Why I am not a vegan

[Unbound]

How do you know your own compassion was not developed through life-times of fear?

[Diana]

Suffering isn't only physical. Sex can cause lots of emotional and psychological suffering even when it is originally consensual.

My point is that suffering is laced throughout the world and there are many, many, opportunities for compassion and loving action.

---

I guess my real argument is that someone doesn't have to be vegetarian to be a compassionate, loving individual and care about suffering or its alleviation. To label everyone who eats meat as not that as such is to lack compassion for those individuals.

All good points.

I don't think one has to be vegetarian to be compassionate. I do, however, see a disconnect as far as humans are concerned. This is a general comment about about humans, and not about you Unbound.

The comment is this: that humans can feel enormous compassion for humans. But beyond human life, the compassion seems to wane or distance from the heart.

All is One, does not just mean All Humans are One. It means (in my opinion) that ALL is One. Since we are the species here on this planet in 3D that has the intellectual and physical advantage, we have the tendency to control it all. I like the idea of thinking of humans as caretakers within this context. As a caretaker of my mind/body/spirit, my home, my property, my planet, I look at what I do here and endeavor to BE that caretaker. In this case of eating animals, I don't see it as something that aligns with being an effective caretaker on any level.

[Unbound]

That is perfectly fair and I agree. However, we who have the capacity for higher choice, we also are caretakers of the other humans who are not making more conscious choices, yes?

[Diana]

How do you know your own compassion was not developed through life-times of fear?

I don't know that.

What I mean to say is that it doesn't HAVE to be that way, and that I prefer it isn't.

If my compassion developed from lifetimes of fear, I am still grateful that I reached a state of compassion. (Most of the time; it can be torture to be empathic and compassionate here which is ironic is it not?)

Even so, I would not want to perpetuate this trajectory of fear and suffering to lead to compassion (though it is, as mentioned previously, effective). I envision something more evolved and operating form a "higher" love vibration—sounds new-agey but if String Theory is revealed to be true, then vibration is the fundamental building block of the universe(s).

[Unbound]

I agree, now, where my thought is going, is what do you think the soul history of all of these individuals who inflict this suffering are?

I know I keep bringing it back to humans, but that is because it is humans who are doing these things. Heal humans, and you heal their actions. Lets step beyond the "suffering and torture is cruel" which we all know and accept, and look at the nature of the souls whom are part of this big drama.

[Plenum]

I haven't eaten meat in 21 months (that's coming up to 2 years!). Not that I'm counting (in the way that a smoker counts since they gave up), but rather that's when I made the switch over, it was at a rather convenient reference point: the start of 2013, after the whole Dec 2012 saga.

why did I make the change?

I really don't know. I can't give you an answer. It wasn't because I had watched so many factory farming videos that I suddenly became disgusted with the whole industry. It wasn't because I had read a thread here on bring4th that suddenly enlightened me. It wasn't because all my friends had suddenly turned vege, and I wanted in. It wasn't because I wanted to save the planet.

So why did I change?

I really don't know. I followed my gut instincts, and I had done 2 spontaneous fasts leading up to the end of 2012 (the months prior). I don't associate it with any energetic global event (although I'm not ruling such things out), but I felt the impetus to change, and I did.

I know that both Diana and Monica have been long time non-meat eaters, and that's cool. I don't know the full history of why you yourself made the switch, but I can only assume that at some level, it felt like the 'right thing to do' at the time, and stil feels like the 'right thing to do' right now. That's your personal choice and following your instincts.

Everyone else, though, is also following their instincts as to what is right for them. It's their personal choice as to what they stick into their mouths, and what 'industries' they choose to support. It's not as though there is lack of information out there. It's their choice as to how they navigate their diet.

You say that this 'personal choice' is not really personal, in that it affects others. I can accept that. But ultimately it's their choice (like everyone's) to make. It's Free Will.

But what about the animals, you say? what about their free will? If indeed, if you say, that there is some sort of infringement and cruelty by association of eating meat and participating in this type of diet, then the effects will acrue. In a tangible way. It's not as though the universe doesn't have built in feedback mechanisms.

