Vegans : some questions for you !!

[Monica]

who feels bad about "killing" something soulless?

Anyone who has ever looked into the eyes of an animal - any animal - knows that they aren't soulless.

The point is, even before that man people had been killing and eating animals, even (especially?) in animistic and polytheistic cultures where animals were seen as harbouring not only a soul, but divinity. Perhaps it was necessary to survival?

Yes, it was necessary for survival then.

But it isn't now.

Plus, we are supposed to be evolving, so what our ancestors (or ourselves in past lives) did has nothing to do with what's appropriate now.

I personally do not enjoy war but see the value and at times necessity of such things.

Yes, people are cruel on this planet. Cruelty is an STS trait, and this planet is of mixed polarity at this point. We can, however, choose not to participate.

Cruelty is not an STS trait, it's a trait you don't approve of and have associated with another thing of don't approve of (STS) lol, where in the Ra Material does it say cruelty is an STS trait?
You can choose not to participate in the debacle if you wish, I think it's good that you want to strive for something more noble than cruelty, but self righteousness is not noble.

Hahaha, you're playing the "you are being self-righteous" card.

Did you really just say that cruelty isn't an STS trait??? Oops, now it's my turn to assume...I assumed we were both on the same page regarding the STO path. I see we're not, so there's no point in continuing.

[Fang]

Anyone who has ever looked into the eyes of an animal - any animal - knows that they aren't soulless.

My point was that Descartes made available that formalized notion. there are many people who would think otherwise and think animals are soulless, many people I have met who have indeed looked into an animal's eyes.

Yes, it was necessary for survival then.

But it isn't now.

Plus, we are supposed to be evolving, so what our ancestors (or ourselves in past lives) did has nothing to do with what's appropriate now.

Nothing? Why not build with what we have been given rather than reach for an impossible and impractical goal that feeds our sense of self worth?

Hahaha, you're playing the "you are being self-righteous" card. Big Grin

Yes, or rather the presentation of ideas on this topic by yourself have often been of a elitist nature and how others who do not follow your method of eating are inferior (STS, cruel and whatever other apparent insults you can find)

Did you really just say that cruelty isn't an STS trait??? Oops, now it's my turn to assume...I assumed we were both on the same page regarding the STO path. I see we're not, so there's no point in continuing.

The unconscious complex is notably uniform (reactions are easy to gauge), my assumptions are not made of thin air. Also, there is a degree of assumption necessitated by this type of discussion, though that really should be obvious. It's up to courtesy of the individual not to make shots in the dark.

Cruelty is not an STS trait. The STS concept presented in the Ra Material makes no mention of cruelty, free association and wishful substitution will make it seem so though.

[Monica]

Nothing? Why not build with what we have been given rather than reach for an impossible and impractical goal that feeds our sense of self worth?

Going vegetarian is neither impossible nor impractical, and the purpose behind it has nothing to do with feeding self-worth.

Yes, or rather the presentation of ideas on this topic by yourself have often been of a elitist nature and how others who do not follow your method of eating are inferior (STS, cruel and whatever other apparent insults you can find)

That's just BS and you know it.

Cruelty is not an STS trait. The STS concept presented in the Ra Material makes no mention of cruelty, free association and wishful substitution will make it seem so though.

I guess compassion isn't an STO trait, then, eh?

Ra has an STO bias. So do I. Have a good day.

[zenmaster]

And Fang, you are wrong. Look up kale vs beef on protein, for example.

I think you may be looking at it from the perspective of calories, rather than nutrient density (mass). It appears that Fang is correct.

Only 2g of protein for one 67g serving of kale (3%), and 48g of protein for 212g serving of pork (23%). For 90% lean ground beef, 6g of protein per 28g (21%).

[reeay]

I would think that vegans would really need to understand nutrition and what body needs, which means lots of research and time spent making sure that essential nutrients are consumed.

