Scholar

If that's what it takes for you to sleep better at night. The mental gymnastics here is unreal.

This is so ironic when it is actually people who consume animals products who have all kinds of diseases and put the entire health care system under stress because they eat at mcdonalds every day. I never had to have a blood test for veganism, I take vitamins that pretty much everyone should take (and animal products are supplemented with those vitamins anyways, you are just consuming them second hand). The food volume consumption is lower with vegans because there is not an entire cow that is eating food so they can eat the cow. Why don't you look at yourself instead of appealling to people who according to you will literally starve to death if they don't consume pigs. I don't see vegans walking around in siberia telling people to starve. I am seeing them walking around in first world countries telling people to stop consuming flesh for nothing but pleasure and convinience. The discussion of whether your brother truly needs to consume pigs to survive is another one, but it is completely besides the point and has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

So let's reiterate this. Those vegan youtubers who do everything for money and cannot be trusted, when they jump on the anti-vegan trend which generates huge clicks, they suddenly are trustworthy? But the actual science on the matter is irrelevant I guess. Actual valid information comes from youtube videos... How do you feel about the kids who are born to be slaughtered because people like to eat hamburgers?

Why is it that this has not been shown in any study yet? Any deficiency that was found usually was due to some sort of negligence like not taking supplements (B12 for example). And it is the goal of vegans to maximize health, it's just that they have a more unified understanding of health. You always have to consider the health of the animals and the planet as a whole, not just your own. So far the science is showing that a properly planned vegan diet is more healthy than a standard diet. What kind of evidence outside of anecdotal evidence do you have that a properply planned plant based diet would be somehow detrimental for the majority of people?

I have actually met more vegans who are very open minded about this topic than meat eaters. I usually see meat eaters being the ones coming from emotions and not able to rationlized their behavior. What mindset will go and not go is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that going up the spiral means higher inclusivity. The ideology and industry behind veganism is necessary to establish enough evolutionary force to actually make the change happen. You seem to think that ideology has no function, or that it somehow is bad, because Leo says so in the video. This fails to recognize how progess happens in the real world. Would you criticize the abolitionists to be ideological and that there was an entire anti-slavery industry? Would this be a valid criticism of what was going on back then? At this stage, whether you like it or not, this kind of ideology and identification is necessary. When women were fighting for their rights, what was necessary was a strong feminist identity, a strong feminist ideology and an entire industry behind it. When the rights have been achieved, then it is appropriate to let go of identity, bcause identity has served it's purposed, survival needs have been met. You simply are vegaphobic, it is quite obvious. You call veganism insecure, ideological, militant. What would you call those who defend their consumption of factory farmed meat? Who will make fun of vegans, bully them, eat the corpses of tortured animals because they hate them so much? What is that? Is that not ideolology and dogmatism? Any ethical movement will be militant, atleast that is how the one who is doing the immorality will perceive it. I perceive vegans as passionate and caring. If you think what is going on today is radical, just wait a few decades. You will look the same as any other biggoted and outdated old man who has walked this earth in the past.

This makes no sense. Veganism is not an ideology or dogma that will be abandoned, otherwise stage green would abandon human rights. "Man, we were so ideological about the abolishment of slavery, now that I am stage green I finally am able to shed myself of this human rights dogma." Proper and solid stage yellow will integrate animal rights and veganism to such a degree that it won't even be called veganism anymore, it will be so normal. Much like people don't call themselves abolitionists today.

High consciousness tends to come with veganism.

You know what else is reality? Ants enslaving other ant races.

