If eating meat is low-conscious, how Leo is so high conscious?

[Rasheed]

  People who do not eat meat, some of them use the argument that, eating meat is low conscious and it decreases individual’s vibrational frequency, because eating meat contains fear, hatred, and death...If that is true, how Is that Leo Gura eats meat, but he is still very high conscious?

 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

Not all meat contains fear though. For example, hunters in the wild know that if they shoot a deer with a poor shot, and it struggles that meat is going to be very tense and full of fear because of the struggle the animal was dealing with. All those stress hormones were pumped out in the bloodstream to the tissues. If its a killshot, the animal dies right away and the meat is a lot better to eat. 

[Rasheed]

8 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Not all meat contains fear though. For example, hunters in the wild know that if they shoot a deer with a poor shot, and it struggles that meat is going to be very tense and full of fear because of the struggle the animal was dealing with. All those stress hormones were pumped out in the bloodstream to the tissues. If its a killshot, the animal dies right away and the meat is a lot better to eat. 

  So it depends how people kill them? How can person actually know that, while buying? 

[Rasheed]

23 minutes ago, Shiva said:

You cannot reduce high consciousness Vs low consciousness down to a single factor.

It's not that if you do X, suddenly your consciousness drops by 10 points. That's not how it works.

There a also different ways to eat meat. You can consume it recklessly or you can consume it consciously. Also some people have to eat meat out of necessity, they don't have a choice.

In order to survive we always have to kill. Even if you don't eat meat, plants are also living creatures that would prefer not to die. They are just simpler creatures.

The question is, do you kill consciously with minimum impact, just for your own survival? Or do kill recklessly, just because you like the taste, for pleasure?

I would argue that most people are simply ignorant. They are not conscious of the suffering their choice for pleasure is causing and that what they're eating came from an animal concentration camp. 

I think if people were conscious of that they would naturally stop eating meat. It should ring a bell for us knowing that so many gurus, yogis and sages are vegetarians.

But I would also argue that you can be ignorant in this particular area, but highly conscious in other areas, so you can still be very conscious overall.

 Do we have to eat meat out of necessity? I listened to Joe Rogan, he is against veganism. Rogan debunked the movie “The Game Changers”. Also he said that there are no champion, high-level vegan athletes:

• No athletes who started out as a vegan, from the young age.
• There are athletes, who built their strength on animal based diet, switched to veganism, and they declined.

  In this case, can we conclude that people like athletes have to eat meat?

 Also what I found very interesting is that, meats are so nutrient dense that individual does not need to eat lot of it. Looking at most people, they eat too much meat, because they are low conscious. I don’t know this for a fact, but I think Leo does not eat meat like most people, because way most people eat meat, is just straight up wrong...

[Rasheed]

4 hours ago, Shiva said:

@Rasheed You could debunk Joe Rogan again. Some people do that, they debunk the debunkers  But I think watching that is not a very good source of knowledge. It's always very one-sided and the business model is essentially polarization and dogma. So, this is not going to get us very far.

It is true that meat can sustain you longer than broccoli, which is probably why humans had to eat meat to survive during though times to survive. But that's not the situation most of us are in today. Today it's largely a question of choice, even for athletes. It doesn't really matter if they have always been vegan or not. They have shown that you can increase your performance even on a vegan diet as an athlete. However, if that's important to you, they also showed a vegan bodybuilder who hasn't ever eaten meat, he was raised vegan.

 Wow, what you said is very surprising to me. I thought, Joe’s podcast was good source of information. Personally, I can’t call him one sided. Main point I got from his information was: ‘You can be vegan but make sure, you do it right.’ I think movie was very one sided. Also, I want to ask you:

- I like your point, when you said that we must eat meat consciously. Can you explain that in more detail? What do you mean by that? Just how much meat is okay to consume, in your opinion of course...

[Scholar]

12 minutes ago, Rasheed said:

 Wow, what you said is very surprising to me. I thought, Joe’s podcast was good source of information. Personally, I can’t call him one sided. Main point I got from his information was: ‘You can be vegan but make sure, you do it right.’ I think movie was very one sided. Also, I want to ask you:

- I like your point, when you said that we must eat meat consciously. Can you explain that in more detail? What do you mean by that? Just how much meat is okay to consume, in your opinion of course...

Joe Rogan is not a high quality source of information. I have posted this in another thread, but if you are interested to see what it takes to actually understand these topics, and why people like Kresser and even many vegan doctors are misinforming the public due to their incompetence, watch these two videos:

 

It debunks both vegan and anti-vegan arguments made in one of the vegan-vs-nonvegan debates on Joe Rogan.

[Rasheed]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Joe Rogan is not a high quality source of information. I have posted this in another thread, but if you are interested to see what it takes to actually understand these topics, and why people like Kresser and even many vegan doctors are misinforming the public due to their incompetence, watch these two videos:

 

It debunks both vegan and anti-vegan arguments made in one of the vegan-vs-nonvegan debates on Joe Rogan.

 Thanks. 

Why do you think that Joe Rogan's Podcast is not good source of information?