This was a great video on vegans and heart disease - why there's a higher rate of heart disease in vegans & what types of foods may protect us from heart disease. He looks at types of fats, omega-3, & B-12, which seemed to be lacking in vegan diets... no mention of protein tho.

[Monica]

I would think that vegans would really need to understand nutrition and what body needs, which means lots of research and time spent making sure that essential nutrients are consumed.

Yes, that is absolutely true! But then, it's true for meat-eaters too...just look at the epidemics of heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, arthritis, etc. most of whom are meat-eaters.

Some meat eaters are healthy...most are not, being that 1 out of 2 people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and most people eat meat.

Overall, vegans are healthier, statistically, for those major diseases, BUT have other challenges. While vegans have less cancer, heart disease, etc. their problems tend to be deficiency of a select few nutrients, usually caused by insufficient calories or too much junk food displacing healthier foods, and of course the most common issue is Vitamin B12.

Humans can synthesize B12 from the bacteria in dirt, just as other animals do. But, since we now wash our veggies, we must supplement B12.

(Incidentally, I read recently that the reason people get B12 from meat is from the bacteria in the meat. I haven't been able to verify if that's true though.)

Vegetarians who eat eggs and/or dairy don't have those issues, but excessive eggs and dairy can cause the same sorts of problems meat does.

Point being that, regardless of whether one eats animals or not, it's a good idea to get educated and eat as healthily as possible. Many vegans are unhealthy not because they're vegans, but for many of the same reasons many meat-eaters are unhealthy - too much junk food. Just being vegan doesn't guarantee health! I've met vegans who drank sodas and smoked cigarettes...

Eliminating meat eliminates one of the major risk factors.

This was a great video on vegans and heart disease - why there's a higher rate of heart disease in vegans

Higher than what? Do you mean higher than one would expect?

& what types of foods may protect us from heart disease. He looks at types of fats, omega-3, & B-12, which seemed to be lacking in vegan diets... no mention of protein tho.

Yes, both vegetarians and meat-eaters alike can be deficient in both Omega-3s and B12.

It's late but I'll watch it tomorrow - thanks for the info!

[xise]

Cruelty is not an STS trait. The STS concept presented in the Ra Material makes no mention of cruelty, free association and wishful substitution will make it seem so though.

19.17 Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self?

Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.

All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.

cru·el·ty noun \ˈkrü(-ə)l-tē\

: a desire to cause others to suffer : the quality or state of being cruel

: actions that cause suffering

: an act or occurrence that causes suffering

Fang, is it really that hard to understand why someone might think cruelty is an STS trait (regardless of whether the notion is true or not)? Do you really think it's only free association that can lead one to conclude cruelty may be more associated with STS than STO philosophy?


I know everyone can use any given word, such as cruelty, and mean something different than how another might use the word. However, given the dictionary definition of cruelty, it doesn't seem to be out of left field if someone says that they feel that cruelty is compatible with STS philosophy and not compatible with STO philosophy.

[reeay]

This was a great video on vegans and heart disease - why there's a higher rate of heart disease in vegans

Higher than what? Do you mean higher than one would expect?

Surprisingly, higher rate of heart disease than non-vegans (e.g., people who eat animal proteins). This guy in the video is passionate about veganism. He was confused as to why vegans would have higher rates of heart disease than non-vegans, which lead him to do a bit of searching - he explains in video.

[sunnysideup]

Hi Firefly,

If you are still reading this I think it is praiseworthy that you want to raise your child on a vegetarian diet and like Monica mentioned earlier there is probably a lot of online information and books you can find on this matter.
I, myself am not a vegetarian nor was I raised on a vegetarian diet, however I was raised being respectful and grateful for all (animal/plant) received food. Also I'm very thankful for even having the choice to eat what I want, knowing there are less fortunate people on Earth who don't get to choose. Anyway good luck, Firefly.

