Scholar

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.

I don't know what you mean by crusading and religious like intolerance. Michael, consider the issue of projection here. While for you firmly advocating for veganism might have stemmed from a place of some sort of superiority complex, this is not the case for me, nor for I believe most vegans out there. I personally do this out of compassion, and when I get emotional, it is out of compassion. It is not because I want to make myself feel superior to others, when I talk down to people in terms of this moral problem, it will be in the same way you would talk down to someone who pays for children to be tortured and killed. When we are talking about health, we have to have a holistic picture of health. Human health and enjoyment is important, but so is that of any other creature. Their health should be as much concern to us, if we view them as an extention of our selves, as that of our children. Whenever there is a new extention of self, a change in societal behavior requires moralistic attitudes. Sure, you could have called the abolitionists crusaders, you could have pointed to them and judged their religious-like intolerance in the name of moral superiority. All of this you could have done, and from your very point of view, it must have been valid to do so. But who would this have helped? Who would it have helped if I had told the soldiers who were fighting the nazi's that they were showing religious-like intolerance and were crusading for the sake of moral superiority? How would this have helped anyone? Please consider this question deeply Michael. Some vegans might be crusading and might be showing religious-like intolerance in the name of moral superiority. But then, what would you describe yourself us? Someone who is deliberately, in fully conscious of the consequences of his actions, paying for his own brothers and sisters to be subjugated, to be treated like property, to be raped, enslaved and murdered, all for his own comfort. Michael, Let us say that refusing to pay for the enslavement and killing of your brothers and sisters makes you more intolerant. What is the answer to this? Is it to go back to paying for the enslavement and killing of your brothers and sisters, or is it fixing the deeper issue, the intolerance itself? My issue here is not simply your behavior, but your very perception of what animals are. They are your brothers and sisters, they are literally like mentally handicapped people. They are not different whatsoever, other than in bodyshape. They are children. But you cannot see this, and this is why you look at those who are so disturbed by their suffering in the way you do. People who hunt serial killers, rapists and murderers are crusading and religious like, in the name of moral superiority, in your own eyes. But consider that they do what they do, that their judgment is so harsh, precisely because they have so much compassion for those who are suffering. If you do not recognize, you will not understand them. The world will change infront of your eyes, and the increasing sensitivity of people on this earth you will confuse for lack of sensitivity. Simply ask yourself this, if it was humans in place of the animals, how would that make you feel. How would you look at people who oppose this? What would you be calling them? The issue of veganism is a moralistic one, a crusade, because we need to a establish a new moral standard. For this to happen, it can only happen if this is taken seriously. And if it is taken seriously, it will be inevitably emotional. We must be moralistic for our brothers and sisters, because that's just how society evolves. Apathy will not create change. And radical change is needed, for the sake ourselves and all of our brothers and sisters. At some point, we must firmly establish: "No, I will not pay for this. This behavior should not be tolerated.", as we did with slavery in the past. It is precisely because morality is imaginary, that it is so vital that we create it.

I am not sure how this is related to what @neutralempty said. When we are talking about those unhealthy looking vegans, as Yog refers to them, we are probably talking about people in the western world who will have access to a cheap and healthy vegan diet, no? Nobody disagrees that adhering to a moral principle will be more or less difficult in different parts of the world, and of course in different times in history. In some countries, it is difficult to survive without exploiting or murdering other human beings. Of course it is due to the fact that we are so civilized that we can now appreciate a higher standard of ethics. But on the other hand, there is a reason why in underdeveloped countries, such as china, african countries and india, a majority of the poor are almost exclusively plant-based. It is precisely because animal products are such a luxury, infact to such a degree that you are now seeing an increase in obesity in China due to people being more financially secure and adopting a more western diet. The poor chinese people who never could have afforded much meat (and were actually healthier and more long-lived for it), now require the amazonian forests to be burned down so that there is enough land to feed all the cows. Explaining to people simple rational ethical principles is not a problem no matter where they live. To what degree they can live according to those principles will vary, as is the case with any other moral problem. However, you reject the foundation of those ethical principles in the first place, so I don't see how it is useful to discuss whether or not some people have an easier time consuming an exclusively plant based diet. The disagreement is about the validity of the ethical stance. Otherwise we are simply discussing whether or not people in china can only eat plants.

Well, I just think it's a missed oppurtunity. The problem is that when I go to a monastery, no one knows anything about politics. When I go to people who study politics, no one knows about consciousness. I do think that there will come a day when these two things will merge.

Okay Boss.

By that logic, the very same applies to your post. Can you see how you are using this to dismiss my perspective, rather than integrating it or actually contending with it? I do not have to be outside of the problem to point out the fact that there is a problem. And not every problem can be solved by simply "becoming the change you want to be". I tried to explain in the response to Preety_India.

