Carnivore diet been doing great

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

But what difference does it make ? Millions of cows and sheeps and chickens are being slaughtered right now as we are talking.. What is one person's refraining from consuming the outcome of this mass slaughter is going to change in the grand scheme of things ? 

Do you know that a lion MUST eat meat daily otherwise he dies ? If God or nature or whatever the fuck "THIS " is is sadistic then you are actually interrupting God's work by not indulging in the slaughter party.

"Pleasure "?You mean eating meat because its delicious? 

I used to justify my meat consumption through these appeals to futility as well.

I was like, "Well, I could quit eating meat. But the animals will die anyway."

But the fact of the matter is that boycotts are an effective form of protest.

The fact of the matter is that my power is small. But I do have power. And I choose to use what little power that I have to make a vote in the direction I'd like to see.

Plus, it helps me stay aligned with my own values... which I wasn't before when I was eating meat.

Also, you are not in the same position as the lion, because the lion literally NEEDS to eat meat to survive.

For humans who aren't dealign with food scarcity, we don't need to eat meat to survive. We only eat it for pleasure.

And yes, meat is delicious. Some of my favorite foods were meat or meat related. But I quit to stay aligned to my values.

[Jannes]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

So you are assuming that humans are superior to animals inherently?  Drop the relative level of arguing this moral point because its not gonna lead anywhere. Let's tackle this from the absolute perspective. From the absolute perspective everything is connected and all is one .doesn't matter humans eat animals ..animals eat humans ..or plants etc. Life eats itself then shits out itself from the other side and give birth to new baby versions of itself. All in a never ending closed cycle . I mean the biology of this is so obvious I don't need to explain it but do you grasp the existential ramifications going on here ?

 

If humans were superior to animals inherently then it might still be pretty unethical to raise them in factory farms and then kill them.

If humans were not superior to animals inherently then it would be incredibly unethical to raise them in factory farms and then kill them.

You live life from the relative, not the absolute.

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

So you are assuming that humans are superior to animals inherently?  Drop the relative level of arguing this moral point because its not gonna lead anywhere. Let's tackle this from the absolute perspective. From the absolute perspective everything is connected and all is one .doesn't matter humans eat animals ..animals eat humans ..or plants etc. Life eats itself then shits out itself from the other side and give birth to new baby versions of itself. All in a never ending closed cycle . I mean the biology of this is so obvious I don't need to explain it but do you grasp the existential ramifications going on here ?

You could also use this rationale to justify allowing serial killers to kill indescriminately... but I doubt you'd be okay with that.

So, you don't really believe this... unless it's used to justify your own dietary choices.

[Jannes]

I was vegan for 3 years, then switched to vegetarianism (milk and eggs) for about a year now for convenience and also fear I was missing something. When you hear that vegans are unhealthy from all sides and struggle with mental health problems (unprocessed trauma and very likely undiagnosed adhd) this really gets to you. Its quite something, you know the science, yet the primal fears are hammering on you. Its the rational part of the brain vs your primal instincts. Quite an insightful inner war for understanding much of politics.

Anyway a part of me thought that I would get amazing health benefits from these foods but I didnt. I didnt crave eggs. I think eggs from chicken who are free (the very expensive ones) are ethically pretty okay, milk is shit though. The amount of convenience it gives me though is big, trying to keep the damage to a minimum as I have been switching parts to soy joghurt.

[Jannes]

3 minutes ago, AION said:

She is doing mental vegan kung fu against 5 guys just to not eat that meat that she craves

This is a spiritual forum, maybe look at what you are actually doing. Are you conscious in your response?

[integral]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

"40% of people can't go Vegan because their health would deteriorate."

I said that in the context of explaining what an average was, the chart I provided was a visual representation of how a average works. How what the study is not saying is that the average equals 99% of people can do this diet with some outliers.

It's explaining the average. Only answer this question we can't go any any further than this. It's the basic acknowledgment of what a study is.

The study is showing the bell curve.

Talk to me about the bell curve.

@Emerald I don't know why your psychoanalyzing me about my motivations?