There is a term for this, it is called "Vegaphobia". It works very similar to other forms of phobias (homophobia, islamophobia and so forth), here is a paper on this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317768313_Discrimination_Against_Vegans Quite interesting, even the research found that it is more of the vegans who do it for the morality who are being judged by others. This is just what happens with moral progress. The stance of the more evolved morality is an invalidation of the previous form of morality. So just by someone being an ethical vegan, they are invalidating your own ethical stance, which is to view animals as inferior beings to humans, for example. @StarStruck Here, read this post on the matter of plants: More importantly however, and this is often the case with these sneaky arguments, is that you do not advocate for compassion towards plants. Rather, you attempt to invalidate the ethical expansion by pointing to something else that could be expanded on. This is very similar to arguing that enslaving a certain race of people is permissable, because after all, we are also enslaving animals, so it's hypocritcal to say that slavery is wrong if we also enslave animals. Therefore, all people who want to abolish human slavery are hypocrates and actually slavery is right and natural. This is not actually an ethical stance, this is just an attempt to dismiss, to have the status quo remain as is. After all, the person who enslaves black people cares not about black people nor animals, he simply uses the argument so that he doesn't have to change. You are victim to one of the most basic human flaws. It is the same flaw which made people resist the abolishment of slavery, and the same flaw which made religious people crusade against others. See, you accept the economic and environmental arguments precisely because they are not moral arguments. What you are resisting is not veganism, nor a change in diet. What you are actually resisting is giving up on your identity of human superiority. It is offensive to you to compare a pig to a human, precisely because a pig to you is not even an individual. There is something in your mind that creates a clear line between the pig and the human. That line is what is being fought over. This very line is what people went to war for, whether to defend the line, or move further towards unity. I don't think this fits the health subforum at all. Being triggered by vegans is a social problem, not a health problem.

What about what I said was hopelessly utopian, and in what ways am I clueless of how survival works? What you quoted was precisely a description of how survival works, and why it is flawed. And why, as survival pressures subside through technological and moral advancements, this kind of flaw gets self-corrected by consciousness. This is how it has been since the dawn of mankind, this is the very reason why there is no slavery anymore. I think you simply are uncharitable in the way you tend to interpret what people say and mean, which is why you will not offer any critique that could actually be helpful. This is the very close-heartedness that I am speaking of, you have not yet learned to embody stage green. But this is fine, you are a product of your culture, and to that degree you have blindspots that most likely will not be resolved until your physical death.

This is why Veganism is so powerful, it is an inevitable expansion of sensitivity towards life. To say that human children have priority over non-human children is very much like saying white children have priority over black children. This very confused sense of prioritization is what stems from a lack of open-heartedness and compassion. And on the other hand, an opening of the heart inevitably leads to a dissolution of that kind of confused sense of prioritization. This means that our expansion of identity towards animals will inevitably leads to benefit all human children. And indeed, humans children are subject to far more compassion than animals. After all, if it was human children being slaughtered in factory farms, we would go to war for it. Think about it this way: Human beings prioritize their own children over the children of others, independently of who deserves more compassion. A starving child surely deserves compassion, but the humans says "I have my own child, and I will not help the starving child until my child has a perfect life!". This attitude is what allows us to ignore suffering. It is the same in animals. Sure, human children need compassion, but who needs the most compassion right now? It is obvious that it is the animals, considering that we do not even view them as victims today. if you would be the father of all individuals, those individuals who are in factory farms would need to be your priority. This would be obvious, if the heart was open sufficiently. But the heart closes, so that it can be blind to the suffering of others and focusing on a limited form of the self.

I do think you are being defensive here, you are closed hearted. You are projecting onto me something that simply is not the case. I have brought up veganism because it is relevant to this, I gave detailed reasoning for why I think it was so relevant. Whenever I will get the opportunity to speak out for my brothers and sisters, I will do so. Consider that this does not stem from ideology, but simply from compassion and love. This deforestation is directly linked to this ideology of carnism that you are a victim of. It is you who feels the need to defend himself, because it is obvious that it is your position that requires justification. I do not need valid reasons to stop funding the death and enslavement of our brothers and sisters. No, it is you who needs to find valid reason to continue to do this. This is why again and again, this topic garners so much attention, and why people get so offended by it when we point out that it is quite obviously immoral, from a reasoned and consistent understanding of individual rights, to continue to fund this kind of industry. I think what you are doing is the epitome of ego my brother, you are attempting to justify the killing and enslavement of your brothers, not me. I have no unversal concern for all life, but I have concern for more life than you do. I do not justify my actions with spiritual dogma. I am not fighting windmills. I am using reason to show you how you are inconsistent, how your own mind is fooling itself. I understand that this is frustrating my brother, but this is the process many of us had to go through in the past. Can you imagine someone sitting down with a american slave owner, feeling all superior to that disgusting slave-keeper and peddling your ideology, how productive will your interaction be? How much impact will you have on the protection of the slaves? See, I am not talking to the brazilian farmers, I am talking to you, the consumer. And as you can see in this thread, clearly I have an impact. I have been convincing people of this for years now, and I have had great success in the past. This is how the world will change. Open your heart my brother. I can see you have ignored the points I brought up in my previous post, so I am not sure if you are even reading them. I will not continue to respond to you as I have no time for this at the moment, but if you want to learn more you could read up on past conversation I had on this topic, for example here with Michael:

