Bring4th

Monica - There was no rhyme or reason..it was fleet of the moment inspiration.

Unbound - We could do that eventually. I'd like to practice on one image at the moment..I've done visualization meditations, but not regularly.

I should say that I was coming from the perspective that even though it's a specific image, I had no specific goal in mind although it is directed towards the horses. The meditation for me also represents compassion for animal suffering in general, so who knows what may or may not transpire. Oh! And I did meditate on this last night, and at one point I felt what I would describe as an increase in energy, or an adding together of energies.

I think the meditations are great! But how does it make any make sense to meditate for litter to be cleaned up, while simultaneously continuing to toss out trash, and even defending one's 'right' to toss out trash?

Diana asked me directly what we could do about those horses, and that was my answer. I thought perhaps something positive might manifest. I'm sorry that it's not satisfactory.

This really illustrates the attitude of speciesism that is so rampant in society. People say "oh I love animals...I'm against animal cruelty" but they're only against cruelty to certain animals...usually cats, dogs and horses. (This can vary by society: In China, for example, dogs aren't all that special...they treat dogs like people in the US treat cows.)

People get all upset when dogs, cats or horses are mistreated...even going out of their way to save them...while happily eating the flesh of a cow, pig or chicken.

It's kinda like being against violence towards humans, but only white humans...while participating in violence towards blacks.

Racism...speciesism...It's just another -ISM.

Dude..Monica..it was a specific answer to a specific question. Nothing more..nothing less. I'm all for compassion for all animals. How many times must I repeat that I'm working on becoming vegetarian?

(10-25-2014, 12:16 PM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]Dude..Monica..it was a specific answer to a specific question. Nothing more..nothing less. I'm all for compassion for all animals. How many times must I repeat that I'm working on becoming vegetarian?

That actually wasn't directed at you personally. For the record, I always applaud those who are moving in the direction of vegetarian! That makes a lot more sense to me than those who say "It's my RIGHT to eat meat and you can't stop me...how dare you infringe on my free will choice to harm animals!" with NO interest in changing at all. Understanding and taking responsibility for our own choices/actions, while actively working to replace violent actions with compassionate actions, is entirely different from being in denial about those choices/actions and attempting to justify or defend them.

Sorry if it seemed like it was directed at you. I intended it as general food for thought for all the people who've been defending their 'right' to eat animals.

(10-25-2014, 04:27 AM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]And I did meditate on this last night, and at one point I felt what I would describe as an increase in energy, or an adding together of energies.

I did the meditation last night at 7:30 PST. Thanks Icaro. And the idea that I could add to it at anytime was great. I did that too, randomly, and really felt the existence of the visualization already in place.

(10-25-2014, 03:50 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the horses are a good example, or the cows as Monica says, which could be another shared image we create to be expressed through the planetary mind in the minds of the people.

I would love to do that as well. I've already started thinking about the visualization in my mind with threads to you and Icaro and anyone at B4 who wants to join in. Any suggestions on what we can see in the visualization?

(10-25-2014, 11:18 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I think the meditations are great! But how does it make any make sense to meditate for litter to be cleaned up, while simultaneously continuing to toss out trash, and even defending one's 'right' to toss out trash?

Very good point.

Hopefully this will raise awareness. Free will is one thing, but I am always in conflict over the abuses derived from human free will. The horses are a good example—what am I to do? That's why I like the meditation.

I will let Unbound and Icaro answer for themselves if they choose. For my part, I don't think I could meditate on a healing visualization for the horrid conditions of meat animals if I were consuming the meat—I have issues with guilt, personally, and though it's not fashionable these days to admit to guilt, there it is. And my guilt, along with my actions not matching my visualization, would seem to all be in conflict and therefore nonproductive.

(10-25-2014, 12:24 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Any suggestions on what we can see in the visualization?

this might not be the way to go but it's how i like to do it:

rather than focusing on the animals, i like to focus on the ones causing the nightmare situations for the animals. i like to desire for them to feel exactly what they're causing the animals to go thru & i like to hope this causes them to have a nightmare that's bad enough to make them change their ways.

i love the story, that they made a paranormal witness episode, about how this psychic named nancy weber got a group of only like 4 people together, that she knew to be very psychically clear, in order to meditate on getting rid of a serial killer.

she said she knew that if their energy was gathered together it would be amplified. the killer ended up hallucinating that nancy was attacking him with a knife so he called the cops on her which led to his arrest. it was actually him that was stabbing himself. her meditation went something like this:

'build the power with me. take that energy, like taking a lightning bolt. bring home to him all the pain that he has given to women. let him feel it & let him feel it in a way that he could never give it out to anybody else in this world. you need to be gone.'