I agree with you for the most part that most people are way too immature to do veganism, and the ones that do do it do not do it properly and so they have problems and they stop. And the lowest form of stopping for pleasure is devilry Low Consciousness orange were they haven't unlocked Personal health responsibility or external responsibilities or basic self-development yet. Now the people that actually do stick with it long enough and end up failing past the 3 year mark always report health problems as the issue. And I think a lot of them did it wrong. If it's not structured properly, doesn't have supplements and you're not getting tested then you're 100% doing it wrong and you have to stop immediately.

The reason I I could say all of this is because I'm not anti-vegan. Which I said many times!

I am literally trying to explain that diversity of biology exists. That this 99% thing you pulled from the Nether world does not represent what the studies are saying.

Edited May 20 by integral

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

I was vegan for 3 years, then switched to vegetarianism (milk and eggs) for about a year now for convenience and also fear I was missing something. When you hear that vegans are unhealthy from all sides and struggle with mental health problems (unprocessed trauma and very likely undiagnosed adhd) this really gets to you. Its quite something, you know the science, yet the primal fears are hammering on you. Its the rational part of the brain vs your primal instincts. Quite an insightful inner war for understanding much of politics.

Anyway a part of me thought that I would get amazing health benefits from these foods but I didnt. I didnt crave eggs. I think eggs from chicken who are free (the very expensive ones) are ethically pretty okay, milk is shit though. The amount of convenience it gives me though is big, trying to keep the damage to a minimum as I have been switching parts to soy joghurt.

Yes, there are all kinds of messages in the culture that serve the function of trying to discredit the choices of those who go against the status quo and to try to convince those that go against the status quo to return to it.

And I saw some kind of study that Vegans were rated as the group that has the most negative associations with them.

And I suspect it's because a lot of people agree with Vegans values-wise. They just don't live in alignment with those values. So, the existence of Vegans make people who are not Vegan very uncomfortable and combative and defensive about their dietary choices.

And being on the receiving end of that combativeness and defensiveness, can make it tempting to just give up the good fight and go back to the status quo and to cook up some reason why "Veganism is actually bad after all!". 

The reality is that it just makes people uncomfortable when people make different ethical choices than the majority because people go, "OH NO! Does that mean that I'm unethical!?!?!"

And they quickly find a way to get that thought to leave their mind.

But yes, it can be difficult to stick to Veganism if everyone around you is repeating a bunch of "Veganism will kill your health" narratives.

The main challenge is staying aligned with what you know to be true and what feel is right, even when others are trying to knock you off the center spoke of your sovereignty with all sorts of invalidating narratives.

Edited May 20 by Emerald

[ExploringReality]

@Emerald

I can see where your coming from, I admire your integrity and your compassionate principles and values for your actions and food intake. Don't waste your time arguing, some will resonate, others will debate which is fun but can sometimes tire us out because anyone can decide to disagree with you no Matter what. Are you familiar with "infinite Waters" diving deep YouTube channel? He's amazing when it comes to eating a raw food diet along with living a passionate purposeful life. I'm not a raw vegan, also I am shifting more and more to a whole foods diet, I do eat organic pasture raised eggs, grass-fed meat infrequently and the rest organic leafy greens and whole fruits, chia seeds and nuts. I do eat continue to eat selective meat from whole foods for my training/boxing and running but I a am aware of the brutality of animal slaughter which hurts my heart. It makes me cry what these animals endure. An when we eat meat, especially fast foods or cheap processed meats, we are taking on that energy of those beings and what they went through. We are what we eat, more and more. Consciousness comes with a kind of burden or a responsibility of being in alignment or integrity with what's true, not for ourselves but all life on earth.

It's a heart centered approach because you have to feel the poignancy of the human situation, rather than overly justifying to ourselves the actions that we take due the science, the rationalist ego or whatever justification or thing we hide behind for not looking inwards and seeing the damage that were causing as well. 

Edited May 20 by ExploringReality

[Emerald]

52 minutes ago, integral said:

I said that in the context of explaining what an average was, the chart I provided was a visual representation of how a average works. How what the study is not saying is that the average equals 99% of people can do this diet with some outliers.