Humanity has also raped, murdered, enslaved and tortured each other for as long they existed. This is an appeal to tradtion/nature fallacy. Living organisms need to consume each other in order to survive, but this does not justify moral agents to consume whatever they want to consume when there are alternatives that for example do not have their own minds, otherwise you would have to accept the killing of humans for food even if there are alternatives like plants. Of course, but just because people die in accidents does not mean lead us to conclude that indeed we can enslave, breed and murder humans. This is fallacious thinking. The plants I eat are not sentient, and even if they were, the animals that we consume do consume far more plants themselves. Less plants and animals die when you simply choose to eat the plants. I disagree, to think that the expansion of our identity to encompass animals and therefore eventually outlaw the enslavement and killing of animals for agricultural purposes is realistic and inevitable. I also think this kind of noble cause will take humanity to the next level, and it is achievable as much as the abolishment of human slavery was achievable. There is nothing impractical about veganism, infact the consumption of meat is what is so impractical. This will never happen, because as long don't see animals as individuals, we will not have sufficient motivation to change these systems. We are barely motivated to change literal torture, let alone create some sort of dignified life with minimal suffering. And as soon as we do view animals as individuals, we will view it as absurd to kill them for food as we would to kill humans for food. This is wrong, we are currently witnessing the creation of a new, clear base-line, as we did in the past with human rights. Plants are spirit, they do not have souls. They require no individuated, seperate illusiory selfs. For deeper insight into this, read my post here: Additionally, it is the best for both the plants and the animals to consume the plants directly. If by ethical superiority you mean that I am more ethical than you, then no, I will not get off my high horse of ethical superiority. I view animals as individuals, so this kind of conversation is essential to me so that I can aid my brothers and sisters in their suffering. You are resisting to moral progression precisely because you want to remain comfortable at where you are at. This does not stem from a universal concern for all life, this stems from pure egoic desires.

Veganism is pushed in a very ideological and aggressive way, because similar to the movement of abolitionism (abolishment of human slavery), it is an ethical movement. The expansion of identity leads to an increase in emotions in regards to the individuals in question. It is only natural for this to happen, and in many ways it is very healthy and appropriate. From nature's POV all sorts of things are indifferent. In nature individuals get raped, murdered, enslaved and eaten alive. Ethics is something that also developes within the framework of nature, as it is one of the ways the world evolves towards higher unity and love. Both plants and animals have indeed different kinds of defense mechanisms, but ask yourself, what is the purpose of fear and pain? How does a chicken benefit from an experience of pain? An organism like a chicken has the ability to move in it's environment and react immediately to any sort of change in that environment. In this way, a chicken benefits greatly from having a mind that contains it's own impressions of a reality in relationship to the chicke itself. If a chicken feels pain, will not just react immediately, it will also have the ability to find a complex response in relationship to a complex change in the environment. The pain after all is not experienced by itself, but in the framework of a mind that simulates it's very own reality. The chicken is not merely reactive, it benefits greatly from having it's own seperate reality. If we look at a plant none of these things are the case. What would a plant need to feel pain for? It cannot react to any threats immediately, and it's behavior does not require an immediate complex evaluation of a change in the environment and an appropriately complex response. All the plant does is react in response to certain stimuli. Indeed, that is all the plant needs to survive. The plant doesn't have any use for it's own simulated reality, not for the experiences of pain or fear. The plant cannot run away from anything, so why would it fear anything? The plant cannot move away from danger immediately, so why would it feel pain? The plant requires not any illusiory seperation from the environment, unlike the chicken or human. While the plants behaviour is dynamic, it is never immediately complex and dynamic. And only in this kind of context is pain and fear useful. A good example is to ask yourself, what is the purpose of loneliness? Ask yourself this, why do humans and some animals feel lonely. Contemplate it, and then look at a spider. Does the spider feel lonely when it is sitting in the edge of a corner for the entire year all by itself? Why would the spider ever feel lonely? As an exercise, contemplate this question and give me the answer as a response to this post.