(10-25-2014, 12:22 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]That actually wasn't directed at you personally. For the record, I think you're doing great! Sorry if it seemed like it was directed at you. I intended it as general food for thought for all the people who've been defending their 'right' to eat animals. Not you.

Ok good.

---

(10-25-2014, 12:24 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I did the meditation last night at 7:30 PST. Thanks Icaro. And the idea that I could add to it at anytime was great. I did that too, randomly, and really felt the existence of the visualization already in place.

It does feel like it has a life of its own

Quote:I would love to do that as well. I've already started thinking about the visualization in my mind with threads to you and Icaro and anyone at B4 who wants to join in. Any suggestions on what we can see in the visualization?

I'll get back to you on that..gotta run!

My last post has been edited.

Information on frequencies and diet from the late Dolores Cannon.

(10-25-2014, 12:24 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2014, 03:50 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the horses are a good example, or the cows as Monica says, which could be another shared image we create to be expressed through the planetary mind in the minds of the people.

I would love to do that as well. I've already started thinking about the visualization in my mind with threads to you and Icaro and anyone at B4 who wants to join in. Any suggestions on what we can see in the visualization?

The image that Icaros gave is really good because it holds all the elements of the intention. I would also add at this point that too much specificity can also cause hindrances in manifestation. Getting that balance between focus and concentration upon an intention while still being loose enough to allow the universe to do its work is an ongoing lesson for anyone working with visualization (although some people do it very naturally.)

---

(10-25-2014, 12:33 PM)isis Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-25-2014, 12:24 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Any suggestions on what we can see in the visualization?

this might not be the way to go but it's how i like to do it:

rather than focusing on the animals, i like to focus on the ones causing the nightmare situations for the animals. i like to desire for them to feel exactly what they're causing the animals to go thru & i like to hope this causes them to have a nightmare that's bad enough to make them change their ways.

i love the story, that they made a paranormal witness episode, about how this psychic named nancy weber got a group of only like 4 people together, that she knew to be very psychically clear, in order to meditate on getting rid of a serial killer.

she said she knew that if their energy was gathered together it would be amplified. the killer ended up hallucinating that nancy was attacking him with a knife so he called the cops on her which led to his arrest. it was actually him that was stabbing himself. her meditation went something like this:

'build the power with me. take that energy, like taking a lightning bolt. bring home to him all the pain that he has given to women. let him feel it & let him feel it in a way that he could never give it out to anybody else in this world. you need to be gone.'

That's basically witchcraft aha

Oh also, to whomever may find it interesting, this article passed through my Facebook feed today:

http://www.businessinsider.com/plants-kn...en-2014-10

"New research shows plants know when they're being eaten. And they don't like it.

That plants possess an intelligence is not new knowledge, but according to Modern Farmer, a new study from the University of Missouri shows plants can sense when they are being eaten and send out defense mechanisms to try to stop it from happening."

(10-27-2014, 01:56 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Oh also, to whomever may find it interesting, this article passed through my Facebook feed today:

http://www.businessinsider.com/plants-kn...en-2014-10

"New research shows plants know when they're being eaten. And they don't like it.

That plants possess an intelligence is not new knowledge, but according to Modern Farmer, a new study from the University of Missouri shows plants can sense when they are being eaten and send out defense mechanisms to try to stop it from happening."

If one reads the article carefully, it's easy to see that those are erroneous conclusions. Here's why:

Quote:the thale cress produces mustard oils that are mildly toxic when eaten and sends them throughout its leaves to try to keep the predators away.

Clearly, the mustard oils aren't toxic to caterpillars, because the caterpillars keep right on munching. :idea:

So the entire conclusion is based on a false premise.

That doesn't make it a false premise but that can be accounted for by evolutionary adaptation. Just because caterpillars have developed a structure that is accepting of mustard oils in its digestion doesn't mean it isn't still a defense mechanism nor does it prove that it is therefore acceptable for humans or any other creature to eat it. Maybe the caterpillar and the plant are in symbiosis, but that doesn't mean that relationship is the same with every other creature or even that it is necessarily desirable to the plant. Maybe the caterpillars are a parasite or predator for the plant and they have developed a way past the plant's defense mechanism? That is usually how predators work and why predators are dangerous to their prey.

