Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

(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 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.

Ya know, what's your deal anyway? Do you just like insulting people? I don't see how you can call a simple question 'bombastic'. Oh are you referring to my WTF??? comment? That's bombastic? Did you forget that that was in response to your insults? Did you not know that WTF is a common response and just means HUH? as in, what the f*** was that all about? No question about it, Parsons, YOU started this go-round!

If you didn't want to answer my questions, you could have just ignored them and waited for Nicholas, instead of starting drama. I didn't stop Nicholas from commenting. He still can and he still might. He's probably out with family celebrating Christmas and just hasn't gotten around to it yet. Your questions stimulated questions of my own, so I asked you. I wasn't answering for Nicholas, duh, I was asking different questions. Anyone can respond to any comments. There aren't any rules against people responding to any posts. I mean really, why are you making such a big deal out of it? Seems to me you just didn't like my questions so you're attacking, once again.

Notice that I am saying this about you in direct response to you insulting me, repeatedly. You can pretend all day it's because I did something terrible but anyone reading my posts will know that I haven't done anything terrible to anyone here, ever. As with all the other meat threads, all I've ever done is remain firm in my convictions that eating meat is wrong. Yes, wrong. That is my stance. It has never been directed at anyone personally, yet the meat-eaters get their panties in a bundle and take it personally, because they feel judged. Well the only person judging you is YOU.

I have put up with these insults for years and I'm just Not tolerating it anymore. ALL of you, who seem intent on twisting the conversation back to personal attacks, fucking GROW UP. If you feel so certain that there is nothing wrong with eating animals, then it shouldn't be a big deal what I or anyone else thinks about it. As Diana said, own up to your own choices, instead of attacking others who disagree with you.

Now, most certainly, you will accuse me of 'losing it' and 'being emotional.' Yes, NOW I'm feeling annoyed, I admit it. Damn, Parsons, it's Christmas Eve and you're still hung up on lashing out at me. WHY? Because I asked you some questions about the topic in a discussion??? Do you Not see how absurd that is?

Now you'll likely attack again, saying "SEE! She is emotional!!!" Oh good grief, grow up. Is this junior high or what? Yeah, so I put some exclamation points for emphasis. Are you happy now? Now that you can say you got an emotional response out of me? Was that your goal all along? To provoke and provoke and provoke until I snap, so you can then gloat over making me snap?

Ok, if that's your goal, you can spend the day celebrating. You won. You got a response. But don't gloat too much because guess what, I'm still NOT angry and I'm still NOT upset. Just incredulous and a little annoyed at the juvenile behavior of those who insist on personal attacks rather than discuss the topic. Go ahead and think whatever you like. If it gives you joy to think you got a response out of me, go for it!

I now have a request for you, and the others who continue to throw personal insults: Please LEAVE this discussion. You seem more interested in pointing out any perceived personal flaws in other members than in the topic itself. Leave the discussion for any new people who may happen to be interested in the TOPIC instead of insulting people because of their views.

The vegans have a right to stay in the discussion because we are discussing the TOPIC. (Except for this post, in which I am discussing the elephant in the room.)

...

[Monica]

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.

A personal attack is when the person directs their comments AT someone in particular, and the comments are ABOUT THE PERSON, instead of about the topic.

If you go back and re-read all the meat threads, you will see that it is almost always the meat-eaters who make the PERSONAL comments ABOUT the vegetarians/vegans as PEOPLE, whereas the vegetarians/vegans' comments are about the TOPIC.

That is the difference.

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.

Indeed, that is exactly what has been happening. The meat-eaters perceive our comments about meat-eating as personal attacks, when they aren't. They're just alternate viewpoints, stated about an ACTION, rather than about a PERSON.

...

[anagogy]

A personal attack is when the person directs their comments AT someone in particular, and the comments are ABOUT THE PERSON, instead of about the topic.

If you go back and re-read all the meat threads, you will see that it is almost always the meat-eaters who make the PERSONAL comments ABOUT the vegetarians/vegans as PEOPLE, whereas the vegetarians/vegans' comments are about the TOPIC.

That is the difference.

I think commenting on, or pointing out, a particular style or mode of behavior of someone, is not exactly concomitant with personally attacking that person.  And that is the mostly what I've ever seen in those threads you refer to.  For example, if I said, "John Doe is acting crazy."  Is that a personal attack?  I wouldn't personally interpret it that way.  A person is not their behavior, it is simply an expression of the person.  Certainly, it says something about that person, and the person choosing to interpret it that way, but it doesn't necessarily define them as a individual.  Now if I said, "John Doe *is* a crazy person." That might actually constitute a personal attack, because I'm referring to him, the person, like it is his identity or something.

But like I said, I haven't personally seen many examples of that kind of attack.  I think most people take offense way too quickly (both sides of the argument -- I personally can't stand how "politically correct" everything seems like it has to be in today's world just to talk to someone before they cry foul).  I can argue very aggressively, but it doesn't mean I harbor a negative opinion about a person, I just make counterpoints to what I perceive as the same degree of intensity as the opposing viewpoint.  And I think that is true of a lot of people here.  Mirrors within mirrors.

[Monica]

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?

A small farm or ranch which allows the cows to roam freely, is less cruel than a factory farm, to be sure. If the cows are hand-milked, like in the old days, of course that is better than being hooked up to the machines. If the cows aren't injected with hormones to make them produce more milk (which causes extreme discomfort) of course that is better than what goes on in factory dairies.