What I'm trying to say is that you are never going to logic someone into changing their behaviour if they don't want to change. It doesn't matter how many rational and effective and convincing arguments you want to muster (all backed by solid evidence), it's a personal choice at the end of the day. It's a choice you made at a certain age, and it's a switch that I made at a certain age.

I didn't drop meat to save the animals. And it's not a cause celebre for me.

why do you think this thread (and other's like it in the past) generate so much heat and friction? is it because you are trying to change other people's behaviour by implying that what they are doing is wrong, uncompassionate, and guilt-worthy? Because behind many of your reasoned arguments, that is the emotional tone being conveyed.

[Unbound]

Hit the nail on the head there, Plenum.

[Diana]

That is perfectly fair and I agree. However, we who have the capacity for higher choice, we also are caretakers of the other humans who are not making more conscious choices, yes?

That's kinda tricky, because of free will.

If I see a human in need, I help if I can (examples: I usually keep cash in my car for those on the street corners asking for help. I have helped many friends and acquaintances financially when needed. I donate to the homeless.)

But to control humans is not possible. Setting an example is the only way I see. And I have seen that work in my own life.

Regarding the subject of eating animals, we have a conflict between helping suffering (factory farms) and human free will. This forum is literally the only place I have had these discussions with strangers, because it is a forum of spiritually minded individuals and the subject matter is presented to be discussed. Otherwise, I don't hide from what I am but I don't ask others to join me. Here, I hope I am seen as just giving my opinions, which are sometimes backed by facts (as we perceive them).

Giving voice to animal suffering is similar to the examples I gave above of helping humans, to me. But certainly there is a line that is sometimes crossed when trying to abolish suffering, such as protecting children from pedophiles who also have free will. I wish I could control human behavior sometimes (and then I come back to my senses ). I would love to be Neo the moment the matrix breaks down.

[Unbound]

"Setting an example" is a good idea which has been around for a long time, but lets look at that idea a little more deeply and see what exactly it means to "set an example".

An example can be set on a small or on a large scale. We see small scale setting of examples in families and from parents and peers. We see large scale setting of examples through the media.

How can setting of examples on large or small scales affect the choices of others?

[Diana]

What I'm trying to say is that you are never going to logic someone into changing their behaviour if they don't want to change. It doesn't matter how many rational and effective and convincing arguments you want to muster (all backed by solid evidence), it's a personal choice at the end of the day. It's a choice you made at a certain age, and it's a switch that I made at a certain age.

I didn't drop meat to save the animals. And it's not a cause celebre for me.

why do you think this thread (and other's like it in the past) generate so much heat and friction? is it because you are trying to change other people's behaviour by implying that what they are doing is wrong, uncompassionate, and guilt-worthy? Because behind many of your reasoned arguments, that is the emotional tone being conveyed.

My dear Plenum, I am not trying to "logic" anyone into anything. This is the central point and thank you for so clearly stating it.

I am here because this is a discussion on a subject that matters to me. When in a discussion, doesn't one endeavor to make one's point? I feel I may have been maligned into a person trying to control the B4 members. I am not trying to do that. I am only here discussing a subject with individuals I think smart enough and spiritually minded enough to talk about it.

I would love my words to understood. I would love to know that I got my points across. This is my ego at work, admittedly. But I certainly am intelligent enough to know that I cannot convert anyone to anything.

For anyone who fancies themselves a wanderer, or anyone who has spent their life being the "different" one, you will know that this place can be isolating for those out of the box. I would like to think I can talk to members here about any subject dear to my heart (or not), and not be so misunderstood.

By the way, I could say the same of anyone who eats meat: That their points and arguments are aimed at converting me to a meat-eater. But I know that is not possible and I'm pretty sure it's not true.

---

"Setting an example" is a good idea which has been around for a long time, but lets look at that idea a little more deeply and see what exactly it means to "set an example".

An example can be set on a small or on a large scale. We see small scale setting of examples in families and from parents and peers. We see large scale setting of examples through the media.

How can setting of examples on large or small scales affect the choices of others?

I can give you many examples from my own life, and have done so here on B4 a few times. In being an example, though, I must add the caveat that it wasn't my intention to be; I just did what I do and others noticed.