[Monica]

Surprisingly, higher rate of heart disease than non-vegans (e.g., people who eat animal proteins). This guy in the video is passionate about veganism. He was confused as to why vegans would have higher rates of heart disease than non-vegans, which lead him to do a bit of searching - he explains in video.

That conflicts with other sources stating the opposite. But, I won't make any further comments until I watch the video.

---

Hi Firefly,

If you are still reading this I think it is praiseworthy that you want to raise your child on a vegetarian diet and like Monica mentioned earlier there is probably a lot of online information and books you can find on this matter.

Firefly, if you're still here, I do want to offer one suggestion:

Be aware that children need a lot more fat and calories than adults. A common mistake made by vegan parents is feeding their children a low-fat vegan diet, which may work beautifully for them, but doesn't work for children. If the child is lacto-ovo vegetarian (includes eggs and dairy) then they are likely to get plenty of fat and calories. But if they are vegan, then it's crucially important to include lots of healthy, high-fat and high-calorie foods like avocados, fresh fruits, potatoes, whole-grain starches, nuts and seeds. It's easy to add nuts and seeds in the form of nut milks.

Also, supplement with B12 - sublingual drops or sprays are best.

[zenmaster]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...Is-Settled

Anyone can handwave anecdotal evidence of health correlations to diet as if it was somehow meaningful advice. Worse, actual research for more than 50 years turned out to be bogus and deceitful stemming from misplaced bias against meat eating. Looks like you can fool a whole nation, for long period of time, rather easily and convincingly with utter bullshit.

[Monica]

Anyone can handwave anecdotal evidence of health correlations to diet as if it was somehow meaningful advice. Worse, actual research for more than 50 years turned out to be bogus and deceitful stemming from misplaced bias against meat eating. Looks like you can fool a whole nation, for long period of time, rather easily and convincingly with utter bullshit.

Bias runs both ways, and the meat industry is highly profitable. So is the disease-drug industry.

So, we should stick to the science, which is well documented in the most comprehensive study ever:

http://www.forksoverknives.com/about/synopsis/

[Diana]

Well, it's none of my business but I think it is relevant, parenting-wise. Since you have quite strict, emotional beliefs regarding the subject, I can imagine it would be a very difficult decision for him to choose otherwise. Or to ever be completely honest.

And I totally misinterpreted him being strong, scusi!

This is one of many attacks on Monica in this thread which I don't understand. As far as I can tell, she is just trying to help. :-/

Can you not give Monica and her son the benefit of the doubt? Why is it easier to believe her son is lying?

---

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...Is-Settled

Anyone can handwave anecdotal evidence of health correlations to diet as if it was somehow meaningful advice. Worse, actual research for more than 50 years turned out to be bogus and deceitful stemming from misplaced bias against meat eating. Looks like you can fool a whole nation, for long period of time, rather easily and convincingly with utter bullshit.

Official results from statistics and studies can be based on what you want the answers to be. (I did not theorize this.) And aren't there many more levels than just physical? In addition, yes, it's easy to fool what I call "the herd." Media has anesthetized most people. But these are people who have to have someone else tell them what to think or do.

Heart disease, for example, may have more to do with emotions--heart wounds from unresolved emotional trauma--than diet. To study diet and link it to heart disease is a very linear, limited, 3D perspective.

In my own case, I am vegetarian and personally know many vegetarians, vegans, and raw-fooders. Some have been for decades. I do not know any who are unhealthy and indeed find them vibrant and youthful. This does not mean there are no unhealthy vegetarians. Some people do not eat in a healthy way, and many are not healthy and balanced emotionally or mentally. In these cases it wouldn't matter whether they were omnivorous or vegetarian.

[Melissa]

Is this some kind of prank I'm not aware of? It has to be.. Attacks? You've got to be kidding. [insert long ass sigh here]

[reeay]

I hypothesize that people who choose to engage in healthy diets, whether it be vegan, veg, eating lean proteins, etc., most likely are very highly mindful about their lifestyle behaviors in general, across their lifespan. They may exercise more, manage stress, eat fresh foods, avoid preservatives, manage body weight, not smoking or drinking to excess or at all, have access to health services or some health system, history of health, intergenerational health, even location of residence and socioeconomic status + other environmental factors etc.,...