(10-27-2014, 04:04 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't make it a false premise but that can be accounted for by evolutionary adaptation.

Quote:plants can sense when they are being eaten

was observed.

However,

Quote:and send out defense mechanisms to try to stop it from happening

is pure speculation. To state this as factual, and then extrapolate from that, is building from a false premise.

(10-27-2014, 04:04 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Just because caterpillars have developed a structure that is accepting of mustard oils in its digestion doesn't mean it isn't still a defense mechanism nor does it prove that it is therefore acceptable for humans or any other creature to eat it. Maybe the caterpillar and the plant are in symbiosis, but that doesn't mean that relationship is the same with every other creature or even that it is necessarily desirable to the plant. Maybe the caterpillars are a parasite or predator for the plant and they have developed a way past the plant's defense mechanism? That is usually how predators work and why predators are dangerous to their prey.

It's all speculation and cannot be proven either way. But a bit of common sense and simple observation might help:

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...1#pid62891

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...0#pid62900

As if to say your own conclusions aren't also pure speculation? :/

(10-27-2014, 07:13 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]As if to say your own conclusions aren't also pure speculation? :/

When I said "It's all speculation" I was including myself in that. We are ALL speculating about what plants feel.

But there is NO speculation about animals. We KNOW they feel pain and fear. That isn't speculation; that is fact.

(10-27-2014, 07:28 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-27-2014, 07:13 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]As if to say your own conclusions aren't also pure speculation? :/

When I said "It's all speculation" I was including myself in that. We are ALL speculating about what plants feel.

But there is NO speculation about animals. We KNOW they feel pain and fear. That isn't speculation; that is fact.

Again and again, we come back to this. There is evidence that supports that flora responds to physical threats and/or damage, but it is inconclusive (so far). From there, you make a pure assumption that the flora does not feel pain or fear. That is your choice to assume that, and that's perfectly fine; I support your choice. But you then project this assumption onto others and say that OTHER PEOPLE'S actions are negative, and by your words and actions are intolerant of other's choice to believe flora DOES feel pain and fear when damaged or threatened. The entire reason I have continued to discuss this is in hopes that you will respect that choice.

You have recently shown that when presented with evidence contrary to the fact, you immediately denounce the evidence with little logical thought on the matter. Case in point, it is well documented certain plants will release a mustard compound (or other chemical) as a defense mechanism against certain insects. Yet you rigidly assumed that to be false despite there being much more widely accepted and conclusive evidence to that fact.

(10-27-2014, 09:23 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:When I said "It's all speculation" I was including myself in that. We are ALL speculating about what plants feel.

But there is NO speculation about animals. We KNOW they feel pain and fear. That isn't speculation; that is fact.

Again and again, we come back to this. There is evidence that supports that flora responds to physical threats and/or damage, but it is inconclusive (so far). From there, you make a pure assumption that the flora does not feel pain or fear.

?????????????????

I never said any such thing. I never said plants don't feel pain or fear. WHY do you twist my words?

(10-27-2014, 09:23 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]That is your choice to assume that, and that's perfectly fine; I support your choice. But you then project this assumption onto others and say that OTHER PEOPLE'S actions are negative, and by your words and actions are intolerant of other's choice to believe flora DOES feel pain and fear when damaged or threatened. The entire reason I have continued to discuss this is in hopes that you will respect that choice.

I respect your choice to believe whatever you want to. But I will never respect anyone's 'choice' to knowingly inflict suffering on sentient creatures who obviously DO feel pain and fear, and who are crying out for help.

If you want to interpret that data as an indication that plants feel pain and fear, go for it. I pity the whole planet, in that case, because every blade of grass is in constant agony. This planet must be 'hell' indeed!

But, to use that as a justification to inflict suffering on animals - who DO feel pain and fear, 100% certain! - doesn't hold any water, for the simple reason that eating animals causes MORE plants to die!