I'll repeat one here: On a trip to Costa Rica I was on a boat with several others in the jungle, and upset because we pulled alongside another boat to admire a huge fish caught, flopping around trying to get off the hook, and being held up to be admired. I was crying privately not wanting to be seen doing so, against my boyfriend's chest. The guide noticed this and sent our boat on to our destination. Afterwards, he told my boyfriend that seeing me sincerely sad over that made him really start to question his "great white hunting" (he apparently used to take people on shooting safaris for sport).

His choices to shoot and kill animals for sport will now always have to include the awareness he has as a result of this incident. He may ignore it, but he will not be able to erase what he became aware of.

I didn't intend to, but I set the example for him of compassion for animals.

---

I agree, now, where my thought is going, is what do you think the soul history of all of these individuals who inflict this suffering are?

I know I keep bringing it back to humans, but that is because it is humans who are doing these things. Heal humans, and you heal their actions. Lets step beyond the "suffering and torture is cruel" which we all know and accept, and look at the nature of the souls whom are part of this big drama.

Well, there is the obvious:

1. Some souls are closer to predator/prey behavior. Perhaps they have not evolved much into 3D yet, so the whole fight-or-flight, survival instinct is very much at the forefront. Survival—food—would be paramount and therefore gotten in any way one can, commiserate with the animal kingdom of predator/prey.

2. While traversing 3D and utilizing free will, one learns cause and effect from experience. At some point presumably, the individual puts 2 and 2 together and makes the connection that what one does one does to one's self.

3. Perhaps the soul is on the so-called karmic wheel, and is retaliating for lifetimes as a victim, trying to polarize toward love of self and shutting out love of others in order to do it.

There are infinite possibilities. What do you think?

[Parsons]

Your bigot comment is offensive, but I forgive you. I understand that it's easier to lash out at others, rather than face one's own feelings of guilt. I feel zero guilt about eating plants. Go ahead and try to guilt-trip me about plants. It won't work.

If anyone feels guilt about eating animals, that isn't my fault.

I won't be engaging in conversation with you, Parsons.

I was not lashing out at you by calling your behavior bigoted and my intent was to use the dictionary definition of the word bigot which was not intended to be offensive. You clearly have an image of the word 'bigot' which is harsher than the actual dictionary definition. Even if it is offensive, it is no more offensive than calling my actions 'STS' or 'controlling' when you know that I eat meat. I don't think you have a conscious intention to be offensive to me by categorizing someone who chooses to eat meat and knows how some of the animals are treated as STS/control. But I fit into that category, so that is what you are ostensibly doing. If you take out the 'meat' part of the equation and replace it with a general 'choice', you are judging my 'choice' to be STS/controlling when I have professed that is not the case;hence my usage of the word bigot.

big·ot ˈbiɡət/ noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

It would only be fair to point out I have consciously recognized that I tend to be intolerant of what I perceive as intolerant behavior towards others. Ironically, you could say I am bigoted against bigotry. I am certain this is catalyst with which I have an opportunity work through this bias.

---

I take every meal as a gift from the Creator to the Creator to enable me to continue to exist in this form, whether it is meat or otherwise. I thank that 2D lifeform for providing me with physical material I need to survive.

If I had my way, I would have all my meat be animals which were range-fed and kept in kindness and love. Very importantly, I would have the person who slaughtered the animal show the utmost respect and understand that the animal is a part of the Creator giving itself to the Creator and thank It for It's gift to Itself. My previous sentence also applies to vegetables/fruits/nuts/any other 2D life I consume as I feel they are commonly treated with the same level of disrespect and cruelty. I simply choose to make no distinction on what 2D creatures I eat on different levels of 2D consciousness (except perhaps pets, which are borderline 3D).

As previously stated, it would be even more ideal if I did not have to consume 2D life at all.

[Monica]

"necessary" is decided by whom?

Numerous scientific studies have proven that meat is NOT necessary for humans. Even the mainstream medical establishment acknowledges this. Even they say that a vegetarian - even vegan - diet is more than adequate for humans.

Some people might think they need meat, but science doesn't support that at all.

Also, yes, your views, at least as far as humans go, are black and white - "veggies good, meat bad". This is convoluted because it is not, in fact, so straight-forward so the presentation as such is misleading.