What's your opinion about vegan athletes?

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Rasheed said:

 Thanks. 

Why do you think that Joe Rogan's Podcast is not good source of information?

What's your opinion about vegan athletes?

As far as I know there are cons and pros for different diets and different athletic sports, it seems like some vegans are doing exceptionally well and scoring high despite being a minority.

However it could be that it is more difficult to maintain certain aspects of health on a vegan diet when for example going for body building, like your gut health. The same is true for a diet that includes meat that will damage your cardiovascular system, it might simply be the case that these kinds of things manifest in different ways.

 

I haven't done much research though because I am interested in general health outcomes for the general population, if athletes cannot be athletes on a non-vegan diet, but can otherwise be healthy, I don't think athletes can justify being athletes.

If every athlete was vegan it would remove the performance enhancing attributes of meat either way. If we can survive on a vegan diet, meat would be similar to steroids. Steroids for which you would have to kill animals.

It could be that in a certain way meat does improve our performance, possibly cognitive as well as athletic, and that we are, due to having always consumed meat, used to this performance improvement as our normal way of feeling.

If that was true it would simply mean we would need to get used to our new state or find other performance enhancing things that do not cause the mass slaughter of animals and the destruction of our environment, or go to sources that cause less amount of harm, like insects, mussels and so forth.

 

To kill a cow for performance enhancement is to me a little crazy.

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

16 hours ago, Rasheed said:

  So it depends how people kill them? How can person actually know that, while buying? 

Yes it does. All you can really control is buying high quality organic meats where the animal could roam free, eat its natural diet, be healthy and live a happy life (to the best of our assumption) while eating meat in moderation (having a primarily plant based diet). If you are an athlete lets say and you have high energy requirements, your body will require more protein and you can process cholesterol better. So lifestyle factors are super important. Also some meats don't have to be killed (eggs)

In order to be a vegan athlete you have to make sure you are getting the full amino acid profile in your plant proteins, whether that be from combining plant proteins (brown rice+beans) to get the complete amino acid profile or getting complete plant proteins (quinoa) and would be very helpful to supplement with a plant protein powder if you are focused on performance. 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

8 hours ago, Scholar said:

Joe Rogan is not a high quality source of information. I have posted this in another thread, but if you are interested to see what it takes to actually understand these topics, and why people like Kresser and even many vegan doctors are misinforming the public due to their incompetence, watch these two videos:

 

It debunks both vegan and anti-vegan arguments made in one of the vegan-vs-nonvegan debates on Joe Rogan.

Instead of do an 8 and 5 hour nitpick session making snarky remarks (whether they are right or not) about people who aren't there to reply back to them why not just make a condensed high quality video stating their own viewpoints on their side of the issue with more of a big picture perspective. This is childish imo, a bunch of intellectual masturbation nitpicking studies. And has nothing to do about me agreeing with them or not. 

[Scholar]

44 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Instead of do an 8 and 5 hour nitpick session making snarky remarks (whether they are right or not) about people who aren't there to reply back to them why not just make a condensed high quality video stating their own viewpoints on their side of the issue with more of a big picture perspective. This is childish imo, a bunch of intellectual masturbation nitpicking studies. And has nothing to do about me agreeing with them or not. 

That's a way to dismiss the information. How else do you expect someone to teach you something? By making 10 minute videos about something where you will leave like you think you understood anything?

They go into each single study, and if you did watch it you would realize why they do so. I would look at this is amazing, free education instead of being closeminded and dismissing it because it seems to speak against my agenda.

 

They are explaining why both Kresser and Kahn do not understand the studies they themselves are referring to. And they are willing to debate anyone who will disagree with them, infact these guys do debates regularly. The fact that you dismiss this as childish should in my opinion profoundly worry you, as it implies crazy biases. You are insanely nitpicky, complaining about their style of teaching without any context behind it, without even considering why it might be perfectly suitable for what they are doing or why it might be far more helpful than a 10 minutes "big picture" perspective which leaves most people completely deluded and still misunderstanding most of the stuff.

 

This is like complaining about the length of Leo's videos and asking why he doesn't give big picture perspectives.

 

And this is not just about having a different perspective, about disagreeing about which study is more relevant than another. It goes into the precise reasons why Kresser and Kahn are incompetent on how to read studies, how to do basic statistical analysis, not understanding basic mathematical princples and so forth. This is not merely a disagreement, it reveals why Kresser and Kahn cannot be trusted with their information.

Sadly the world is not suited perfectly for your needs. Plenty of people have found plenty of value in this kind of content and I bet they will came out more knowledgable than you will after watching some "high quality big picture perspective" videos.

[mandyjw]

There are many, many ways we can improve our entire food system to be more friendly to people, animals and the entire earth. 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

That's a way to dismiss the information. How else do you expect someone to teach you something? By making 10 minute videos about something where you will leave like you think you understood anything?

They go into each single study, and if you did watch it you would realize why they do so. I would look at this is amazing, free education instead of being closeminded and dismissing it because it seems to speak against my agenda.