(10-27-2014, 09:23 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]You have recently shown that when presented with evidence contrary to the fact, you immediately denounce the evidence with little logical thought on the matter. Case in point, it is well documented certain plants will release a mustard compound (or other chemical) as a defense mechanism against certain insects. Yet you rigidly assumed that to be false despite there being much more widely accepted and conclusive evidence to that fact.

WTF??? Do you delight in intentionally twisting my words? I never said the mustard compound was false. I said that their conclusions about what that compound meant were speculation.

I don't believe you are stupid, and what I said was very clear, so I can only wonder whether your twisting of my words is deliberate.

HOW do you get "Plants do not feel pain or fear" out of "We are ALL speculating about what plants feel" ???

Animals DO feel pain and fear. Killing animals kills MORE plants. Those are FACTS. NO I don't respect anyone's 'choice' to deliberately kill animals, when it's obviously NOT necessary and is obviously causing harm.

I don't respect anyone's 'choice' to keep slaves or murder or rape either. Do you?

You aren't directly saying plants don't feel pain, you imply it by saying "I don't eat animals 'cause it causes them pain". You have to string two thoughts together and use the process of elimination; not just consider one thought in a vacuum.

Example:

By saying "I ONLY eat fruits, vegetables, and nuts", you can imply by the process of elimination "I don't eat meat".

(10-27-2014, 08:39 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:and send out defense mechanisms to try to stop it from happening

is pure speculation. To state this as factual, and then extrapolate from that, is building from a false premise.

You said false. Are you going to argue semantics on the word "premise" now?

---

For the sake of argument, if plants and animals both experience pain and fear before death, couldn't I reduce my meat intake(but still eat some meat) to the point where I could balance out the fact that animals increase overall plant consumption? Also, at that point aren't you opening the door to looking down on people who overeat the same way you look down on omnivores?

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]You aren't directly saying plants don't feel pain, you imply it by saying "I don't eat animals 'cause it causes them pain". You have to string two thoughts together and use the process of elimination; not just consider one thought in a vacuum.

If that were the only statement I ever made, perhaps. But it isn't. I have repeatedly stated that we DO NOT KNOW whether plants feel pain, whereas we DO know that animals DO feel pain.

I also stated that it is completely illogical to eat animals, who DO feel pain, based on the speculation that plants MIGHT feel pain.

To continue to ignore my other statements, seems like a lame attempt to throw guilt back at the vegetarians.

Well guess what? We don't feel any guilt!

You could say "Eating plants is STS" all day long and we won't feel any guilt.

Yet, we say "UNnecessarily eating animals is STS" and you get your panties in a bundle and start yelling "BIGOT! Guilt-tripper!"

If there is nothing wrong with eating animals, then you would laugh and shrug it off, just like we laugh and shrug it off when you insinuate that we're doing the same thing with plants.

I admit to feeling annoyance that this same idiotic argument keeps coming up again and again, and my words continue to get twisted. But guilt? Nope. None.

If you feel 'guilt-tripped' that is NOT my fault. You might consider asking yourself why you feel that way. It has nothing to do with me.

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-27-2014, 08:39 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:and send out defense mechanisms to try to stop it from happening

is pure speculation. To state this as factual, and then extrapolate from that, is building from a false premise.

You said false. Are you going to argue semantics on the word "premise" now?

I said that the CONCLUSION of it being a 'defense mechanism to try to stop it from happening' is a false premise. I never disputed the data itself; only the interpretation of that data.

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]For the sake of argument, if plants and animals both experience pain and fear before death, couldn't I reduce my meat intake(but still eat some meat) to the point where I could balance out the fact that animals increase overall plant consumption?

Oh good grief.

By that logic, if plants=animals=humans then why not just go around murdering and raping humans? They're all the same anyway, right, so what does it matter?

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Also, at that point aren't you opening the door to looking down on people who overeat the same way you look down on omnivores?

Your insistence upon trying to make this about me is really getting old.

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]You aren't directly saying plants don't feel pain, you imply it by saying "I don't eat animals 'cause it causes them pain". You have to string two thoughts together and use the process of elimination; not just consider one thought in a vacuum.

If that were the only statement I ever made, perhaps. But it isn't. I have repeatedly stated that we DO NOT KNOW whether plants feel pain, whereas we DO know that animals DO feel pain.

I also stated that it is completely illogical to eat animals, who DO feel pain, based on the speculation that plants MIGHT feel pain.

