Why I am not a vegan

[anagogy]

Even if what you say is true, this is not a reason to cause harm. 

To those who insist that it's okay to eat meat—it's okay, according to the law of free will and choice. Just because you think an animal knows the lowdown here, does not mean that has anything to do with your choice of whether or not to participate in the cruel system of factory farming, or even hunting and killing them for food. It is cruel, no matter what anyone here says. And everyone's choices are their own. So, it boils down to the choices made. 

Arguments can go on forever that plants and animals are the same regarding the implications of using them for food. I disagree. There are many reasons why and I will reiterate if anyone cares to ask.

We know this: animals do not want to die. Animals suffer in captivity.

Again, animal abuse and eating meat are different topics.  By all means, avoid abusing animals.  Killing an animal quickly by skillful hunting is less cruel than dying slowly of starvation or by a pack of wolves tearing it apart in the wild.  

To assume one is worse 100% of the time otherwise, is naive.

You just said that those actions aren't consonant with the Law of One. Why not? The only reason to assume that lying or killing humans isn't consonant with the Law of One, but killing younger other-selves IS consonant with the Law of One, is societal bias.

In our current society, it is deemed unacceptable to kill humans, but acceptable to kill animals. That is societal bias, and you just illustrated it.

So, my question to you was, why are lying and killing humans not consonant with the Law of One? (other than societal bias)

Because the lessons that precipitate STO 4th density, and the lessons that precipitate 3rd density are completely different.  Different beings are reaching for different vibrations.  In any STO act, for it to *BE* an STO act, the recipient has to, if even at the soul level, see the action as, predominantly, a benefit to its evolution.

Naturally, a certain behavior towards a rock, an animal, and a human being (in terms of STO polarity) will be quite different.

Killing an animal can be STO, STS, or even neutral.  I will concede that there situations where killing a human, or lying, could be STO (to protect another).

But you just did yourself. You just said that lying or killing humans wasn't consonant with the Law of One...presumably you meant the STO path. Why not? Because those actions are inherently STS?

I guess it would depend greatly on the circumstance.  It is a question of *why* you are doing something.  There are situations where killing humans or lying could be STO, hard as that may be to believe.  I apologize If I gave you a different impression.  In the examples I gave, the context of the conversation was such that I was asking if the advice given by a STO being would incorporate more positive behaviors, or if they would they simply accept that killing and lying was my custom and incorporate such behaviors into their advice for me.  My opinion is that they would try to get me to see a broader perspective, rather than allow me to just go on in my less than effective manner, as per my hypothetical custom.  

If you had a sick animal, that you loved and cared for, and it was suffering, would you just let the suffering continue, or would mercifully kill that sentient entity?

 

That is an entirely different situation. That is mercy killing. Killing animals for food is abuse, because it's unnecessary.

I thought it was understood that I meant for food when I said that killing animals is the ultimate abuse. I will edit my previous post to say for food. No animal wants to be killed, except maybe one that is dying and in pain, just as with humans. Animals make their wishes known, quite clearly.

You can edit your response if you want, but it seems disingenuous/dishonest to edit a conversation that has already happened to make yourself appear more correct to future readers than the opposing viewpoint.  You say it is unnecessary, but is that really your place to judge what is necessary and not necessary?  You seem to think the line between needs and wants is black and white, but it isn't.  You assume that all people are alike, and that everybody can eat the same thing and thrive.  I don't think you can unequivocally say that, and it is judgmental to advocate that.  It is, however, a great way to look down on people who don't live the same way you do.

You're kidding yourself if you think farm animals joyfully line up to be slaughtered.  

I never said they did.  And you're still confusing animal abuse with meat eating, as if they are, by necessity, the same thing.  They aren't.    

Though, I'm sure you probably don't subscribe to the YCYOR idea, because you don't like the implications.

You are wrong in your assumptions.

Let's apply your theory to humans and see if your logic holds:

Do you maybe think the human rape victim's consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near rapists.

How does that work? Does this give us free license to rape women?

I don't understand your logic that you think that would somehow give license to rape women.  I can tell you that souls know there is a high probability something of that nature will occur in a given incarnation.  The flaw in your logic is that it doesn't make rape any more good or less negative.  You still have a situation where someone is raping someone.  And it doesn't mean the victim isn't creating their own reality.  It's just a simple reality of the situation that a given victim wandered into a vibrational vicinity that was not in their best interest.  Their consciousness was tuned to fear and they attracted what they feared.  It doesn't make the rapist not a rapist, and it doesn't make the rape victim deliberately responsible, either.  

Accidentally tuning your consciousness to fear is no different than the commonly held idea of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.  When you don't understand what you are doing with your consciousness, it is easy to wander down the wrong road of vibrational activation.  Becoming aware of this fact of reality, is empowering in that you can deliberately tune your consciousness to more desirable circumstances.

Similarly, animals don't have perfect control of their consciousness (nor do we), but they are, nevertheless creating their own realities (just as we).  

I do find it somewhat ironic that you profess to subscribe to the create your own reality viewpoint, yet, still somehow think that animals aren't playing a role in creating their circumstances (and that human beings are solely responsible), no matter how unaware they are of their thoughts effect on their reality.

But even not being aware, exposure to what is *NOT* wanted, unconsciously launches a desire for what *is* wanted.  So even if a person, or animal, doesn't find their creative control in this life, after death they will come into this reality from the new platform, or focus, of what is *wanted*.  i.e. there is an inevitable vector upwards toward better experiences, as subjectively defined.   

If you can find any human who has sharp fangs, designed to tear apart flesh, and is able to kill a cow using only his teeth, and then delights in the taste of blood, and devours the bloody flesh of the cow, then that person might qualify as a carnivore.

I think you may be biased toward assuming that certain physical attributes are only allowed to thrive on animal protein, even though thousands of years of human history, and survival on occasional animal protein, has continued to sustain the human civilization.

How *long* does a given animal (a human for example) have to, in virtually every culture, partake of a given food source before you accept it is natural for them to do so?  If an alien race were observing us, as anthropologists, they would automatically assume it was in our nature to thrive on animal protein.