I have posted enough on this topic to write a book. To reduce all that to 'veggies good, meat bad' is laughably absurd. It's simply false and if you actually took the time to read what I have written on this topic over the last several years, you wouldn't be making such an outrageous statement. Disagree all you want, but you can't accuse me of presenting this issue as overly simplistic. It is to us vegetarians, but obviously it isn't to the meat-eaters, and we've been going round and round, exploring every possible nook and cranny, every possible nuance, in this topic, for several years.

That's what really bothers me about your approach is that you act like it should be obvious, when it isn't. This is a constructed belief.

Watch both videos.

Standard Practice (1 minute)

Garden Harvest (1 minute)

Is it not obvious?

---

I guess my real argument is that someone doesn't have to be vegetarian to be a compassionate, loving individual and care about suffering or its alleviation. To label everyone who eats meat as not that as such is to lack compassion for those individuals.

We have never done that, and in fact went out of our way to say the opposite.

---

How do you know your own compassion was not developed through life-times of fear?

Maybe it was. But inflicting fear is the job of STS entities, not STO. Somebody's gotta do the dirty work. But as Qu'o said, that is a bloody path...there are those who prefer it...we are not those.

[Parsons]

Hit the nail on the head there, Plenum.

Yep.

Goodnight everybody! *waves and walks off stage*

[Monica]

why do you think this thread (and other's like it in the past) generate so much heat and friction? is it because you are trying to change other people's behaviour by implying that what they are doing is wrong, uncompassionate, and guilt-worthy? Because behind many of your reasoned arguments, that is the emotional tone being conveyed.

We've stated, numerous times, what our motivation is. Why do you completely disregard it?

There is friction and heat because it's a volatile topic, and because feelings of guilt are being triggered. Why do you suppose that is?

It's an internet discussion forum. We are entitled to our opinions. Emotions are being triggered in the meat-eaters because they don't like our opinions. It isn't fair to us to throw the blame on us by saying we are trying to 'control' others.

[Diana]

I was not lashing out at you by calling your behavior bigoted and my intent was to use the dictionary definition of the word bigot which was not intended to be offensive.

That doesn't scan. Why not just take responsibility for the jab?

If I had my way, I would have all my meat be animals which were range-fed and kept in kindness and love. Very importantly, I would have the person who slaughtered the animal show the utmost respect and understand that the animal is a part of the Creator giving itself to the Creator and thank It for It's gift to Itself.

What's stopping you?

If it's not possible in your case, then do you just throw in the towel completely as regards cruelty, and eat whatever (Notwithstanding saying the prayers of gratitude)?

I simply choose to make no distinction on what 2D creatures I eat on different levels of 2D consciousness (except perhaps pets, which are borderline 3D).

That is your prerogative of course.

Aside from the arguments here that raise questions about that idea, it sidesteps so much in the way of taking responsibility. For instance, the fact that we consume more plants raising the meat animals, then we would if we just ate plants. Does it not matter that we try to minimize the damage to life?

As previously stated, it would be even more ideal if I did not have to consume 2D life at all.

Yes, it would be.

Are you going to just wait until the whole universe quantum leaps to that position and you are magically and suddenly able to live off light (or air or whatever)? Or do you think it efficacious to take steps toward that worthy goal?

[Parsons]

I was not lashing out at you by calling your behavior bigoted and my intent was to use the dictionary definition of the word bigot which was not intended to be offensive.

That doesn't scan. Why not just take responsibility for the jab?

I looked up the dictionary definition of the word and it turned out to perfectly fit the situation. You can believe what you want, but I did not intend it as a jab.

If I had my way, I would have all my meat be animals which were range-fed and kept in kindness and love. Very importantly, I would have the person who slaughtered the animal show the utmost respect and understand that the animal is a part of the Creator giving itself to the Creator and thank It for It's gift to Itself.

What's stopping you?

If it's not possible in your case, then do you just throw in the towel completely as regards cruelty, and eat whatever (Notwithstanding saying the prayers of gratitude)?

I'm assuming you mean "whats stopping me" in the context of whats stopping me from doing all that myself (correct me if I'm wrong). What's stopping me is it being the opposite of practical. I guess I could try to start a farm and completely abandon my current life, but it would be extremely difficult at best for several different reasons.