Again, it all comes down to you to you accepting other's beliefs. I believe that plants feel discomfort when being killed for food. Both flora and fauna are the 2nd density expressions of the Creator. So guilt tripping me (yes, that is what you are doing) by calling my actions STS is just plain IGNORant since a 2D lifeform has to die for me to survive in any case. You are IGNORing my belief.

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]To continue to ignore my other statements, seems like a lame attempt to throw guilt back at the vegetarians.

Well guess what? We don't feel any guilt!

You could say "Eating plants is STS" all day long and we won't feel any guilt.

Yet, we say "UNnecessarily eating animals is STS" and you get your panties in a bundle and start yelling "BIGOT! Guilt-tripper!"

I have addressed all your statements and exposed many logical fallacies in your argument, which you respond with more logical fallacies.

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]If there is nothing wrong with eating animals, then you would laugh and shrug it off, just like we laugh and shrug it off when you insinuate that we're doing the same thing with plants.

I am shrugging off that part of it. The part that I can't abide by is your continuous insulting behavior of calling my actions 'STS' when I have thoroughly explained that I consider eating plants and animals equal. Also, you again imply that plants do not feel pain in this statement.

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I admit to feeling annoyance that this same idiotic argument keeps coming up again and again, and my words continue to get twisted. But guilt? Nope. None.

If you feel 'guilt-tripped' that is NOT my fault. You might consider asking yourself why you feel that way. It has nothing to do with me.

Really? You constantly twist other's arguments then accuse me of twisting yours? You constantly guilt trip people who are spiritually aware that eat meat then accuse me of guilt tripping you?

"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-27-2014, 08:39 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:and send out defense mechanisms to try to stop it from happening

is pure speculation. To state this as factual, and then extrapolate from that, is building from a false premise.

You said false. Are you going to argue semantics on the word "premise" now?

I said that the CONCLUSION of it being a 'defense mechanism to try to stop it from happening' is a false premise. I never disputed the data itself; only the interpretation of that data.

So you are disputing the widely accepting fact that some plants will produce chemicals as a defense mechanism against creatures eating them? Or are you simply disputing that the plant is capable of anticipating the 'attack'?

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]For the sake of argument, if plants and animals both experience pain and fear before death, couldn't I reduce my meat intake(but still eat some meat) to the point where I could balance out the fact that animals increase overall plant consumption?

Oh good grief.

By that logic, if plants=animals=humans then why not just go around murdering and raping humans? They're all the same anyway, right, so what does it matter?

This is a great example of you completely twisting my words into something I did not say nor remotely implied. This is completely out of left-field, I have no clue how you came up with this.

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2014, 12:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Also, at that point aren't you opening the door to looking down on people who overeat the same way you look down on omnivores?

Your insistence upon trying to make this about me is really getting old.

Well, in this particular instance, I wasn't actually "making it about you". I was simply discussing your viewpoint and referring to 'you' in the second person. It was a real question; I was not accusing you of that.

But in general, how can you have a conversation with someone without actually using some kind of noun or pronoun? If you aren't actually willing to converse with people about this and continue to repost the same argument over and over (for several years, apparently) while not actually seriously considering an opposing viewpoint, aren't you just preaching/soliciting your own propaganda into every single thread that contains the word "meat", "plant", "vegan", or "vegetarian"?

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]To continue to ignore my other statements, seems like a lame attempt to throw guilt back at the vegetarians.

Well guess what? We don't feel any guilt!

You could say "Eating plants is STS" all day long and we won't feel any guilt.

Yet, we say "UNnecessarily eating animals is STS" and you get your panties in a bundle and start yelling "BIGOT! Guilt-tripper!"

I have addressed all your statements and exposed many logical fallacies in your argument, which you respond with more logical fallacies.

Apparently you don't know how to refute what I just said, so you say it's a 'logical fallacy' yet cannot explain why.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]I am shrugging off that part of it. The part that I can't abide by is your continuous insulting behavior of calling my actions 'STS' when I have thoroughly explained that I consider eating plants and animals equal.

I call BS. If that were true, then you would have been equally insulted when I said that eating apples was STS.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Really? You constantly twist other's arguments then accuse me of twisting yours?

I provided exact quotes of what I said and compared that to your twisting. You cannot do the same because I haven't twisted your words.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]You constantly guilt trip people who are spiritually aware that eat meat then accuse me of guilt tripping you?