It's explaining the average. Only answer this question we can't go any any further than this. It's the basic acknowledgment of what a study is.

The study is showing the bell curve.

Talk to me about the bell curve.

@Emerald I don't know why your psychoanalyzing me about my motivations?

I agree with you for the most part that most people are way too immature to do veganism, and the ones that do do it do not do it properly and so they have problems and they stop. And the lowest form of stopping for pleasure is devilry Low Consciousness orange were they haven't unlocked Personal health responsibility or external responsibilities or basic self-development yet. Now the people that actually do stick with it long enough and end up failing past the 3 year mark always report health problems as the issue. And I think a lot of them did it wrong. If it's not structured properly, doesn't have supplements and you're not getting tested then you're 100% doing it wrong and you have to stop immediately.

The reason I I could say all of this is because I'm not anti-vegan. Which I said many times!

I am literally trying to explain that diversity of biology exists. That this 99% thing you pulled from the Nether world does not represent what the studies are saying.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you in particular. 

This entire conversation began on another thread where another poster made some kind of hokey argument about the existence of Veganism eroding cultural practices.

And when someone challenges Veganism with these insincere arguments, that's when I try to get people to face the REAL reason why they're being so defensive in the first place.... which is usually doesn't actually have anything to do with their defense, but purely because they don't agree with their own actions.

Otherwise, they wouldn't go into defense mode and have to create these hokey arguments in the first place.

And now, you're doing it with all these unsubstantiated health claims about the Vegan diet.... like your conjecture that 40% of people can't go Vegan at all.

And you're trying to protect the idea of this unsubtantiated claim under the guise of "embracing the diversity of dietary needs" and "here's a chart about how bell curves work." 

But no matter how you slice it, there just isn't any evidence that 40% of people can never go Vegan. Your claim is baseless.

And there is no evidence to your claim that "Veganism is unhealthy and unsustainable." This claim is also baseless.

And why would you hold onto such an unsubstantiated claim in the first place, unless this unsubstantiated claim was protecting you from recognizing deeper truths about yourself?

[Emerald]

26 minutes ago, ExploringReality said:

@Emerald

I can see where your coming from, I admire your integrity and your compassionate principles and values for your actions and food intake. Don't waste your time arguing, some will resonate, others will debate which is fun but can sometimes tire us out because anyone can decide to disagree with you no Matter what. Are you familiar with "infinite Waters" diving deep YouTube channel? He's amazing when it comes to eating a raw food diet along with living a passionate purposeful life. I'm not a raw vegan, also I am shifting more and more to a whole foods diet, I do eat organic pasture raised eggs, grass-fed meat infrequently and the rest organic leafy greens and whole fruits, chia seeds and nuts. I do eat continue to eat selective meat from whole foods for my training/boxing and running but I a am aware of the brutality of animal slaughter which hurts my heart. It makes me cry what these animals endure. An when we eat meat, especially fast foods or cheap processed meats, we are taking on that energy of those beings and what they went through. We are what we eat, more and more. Consciousness comes with a kind of burden or a responsibility of being in alignment or integrity with what's true, not for ourselves but all life on earth.

It's a heart centered approach because you have to feel the poignancy of the human situation, rather than overly justifying to ourselves the actions that we take due the science, the rationalist ego or whatever justification or thing we hide behind for not looking inwards and seeing the damage that were causing as well. 

You see, I'm not even trying to convince people to go Vegan. Nor am I saying that Vegan values are universal values.

Like, you won't ever see me randomly trying to convince a person to change their diet.

Nor will you find me trying to convince a person who doesn't care about the well-being of animals to care about the well-being of animals.

I have these arguments mostly because intellectual dishonesty annoys the crap out of me... no matter which form it comes in.

And people who make anti-Vegan posts that are like "Veganism is bad because ____" are unconsciously employing a lot of intellectually dishonest tactics for the purpose of convincing themselves that they are fine with doing something that they're not actually fine with deep down.

So, because intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics is a pet peeve of mine, I can get really into these types of arguments where I try to show an uncomfortable truth to people who are trying to use all sorts of jiggery pokery to make that truth seem false and to shut it down so as to avoid acknowledging that truth.