The reducitarian approach will not work because it has no practical way of being established. How much does someone need to reduce? Is it a moral obligation? As long as it is not a moral obligation, people will simply choose their own pleasure over any consequences in some future that they might not even get to live in. It is hard to make an argument that reducing consumption is somehow a moral obligation, when that entire type of consumption is unnecessary, and in and of itself causes ethical rights violation to individuals. How can you for example blame someone for consuming meat every day, if you consume meat once a week, which still enslaves and kills an individual. Veganism is so powerful precisely because it is an ethical position. You don't have to contemplate how much you have to reduce, because all of this type of consumption is simply wrong. There is no wiggle room, there is a clear established base-line. A cultural shift in how we view animals has therefore far more benefits than a reducitarian philosophy that will have little practical effect. A) It is actually a meaningful progression in identity, by viewing animals like we view humans, we are growing closer to unity (it is a good catalyst for growing up the spiral) and developing more sensitivity towards all life. From this kind of increased sensitivity societies themselves will benefit greatly. B) The vegan ethical stance can give meaning to people, in a time in which meaninglessness and an overfocus on the individual is causing tremendous suffering in society. The expansion of identity allows one to grow as an individual in relationship to the collective, and stop being paralyzed by the pursuit of individualistic happiness. C) It is a firm position that can be established and upheld, rather than a flimsy direction of where we are supposed to go. The ethical nature of it gives it a self-motivating energy. It is hard to be motivated by some sort of vague reducitarian philosophy, while a stance motivated by the recognition of the suffering of others in relationship to personal responsibility can be extremely powerful.

Just to be clear, the soy mentioned here is grown to feed lifestock, so virtually all of these forests are burned for lifestock. This problem would not exist if people would adopt a plant-based diet, but sadly even those who proclaim to be the most conscious of us have difficulty giving up on these kinds of habits. The only way this will change is if we radically change our behavior. If meat consumption continues to rise, we will soon need multiple earths to feed all the lifestock. Countries can do whatever they want, as long as people don't take responsibility and stop consuming meat, this will not change. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

Trying to capturing this with thoughts is like trying to catch water with a net. Or, trying to capture this with thoughts is like trying to draw a 3D object on a 2D paper. You can only ever draw it from one singular vantage point, infact, if you try to draw it from multiple POV it would get all contradictory. For example, you would be drawing the object on top of itself, or you would be drawing multiple versions of the objects. It would never be 3D.

Go to this thread, the last few replies I have given apply to your question: Replace solipsism with reincarnation.

The irony here is that, the fact that you can question what is possible and not, what is and what is not, is in it's own right it's own form of impossibility, it's own form of what is and what is not. This is it's own form of limitation, duality, it's own dimension of existence. The only reason why something that Leo or I say could possibly make sense to you is because you share the same limitation. This is what being real means. Being real means to be limitation. It is not that if a lie is shared it becomes reality. It is that reality itself is a lie.

Start with the simple things, that are here in your direct experience. Look at what you label "experience" or "perception". Look how radically different the color red is from the sound of a bird chirping, and how those are radically different from the feeling of warmth, pain, loneliness. Look at how their are utterly foreign to each other. They are almost impossibly different. Let's say you have 6 sense that are obvious to you. Ask yourself, what is the limitations here? How many "experiences" and "perceptions" that would be as radically different from all those you are experiencing could exist? It is infinite. Infinite. Try to grasps the monumental consequences of this. Try to grasp that there is no logic, no causation to something like the sound of a bird chirping, or the color red. There will be no answer to this, because reality does not work with answers. In other words, God doesn't have to justify with thoughts, reason and logic why redness exists. He can make redness exist directly, whether possible or not. He can make solipsism exist directly, whether possible or not. He can make non-solipsism exist directly, whether possible or not. This is happening right now. Just look at these colors, they are as impossible as the entirety of the universe, as all things, all contradiction, paradoxes and causes could be. Realize the impossibility of Redness, and the question of solipsism will be as silly to you as a child asking for the age of Santa Clause.