No, you have missed the point. You can't guilt-trip me. It's impossible, because I have no reason to feel guilty, see?

Guilt comes from within. Please quit blaming me for your own guilt.

If you had no reason to feel guilt, then it wouldn't matter what I said.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."

Expressing a viewpoint 'xyz is STS' isn't rude. Calling someone a bigot IS.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]So you are disputing the widely accepting fact that some plants will produce chemicals as a defense mechanism against creatures eating them? Or are you simply disputing that the plant is capable of anticipating the 'attack'?

That wasn't a fact. The only thing factual about that study was that the plant secreted a type of oil when the caterpillar was eating the leaves. That's it. Everything else was speculative interpretation of said fact.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2014, 12:32 AM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]By that logic, if plants=animals=humans then why not just go around murdering and raping humans? They're all the same anyway, right, so what does it matter?

This is a great example of you completely twisting my words into something I did not say nor remotely implied. This is completely out of left-field, I have no clue how you came up with this.

Um, right here:

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]I have thoroughly explained that I consider eating plants and animals equal.

I added the humans part as an honest question. If you see no difference between plants and animals, then why is there any difference between animals and humans? Oh, because Ra said plants and animals are all 2D and humans are 3D? That doesn't cut it. Ra never said it was 'ok' to torture and slaughter beings who have pain receptors, feel fear, and are crying out for help. To use Ra's words as a justification for that is quite a stretch.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Well, in this particular instance, I wasn't actually "making it about you".

I have been interested in discussing ideas and concepts, according to Law of One principles. You are the one who has been dragging this discussion down into mucky drama and personal insults, and going on and on about how I am xyz blah blah blah. Geez.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]But in general, how can you have a conversation with someone without actually using some kind of noun or pronoun?

Some kind of 'noun or pronoun'? I use lots of nouns and pronouns. I just don't direct my comments at anyone...until now, when I've decided to stop dancing around the elephant in the room.

Eleanor Roosevelt Wrote:Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

(10-28-2014, 03:12 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]If you aren't actually willing to converse with people about this and continue to repost the same argument over and over (for several years, apparently) while not actually seriously considering an opposing viewpoint, aren't you just preaching/soliciting your own propaganda into every single thread that contains the word "meat", "plant", "vegan", or "vegetarian"?

I was gone from B4 for almost a year. I was summoned to this thread so I offered some info about B12.

The abolitionists didn't stop either, thankfully. I admire their tenacity.

I'd be happy to continue this, IF it were about the TOPIC.

But NOT just to argue with you. That's just stupid. Maybe you have nothing better to do with your time, but I do. So I'm done.

Go ahead and have the last word. Are you going to call me a bigot again?

I like exploring different points of view.

I will continue to meditate and add to the visualization of the "happy horses" which I love doing. Thank you Icaro and Unbound.

But I think I am done attempting to discuss the subject of meat-eating at B4. I have added what I could of my perceptions, and derived an expanded view from the others here with different perceptions.

While there is evidence that plants have a response to stimuli, it's a quantum leap in assumption that plants then have the same sort of resistance and response to being tortured and killed as animals do. I have said much on this subject regarding plants as food and respect for plant life, and left those words here for any who may be interested.

I could not ever go back to eating meat. Every feeling revolts—for so many reasons. Not that anyone here has ever suggested it. The cruelty involved in taking the life of an animal for food when I don't need it just doesn't fly for me.

I will continue to eat plant life until such time that a possibility of evolving further is presented. Until then, plants in my opinion offer me the highest food source here, with the least amount of ecological damage, and the most amount of respect for general life.

Best wishes to everyone working out their own feelings on the subject.

(10-28-2014, 02:48 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I like exploring different points of view.

I will continue to meditate and add to the visualization of the "happy horses" which I love doing. Thank you Icaro and Unbound.

But I think I am done attempting to discuss the subject of meat-eating at B4. I have added what I could of my perceptions, and derived an expanded view from the others here with different perceptions.

While there is evidence that plants have a response to stimuli, it's a quantum leap in assumption that plants then have the same sort of resistance and response to being tortured and killed as animals do. I have said much on this subject regarding plants as food and respect for plant life, and left those words here for any who may be interested.

I could not ever go back to eating meat. Every feeling revolts—for so many reasons. Not that anyone here has ever suggested it. The cruelty involved in taking the life of an animal for food when I don't need it just doesn't fly for me.