But alas, arguing with a person who's intellectually dishonest and unaware of their intellectual dishonesty is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. 

You could be making all the right moves, but the pigeon will just crap all over the chess board and claim that they won the game.

Edited May 20 by Emerald

[ExploringReality]

@Emerald

Looking into an animal's eyes while they are about to be tortured, then suddenly realizing that animal is you is a very sobering experience.

[integral]

 

40 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And why would you hold onto such an unsubstantiated claim in the first place, unless this unsubstantiated claim was protecting you from recognizing deeper truths about yourself?

I have accepted to exist is to survive and to be corrupt.

When 100% veganism works for me, that's what I'll be eating. (technological advancements needed)

40 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And you're trying to protect the idea of this unsubtantiated claim under the guise of "embracing the diversity of dietary needs" and "here's a chart about how bell curves work." 

But no matter how you slice it, there just isn't any evidence that 40% of people can never go Vegan. Your claim is baseless.

And there is no evidence to your claim that "Veganism is unhealthy and unsustainable." This claim is also baseless.

The 40% is a number to explain something in an example context, This is not a statistic I'm trying to prove true. This was not a claim of any kind, I'm simply making an example for how in an average you could have 40% of people who do not work well on a diet and still get positive outcomes. If they're testing cardiovascular disease and you put everyone on a vegan diet, everyone will see improvements for cardiovascular disease, yet even if 40% are not actually compatible with veganism the average will still be positive. This is how people lie with statistics.

I don't know what else to say here the conversation has to be on how a bell curve works and how on average works. So you can understand what the study actually says.

Literally the science is not saying everyone can become a vegan, I am not trying to deceive you, I'm not trying to be dishonest I'm literally looking at the science and just saying what is happening. I'm not bending over back backwards corrupting myself to prove a point. You're simply looking at the data and seeing what you want to see.

24 minutes ago, Emerald said:

"Veganism is bad because ____"

I'm not anti-vegan.

I didn't even claim veganism was bad, I'm explaining diversity...

The only reason I even attempted to show science that creates problems with veganism is to show diversity not to prove veganism is wrong.

I get the impression you're taking everything I'm saying as a personal attack.

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, ExploringReality said:

but I a am aware of the brutality of animal slaughter which hurts my heart. It makes me cry what these animals endure.

I really don't want to debate this issue but I'm curious to what you would say when asked how you view the issue of mother nature sending her wrath with hurricanes, floods and tsunamis and all the animals in the way gets killed. What is the difference with that and people killing animals when it comes to how you feel and do you see it differently.

[integral]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

You see, I'm not even trying to convince people to go Vegan. Nor am I saying that Vegan values are universal values.

Like, you won't ever see me randomly trying to convince a person to change their diet.

Nor will you find me trying to convince a person who doesn't care about the well-being of animals to care about the well-being of animals.

I have these arguments mostly because intellectual dishonesty annoys the crap out of me... no matter which form it comes in.

And people who make anti-Vegan posts that are like "Veganism is bad because ____" are unconsciously employing a lot of intellectually dishonest tactics for the purpose of convincing themselves that they are fine with doing something that they're not actually fine with deep down.

So, because intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics is a pet peeve of mine, I can get really into these types of arguments where I try to show an uncomfortable truth to people who are trying to use all sorts of jiggery pokery to make that truth seem false and to shut it down so as to avoid acknowledging that truth.

But alas, arguing with a person who's intellectually dishonest and unaware of their intellectual dishonesty is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. 

You could be making all the right moves, but the pigeon will just crap all over the chess board and claim that they won the game.

You’re the first vegan and person I’ve ever spoken to that rejected the idea of dietary diversity to this extreme.

Very few people are this left-wing extremist on the topic of veganism.

you’re holding an extreme position most vegans don’t even have and you’re calling me intellectually dishonest for suggesting diversity exists

This is ridiculous.

Edited May 21 by integral

[Someone here]

@integral @Emerald  you guys stop this stupidity please. You two pretending to be healthy huh ? Then why you still drink Coca-Cola? 