 

They are explaining why both Kresser and Kahn do not understand the studies they themselves are referring to. And they are willing to debate anyone who will disagree with them, infact these guys do debates regularly. The fact that you dismiss this as childish should in my opinion profoundly worry you, as it implies crazy biases. You are insanely nitpicky, complaining about their style of teaching without any context behind it, without even considering why it might be perfectly suitable for what they are doing or why it might be far more helpful than a 10 minutes "big picture" perspective which leaves most people completely deluded and still misunderstanding most of the stuff.

 

This is like complaining about the length of Leo's videos and asking why he doesn't give big picture perspectives.

 

And this is not just about having a different perspective, about disagreeing about which study is more relevant than another. It goes into the precise reasons why Kresser and Kahn are incompetent on how to read studies, how to do basic statistical analysis, not understanding basic mathematical princples and so forth. This is not merely a disagreement, it reveals why Kresser and Kahn cannot be trusted with their information.

Sadly the world is not suited perfectly for your needs. Plenty of people have found plenty of value in this kind of content and I bet they will came out more knowledgable than you will after watching some "high quality big picture perspective" videos.

You didn't get the message of my post at all. Has nothing to do with my agenda or whether or not I agree with their stance. Its their method of presenting information. Nobody said anything about making dumbed down 10 minute videos. I don't have to watch 13 hours of this to form an opinion that I get a childish vibe from it. Especially that guy just eating chips and coughing on the mic every minute. 

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

You didn't get the message of my post at all. Has nothing to do with my agenda or whether or not I agree with their stance. Its their method of presenting information. Nobody said anything about making dumbed down 10 minute videos. I don't have to watch 13 hours of this to form an opinion that I get a childish vibe from it. Especially that guy just eating chips and coughing on the mic every minute. 

You don't have to do anything, I just think your inability to accept flaws in teachers will give you a harder time in this work in general. Integrating different kinds of information from different kinds of sources will not be possible if we get annoyed by presentation style and are unable to retrieve any valuable information.

You had expectations and were spouting them as a critique of said content, when they are not a critique but rather your personal preference.

"But I want it like this, I don't like how they look, how childish they are. I want my information to come in this form, from these kind of people, in this very particular manner!"

 

You came to me with those critiques so expect me to respond to them. I think you are being childish.

[hamedsf]

you can reach a state of consciousness that you could eat two cows a day but your consciousness would be stable. thereby you can eat shit, but be conscious at the same time, please don't confuse things together. 

[RareGodzilla]

I don't really think that veganism is proff of high conciseness. It's still an ideology after all. It tends to be a stage green characteristics, because of that we might have a correlation here. But correlation does not equal causation. 

It's probably the case that high counciousness people tend to be vegans more often. 

[Rasheed]

14 hours ago, hamedsf said:

you can reach a state of consciousness that you could eat two cows a day but your consciousness would be stable. thereby you can eat shit, but be conscious at the same time, please don't confuse things together. 

If person is actually high conscious, why would they still eat meat or junk? 

 

14 hours ago, RareGodzilla said:

I don't really think that veganism is proff of high conciseness. It's still an ideology after all. It tends to be a stage green characteristics, because of that we might have a correlation here. But correlation does not equal causation. 

It's probably the case that high counciousness people tend to be vegans more often. 

In my opinion, more individual increases his consciousness, less he will want meat or junk food. 

 

[hamedsf]

1 hour ago, Rasheed said:

If person is actually high conscious, why would they still eat meat or junk? 

 

In my opinion, more individual increases his consciousness, less he will want meat or junk food. 

 

these statements are true...

but even if he has to eat meat at some point, the meat won't disturb or bring down his consciousness because consciousness is energy-based process, and eating junk-food or meat is related to physical aspect. remember metaphysics and energy takes precedence over physicality. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by hamedsf

[M4sti]

1 hour ago, hamedsf said:

these statements are true...

but even if he has to eat meat at some point, the meat won't disturb or bring down his consciousness because consciousness is energy-based process, and eating junk-food or meat is related to physical aspect. remember metaphysics and energy takes precedence over physicality. 

When people talk stuff like this inside this Forum this is where i start to believe that you are just making stuff out of your A** (plurar not personal) and  present them as it is a reality , what you said makes zero or maybe negative sense to me. If it is that way you present it it just means that i can do whatever i want and still be Godhead consciousness, after all if eating meat is only physical aspect why would not murder be too, or anything i want in any amount and frequency i want, if this 2 aspects of physicallity and meta  do not interact with each other when and how does that energy change ? 

I mean what are we doing here , we say meditation changes your consciousness , drugs changes it also alcohol changes it , but food does not because that is how i like it to be? Why the first have metaphysicall impact and second does not and who will define that? 

[hamedsf]

@M4sti

first of all, welcome to this forum and congratulations on joining, dear new-fledgling newbie! I guess it's your first time in this forum and you'll get used to it. 

second of all, you should be able to learn and draw distinctions between hard drugs, psychedelics and normal nutrition like vegetables and meat, then we'll be able to discuss about the above topics.