is associated with, to a large degree.

But if given a choice, wouldn't it make more sense to support a company that is already doing something positive?

If I try really really really hard, I might be able to move a pencil with my mind. Maybe I'll spend an hour concentrating, to get it to move half an inch. But isn't that ridiculously inefficient, when I could just pick it up with my hand?

This last sentence of mine "You cannot know my situation" was out of line. I offer you my apology.

Valtor, you're cool. You just apologized for something I didn't even notice at all. After all the things said on this thread, your courteousness is a breath of fresh air!