[Emerald]

23 minutes ago, integral said:

You’re the first vegan and person I’ve ever spoken to that rejected the idea of dietary diversity to this extreme.

Very few people are this left-wing extremist on the topic of veganism.

you’re holding an extreme position most vegans don’t even have and you’re calling me intellectually dishonest for suggesting diversity exists

This is ridiculous.

Another straw man. I haven't rejected the concept of dietary diversity at all.

I even said that I would wager that there are some people who can't go Vegan who have certain conditions like Epilepsy and autoimmune issues.

So, my claim isn't that "dietary diversity doesn't exist".

I'm just pointing out that your claim that "40% of people can go Vegan without compromising their health"  doesn't have any actual evidence to support it.

You're just explaining the general notion of how a bell curve works and claiming that the way that bell curves work is viable evidence to your above claim.

And you are referring to this baseless claim listed above when you're using the term "dietary diversity".

And then you're pretending that my pointing out that there's no evidence to that claim means that I am rejecting the existence of dietary diversity, when I acknowledged it earlier in the thread.

[integral]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

Another straw man. I haven't rejected the concept of dietary diversity at all.

I even said that I would wager that there are some people who can't go Vegan who have certain conditions like Epilepsy and autoimmune issues.

So, my claim isn't that "dietary diversity doesn't exist".

I'm just pointing out that your claim that "40% of people can go Vegan without compromising their health"  doesn't have any actual evidence to support it.

You're just explaining the general notion of how a bell curve works and claiming that the way that bell curves work is viable evidence to your above claim.

And you are referring to this baseless claim listed above when you're using the term "dietary diversity".

And then you're pretending that my pointing out that there's no evidence to that claim means that I am rejecting the existence of dietary diversity, when I acknowledged it earlier in the thread.

No, you think 99% of people can thrive on a vegan diet and your idea of dietary diversity is that 1 percent of people might be sick so therefore they can’t be vegan

This is not dietary diversity. 

 

[Emerald]

Just now, Someone here said:

@integral @Emerald  you guys stop this stupidity please. You two pretending to be healthy huh ? Then why you still drink Coca-Cola? 

My argument isn't about health, at its core. I am of average health, and I am not claiming to be super healthy.

My argument is about how people use evidence-less claims that "plant-based diets are unhealthy" to justify their own actions to themselves.

And to get people to see their self-deceptions, you have to get people to recognize when they are making baseless claims about health... or other things as well.

Otherwise, they can keep hiding themselves from themselves using those baseless claims.

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, integral said:

No, you think 99% of people can thrive on a vegan diet and your idea of dietary diversity is that 1 percent of people might be sick so therefore they can’t be vegan

This is not dietary diversity. 

Yes it is dietary diversity.

I just have a hypothesis that dietary diversity between human beings is subtle... not extreme.

But you have a hypothesis that dietary diversity between human beings is extreme.

But regardless of our own baseless hypotheses on the matter, there is no evidence that exists that "___% of people can't go Vegan without health issues."

That's why I'm saying that I wager that there probably are some people who can't go Vegan, even if they aren't accounted for yet in a study.

And that is me being charitable to your position, despite there being no evidence to support that claim that "some people can't go Vegan."

So, my hypothesis is that there may be a small percentage of people out there who can't go Vegan because of very specific conditions that make plant-consumption more difficult.

But there is ZERO evidence that a large percentage of people can't go Vegan because of EXTREME dietary diversity.

And if it were the case that 40%+ of people are not capable of being Vegan, this would most certainly be accounted for in the litany of studies and meta-analyses that have been done on the human diet.

But there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. You're just pulling that idea out of your own mind.

Edited May 21 by Emerald

[Someone here]

@Emerald define what is "evidence " please .

I don't have to give you an "evidence " that a carnivore diet is better than vegan diet. It's just a justified belief for me personally at this particular point in my life . That's how people actually conduct their lives. Drop this fantastical expectation that people have fucking evidence to back up what they do. 

 "justified beliefs" are used in place of "evidence "when we have a lack of facts.  If you gonna weigh out the evidence for why you're doing whatever you are doing in your life then you might literally just sit back and die.

 

Edited May 21 by Someone here