From my standpoint, the only choice I have (besides starvation) is to "throw in the towel" as you say because I don't make a distinction between eating plant and animal life. I feel comparing the cruelty committed to plants vs animals is immeasurable.

I simply choose to make no distinction on what 2D creatures I eat on different levels of 2D consciousness (except perhaps pets, which are borderline 3D).

That is your prerogative of course.

Aside from the arguments here that raise questions about that idea, it sidesteps so much in the way of taking responsibility. For instance, the fact that we consume more plants raising the meat animals, then we would if we just ate plants. Does it not matter that we try to minimize the damage to life?

That is the only semi-valid point that does not have a counterpoint in this entire argument. That is what may ultimately get me to at least reduce the consumption of meat (which I already have done over the past few years). The only thing I can say about that is the plants are ultimately feeding on decaying animal matter as well (amongst other things), so the whole concept of 'eating meat means more plants consumed' could be considered to be circular logic due to the whole circle of life.

[Monica]

Gosh, everyone keeps ignoring this:

Watch both videos.

Standard Practice (1 minute)

Garden Harvest (1 minute)

Compare.

Is it not obvious?

[Diana]

I was not lashing out at you by calling your behavior bigoted and my intent was to use the dictionary definition of the word bigot which was not intended to be offensive.

That doesn't scan. Why not just take responsibility for the jab?

I looked up the dictionary definition of the word and it turned out to perfectly fit the situation. You can believe what you want, but I did not intend it as a jab.

I admit it's hard to swallow that you wouldn't realize calling someone a bigot would be a jab.

That is the only semi-valid point that does not have a counterpoint in this entire argument. That is what may ultimately get me to at least reduce the consumption of meat (which I already have done over the past few years). The only thing I can say about that is the plants are ultimately feeding on decaying animal matter as well (amongst other things), so the whole concept of 'eating meat means more plants consumed' could be considered to be circular logic due to the whole circle of life.

In this context, plants feeding on decaying animal matter has nothing to do with how much life an individual takes for sustenance. How much life you take for food is a choice. All things here die, and so far that's not a choice I'm aware of, so decaying animal matter in nature is not something I can choose or not choose. I can choose, however, how much life I take for food.

And that's great that you have reduced your meat consumption.

---

Gosh, everyone keeps ignoring this:

Watch both videos.

Standard Practice (1 minute)

Garden Harvest (1 minute)

Compare.

I, for one, would like to hear some responses to this, either way.

[Parsons]

Gosh, everyone keeps ignoring this:

Watch both videos.

Standard Practice (1 minute)

Garden Harvest (1 minute)

Compare.

Is it not obvious?

Perhaps my phone doesn't have the 'empathic bond' plugin, but I have no clue how the cucumber feels about being harvested (and as far as I know, neither do you).

[Plenum]

By the way, I could say the same of anyone who eats meat: That their points and arguments are aimed at converting me to a meat-eater. But I know that is not possible and I'm pretty sure it's not true.

It's an internet discussion forum. We are entitled to our opinions. Emotions are being triggered in the meat-eaters because they don't like our opinions. It isn't fair to us to throw the blame on us by saying we are trying to 'control' others.

thanks guys. I got a chance to say my opinion too.

You are both truly passionate about this subject, and on further reflection, that is an amazing thing to pour so much energy, love, and investigation into something you truly believe in. I think I can see some of myself in that too

[Unbound]

Seems emotions are being triggered both ways, it happens.

[Diana]

Seems emotions are being triggered both ways, it happens.

This is an emotional subject. There is so much suffering involved so how could there not be? The triggering is precisely why I think discussion is a valuable thing, no matter how heated. It is catalyst . . . an important one.

[Unbound]

I agree and I would be lying if I said the discussion didn't give me new perspectives to consider. I am still an omnivore, but I have changed my approach slightly and there is definitely a limit to my interest in meat. In all honesty, it is generally a matter of my body telling me its needs, as it seems to still use meat to balance out something or other, maybe having to do with the acidity of my body.