I will continue to eat plant life until such time that a possibility of evolving further is presented. Until then, plants in my opinion offer me the highest food source here, with the least amount of ecological damage, and the most amount of respect for general life.

Best wishes to everyone working out their own feelings on the subject.

Amun to that, I have said all I can said from my particular standpoint, I will focus with you on the meditations. (Each time I come back to the visualization it actually seems stronger and clearer but I also find that I can put more energy in each time as well.)

What I have noticed in my own visualization is that between the old horse, young horse and the tree all seem to be connected by this one circuit of energy, but there is this flowing, glowing ball of light that is floating in between them all and they are all not just connected to eachother but also this central point of light.

I think the central point of light represents the source that is shared by all and the 'channel' by which we are feeding light, love and energy in to this image and intention.

Perhaps we should start a new thread specifically for working on this visualization so as to not be distracted by discussions in this thread.

(10-28-2014, 03:00 PM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-28-2014, 02:48 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I like exploring different points of view.

I will continue to meditate and add to the visualization of the "happy horses" which I love doing. Thank you Icaro and Unbound.

But I think I am done attempting to discuss the subject of meat-eating at B4. I have added what I could of my perceptions, and derived an expanded view from the others here with different perceptions.

While there is evidence that plants have a response to stimuli, it's a quantum leap in assumption that plants then have the same sort of resistance and response to being tortured and killed as animals do. I have said much on this subject regarding plants as food and respect for plant life, and left those words here for any who may be interested.

I could not ever go back to eating meat. Every feeling revolts—for so many reasons. Not that anyone here has ever suggested it. The cruelty involved in taking the life of an animal for food when I don't need it just doesn't fly for me.

I will continue to eat plant life until such time that a possibility of evolving further is presented. Until then, plants in my opinion offer me the highest food source here, with the least amount of ecological damage, and the most amount of respect for general life.

Best wishes to everyone working out their own feelings on the subject.

Amun to that, I have said all I can said from my particular standpoint, I will focus with you on the meditations. (Each time I come back to the visualization it actually seems stronger and clearer but I also find that I can put more energy in each time as well.)

What I have noticed in my own visualization is that between the old horse, young horse and the tree all seem to be connected by this one circuit of energy, but there is this flowing, glowing ball of light that is floating in between them all and they are all not just connected to eachother but also this central point of light.

I think the central point of light represents the source that is shared by all and the 'channel' by which we are feeding light, love and energy in to this image and intention.

Perhaps we should start a new thread specifically for working on this visualization so as to not be distracted by discussions in this thread.

Thanks Diana, for all your gentle and clear perceptions on the subject. It has been really helpful for me to hear your point of view, coming from my particular nexus in time/ space.

I think it is great that you all decided to visualize a better world! I added some energy the first night and will come back to that visualization from time to time.

I grew up and still live in a small country town that's surrounded with wheat, sorghum and cotton farms. Farmers take measures to ensure their is minimal loss to their crops, this includes eradicating pests (where I live, it's mostly feral pigs but it can include other things such as kangaroos, rabbits, mice and rats)
I think it's an illusion to believe that what you are eating/wearing didn't at one point involve the death of an animal.

(10-29-2014, 07:48 PM)Maat Wrote: [ -> ]I grew up and still live in a small country town that's surrounded with wheat, sorghum and cotton farms. Farmers take measures to ensure their is minimal loss to their crops, this includes eradicating pests (where I live, it's mostly feral pigs but it can include other things such as kangaroos, rabbits, mice and rats)
I think it's an illusion to believe that what you are eating/wearing didn't at one point involve the death of an animal.

Wow what an awesome segue into this article.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-ani...your-hands

(11-06-2014, 07:11 PM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-29-2014, 07:48 PM)Maat Wrote: [ -> ]I grew up and still live in a small country town that's surrounded with wheat, sorghum and cotton farms. Farmers take measures to ensure their is minimal loss to their crops, this includes eradicating pests (where I live, it's mostly feral pigs but it can include other things such as kangaroos, rabbits, mice and rats)
I think it's an illusion to believe that what you are eating/wearing didn't at one point involve the death of an animal.

Wow what an awesome segue into this article.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-ani...your-hands

I was just going to post this! Aha It's a very interesting perspective that I haven't considered before.