Why are you not vegan Leo?

[Aratrok]

I do not agree that this is everyone's personal choice, just like beating people up isn't.

Those are sentient creatures.

You can be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet. Even if running on carbs mainly isn't optimal for you, you can run on plant fat mainly instead.

I believe you have more opportunity and possiblity than most people have, to manage any difficulties that could come up.

Edit: What were your issues in detail and why do you think they can't be resolved on a vegan diet?

Edited July 7, 2020 by Aratrok

[Max_V]

@Aratrok The diet doesn't work for some people. Every body is different. 

[Aratrok]

1 minute ago, Max_V said:

@Aratrok The diet doesn't work for some people. Every body is different. 

@Max_V What diet?

[Max_V]

@Aratrok Vegan.

[Aratrok]

1 minute ago, Max_V said:

@Aratrok Vegan.

@Max_V Which one?

[Max_V]

@Aratrok I'm not going to play these word games with you. I was vegan for some time, and I know what you're going to say.

"It wasn't a well planned vegan diet", "It wasn't a whole foods plant-based diet.", etc.

What I am simply stating is that for some people, even though they plan their diet perfectly and try everything, their body does not like it. And so they need to expand what they can eat in order to satisfy it.

 

 

[Aratrok]

28 minutes ago, Max_V said:

@Aratrok I'm not going to play these word games with you. I was vegan for some time, and I know what you're going to say.

"It wasn't a well planned vegan diet", "It wasn't a whole foods plant-based diet.", etc.

What I am simply stating is that for some people, even though they plan their diet perfectly and try everything, their body does not like it. And so they need to expand what they can eat in order to satisfy it.

 

 

Not a word game at all. Depends on the reason why he just wasn't running on it, there is no one simple vegan diet. @Max_V

Edited July 7, 2020 by Aratrok

[Max_V]

@ivankiss I understand that viewpoint completely. Although I do urge you to try to see why that is. 

It comes from a place of love. Love that gets distorted into hate, because they genuinely think that their perspective is best and is the most benevolent and loving one. They lose themselves in their morals and values to such an extent that to them they appear objective facts of the world. So, if you follow that, you can see that they are acting exactly how they're supposed to act, coming from how their inner psychology and belief structure is set up. In that sense I respect them, because they are rigorous in standing up for what they believe in, and you can see the passion oozing off from their behavior. But, often they fail to see that that bleeding heart passion can sometimes turn people away from entertaining their positions.

I'm not saying that one viewpoint is better than the other, but what I am saying is that openness is the only path to finding out what's real.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Max_V

[Farnaby]

I used to be vegetarian and I agree that veganism is the most environmentally and animal friendly option.

However, I also found myself craving some seafood and meat after a couple of years and it felt like self imposed "rigidity" to not allow myself to ever indulge in these foods. 

It feels more natural to allow myself to eat whatever I feel like eating. It's probably selfish, but I'm already too self judgemental to add another reason to beat myself up lol

Plus, my body didn't seem to tolerate a meat and fish free diet as well as if I eat that now and then.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Farnaby

[Aratrok]

One has to be morally on stage green to really grasp veganism where you don't fall back into carnism.

It's easy to just see it as a product and "loss of options" and not contribution to torture and death of sentient life.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Aratrok

[Rigel]

I fell for it too that's alright!

And like that learning happened.

(Speaking about the "holy only one so perfect diet" trap)

[Max_V]

@Aratrok Suppose carnivore is stage yellow (and I'm not saying it is), would you accept that?

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Max_V said:

@Aratrok Suppose carnivore is stage yellow (and I'm not saying it is), would you accept that?

Suppose human slave-holder is stage turquoise, would you accept that?

Suppose human rape and torture is stage coral, would you accept that?

[Max_V]

@Scholar I understand what you're trying to do, but these two are not analogous. Mine involves killing animals for nutrition. Yours involve impingement on freedom and perpetrated acts of violence towards other humans. 