There is a much deeper problem, and it is the problem of relativity. Imagine your world view is a castle that was being constructed from the moment of birth. You now stand on this castle, thinking that the castle itself is the ground of the earth. From this ground, you can pose questions. Questions that can only make sense on this very castle. See, you think the only options are "Either the world exist, or solipsism is true.", but this is only so because you have created premises that only make these two options a possibility. Consider that there are framings that would render both solipsism and the opposite of solipsism impossible. Consider that there are frames from which asking this very question is non-sensical, impossible and meaningless. Consider that the only reason why this question is meaningful, is because of the very castle you are standing on. On another castle, this question might not even be possible, yet other questions, which are impossible for you to even begin to ask, are possible on those castles. Consider that the very reason why you can even pose this question is because you have confused an illusion to be reality. What is even a separate consciousness, a partition of consicousness, verification, perception, the world, vantage point, possibility, impossibility, aligning, origination. You are walking on a castle, not on the ground on which the castle is build. First, you must realize that you are walking on a castle. This is magic, it is not logical. It is not possible. It is not impossible. You are underestimating the potential of infinity. Everything can be understood, nothing can be understood. Both of this must be true and false. You still trust that limitations are real. Everything we will ever tell you will be perfectly sensible non-sense.

I really get the impression that most of the political conversation here is basically on the same level as anywhere else. Instead of people having an exchange of ideas coming from a place of high consciousness, it is like people are just fighting each others dogmas. It's difficult to have high quality conversations if half the time we are discussing conspiracy theories, stage blue and orange takes on politics and in general just low consciousness babbling. Instead of this being a place where anything pioneering is happening, this is a place where basically half the people are throwing around their garbage, and the other half are doing their best to clean up the garbage. Even Leo posts basically dysfunctional peoples youtube videos (Vaush and Hasan for example) that are 90% garbage and 10% okayish in terms of bringing people who are even more unconscious up the spiral. Is this really the highest potential of a community which is trying to be conscious and self-actualize? I don't know, it feels barely different from Twitter. The only good takes I see come from some of the moderators.

Timestamped: "Who has the vibe that you like" I've been seeing people lately making statements like that, and it is interesting because they are basically unknowingly pointing to spiral dynamics. They are able to identity that people do not like Trump because of policy, but because Trump "vibes" (is on the same stage) as they are. The same is true for Biden, Sanders and so forth. To the degree that they perceive those people reflecting their own value system, to that degree they will support them. Tells you a lot about the US when such a significant portion of it's population loves Trump.

I am sorry I offended you my brother or sister.

As you said, I think the ethical question is central in this regard. I will use the oppurtunities that arise to advocate for my brothers and sisters. In terms of veganism increasing sexual appeal, I think OP just wanted to counterbalance some of the narrative that you hear commonly in the anti-vegan/carnivore movements. You have for example that whole vegan deterioration series from sv3rige. In general, to many people compassion and having a firm ethical stance and confidence can be very appealing. A person can be experienced to be much more attractive if they have more compassion, and a willingness to stand for the weak and exploited. Usually those are attributes that human beings find attractive, they are idealized in our culture. On the other hand if someone is so apathetic towards his brothers and sisters that he is not even willing to give up his burger to spare them from a tortured life, this can be very unattractive. This kind of selfishness and disregard for those who are vulnerable is in our culture demonized. Of course this is relative to where a person is. To someone who can see animals as their brothers and sisters, someone who does not will be viewed as unnattractive. If someone views animals as inferior individuals, or no individuals at all, this kind of difference in perception, which has quite drastic consequences for moral evaluation, can be experienced as alienating. Imagine for example you had to date a girl who thought it was fine to keep a slave. You would probably experience her as less attractive, while she would experience you as less attractive. The difference in your morality would be so big that to the girl you would be a constant reminder that how she lives her life is viewed as evil by you. She will probably view you as too sensitive, weak and overly moralistic.