[Diana]

I agree and I would be lying if I said the discussion didn't give me new perspectives to consider. I am still an omnivore, but I have changed my approach slightly and there is definitely a limit to my interest in meat. In all honesty, it is generally a matter of my body telling me its needs, as it seems to still use meat to balance out something or other, maybe having to do with the acidity of my body.

[Unbound]

I think this actually really touches on a key point of my own emotional reactions as I guess it feels like when it is presented as an accusation towards meat-eaters it seems like there is little attention paid to the fact that it isn't easy to completely change your diet on a whim and those whom are putting in the effort but maybe haven't made it as far as becoming vegetarian are looked down on because of their 'vice'. (Even though the whole framing of it that way bothers me too, as though it is some kind of drug, which all food is, really.)

[Jade]

I think heated discussions like these are definitely important, because it allows everyone to fall somewhere closer to the middle when they calm down and process everyone's pretty accurate POVs. Food is definitely used in a drug-like fashion in our society, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with eating meat (Earth is full of necessary predator/prey relationships) but the situations at hand right now is just so so so wrong. Tanner, especially for you up there in Canada, it may be a bit better in general and you may not be as exposed to the (literal, pardon my language) s***-show that we face down in the states (disposal of industrial animal waste is a HUGE problem). I sincerely believe aiding to shift this paradigm is a big part of my "job" down here in this lifetime. It's obvious that Diana and Monica also feel this way. It's a long process and we all choose different paths to sprint down and different paths to meander and examine the view. Changing ones diet at this point in time puts a HUGE gap between oneself and their family and peers that the comfort of food so easily used to fill. Trust me, it's painful every time someone I love offers me something they have created that I prefer not to eat. Sometimes I just succumb and eat a cookie or whatever, but it's gotten to the point where my body finds the taste of dairy quite rancid.

So a big thanks to everyone for participating honestly in this thread, as there are many, many, many others who have merely read it and have had any range of catalyst in response to all of the emotions displayed.

[Monica]

I think this actually really touches on a key point of my own emotional reactions as I guess it feels like when it is presented as an accusation towards meat-eaters it seems like there is little attention paid to the fact that it isn't easy to completely change your diet on a whim and those whom are putting in the effort but maybe haven't made it as far as becoming vegetarian are looked down on because of their 'vice'. (Even though the whole framing of it that way bothers me too, as though it is some kind of drug, which all food is, really.)

I invite you to read these particular posts:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...3#pid83073

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...0#pid39920 + #419

Notice that I told the story of my own husband and best friend, who took over 25 years to go fully vegetarian. In both cases, they had the goal in sight and never tried to justify their occasional meat-eating. This is very different from being content to continue eating meat, while attempting to justify it.

It's not about where we're at. It's about where we're going.

[Matt1]

I found it easy to become vegetarian. It wasn't such a big deal. I accept people who eat meat nearly everybody i know eats it. My reason for going vegetarian is my believe that its a more spiritual diet as the guidance has been set out for thousand of years in eastern religion such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

[Monica]

Perhaps my phone doesn't have the 'empathic bond' plugin,

Ah, that explains it!

but I have no clue how the cucumber feels about being harvested (and as far as I know, neither do you).

Precisely.

We do, however, know exactly what cows, pigs, chickens and fish feel.

That has been my point all along and completely negates the "plants suffer too" argument.

[Unbound]

I think this actually really touches on a key point of my own emotional reactions as I guess it feels like when it is presented as an accusation towards meat-eaters it seems like there is little attention paid to the fact that it isn't easy to completely change your diet on a whim and those whom are putting in the effort but maybe haven't made it as far as becoming vegetarian are looked down on because of their 'vice'. (Even though the whole framing of it that way bothers me too, as though it is some kind of drug, which all food is, really.)

I invite you to read these particular posts:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...3#pid83073

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...0#pid39920 + #419

Notice that I told the story of my own husband and best friend, who took over 25 years to go fully vegetarian. In both cases, they had the goal in sight and never tried to justify their occasional meat-eating. This is very different from being content to continue eating meat, while attempting to justify it.

It's not about where we're at. It's about where we're going.

So I should instead try to justify being a vegetarian so I will one day "get there"? If I am thinking about where I am going, to the grave, then the whole concept is moot to me.

To be honest, this thread just makes me continuously think of this image: