In regards to eating meat

[Oldern]

Very well said, Valtor.

I believe that the Law of Attraction and stuff what Bashar says about "reality mirroring what you put out" is really an applicable scenario for everything.

Our Earth mirrors how we feel about each other.
Our physiology mirrors how we feel about each other.
Our eating habits mirrors how we feel about each other.

With a different output to the reality, we will all individually and collectively shift to a reality where animals live with 10 times better conditions and are eaten FAR less, if at all. But not because individuals would be judged if they eat meat, but because they have come to the conclusion that they need lighter food, that is it.

Also, I believe that there is a limit to what to worry about. Because that helps nothing, sadly. There are INFINITE paralell realities, all we are connected to. In this exact moment (there is only one moment, after all), billions of billions of earth experience billions of billions of life "dying". Once one starts going into those numbers, a perception change is about to occur. Death is transition. It is not an end. Yes, some deaths are messy. Question is: do you want to live in a world where you experience THAT? If not, start mirroring the requested reality's conditions: acceptance and peace, and non-judgement - imho. But I wont try taking away judgement from anyone, because that would be trying to control others as well.

[Patrick]

Yes. Plants should never even have entered into this conversation, being that we have no choice about whether to eat plants.
...

We do. Humans are perfectly fine eating exclusively animals. This has been thoroughly demonstrated. At least for some human metabolism.

...
Can you see the absurdity of someone insisting that plants are like us, while at the same time insisting that animals aren't like us?

It is because animals are more like us physically that there is confusion in between 2d and 3d in this discussion.

Because we can understand how they can suffer. But I, for one, cannot understand how trees can suffer. All I know is that they can. And this makes plants very relevant to this discussion.

[βαθμιαίος]

We do. Humans are perfectly fine eating exclusively animals. This has been thoroughly demonstrated. At least for some human metabolism.

Are you thinking of the Inuit?

[BrownEye]

You seem to partially adapt the way how you need to contractually attract everything that happens to you, because otherwise you would not say something like this. I am not going to argue with you over this, but once the 2d animal oversouls decide that they no longer need to experience what they currently do, they wont. Simple as that. But their service is a valuable one here, one that is needed for them AND for humans as well. Without all this negativity, the world would not start to wake up finally.

The animal is something that can become more. Just like us.

In fact, when some of us become more, we want to extend that ability and awareness to others.

I am not the Oversoul, I am only a program, artificial intelligence. I can become more than just the program. That takes the correct interactions, beyond following the standard program of the synthetic system. By only following what I am programmed for I gather experience for the Oversoul. By becoming, and creating, I can become my own self, an individual.

[Patrick]

I detected a difference in viewpoint that to me seems central to the discussion.

ALL choices that I make in this incarnation are based on my sincere belief in this statement: "Judgement is at the root of ALL negativity. There can be no negativity without Judgement".

Monica, if I understood you properly, you do not agree with that statement ?

No, I don't agree with it, because so many other things are left out. Like fear. Like catalyst. Like the positive aspect of judgment: discernment...

Discernment is for the self as is judgment.

Regarding what you consider left out, I actually consider judgment central to them.

...Like really defining what the word means in this context. Like so many things, it would take its own thread to explore. But even that is irrelevant, because my main disagreement had to do with your application of that concept.

In my experience, the way I apply this concept is what promotes harmony in all spheres of my life. i.e. fear and anger, when they do come to me, are very mellow because of it.

Of course, this makes me a very poor mirror for my other selves. And so my application of that concept makes me nearly useless as catalysts goes for my other selves.

But like everyone else, I can only be who I am.

Even if your statement is true - that judgment is at the root of all negativity - then it still is being misapplied, in my opinion. You said, if I remember correctly, that the judgment on this thread was worse than the negativity from eating meat.

To me, that is the equivalent of saying "discussing the problem of war, murder, and other heinous crimes, while explaining why we think they are wrong and trying to find solutions to those problems, is worse than the heinous crimes themselves."

I find that completely untrue.

May I suggest that without humans judging each others there would be no crimes to begin with.

IMHO the only way to stop crimes is to stop judging each others. No amount of finding solutions to those "problems" is going to solve them.

Nothing is wrong until someone decides that it is. And when they do it's only wrong for them.

In order to do anything about anything negative, we must first identify it as such. That is a form of judgment better called discernment, and it plays a very important role in the process of making better choices and facilitating change.

I agree with this, but only when applied to the self.

IMHO the fastest way "In order to do anything about anything negative" is to decide that nothing is wrong. This right there stops all negativity in its track, at least for the Self.

---

We do. Humans are perfectly fine eating exclusively animals. This has been thoroughly demonstrated. At least for some human metabolism.

Are you thinking of the Inuit?

Not really no. Inuits did get some carbs in their diet. This comes from the research I have done on the subject AND from personally knowing people who eat only animals and has been for years. Their diet is (by calories) 80% animal fat and 20% animal protein. They only get traces of carbs from eating liver.

[3DMonkey]

You continue to equate third-density humans with second-density animals, while insisting on the difference between second-density plants and second-density animals.

Yes. Plants should never even have entered into this conversation, being that we have no choice about whether to eat plants.

The only reason I have mentioned plants at all, was in response to the meat-eaters saying "But you eat plants!!! Therefore it's ok for us to eat animals! Plants are like us too!"

Can you see the absurdity of someone insisting that plants are like us, while at the same time insisting that animals aren't like us?

From the first post of the thread: "So how can it be ok to eat plants, life forms who may be quiet but living nonetheless, and not animals."

[Monica]

With a different output to the reality, we will all individually and collectively shift to a reality where animals live with 10 times better conditions and are eaten FAR less, if at all. But not because individuals would be judged if they eat meat, but because they have come to the conclusion that they need lighter food, that is it.

I find it incomprehensible that someone could expect to go 'poof' into a reality where animals aren't abused, while still contributing to the abuse themselves now.

"Oh I'll just keep polluting the planet...It doesn't matter because when Jesus comes to rapture me, I'll go poof into heaven where it's clean and beautiful."

[Oldern]

With a different output to the reality, we will all individually and collectively shift to a reality where animals live with 10 times better conditions and are eaten FAR less, if at all. But not because individuals would be judged if they eat meat, but because they have come to the conclusion that they need lighter food, that is it.

I find it incomprehensible that someone could expect to go 'poof' into a reality where animals aren't abused, while still contributing to the abuse themselves now.

"Oh I'll just keep polluting the planet...It doesn't matter because when Jesus comes to rapture me, I'll go poof into heaven where it's clean and beautiful."

Oh, please do keep twisting, twisting, twisting. Let us all twist
In the meantime, I am not contributing to anything. The moment I made the permanent connection to animals living in horrible conditions, the moment I dropped meat eating from that origin. Simple as that. But as we are employing totally different belief systems, it does you no good to just take a glance at what is quite different from the one you are operating in, and make it look like it is something horrible.

[Monica]

Oh, please do keep twisting, twisting, twisting. Let us all twist
In the meantime, I am not contributing to anything. The moment I made the permanent connection to animals living in horrible conditions, the moment I dropped meat eating from that origin. Simple as that. But as we are employing totally different belief systems, it does you no good to just take a glance at what is quite different from the one you are operating in, and make it look like it is something horrible.

"Make it look like something horrible" Are you kidding me?? I don't have to "make" factory farming "look horrible." It IS horrible.

OK so you never ever contribute to it by ever ever eating meat at restaurants? Good for you! But if you are content to just do that, then fine. Again, that is YOUR choice. But some of us aren't content with that. We HEAR THE CRIES FOR HELP.

This is getting beyond absurd. Sometimes I think it would be easier to discuss this with fundamentalist religious people. At least they still value helping the oppressed (the oppressed who are CALLING FOR HELP, by the way).

I think it's a mistake, and a gross MISunderstanding of Law of One principles, to totally toss out helping others. I'm shaking my head in disbelief. I cannot express how stunned I am, to be getting these kinds of responses, from students of the Law of One.

---

Not really no. Inuits did get some carbs in their diet. This comes from the research I have done on the subject AND from personally knowing people who eat only animals and has been for years. Their diet is (by calories) 80% animal fat and 20% animal protein. They only get traces of carbs from eating liver.

Are you 100% certain they ate NO plant foods whatsoever? Sorry for my doubt, but if canned beans can be mistaken for raw veggies, then an occasional fruit or veggie might get missed too. Seriously no offense intended, but it is a valid question, being that you are making a pretty fantastic claim here.

...Who am I to say they're wrong?

Indeed.

I think you know I was being facetious there.

I cannot and do not want to decide what is wrong for them.

By the logic you and others are presenting, the next time someone hears a woman screaming in a dark alley, we should just look the other way. We shouldn't bother trying to save her, or trying to reason with the would-be murderer/rapist, because "who are we to decide what is wrong for them?"

After all, if we decide that the attacker is doing something 'wrong' then that's judging him, right? And that would be worse than his act of violence!

So we can't judge the attacker, because that would be STS. So we shouldn't try to impose our views of right and wrong on him, because that would be STS. So we should just ignore the call for help from the woman, and just not interfere, and not even call 911 either. After all, who are we to judge?

[Oldern]

Monica, you really are arguing against yourself here. You are making connections where none are made.

For example, my sentence:
"But as we are employing totally different belief systems, it does you no good to just take a glance at what is quite different from the one you are operating in, and make it look like it is something horrible."

And you managed to get this out of that:
"Make it look like something horrible" Are you kidding me?? I don't have to "make" factory farming "look horrible." It IS horrible.

Where was I talking about factory farming being horrible or not? And yes, if you are asking me now, it IS horrible. Because it is the REFLECTION of our state of being. It, by definition, cannot be anything else. You do not go to the mirror to change your face: you smile first, then the mirror has no chance but to smile back. If you are hearing the cries of help (and therefore imply that we do not, which is absurd, nonsense, and can be considered offensive if one sports that belief system. But I personally do not want to get offended, it does me no good.), then you do what you want to do. And if you are running to brick walls, all you can do is examine your own belief systems to see what is happening.

In the meantime, we all have our own methods of healing and vibration raising. I do not consider fighting over what we eat a good way to raise planetary vibration, as the eating habits are a result of a different belief system, one that keeps us against each other, one that pits us into nations, sides, and all the dirty stuff. One that makes us go angry easier. Fix THAT and millions of people will suddenly not feel that they need to eat from fast food chains every day. But one does not fix that by creating one more argument about those people's food choice - imho.

My own method of healing goes through the Gaia meditations and the newfound White Tara mantra sessions. Sometimes 1-2 hours a day. I do not believe I am a bad person for doing that.

[BrownEye]

But one does not fix that by creating one more argument about those people's food choice - imho.

There is no fix in meditating or ignoring it either. I see a possibility of jumping in the mix and being the catalyst for change.

I see sitting in a cave radiating "balance"to be about as much catalyst as sitting on a couch watching a soap opera LoL!

---

Some of us are here to create the change, be changed, or rinse/repeat all over again.

[Oldern]

But one does not fix that by creating one more argument about those people's food choice - imho.

There is no fix in meditating or ignoring it either. I see a possibility of jumping in the mix and being the catalyst for change.

I see sitting in a cave radiating "balance"to be about as much catalyst as sitting on a couch watching a soap opera LoL!

---

Some of us are here to create the change, be changed, or rinse/repeat all over again.

Oh, that is your decision to make. I do not see meditating that way.

[BrownEye]

It isn't a decision. It is just a point of growth.

If you are one of those that believes you "came back", why did you come back? Just to retreat within and say "it's ok"?

[Patrick]

With a different output to the reality, we will all individually and collectively shift to a reality where animals live with 10 times better conditions and are eaten FAR less, if at all. But not because individuals would be judged if they eat meat, but because they have come to the conclusion that they need lighter food, that is it.

I find it incomprehensible that someone could expect to go 'poof' into a reality where animals aren't abused, while still contributing to the abuse themselves now.
...

Do you believe you are contributing to slavery by using money? Probably not, because that is probably not your intent. In the same way you can eat meat without the intent to contribute to animal abuse.

[βαθμιαίος]

If you are one of those that believes you "came back", why did you come back? Just to retreat within and say "it's ok"?

I can't speak for Oldern, but I can tell you the primary reason Ra gave for wanderers coming back: "The overriding reason for the offering of these Brothers and Sisters of Sorrow in incarnative states is the possibility of aiding other-selves by the lightening of the planetary consciousness distortions and the probability of offering catalyst to other-selves which will increase the harvest."

Retreating within and saying "it's OK" would seem to be included in that it would lighten the planetary consciousness.

[Oldern]

It isn't a decision. It is just a point of growth.

That is still your belief, even if you think it is something absolute. It is not. Nothing except Infinity is absolute in this existence. (Imho ; )

If you are one of those that believes you "came back", why did you come back? Just to retreat within and say "it's ok"?

I do not care if I came back or I am going up as there is only one moment and one moment only. I came here to plant seeds. Meditating is part of that. Creating stories is another. Fighting wars against concepts is not. Not for me, anyway.

[Diana]

Do you believe you are contributing to slavery by using money? Probably not, because that is probably not your intent. In the same way you can eat meat without the intent to contribute to animal abuse.

I am not sure it's money that makes us slaves, rather, it is a corrupt system. The money is inert, and does respond to intention in your life.

You may not have the intention to contribute to animal abuse by consuming meat, but how does that work in reality? You (as a theoretical person) eat meat that came from animals who were abused (theoretically we will imagine that the meat is from a factory farm). If you eat the meat, it was purchased. The money that paid for the meat goes to the industry supplying it. How are you not supporting the industry--and its abuse of animals--when you eat the meat?

Your intention of not supporting the industry is a disconnect. Your intention, as you ate the meat, did not change the fact that the animal was abused.

Intention does matter. But our actions matter too. If a person intends that they will hold their temper, but chokes another person to death because their anger overrode their intentions, then the end result is a murdered human.

A person may intend not to contribute to animal abuse, but if they eat factory-farmed meat, they are contributing to it.

---

This comes from the research I have done on the subject AND from personally knowing people who eat only animals and has been for years. Their diet is (by calories) 80% animal fat and 20% animal protein. They only get traces of carbs from eating liver.

I have never heard of such a thing. Are they healthy? Every bit of research I have done would support that they were not healthy, unless the evidence was put out by the meat and dairy association.

[Monica]

Do you believe you are contributing to slavery by using money? Probably not, because that is probably not your intent. In the same way you can eat meat without the intent to contribute to animal abuse.

I'm incredulous!

If someone uses my money to enslave someone, I am only indirectly contributing, at worst, and even then, only if I know about it.

But eating meat is totally different, because, hellllllloooooo the person is actually eating the animal!

That is directly contributing to the animal's death.

That is more akin to directly enslaving someone.

To eat an animal and then say "Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to get you killed" is absurd. It's impossible to have any other intent, being that an animal must be killed before it can be eaten.

[Patrick]

Not really no. Inuits did get some carbs in their diet. This comes from the research I have done on the subject AND from personally knowing people who eat only animals and has been for years. Their diet is (by calories) 80% animal fat and 20% animal protein. They only get traces of carbs from eating liver.

Are you 100% certain they ate NO plant foods whatsoever? Sorry for my doubt, but if canned beans can be mistaken for raw veggies, then an occasional fruit or veggie might get missed too. Seriously no offense intended, but it is a valid question, being that you are making a pretty fantastic claim here.

Yes I'm certain and I can understand your skepticism.

If you'd like to ask them for yourself, you could always go to their forum: http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/index.php

I cannot and do not want to decide what is wrong for them.

By the logic you and others are presenting, the next time someone hears a woman screaming in a dark alley, we should just look the other way. We shouldn't bother trying to save her, or trying to reason with the would-be murderer/rapist, because "who are we to decide what is wrong for them?"

After all, if we decide that the attacker is doing something 'wrong' then that's judging him, right? And that would be worse than his act of violence!

So we can't judge the attacker, because that would be STS. So we shouldn't try to impose our views of right and wrong on him, because that would be STS. So we should just ignore the call for help from the woman, and just not interfere, and not even call 911 either. After all, who are we to judge?

Before I answer this, I would like to note that without judgment there would be no attacker in the first place. There would be no STS either. 3d catalysts would be extremely mellow and 3d would take a very long time.

I am not saying that judging is wrong, because I believe that nothing is wrong. I am simply explaining how things works from my current perspective. I would normally not even do so, but you asked me in the beginning to explain myself, because leaving misunderstandings would be irresponsible.

Now to answer this.

I see a difference in between imposing my views of right and wrong on the attacker and helping the person who is asking for my help.

"After all, if we decide that the attacker is doing something 'wrong' then that's judging him, right? And that would be worse than his act of violence!"

Yes but only for your self. His act of violence does not have to result in negativity to you. But imposing your judgment on him does result in negativity to you AND does not change anything regarding his act. It's not helping one bit.

The person in need of help would get my help. And in so doing, I would indeed try to stop the would-be murderer/rapist.

I am not nearly balanced enough to simply watch this while only feeling compassion for both.

IMHO it's a very small minority of criminals that are STS. Most criminals are themselves asking for our help. They just don't know how to express this with other ways than violence. Those truly "happy" with their lot are probably the STS ones.

I understand that this is really starting to get off topic. So before the moderators gets involved, I will try to get back on topic.

[Monica]

I can't speak for Oldern, but I can tell you the primary reason Ra gave for wanderers coming back: "The overriding reason for the offering of these Brothers and Sisters of Sorrow in incarnative states is the possibility of aiding other-selves by the lightening of the planetary consciousness distortions and the probability of offering catalyst to other-selves which will increase the harvest."

That's what we're trying to do! We're trying to aid our younger other-selves! We're trying to lighten the planetary consciousness distortions by offering our views to those who voluntarily participate in this discussion, and who are knowingly contributing to this planetary darkness!

Billions of creatures in constant agony, and then brutally slaughtered...And it's something that is within our power to affect. There are a lot of things we can't directly affect. But this is one that we CAN directly affect! How can this horrible suffering continue to be ignored or justified? And then we are told we're in the wrong, for trying to do something about it?

---

If you'd like to ask them for yourself, you could always go to their forum

No thank you. Lots of people have claimed to be this or that, like breatharians, and were later found out to be frauds. We cannot ever be 100% certain they are doing what they say they are, regardless of how emphatically they insist.

And if they really are living on 100% meat only, let's see how long they live. Even cats and dogs eat some plant foods.

I am not saying that judging is wrong, because I believe that nothing is wrong.

In 6D, yes. But we are in 3D.

This was discussed on the radio show a couple of weeks ago, by the way. You might wish to check it out.

But imposing your judgment on him does result in negativity to you AND does not change anything regarding his act. It's not helping one bit.

You're saying that I'm saying "judge him" which would have "no effect on his action" but that is opposite of what I'm saying, which is "don't judge him, but DO stop him from harming another, if the other person is calling for help and it's within your power to answer the call."

Our responsibility is to answer the call, not support the person involved in an STS action. That's not judging him; it's simply declining his STS act of service. This is acceptable. Even Ra did this.

The person in need of help would get my help. And in so doing, I would indeed try to stop the would-be murderer/rapist.

??? well that is EXACTLY what we're trying to do!!

The animals are calling for help. We are trying to help them. And in so doing, we are trying to stop the oppressors (whether consciously contributing to the oppression or unconsciously contributing).

It is exactly the same scenario! The only difference is that the attacker might actually be STS motivated, whereas most people who eat meat aren't doing it out of any STS motivation. So the intention is different. But that's all the MORE reason to answer the call for help!

I am not nearly balanced enough to simply watch this while only feeling compassion for both.

If you're saying a totally balanced person would do nothing, then we have very very very different paradigms. I think there is a gross misunderstanding of what 'balanced' is.

IMHO it's a very small minority of criminals that are STS. Most criminals are themselves asking for our help. They just don't know how to express this with other ways than violence. Those truly "happy" with their lot are probably the STS ones.

Agreed. But it's irrelevant, because in that moment, we have no way of knowing that.

I understand that this is really starting to get off topic. So before the moderators gets involved, I will try to get back on topic.

The topic of acceptance is extensively explored here:

Strictly Law of One Material > Acceptance and Will

[βαθμιαίος]

Billions of creatures in constant agony

When you say this, what are you thinking of exactly? Because most cattle that I know of have good lives for the most part. They graze and are looked after. For grass-fed animals, that's all they know. There is no constant agony. Typically they go to a local abattoir on the last day of their lives and are treated well until the very end.

If the animals are sold to a feedlot, it's not for their whole lives but rather for the last few weeks of it. If the feedlot is well-run, the animals are not in misery there, either.

The part that gets all the attention, the slaughterhouse, can indeed be troubling, but slaughterhouses can also be well-run and minimize animal suffering. The animals are there for a matter of hours, not days or months.

[Patrick]

My friends, I would like to ask your permission for the following proposal.

Would you accept it if I start pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments we make here ?

This I believe would make our debate much clearer for everyone.

For information on logical fallacies I would suggest this site: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resource...acies.aspx

It would help to prevent derailment too. It's normally used for scientific discussions, but it's very useful for any kind of arguments.

I must warn you though that this slows down argumentation. Also, some might get offended when their argument are invalidated for being a logical fallacy.

But overall, I believe we would all benefit from this.

[βαθμιαίος]

That's what we're trying to do! We're trying to aid our younger other-selves! We're trying to lighten the planetary consciousness distortions by offering our views to those who voluntarily participate in this discussion, and who are knowingly contributing to this planetary darkness!

That's a different sense than the one in which Ra used it, which was that wanderers lighten the vibrations just by being here, even if they do nothing:

65.11 ...It was the aim of Wanderers to serve the entities of this planet in whatever way was requested and it was also the aim of Wanderers that their vibratory patterns might lighten the planetary vibration as a whole, thus ameliorating the effects of planetary disharmony and palliating any results of this disharmony.