But, the fact remains that cows produce milk to feed their babies, like all mammalian mothers. Where is the baby? What is the baby eating, if his/her milk is being given to humans instead?

If you visit the farm, where are the calves? Are they allowed to suckle? If the calves are nursing, and only a bit of excess milk is taken, that might be acceptable. But that is highly unlikely. Farmers raise cows to make $$. This means that they will take as much milk from the cow as possible, to maximize profits. So no matter how you slice it, if there's milk, that is milk that the calf isn't getting. Where is the calf?

Even with 'humane' farms, the calves are usually taken, and sold for meat, usually veal, which is extremely cruel. And what happens to the cow after her milking days are over? Off to the slaughterhouse!

The milk industry is the flip side of the meat industry.

Here is how most dairy is produced:

Dairy in 60 Seconds Flat

Here is a former rancher, talking about 'humane' meat and dairy:

Harold Brown: Former Rancher on 'Humane' Meat and Dairy

and another former rancher:

Talk - Howard Lyman - Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won't Eat Meat


(Both of these are just talks and Not graphic.)

I know how hard it is to give up dairy. I struggled with it for years. Pablisimo told me that milk has opiods (which are addictive) and if I could just stay off it for 72 hours, I would be free. This works for any addiction.

He was right. I backslid a few times, but the 72-hour thing really does work. Plus, there are now vegan cheeses that are really good.

Good luck!

...

[Monica]

I think commenting on, or pointing out, a particular style or mode of behavior of someone, is not exactly concomitant with personally attacking that person.  And that is the mostly what I've ever seen in those threads you refer to.  For example, if I said, "John Doe is acting crazy."  Is that a personal attack?  I wouldn't personally interpret it that way.  A person is not their behavior, it is simply an expression of the person.  Certainly, it says something about that person, and the person choosing to interpret it that way, but it doesn't necessarily define them as a individual.  Now if I said, "John Doe *is* a crazy person." That might actually constitute a personal attack, because I'm referring to him, the person, like it is his identity or something.

But like I said, I haven't personally seen many examples of that kind of attack.  I think most people take offense way too quickly (both sides of the argument -- I personally can't stand how "politically correct" everything seems like it has to be in today's world just to talk to someone before they cry foul).  I can argue very aggressively, but it doesn't mean I harbor a negative opinion about a person, I just make counterpoints to what I perceive as the same degree of intensity as the opposing viewpoint.  And I think that is true of a lot of people here.  Mirrors within mirrors.

Regardless, it's still off-topic and discussing people, rather than the topic.

...

[Monica]

Parsons et al: You win. I'm done with this place. I just notified the mods and requested that they deactivate my account.

Best wishes to everyone.

...

[isis]

Parsons et al: You win. I'm done with this place.

Pretty sure that means we lose.

:(

[earth_spirit]

-----

[Night Owl]

You know monica you could have ignored the response which made you too emotional. That was not my intent when discussing the matters. My concerns were more toward oneness but since you put on the table you do not believe everything is really one thing I just moved on and am willing to talk about food and animals. I'm curious about those vegan cheese. What are they made of? Are they able to replicate the taste of aged cheese? I guess I'll never know. Good luck to you.

[Diana]

Hello all here at B4. 

I honestly feel at this point that my participation in the threads about compassion for other-selves, and in particular, animals, has given everything it could. I leave you with my deeply considered words on the matter to do with as you will. I am not attached to my stance on the matter, yet my heart breaks for the needless suffering of animals at the hands of humans.

I stayed in this conversation and others like it because there was so much thrust in the direction of human free will being the only important part of the equation, and I endeavored to bring some balance into it by including the rest of the story—the rest of the story, that is, from my point of view.

At this point, I feel the debate/discussion has devolved into pettiness and lashing out. I will be very honest with you all, and it IS only my perception, but the pettiness has ever been on the side of justifying the unnecessary torture and killing of animals for food. I have gone to enormous lengths to understand other viewpoints, and accept them (which I do), and I have been here not as an activist, but as a "sister" in the sharing of the Ra Material and the Law of One, and to discuss important matters with others who are here to do the same.

So this is my last post here in this conflicted matter of what to eat here in 3D (or 4D as some say). I do hope no one twists my words into me feeling misunderstood, or hurt, or personally offended. My one and only concern in this matter has been to express for the animals what they cannot say themselves, and to do so in a community of thoughtful, intelligent people.

So, peace, and much love to everyone.

[Jeremy]

Yea I'm honestly surprised other selves so based upon love and acceptance have continued for 47 pages to try to convince other selves of their subjective position. I mean hell, what is it about acceptance that people can't accept?

[Jade]

I'm curious about those vegan cheese. What are they made of? Are they able to replicate the taste of aged cheese?

My favorite vegan cheeses that I've tried are made of coconut oil (I really like Follow Your Heart) and I've had some really good cashew cheeses. Nut milks are a really, really solid and suitable substitute for dairy milk. The hard part is (literally) weaning oneself off the dairy milk because of the addictive properties of casein. Cheese and dairy are so good and satisfying and hard to quit because each time you consume them you get a mild opiate dose.

They are getting more and more creative experimenting with nut cheeses, and there are plenty of "aged" cheeses out there that use the same bacteria to ferment the nuts that it used to ferment the dairy. So yeah, aged nut cheese is definitely coming around. A good brand is Treeline, they have tons of different flavors of soft cheeses that have been aged.