There is not much incentive to do so, my experience is that people usually don't react to ideas that fall outside of the current political climate/mainstream discussion. It would be too much effort to contemplate it and engage with it. It is easier to just talk and engage with things that you are familiar with. And of course it is demotivating to see people discussing on the level they are doing. Half the time we are discussing things that should be obvious to everyone, whether Trump is a devil or not and so forth. And that is what generates most engagement too. Sure I could contemplate a particular topic and then give my take on it, but if nobody engages because the conversation revolves around basically shitposts then the effort is just wasted. I would rather read a book. And then you have Leo posting stuff like this: Literally Twitter level engagement. The vibe and culture in this section is very much reactionary rather than constructive.

Well, as long as it makes us energetic it should be fine.

Notice the difference between the one who is attempting to sacrifice in the name of his brothers and sisters, and the one who is seeking justification for why he is sacrificing his brothers and sisters. Imagine you were not certain whether you had to sacrifice your brothers and sisters to thrive, yet, you chose to sacrifice them anyways, just to be safe. Is this self-love, compassion and sensitivity to life? Or is this fear?

I am not interested in playing ego-games with you my brother. As I said, I hope one day you can open your heart so that you do not have to live your life from a place of fear, hatred and judgement.

Debating this is really ineffective. When you are ignorant about a topic, it usually is better to do some research. Here you have one article: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/08/fact-check-socialism-alone-did-not-destroy-venezuelas-economy/3323566001/ It is a bit unfair to come here and expect Forestluv to explain to you why an argument is not really an argument, when you don't even yourself know what the argument truly is. You come to such a discussion to test your ideas, that you hopefully put some effort into. Not so Forest can spoon feed you facts about Venezuela.

Alright, but I do hope you heed my advice and come back to this conversation at a later point. You could bookmark it and one day when you remember and feel open-hearted, you can come back and read this.

Nyseto, I am not saying you have no compassion, you certainly lack some dimensions of compassion, this is true. And it is not just because you said a particular thing. If you will one day re-read this conversation, maybe you will be able to understand my perspective. I am not condemning you, I do believe you lack sensitivity. It is clear to me and others. This could be a powerful moment for you if you could recognize this in yourself. It would be a leap in consciousness, but this doesn't need to happen. It is not expected, currently fear is occupying your heart. Look, you are not open hearted at this very moment. You wouldn't be so defensive. You would say "Brother, I can see how you would interpret what I said in this way, but here, let me show you how I meant this in another way. I actually do care about the animals that are suffering, I am a vegan myself and I seek to advocate for it.", something of this sort. You would not compare yourself to me, this is an act of fear. You would not respond to what you perceive to be attacks on your personality the way you do. You would have compassion for me and be patient. All of this will be very obvious to you when the time has come. You are not at the end of the path, nor am I my brother. There is no point in comparing ourselves to each other. We should help each other on our paths. And this is my attempt to help you. It might not succeed, but I am not perfect either.

Consider for a moment that I am right about what I am saying. Come back when you feel open hearted, and re-read this conversation with a fresh mind. This can't hurt you, treat it like an experiment. The worst that can happen is that you will learn something valuable. This is all.

@Nyseto This is the crux of the matter my brother, contemplate these words deeply: My brother, what you fail to see is this. What you say is not what is revealing to me the state of your heart. It is what you are not saying that is revealing it. It is not merely what you are focusing on, but that to which you are blind to. And you are blind because of fear. I do not judge you for this, but this is the truth. I can see it so obviously in you because I have seen and continue to see it in myself. Any person of higher consciousness on this forum could come here and tell you the same.

@Nyseto The reason why it is so easy for others here to identify that your mind is closed and your heart filled with fear. Imagine someone raped a woman, and someone else caught the rapist in the act. The person punched the rapist and pulled him away from the woman. Imagine now a person coming up to this situation and being outraged. "How could you punch the rapist? You could have just pulled him away! Let me tell you exactly why I think you should have treated the rapist with compassion and restrained him without punching him!" Notice how this is inappropriate. While yes, the person should have not punched the rapist, something seems wrong with a mind that would focus on this particular detail in this particular situation. In fact it lacks compassion for the woman who was raped and for the person who punched the rapist. Imagine if the first thing that came to your mind when I mentioned rape is a person restraining a rapist in a way that you think to be inappropriate. That you would post this here, announcing it with the words "Lol". What would this mean to you? When you have equal compassion for everyone, you do not focus your compassion on everyone equally. The suffering of the one who was raped is far more significant, and any truly compassionate person would know that this is where your mind ought to be focused on. If you were truly open hearted, you would look at this in a completely different way. Your response to the activist who has chained himself up would not be "Lol, he brought this upon himself", rather it would have been. "Wow, this poor man. He cares about these animals who are suffering deeply so much that he would put himself in harms way to try to change this. I believe the way he does this is not the right way to do this, let me try to help him, because I myself do not want these animals to suffer. I will aid him on his path by giving him some ideas of how he could improve his activism." None of this was present here. You have been demeaning them, invalidating them for their efforts. The way your spoke would have not been compelling to them at all, if they had been present here. They would have felt ridiculed and judged. I think you should do as I proposed. Come back here one day with an open heart. You will learn.