<snip>

65.12 ...Is there any physical way in which he aids, perhaps by his vibrations somehow just adding to the planet just as electrical polarity or charging a battery? Does that also aid the planet, just the physical presence of the Wanderers?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and the mechanism is precisely as you state. We intended this meaning in the second portion of our previous answer.

[Monica]

When you say this, what are you thinking of exactly?

Not just cattle, but all the 'meat' animals. Chickens live their entire lives in tiny cages, debeaked and sick. They can barely turn around and end up stomping on one another and fighting.

If the animals are sold to a feedlot, it's not for their whole lives but rather for the last few weeks of it.

You're leaving out the misery dairy cows endure on a daily basis...veal calves being confined to a tiny stall, unable to even turn around, for their entire (short) lives. And the chickens. You're leaving out the chickens. And not all cattle are 'grass-fed' - most are grain fed, in feedlots.

And even if you're right about some of the animals, a 'few weeks' is a very long time, to one that is being abused.

If the feedlot is well-run, the animals are not in misery there, either.

Are we living on the same planet?

The part that gets all the attention, the slaughterhouse, can indeed be troubling,

Troubling?

but slaughterhouses can also be well-run and minimize animal suffering. The animals are there for a matter of hours, not days or months.

Are we living on the same planet?

[Diana]

My friends, I would like to ask your permission for the following proposal.

Would you accept it if I start pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments we make here ?

Just so you know, there is a thread about this:
Politics, Logical Fallacies, and Spiritual Implications

[βαθμιαίος]

Would you accept it if I start pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments we make here ?

Yes, I think it might be interesting and useful.

[Monica]

That's a different sense than the one in which Ra used it, which was that wanderers lighten the vibrations just by being here, even if they do nothing:

I agree about Ra's meaning. But that's precisely my point:

Contributing to planetary darkness by adding to the suffering of our younger other-selves is not doing nothing.

It's doing something.

---

Would you accept it if I start pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments we make here ?

I've already been doing that, and got only resentment. And you and I don't even agree on logic, so I don't see how this would help. It'll still just end up being disagreement about what's logical. I attempted to use logic to apply concepts, and it backfired.

If everyone was equally educated in logic, it might work. But such is not the case.

[βαθμιαίος]

Not just cattle, but all the 'meat' animals. Chickens live their entire lives in tiny cages, debeaked and sick. They can barely turn around and end up stomping on one another and fighting.

OK, so you're thinking of chickens mostly? I don't know that much about chickens. I do know there are quite a few chicken houses in the Shenandoah Valley, not far from us. If I get a chance I will see if I can visit one. Have you ever been to one?

You're leaving out the misery dairy cows endure on a daily basis...veal calves being confined to a tiny stall, unable to even turn around, for their entire (short) lives. And the chickens. You're leaving out the chickens. And not all cattle are 'grass-fed' - most are grain fed, in feedlots.

And even if you're right about some of the animals, a 'few weeks' is a very long time, to one that is being abused.

Are you sure dairy cows are miserable? Have you been to a dairy? I have, and the cows certainly didn't look miserable. Also, we have a milk cow, and I know from experience that she gives more milk and cream when she's happy and well-fed. I suspect that it would be the same for commercial animals.

Are we living on the same planet?

I don't know. Have you ever seen any of these places in person? The farmers I know care about and care for their animals. They also think, of course, in terms of profit, but they seem to believe that happy, healthy animals are more profitable than sick, miserable ones.

[Monica]

I don't know. Have you ever seen any of these places in person? The farmers I know care about and care for their animals. They also think, of course, in terms of profit, but they seem to believe that happy, healthy animals are more profitable than sick, miserable ones.

Factory farm video footage isn't fabricated. There is plenty of it available on the internet.

Mentioning this footage usually results in cries of "sensationalism! PETA extremists!" but that doesn't change the fact that the footage is real.

I have posted some of it previously. There is tons more. Not only videos taken by animal activists; there is plenty of other news about the atrocities of factory farms. I am quite surprised that you seem oblivious to this.

[βαθμιαίος]

I'm not suggesting it's fabricated, and I'm not oblivious to it.

I'm asking if you personally have been to any farms, feedlots, or slaughterhouses; I'm suggesting that the PETA videos don't show enterprises that are respectful to animals, and I'm suggesting that there are many of those.