Yea I'm honestly surprised other selves so based upon love and acceptance have continued for 47 pages to try to convince other selves of their subjective position. I mean hell, what is it about acceptance that people can't accept?

Seems like maybe you have a problem with accepting that others have a desire to have an extensive conversation about something you're not interested in discussing?

My own, personal 'judgement' on the scenario is that I believe that when Earth is truly well in to 4D positive, we will no longer slaughter animals for food. We still have a long ways to go before we reverse to that point, however. But I believe that our collective belief that we 'need' meat in any way is a destructive thoughtform that is solidly holding us into 3D energies, and may be even more along the lines of 4D negative energies (factory farms). For instance, milk is subsidized by the government, most likely BECAUSE of its sedative properties. A gallon of milk would actually cost closer to $10 if our taxpayer money didn't subsidize farmers every step of the way.

So, I will happily continue to discuss and advocate my viewpoint, because I think -everyone- here believes that things need to change, acceptance or not. For instance, I accept that there are millions of people in the USA who don't have health insurance, and that they get many layers of catalyst from these experiences that they desire. However, I still hope that things will change so that nobody will have to worry about something like that, like in most civilized countries. I accept that there are people out there who like to hurt children, and that there are children who resonate with the experience of being victimized, but I will still send my healing energies to these people who are perpetrating these acts that inarguably cause pain. I accept that people in our society feel an extremely strong compulsion to eat meat, trust me I do, and I accept that there are specific species of animals (and plants) incarnating in heinous conditions for a life experience. But, I still want to see Earth as a collective move past these energies, eventually. And I'm certain I will. The path to fourth density still requires a lengthy, patient "airing of grievances", until we're thorough enough to meet each other in the middle with open hearts. Happy Festivus, everyone.

[airwaves]

A personal attack is when the person directs their comments AT someone in particular, and the comments are ABOUT THE PERSON, instead of about the topic.

If you go back and re-read all the meat threads, you will see that it is almost always the meat-eaters who make the PERSONAL comments ABOUT the vegetarians/vegans as PEOPLE, whereas the vegetarians/vegans' comments are about the TOPIC.

That is the difference.

I think commenting on, or pointing out, a particular style or mode of behavior of someone, is not exactly concomitant with personally attacking that person.  And that is the mostly what I've ever seen in those threads you refer to.  For example, if I said, "John Doe is acting crazy."  Is that a personal attack?  I wouldn't personally interpret it that way.  A person is not their behavior, it is simply an expression of the person.  Certainly, it says something about that person, and the person choosing to interpret it that way, but it doesn't necessarily define them as a individual.  Now if I said, "John Doe *is* a crazy person." That might actually constitute a personal attack, because I'm referring to him, the person, like it is his identity or something.

But like I said, I haven't personally seen many examples of that kind of attack.  I think most people take offense way too quickly (both sides of the argument -- I personally can't stand how "politically correct" everything seems like it has to be in today's world just to talk to someone before they cry foul).  I can argue very aggressively, but it doesn't mean I harbor a negative opinion about a person, I just make counterpoints to what I perceive as the same degree of intensity as the opposing viewpoint.  And I think that is true of a lot of people here.  Mirrors within mirrors.

Yea I'm honestly surprised other selves so based upon love and acceptance have continued for 47 pages to try to convince other selves of their subjective position. I mean hell,  what is it about acceptance that people can't accept?

My concerns were more toward oneness but since you put on the table you do not believe everything is really one thing I just moved on 

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.

If the lessons of accepting and loving another self for who they are, for what they are, had been remembered this would not have been an issue at all and productive conversation would have ensued as it has in so  many other topics on this site. This is what happens when one tries to dictate unto others. Simply accepting others for who the are, and that their place In the illusion is not same as yours, that their pre incarnational lessons have not reached the lesson you so dearly care about.

Yeah the poor animals are enslaved, and they have been for thousands of years, but they have a lot more special interest groups working for them than they did in the past and progress is being made. Fucking forgive me for being poor and eating a bologna sammich for breakfast lunch and supper, but I'm just thankful to be alive and have a roof over my head at this point. 

Take a step back and consider your audience. Many wanderers incarnate into pretty shitty lives without much choice of what they eat.

[anagogy]

At this point, I feel the debate/discussion has devolved into pettiness and lashing out. I will be very honest with you all, and it IS only my perception, but the pettiness has ever been on the side of justifying the unnecessary torture and killing of animals for food.

My perception as seen plenty of pettiness on both sides, not just the omnivores.  I think that is a biased perspective personally.  As an example: the pettiness of dramatically closing a forum account because someone disagrees with you (obviously, this is not about you).  That seems pretty petty to me, personally. If you don't like a given conversation, simply don't participate, no need for dramatic displays of martyrdom.

   
I have gone to enormous lengths to understand other viewpoints, and accept them (which I do), and I have been here not as an activist, but as a "sister" in the sharing of the Ra Material and the Law of One, and to discuss important matters with others who are here to do the same.

But what does "accept" mean, in this context?  Because by the very fact you don't agree with a perspective, it means you have rejected it, which is the opposite of acceptance.  So that seems contradictory to me.  And if you mean "understand" then I don't really see that either because you wouldn't see it as wrong if that were the case.  So how can you say you understand someone's perspective when you can't really see the subject from the other person's eyes?

So this is my last post here in this conflicted matter of what to eat here in 3D (or 4D as some say).  

I thought post #1292 was your last post on the subject?

post #1292:

Au revoir, at least on this subject.

In any case, I for one am grateful for all who participated in this thread, regardless of any disposition.  I have found it to be valuable catalyst.  Thank-you.

[Jeremy]

I completely agree with airwaves.

A simple perusal of this thread is ripe with subjective beliefs in how one should live according to their respective beliefs.

Regarding what jade wrote. Its not that I'm not accepting of a discussion I'm not interested in. I just know when to let go and accept an other selves point of view and free will pertaining to their life path. What seems to be going on is more of an attempt to persuade an other self that they are right and others are wrong.

I look at a discussion in terms of productivity and purpose. Firstly, can the other self benefit and secondly can I also hence the teach/learn learn/teach experience. If such can occur, then the discussion can be productive. Yet in this thread, it's devolved into bickering of viewpoints so extreme that members are wanting to leave. I don't care what the reasons are or the intentions for them. The result is finger pointing nay saying all for the purpose of claiming one is right and the other is wrong.

You can claim your are expressing your viewpoint but that only goes so far. Surely such expression should have lasted a few pages given the miniscule number of active members we have yet it's gone on for 47 pages. 47 pages of subjective interpretations of one's individual path in a veiled illusion of 3rd density life.

[Night Owl]

My favorite vegan cheeses that I've tried are made of coconut oil (I really like Follow Your Heart) and I've had some really good cashew cheeses. Nut milks are a really, really solid and suitable substitute for dairy milk. The hard part is (literally) weaning oneself off the dairy milk because of the addictive properties of casein. Cheese and dairy are so good and satisfying and hard to quit because each time you consume them you get a mild opiate dose.

They are getting more and more creative experimenting with nut cheeses, and there are plenty of "aged" cheeses out there that use the same bacteria to ferment the nuts that it used to ferment the dairy. So yeah, aged nut cheese is definitely coming around. A good brand is Treeline, they have tons of different flavors of soft cheeses that have been aged.

Thanks for the info. What kind of places are selling those vegan cheses? I will definitly try them out if they do have aged cheese. I suspect the price will be high though.


Concerning the debate, I have always tried to bring the discussion toward oneness in hope that those who suffer can learn how to see things in a point of view where they don't need to suffer, not because we should not give a f*** but because understanding and accepting the process brings inner peace and that stands for both sides. But once the discussion becomes full of hate and suffering I do think it is best to move on. But seeing you go like that I think it means everybody loses in the end. I would have hoped both side could find the strenght to reconcile or at least find a way to keep the discussion meaningful whatever the direction is. Another opportunity toward oneness has been lost.

[Monica]

Thanks for the info. What kind of places are selling those vegan cheses? I will definitly try them out if they do have aged cheese. I suspect the price will be high though.

There are many vegan cheeses at health food stores such as Whole Foods Market, and even in mainstream grocery stores. My local grocery now has a vegan section, featuring tofu, tempeh, vegan hotdogs, and several varieties of vegan cheeses. I live in a large city and the large grocery chains all carry the vegan items now.

The early vegan cheeses didn't melt well but they've gotten much better. Some of the newer ones are quite convincing! Some are pricey, true, but then, the money saved by not buying meat could go towards vegan cheese!  

Here is a recipe for homemade vegan cheese. There are many others.

Cheese is often said to be the biggest hurdle when wanting to rid your life of cruelty. With so many vegan cheeses on the market today, there is no reason to worry about deprivation. However, we enjoy making a large batch of this versatile cheese sauce to use for mac & cheese with a sprinkling of smoked paprika, over baked potatoes with broccoli and tempeh bacon, or as a dip spiced up for nachos! Ditch the dairy and let us know how you plan to use your cruelty-free cheese!

Ingredients: Makes about 4 cups of sauce

+ 1 ½ cups yellow potatoes, peeled and diced (about 2 medium potatoes)
+ 1 cup carrot, chopped (about 2 large carrots)
+ ¼ cup yellow onion, diced
+ 2 cups water plus another ¼ cup, divided
+ ½ cup coconut milk, full-fat preferred
+ ½ cup raw cashews, pre-soaked in water for 30+ minutes- 4 hours to soften, then rinsed
+ ¼ cup nutritional yeast
+ 1 tablespoon ground flax seed, optional for Omega-3 boost
+ ¼ teaspoon turmeric powder
+ 1 teaspoon salt
+ ¼ teaspoon garlic powder, optional
+ salt and pepper, to taste, black pepper will enhance the health effects of turmeric by 10x

Directions:

Simmer the potato, carrot and onion in a covered pan with 2 cups of water for 20 minutes. Soak cashews while vegetables simmer.
After 20 minutes, pour the veggies and their water into your blender.

Drain and rinse the cashews and add them to the blender, along with the nutritional yeast, ground flax, turmeric, sea salt, garlic powder, coconut milk. Save the remaining ¼ cup of water to see if the cheese needs thining.

Blend on high until the sauce is creamy and smooth, if a thinner consistency is preferred, add more water, a tablespoon at a time, and blend again. If a thicker consistency is needed, add another handful of cashews and re-blend. If a cheesier taste is preferred, add another cup of nutritional yeast. Season to taste.

Vegan Cheese Sauce Recipe rights reserved to LOV3 Foundation: LIFE CRUELTY FREE™

Sorry, I no longer have the original link. Here is an excellent book showing how to make your own:

Artisan Vegan Cheese by Miyoko Schinner

Concerning the debate, I have always tried to bring the discussion toward oneness in hope that those who suffer can learn how to see things in a point of view where they don't need to suffer, not because we should not give a f*** but because understanding and accepting the process brings

In regards to human suffering, I agree. A large part of ending suffering is getting out of the mindset of suffering. But, in regards to directly supporting the suffering of higher 2D entities - who are, essentially, our younger brethren - it's a different situation because it is the humans who are causing the suffering.

But once the discussion becomes full of hate and suffering I do think it is best to move on. But seeing you go like that I think it means everybody loses in the end. I would have hoped both side could find the strenght to reconcile or at least find a way to keep the discussion meaningful whatever the direction is. Another opportunity toward oneness has been lost.

I would have preferred that too and tried my best, but I'm Not the Energizer Bunny.  It will be 7 years in April since someone started the first meat thread. (It wasn't me.) Over the past nearly 7 years, a number of people have contacted me privately to thank me and the other vegans for our dedication in championing the animals, and for the information we provided. A few even went vegetarian or even vegan as a result. And obviously, there are a lot of lurkers who read those threads. So the other vegans and I know that it wasn't all for naught. And of course, it has been a learning experience for all of us, meat-eaters and vegans alike, hopefully.

But nearly 7 years is a long time. This isn't the first time personal attacks were directed at me, but it is the last. (Hopefully the mods won't allow a free-for-all-insult-fest after I've left.) I'm retiring from this venue.

Peace and Blessings to you!

...

[Monica]

But what does "accept" mean, in this context?  Because by the very fact you don't agree with a perspective, it means you have rejected it, which is the opposite of acceptance.  So that seems contradictory to me.

Acceptance doesn't mean agreement. I encourage you to ponder Ra's words regarding acceptance. It's probably the most misunderstood word in the Law of One, in my opinion. Acceptance is just the key, the first step. Not the end result. Read what Ra says to do afterwards.

...

[anagogy]

Acceptance doesn't mean agreement. I encourage you to ponder Ra's words regarding acceptance. It's probably the most misunderstood word in the Law of One, in my opinion. Acceptance is just the key, the first step. Not the end result. Read what Ra says to do afterwards.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with not agreeing with it. Even higher density beings don't accept everything. So when higher density beings are depolarized by a failure to accept what is offered by negative polarity, what is acceptance in that context? Wouldn't you agree that they do not agree with total submission? What else would it mean? It is a congruency of perspective. You seem to have a very nebulous definition of acceptance, one you conveniently decided not to share.

I agree it is misunderstood.

[Night Owl]

It will be 7 years in April since someone started the first meat thread. (It wasn't me.)

...

Sorry for saying that you did, you started the first I ever went to so it was based on that. So basically I didn't read the threads before that so I don't base anything I've said on those threads. But I assumed the threads following that one were kind of answers to that thread. It wasn't meant to hurt your feelings, I just thought something had not been reconciled between people for reaching that much pages. In fact I didn't come on the forum for months and saw this was still going on and tried picking up where I left but maybe things got out of context.


Regardless of that I would have enjoyed learning things from you. I do am trying to improve my food intake and I am the proof that one cannot just say becoming vegan is easy. It may be for some but this isn't something to be generalized. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. Though some of the things I've said about oneness I'm sure I would have told you the same if I was already a vegan. I would have hoped this could be discussed seriously and not took for granted to be just another meat eater's opinion and felt this resentment may have reached others. One thing I came to realize is that there seem to be really two different kind of concepts about oneness on the forum. If you can no longer answer I will start a new thread about it.

Would you agree that the version you defend or the concept which you build your perception of oneness unto would be defined by a united separateness or unified duality. While another point of view on the forum seems to suggest oneness is more like one single thing experiencing an infinite multiplicity but still remaining one single thing. I tend to see it more like the second one but seeing how this is maybe just taken for granted without explaining it first before members exchange ideas about oneness, I understand that creates lots of distortions. I am willing to hear anybody on their opinion about this concept.

A unified duality vs a single but infinite multiplicity? What do you think?

[Monica]

Acceptance doesn't mean agreement. I encourage you to ponder Ra's words regarding acceptance. It's probably the most misunderstood word in the Law of One, in my opinion. Acceptance is just the key, the first step. Not the end result. Read what Ra says to do afterwards.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with not agreeing with it.  Even higher density beings don't accept everything.  So when higher density beings are depolarized by a failure to accept what is offered by negative polarity, what is acceptance in that context?  Wouldn't you agree that they do not agree with total submission?  What else would it mean?  It is a congruency of perspective.   You seem to have a very nebulous definition of acceptance, one you conveniently decided not to share.

I agree it is misunderstood.

Actually, I have shared my views about Acceptance. Quite extensively, actually. I even started a thread about it, and more recently, posted a very long, detailed post about it, though I don't remember which thread that was in. So I've already shared my interpretation of Acceptance and explained my opinion about how I think it's misunderstood.

So if you are interested in my views about it, you can find it in my posts. I won't be repeating it because a.) It's Christmas and I'm not going to spend any more time on it today and b.) I'm leaving the forum anyway.

...

[Diana]

So this is my last post here in this conflicted matter of what to eat here in 3D (or 4D as some say).  

I thought post #1292 was your last post on the subject?

post #1292:

Au revoir, at least on this subject.

And the purpose of pointing this out was....? Actually, Au Revoir means, Until Later. However, you are essentially correct. There was an earlier point in the conversation when I was involved in a particular exchange and I felt it had become counterproductive.

I signed out of this conversation now, and others like it about veagnism/vegetarianism officially, not to make a dramatic gesture, but because I feel I know so many people here and just fading away didn't seem kind or honest somehow. Ultimately though it doesn't matter. Since there is so much complaining about why this thread and others like it go on and on and on, I will leave it to the rest of this community to carry on or not.

[Monica]

Sorry for saying that you did, you started the first I ever went to so it was based on that. So basically I didn't read the threads before that so I don't base anything I've said on those threads. But I assumed the threads following that one were kind of answers to that thread. It wasn't meant to hurt your feelings, I just thought something had not been reconciled between people for reaching that much pages. In fact I didn't come on the forum  for months and saw this was still going on and tried picking up where I left but maybe things got out of context.

Apology accepted! Thank you!

Regardless of that I would have enjoyed learning things from you. I do am trying to improve my food intake and I am the proof that one cannot just say becoming vegan is easy. It may be for some but this isn't something to be generalized. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. Though some of the things I've said about oneness I'm sure I would have told you the same if I was already a vegan. I would have hoped this could be discussed seriously and not took for granted to be just another meat eater's opinion and felt this resentment may have reached others. One thing I came to realize is that there seem to be really two different kind of concepts about oneness on the forum. If you can no longer answer I will start a new thread about it.

In my experience, becoming a vegetarian is very easy, but becoming a vegan can be more difficult, depending on one's circumstances. It is easier now than it used to be though, as more and more grocery stores and restaurants are staring to offer vegan options, and more and more easy recipes are available.

Still, there's definitely a learning curve. That's precisely why I was vegetarian for 25 years, while dabbling in going vegan on and off, before finally making the commitment to vegan. Had I had the resources 25 years ago that I have now, I would have done it a lot sooner. But I do validate your concerns. It does require some education and effort to go vegan.

I am happy to share resources with you and keep in contact if you like. Please send me a pm with your email address if you'd like to keep in touch. In the meantime, there are numerous threads here at B4 on the subject, including one that I started on how to go vegetarian easily (this was before I went vegan myself) and I think some other members started another thread about vegan recipes. If you pm me with your contact info, I can also share a lot of websites with recipes and support.

It is people like you that is the reason I have stayed this long. I applaud your intentions and your efforts! and am happy to help!

Would you agree that the version you defend or the concept which you build your perception of oneness unto would be defined by a united separateness or unified duality. While another point of view on the forum seems to suggest oneness is more like one single thing experiencing an infinite multiplicity but still remaining one single thing. I tend to see it more like the second one but seeing how this is maybe just taken for granted without explaining it first before members exchange ideas about oneness, I understand that creates lots of distortions. I am willing to hear anybody on their opinion about this concept.

A unified duality vs a single but infinite multiplicity?  What do you think?

Sorry, on my way out, and I am trying to disentangle from the forum. That is a complex topic. Again, if you are interested in my views, you might wish to explore some of my earlier posts on various topics. I have posted quite prolifically on a variety of topics over the past 7-8 years. (what year did the forum start? I don't remember!)

PEACE and Blessings to you!

...

[anagogy]

And the purpose of pointing this out was....? Actually, Au Revoir means, Until Later. However, you are essentially correct. There was an earlier point in the conversation when I was involved in a particular exchange and I felt it had become counterproductive.

I signed out of this conversation now, and others like it about veagnism/vegetarianism officially, not to make a dramatic gesture, but because I feel I know so many people here and just fading away didn't seem kind or honest somehow. Ultimately though it doesn't matter. Since there is so much complaining about why this thread and others like it go on and on and on, I will leave it to the rest of this community to carry on or not.

I pointed it out because you said you only saw pettiness from omnivores but i find dramatic displays of martyrdom petty.  I know you don't see your actions that way, but that is just how "officially leaving a thread" comes across to me.  I mean, it isn't like you won't be on the forum anymore.  And further more, you clearly didn't *really* check out of the thread (since you're still clearly posting in it).  Thus, it seemed like an unnecessary magnification of drama.  This is just my personal opinion.

[anagogy]

So if you are interested in my views about it, you can find it in my posts. I won't be repeating it because a.) It's Christmas and I'm not going to spend any more time on it today and b.) I'm leaving the forum anyway.

I find it interesting that this is where you draw the line after your copiously long responses to Minyatur. But okay. Your choice.

[Diana]

And the purpose of pointing this out was....? Actually, Au Revoir means, Until Later. However, you are essentially correct. There was an earlier point in the conversation when I was involved in a particular exchange and I felt it had become counterproductive.

I signed out of this conversation now, and others like it about veagnism/vegetarianism officially, not to make a dramatic gesture, but because I feel I know so many people here and just fading away didn't seem kind or honest somehow. Ultimately though it doesn't matter. Since there is so much complaining about why this thread and others like it go on and on and on, I will leave it to the rest of this community to carry on or not.

I pointed it out because you said you only saw pettiness from omnivores but i find dramatic displays of martyrdom petty.  I know you don't see your actions that way, but that is just how "officially leaving a thread" comes across to me.  I mean, it isn't like you won't be on the forum anymore.  And further more, you clearly didn't *really* check out of the thread (since you're still clearly posting in it).  Thus, it seemed like an unnecessary magnification of drama.  This is just my personal opinion.

Look, Anagogy, I don't appreciate you saying these things about me. I am not a martyr or melodramatic for the record. 

I am in this thread still to not allow your insults pointed directly at me to go unaddressed, as I am pretty sure the moderators won't step in. I will not allow you to speak of me in this derogatory fashion.

I did say the pettiness, in my opinion, in these threads about meat-eating, was on the side of the meat-eaters; but that does not mean every post or member said petty things. It was a general statement. Everyone is entitled to their own perceptions. No one here is entitled to say derogatory things about me or any other member.

I am not hurt. I am not angry. I am not being dramatic. I just want to set the record straight and call you out for your inappropriate words.

[anagogy]

Look, Anagogy, I don't appreciate you saying these things about me. I am not a martyr or melodramatic for the record. 

I am in this thread still to not allow your insults pointed directly at me to go unaddressed, as I am pretty sure the moderators won't step in. I am not all that evolved, and I will not allow you to speak of me in this derogatory fashion.

I did say the pettiness, in my opinion, in these threads about meat-eating, was on the side of the meat-eaters; but that does not mean every post or member said petty things. It was a general statement. Everyone is entitled to their own perceptions. No one here is entitled to say derogatory things about me or any other member.

I am not hurt. I am not angry. I am not being dramatic. I just want to set the record straight and call you out for your inappropriate words.

You can get offended if you want (which is pretty apparent no matter how you want to characterize it), but it is just my honest personal opinion of behavior i perceived.  Just as yours was.  I don't see my comments as any more offensive than yours were about omnivores in general.  It isn't an attack or an insult anymore than your own statement was.  It was simply your own behavior reflected back at you.  I honestly have no axe to grind with you Diana.  Saying a behavior is petty, is not the same as saying you, as an individual,  are petty.  Just as your description of meat eaters acting petty does not mean that that is their identity.  We all take actions that are not perfectly selfless, whether we consciously realize it or not.

I was simply responding to a perceived bias.  That was how it came across to me regardless of your intention.  If you don't agree, fine.  But it doesn't change my opinion.  

And if you don't like the thread, no one is forcing you to participate.

[Monica]

So if you are interested in my views about it, you can find it in my posts. I won't be repeating it because a.) It's Christmas and I'm not going to spend any more time on it today and b.) I'm leaving the forum anyway.

I find it interesting that this is where you draw the line after your copiously long responses to Minyatur.  But okay.  Your choice.

Acceptance is a much deeper topic, and I've already posted extensively on it.

...

[Monica]

I don't see my comments as any more offensive than yours were about omnivores in general.  It isn't an attack or an insult anymore than your own statement was.  It was simply your own behavior reflected back at you.

This is one of the reasons I've had enough of this place. So many people can't understand the difference between having convictions about an issue, and personally insulting someone. They think a vegan saying "Eating meat supports cruelty and is wrong...cows are literally raped" is somehow insulting them personally, when that statement does No such thing at all. They just interpret it as a personal insult, rather than face their own conscience. They wire it up in their brains "Eating meat is bad...I eat meat so I must be bad...OMG she is calling me bad!!! She just attacked me!" When No one attacked them, but THEY attacked themselves with their own thinking. But they had to take a roundabout route in their thinking to arrive at that conclusion; NO attacks were made towards them directly; THEY had to follow that line of thought to that conclusion.

In contrast, saying "YOU are judgmental...YOU are trying to control me...YOU are a zealot" are all personal attacks, DIRECTLY, because they are directed at people, directly. No roundabout thinking to arrive at any conclusions...just BAM insults directed towards that person, by the words YOU ARE xyz.

It really isn't that difficult to understand. One is a statement about one's own convictions, whereas the other is a direct attack. The vegans state their own convictions; whereas many of the meat-eaters chose to attack directly.

It's actually quite normal and common, in the real world. I know this because I belong to several vegan groups and all the vegans encounter the exact same reaction in everyday life, with all sort of people who eat meat, regardless of whether those people are friends, family, coworkers, religious leaders, so-called 'New Age' channelers, hunters, 'holistic' or 'organic' type people, whatever. Doesn't matter. Without fail, most meat-eaters react the same way when vegans point out the FACTS about how animals are turned into meat and dairy.

It's a psychological defense mechanism. The truth is so horrible, so obscenely evil, that their minds cannot face that THEY are contributing to it. So they make excuses, they deny that it's really that bad, they say "animals don't really feel pain" (despite having pain receptors), or "'God' told us we can eat animals", or "caveman ate animals so we can too" or "I only buy humane meat" when there is actually No such thing, or the best one "but plants feel pain too!!!" despite plants Not having pain receptors, etc. Ultimately, it all boils down to this: DENIAL.

Then, the next thing they typically do is attack the messenger. "You are trying to control me!"..."Eating meat is a free will choice!" ..."How dare you try to take my rights away!" ..."How dare you show me that graphic slaughterhouse video! That is so horrible!" or the kicker "You are trying to CONTROL me!" never mind that it's impossible for any vegan to control what any meat-eater eats, and even IF we tried, how is that even remotely as bad as actually causing the suffering of animals in the first place?