And parents and grandparents can affect whether children learn these health-promoting behaviors from early on. s***, kids even are more likely to adopt their parent's political views lol. Whether or not the kids benefit is kind of an assessment that they need to make and adjust their behaviors accordingly... I don't think it's up to strangers to make that judgment unless there is some red-flag issue.

I don't think it's diet only but more general health-promoting behaviors (actions) that count and is practiced over one's lifetime, plus one's genetics if you're looking at things like longevity and mortality.

There are just so many factors that one could consider in measuring health and then many variables to select to make correlations. These variables and measures depend study by study so it's sometimes hard to make generalized statements about who is more healthy.

[zenmaster]

Anyone can handwave anecdotal evidence of health correlations to diet as if it was somehow meaningful advice. Worse, actual research for more than 50 years turned out to be bogus and deceitful stemming from misplaced bias against meat eating. Looks like you can fool a whole nation, for long period of time, rather easily and convincingly with utter bullshit.

Bias runs both ways, and the meat industry is highly profitable. So is the disease-drug industry.

So, we should stick to the science, which is well documented in the most comprehensive study ever:

http://www.forksoverknives.com/about/synopsis/

The China Study? Are you kidding?

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-o...-critique/

[Monica]

The China Study? Are you kidding?

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-o...-critique/

That lame 'critique'?? Are you kidding?

[zenmaster]

The China Study? Are you kidding?

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-o...-critique/

That lame 'critique'?? Are you kidding?

it may be lame, but at least it tries to balance out the tremendous irresponsible (but well-meaning and sincere) bias presented in that movie.

[Monica]

it may be lame, but at least it tries to balance out the tremendous irresponsible (but well-meaning and sincere) bias presented in that movie.

Irresponsible is not sharing what one knows to work. Bias isn't bad. STO bias is acceptable. Bias towards helping others is acceptable to an STO entity. Bias towards promoting health and reducing suffering is acceptable to an STO entity.

---

Here's something to ponder:

Many thousands upon thousands of people have healed their diseases, including diabetes, cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc. by switching to a plant-based (vegetarian/vegan/raw-vegan) diet.

When has anyone ever heard of someone getting healed of cancer or any other disease by eating more meat?

:idea:

[zenmaster]

it may be lame, but at least it tries to balance out the tremendous irresponsible (but well-meaning and sincere) bias presented in that movie.

Irresponsible is not sharing what one knows to work. Bias isn't bad.

The thing is dietary knowledge contributing to or detracting from an optimum level of health isn't remotely something classifiable as "works" and "doesn't work". If your prejudice leads you to unfairly emphasize that which reinforces desired a ideology at the expense of an easily doable, more balanced presentation, then that's "irresponsible". When that balance is forsaken, then the learning opportunity afforded by it is buried. That's the problem with the zealous approach which can always be sincere, but never honest.

[Monica]

The thing is dietary knowledge contributing to or detracting from an optimum level of health isn't remotely something classifiable as "works" and "doesn't work". If your prejudice leads you to unfairly emphasize that which reinforces desired a ideology at the expense of an easily doable, more balanced presentation, then that's "irresponsible". When that balance is forsaken, then the learning opportunity afforded by it is buried. That's the problem with the zealous approach which can always be sincere, but never honest.

You speak as though people have an ideology first. But that's not how it happens.

What you seem to be failing to take into consideration is: Why people become so passionate as to turn it into an ideology.

[zenmaster]

The thing is dietary knowledge contributing to or detracting from an optimum level of health isn't remotely something classifiable as "works" and "doesn't work". If your prejudice leads you to unfairly emphasize that which reinforces desired a ideology at the expense of an easily doable, more balanced presentation, then that's "irresponsible". When that balance is forsaken, then the learning opportunity afforded by it is buried. That's the problem with the zealous approach which can always be sincere, but never honest.

You speak as though people have an ideology first.

Not really. Rather, there are over time a collection of seminal ideas which suggest appropriate guidelines, truths, and behavior. The identification with these notions tend to be rather unconsciously tended to as far as its nurturing, maintenance, advocacy and defense with that passion, quite automatically. So that at any time, you wind up with a pattern of thought called "an ideology" whether or not it is a formal philosophy or capable of being elucidated. Ideas are vehicles of purpose, evolving with the worldview. That "Why" is obvious - to offer a perceived balance to address a perceived imbalance. However, the zealotry advertises the inner imbalance which is expressed through selective exclusion and/or emphasis of available knowledge.

[Monica]

Not really. Rather, there are over time a collection of seminal ideas which suggest appropriate guidelines, truths, and behavior. The identification with these notions tend to be rather unconsciously tended to as far as its nurturing, maintenance, advocacy and defense with that passion, quite automatically. So that at any time, you wind up with a pattern of thought called "an ideology" whether or not it is a formal philosophy or capable of being elucidated. Ideas are vehicles of purpose, evolving with the worldview. That "Why" is obvious - to offer a perceived balance to address a perceived imbalance. However, the zealotry advertises the inner imbalance which is expressed through selective exclusion and/or emphasis of available knowledge.

Do you 'know' this from experience? or is it just theory?

[zenmaster]

A worldview is not a theory, which is specific knowledge, it's experience.

[Monica]

A worldview is not a theory, which is specific knowledge, it's experience.

A worldview is experience? Whose?

You just explained zealotry, essentially stating (your opinion of) why people become 'zealots':

If your prejudice leads you to unfairly emphasize that which reinforces desired a ideology

This statement seems to indicate that the ideology came first. But that's not how it happens, in most cases.

Meat-eaters tend to forget that most vegetarians were once meat-eaters! and enjoyed our cheeseburgers and pizza as much as the next guy.

No one gives up their favorite foods lightly. There has to be compelling reason.

It's based on experience: Either the experience of being desperate to heal a disease, or the experience of being moved to compassion for animals. Those are the 2 main reasons people go veg.

If one's worldview is based on experience, then the experience came first, not the ideology. The ideology is formed because of the experience.

An obvious example is those who are sick, without any ideology towards a plant-based diet, and in fact are against such a diet, but because all other options have been exhausted and they are literally on their deathbed, in desperation they finally, grudgingly adopt a plant-based diet and are healed; thus they become passionate about a plant-based diet not because of any ideology, but because of direct experience.

The ideology develops later, as a direct result of experience.

If you are not a 'zealot' (your choice of word) yourself, then you actually don't know from experience why anyone would become a 'zealot.'

Thus, you offer theoretical musings.

[Diana]

Is this some kind of prank I'm not aware of? It has to be.. Attacks? You've got to be kidding. [insert long ass sigh here]

It is not a prank, just an observation. An objective read of this thread would not miss a certain sarcasm in tone regarding this matter.

---

What does the following imply? It does seem rather accusing in nature, both in suggesting that Monica cares more for "a cause" than having respect for her son's decisions; and accusing either Monica or her son of lying.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your remarks?

Would it matter to you if he decides to eat meat, Monica? Since you've said he's stronger than his friends. I find it very hard to believe that he hasn't had a bit of meat in his whole life, to be honest. Especially during his teens.

---

It is curious that there is so much emotion around the issue of eating/not eating meat. The funny thing I have observed is that paradoxically, the emotion springs up from those who eat meat, but the vegetarians are accused of being the emotional ones (zealots and the like). While there are zealots in every faction of society, and certainly there are zealous vegetarians, there seems to be a blind spot in discerning the motivations and behaviors of the common vegetarian.