Yes, these are all standard, typical behaviors, encountered by vegans all over the world on a daily basis. Vegans have developed a series of memes illustrating these standard responses, articles have been written, support groups formed, extensive discussions about the most effective ways to reach the oppressors and actually help the oppressed, and we all try to help one another, and we share our challenges and our triumphs, but at the end of the day, our minds are still blown at how powerful the human mind is in its ability to DENY what one is actually doing, rather than FACE the TRUTH.

Because the TRUTH is that billions of sentient beings are being literally tortured on a daily basis, and it's completely needless, and each of us has the power to do our part to stop it. (This statement is FACT and cannot be refuted.) The reality is that if someone has the awareness of what's happening and chooses to ignore it, and continues to support it, that is the epitome of STS at worst, or calloused indifference at best. (This last statement is my opinion, obviously.)

So...we carry on, just as those before us continued until the human slaves were freed. We DO make progress! A LOT of progress! More and more people are waking up! But we encounter these exact same arguments, in everyday life...all the exact same DENIALS and personal insults that Diana and I encountered here. That's one of the reasons Diana and I aren't angry or upset...and it's also why we honestly DO have compassion for all of you who are in denial...because we know that your behavior is quite normal.

My mistake was that I truly thought I'd find a higher consciousness in Law of One students. I thought I'd find more openness, more ability to face one's dark nature, more ability to feel compassion for our younger other-selves, in people who profess to understand what I consider the highest spiritual teachings on the planet, and who profess to be Wanderers.

I was wrong.

It's exactly the same here. If anything, there is even MORE denial, because now there is the added excuse of "oh but they're only 2D" and insist that a cow and a lettuce are exactly the same, as if the Neanderthal and Yogananda are exactly the same...they insist that cows are more like lettuces than like humans...when simple observation proves otherwise.

I don't apologize for my convictions. Nor do I apologize for ever judging or insulting anyone because I never have. If anyone felt judged or insulted, it was from their own conscience, and I will NOT be a doormat for them to vomit all over, rather than face their own conscience.

I DO, however, apologize for having unrealistic expectations. For that I am indeed guilty. I had very high expectations for students of the Law of One. I wrongly expected all of you to wake up easily, to see what is obvious, to recognize the needless suffering and choose to help us stop it. I wrongly expected that Law of One students would HEAR the CALL of the oppressed, as I do, as Ra hears our call, and choose to help us answer that call.

I was wrong in having those expectations. For that, I am very sorry.

This is the real reason I am leaving. Not because Parsons and some others were rude and insulting. Yawn, I've encountered worse. No, that isn't why, though Parsons' outrageous comments were certainly a trigger for deeper contemplation about why it's time to leave. (Thank you Parsons!)

Curiously, I joined on Dec. 25, 2008. 7 years to the day.

I have continued to participate in the meat discussions because I truly believe that Wanderers have the power to raise the vibration of this planet, but I No longer believe that B4 is the place to find Wanderers.

I think a lot of people who think they are Wanderers, aren't. And there are a lot of Wanderers who've never heard the term Wanderer.

I am meeting more and more Wanderers in everyday life. If Not Wanderers, then certainly they are Lightworkers. It really doesn't matter whether one is a Wanderer or not, because Wanderers can get stuck in the muck, and newly harvestable-to-4D entities can shine a lot of Light!

That's who I want to spend my time with - those who are ready to shine their light. Not with those who insist on remaining in denial, and insist that nothing matters because it's all illusion, or that compassion is somehow passe and truly enlightened people are above all that. In my understanding of the Law of One, compassion is a very basic aspect of the STO path, and the STO path is one of the core principles of the philosophy Ra attempted to convey. Compassion is very basic. All that esoteric stuff is meaningless if we don't have the basics. I don't want to be part of a community that doesn't value compassion.

I don't want to be part of a community that thinks they are above Ra themselves, that they are beyond polarity. I think they're kidding themselves.

I have concluded that the consensus here at B4 is a gross misinterpretation of the Law of One. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm the one who is misinterpreting. We shall see. But that is what I've concluded, so it's time to move on.

The Law of One isn't a book.

Peace and Blessings to all.

...

[Monica]

Acceptance doesn't mean agreement. I encourage you to ponder Ra's words regarding acceptance. It's probably the most misunderstood word in the Law of One, in my opinion. Acceptance is just the key, the first step. Not the end result. Read what Ra says to do afterwards.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with not agreeing with it.  Even higher density beings don't accept everything.  So when higher density beings are depolarized by a failure to accept what is offered by negative polarity, what is acceptance in that context?  Wouldn't you agree that they do not agree with total submission?  What else would it mean?  It is a congruency of perspective.   You seem to have a very nebulous definition of acceptance, one you conveniently decided not to share.

I agree it is misunderstood.

I'm sure many others have discussed this topic, and I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, so you can surely find differing opinions elsewhere in the forum, but here are the 2 threads I remember in which others and I discussed this topic at length:

Bring4th Studies > Strictly Law of One Material  v > Acceptance and Will

Bring4th Studies > Strictly Law of One Material  v > The Ways of Acceptance (alternative reading of 'STO') (My own personal views about Ra's intended meaning in regards to Acceptance are explained in post #20)

and this one isn't about Acceptance directly, but explores free will and the concept of infringement:

Bring4th Studies > Spiritual Development & Metaphysical Matters > Spiritual Implications of Politics and Current Events v > Gun laws.

...