I feel enormous compassion for all life, but I will say especially for animals as they have been so hard-hit by human ignorance. However, I allow others to evolve as they will. But, if I came across someone beating a dog or torturing an animal in any way I would intervene. On the other hand, all I have to do is mention I'm a vegetarian (which I generally only do when pressed) and I invariably get an emotional reaction of some kind even though I don't ever lecture or preach. Of course, here on this forum it seems appropriate to discuss vegetarianism if that is the subject.

---

As for cruelty, it's important to consider that the eating of meat was around before Descartes lawl. People are cruel, get over it lol

This is not something I would want to "get over." I would not want to get used to it as though it was okay. In the sense that humans must learn to use will and understand cause and effect in order to develop compassion, they must be allowed to do so (within reason--I'm not going to allow someone to torture an animal or child in front of me).

Let's hope for a better future. And in hoping for that, contribute to its manifestation.

[Icipher]

If you are not a 'zealot' (your choice of word) yourself, then you actually don't know from experience why anyone would become a 'zealot.'

Thus, you offer theoretical musings.

True, the entity is speaking upon the sociological implications of the human experience and is still learning how this is in fact an evolution in the shared reality towards + and thus polarization of this dynamic is positive. He is air reacting to water, when all that really matters is love or fear. <3

[Melissa]

Diana; No accusations have been made, I simply offered my perspective; that I, having been a teenager myself, find it hard to believe/imagine. That's quite different than accusing someone of lying. However, the accusations that have been adressed to me, in the meantime, are outrages.
And I don't see who's accusing veggies/vegans from being overly emotional, or that meat eaters are overly emotional. Personally; I don't care what people eat, as long as they choose what's best for them.

[Monica]

And I don't see who's accusing veggies/vegans from being overly emotional

Since you have quite strict, emotional beliefs regarding the subject,

[zenmaster]

A worldview is not a theory, which is specific knowledge, it's experience.

A worldview is experience? Whose?

That's what a worldview is - "experience" which is basically a compilation of consciously considered choices or evaluations. Weltanschauung.

You just explained zealotry, essentially stating (your opinion of) why people become 'zealots':

No, I've explained how ideas are chosen for their appeal in order to reinforce bias. That bias can be blind or carry disowned, unconsidered momentum and then advertised as simply "zealotry" or "fanaticism".

If your prejudice leads you to unfairly emphasize that which reinforces desired a ideology

This statement seems to indicate that the ideology came first. But that's not how it happens, in most cases.

The seeds are always there, developing and supporting whatever ideas are appealing.

Meat-eaters tend to forget that most vegetarians were once meat-eaters! and enjoyed our cheeseburgers and pizza as much as the next guy.

Is this a theory?

No one gives up their favorite foods lightly. There has to be compelling reason.

Yeah, for example your metabolism can't process meat properly.

It's based on experience: Either the experience of being desperate to heal a disease, or the experience of being moved to compassion for animals. Those are the 2 main reasons people go veg.

Not really important.

If one's worldview is based on experience, then the experience came first, not the ideology. The ideology is formed because of the experience.

"experience", not particular "experiences encountered".

An obvious example is those who are sick, without any ideology towards a plant-based diet, and in fact are against such a diet, but because all other options have been exhausted and they are literally on their deathbed, in desperation they finally, grudgingly adopt a plant-based diet and are healed; thus they become passionate about a plant-based diet not because of any ideology, but because of direct experience.

The ideology develops later, as a direct result of experience.

Ideologies borrow from the current worldview, which is experience, regardless particular instances which affected the overall experience. New experience doesn't come into existence in isolation like that, it draws from prior experience.

If you are not a 'zealot' (your choice of word) yourself, then you actually don't know from experience why anyone would become a 'zealot.'

Zealotry is caused by blind reliance on particular bias, due to the satisfaction it provides. Rather simple. No need for "theories" (lol).