In the relative sense I do not view humans and animals as equals. Simply because a human has more capability to do good and positively change the world than any other animal ever could.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Max_V

[Aratrok]

@Max_V @Scholar

that would make whatever stage you assigned that moral position to back to the moral position of its original stage, otherwise it wouldn't be a transcended version of the one before and the logic would be broken, would require another universe i guess.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Aratrok

[StarStruck]

Do you really want an answer or do you just want to hear that we are monsters because we like juicy healthy steak?

[Scholar]

36 minutes ago, Max_V said:

@Scholar I understand what you're trying to do, but these two are not analogous. Mine involves killing animals for nutrition. Yours involve impingement on freedom and perpetrated acts of violence towards other humans. 

In the relative sense I do not view humans and animals as equals. Simply because a human has more capability to do good and positively change the world than any other animal ever could.

Interesting how you hide your biased position behind a fact that you haven't even established. So far the human species has caused the sixth mass extinction and is causing suffering on a scale never seen before. What exactly do you mean by the capability to do good and postively change the world?

What about a bee, which is essential for our ecosystems. Say that we could prove that a bee had more capability to do good than humans had, would you then say bees were to be more worth in your eyes than humans?

And most importantly what do you say to a human who is not capable of doing anything positive, like a severely handicapped person? Are they to you less equal? Are they less worth of moral consideration than a healthy and productive human being?

Can you see how your own discrimination, your own bias, if applied in the human context would lead to things you would find appalling? Tell your handicapped brothers and sisters that they are worth as much as an animal because they, in a relative sense, are not as capable of doing as much good and positively changing the world, not to forget that the goodness you have defined here is tailored so that it would specifically only apply to humans. The only way you could bypass that is by giving them extrinsic value, reveal your speciesism or by admitting that animals are worthy of moral consideration aswell.

 

You are not very morally evolved, beyond a basic idea of relativism and subjectivism it seems like you cannot see the true consequences of your judgements. I want you to be very careful here and observe your own bias, your own ego, your own limitation of identity playing out and seeking arguments to defend itself, instead of developing a truly fair sense of morality. One day you might look at an animal and see yourself in it, when you give up the boundary you have set up to defend your egoic structures.

 

Ego is survival and you are defending your survival. You aren't different at all from a slave owner, just that instead of race you use speciesism to justify your exploitation.

 

Go and ask Leo if he thinks there is a difference between the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of humans. Go ahead and ask him about what is Good. If you can admit that human slavery is good and okay to do, then I will buy that you have abandoned all ideas of survival. Otherwise you are a slave of the ego, a slave to a limitation set upon yourself by the restrictions of survival, which by definition is more primitive than an ego which has dissolved that boundary and includes more of Other as Self.

 

Say that there were no animals around, would you honestly tell me that you would breed mentally handicapped people and eat them if it meant for your health to be optimal? Would you walk around to someone saying they found that disgusting that they were just expressing their opinion?

 

 

Most people on this forum use moral relativism as a tool to justify their egos needs. Most of you have no idea of the consequences of understanding true relativity. True Relativity means that raping and torturing a baby human is just as Good as exploiting a cow for milk or stepping on an ant.

This is what the devil does, it seels it's own Devilry as some higher spiritual perspective, when it is not. Ironically you show no capacity for self-sacrifice, when that is a hallmark of spiritual development. Rather, you use spiritual concepts to justify your own survival and the suffering you inflict on others.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Scholar

[Aratrok]

@StarStruck steaks aren't healthy though and besides i really do want a more detailed answer other than "energy" or "doesn't fit".

[Max_V]

28 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Ego is survival and you are defending your survival. You aren't different at all from a slave owner, just that instead of race you use speciesism to justify your exploitation.

Exactly, I am a human and I need to survive too. I have a lot of things I want to do with my life, and a lot of problems I want to help find solutions to, and so I value my life. Veganism has showed not to work for me, my body doesn't tolerate it. So I eat what my body feels like it needs to survive and feel good.

Also, you are shoving a lot of extrapolated assumptions into my mouth that I haven't even given you my perspective on. I don't support factory farming whatsoever, and only try to buy what's local, well cared for, and organic. You probably have your contentions with that too, but I value it. Next to that, I told you that generally I value human lives more than animal lives because they are capable of more good in the world. This is simply a fact. If we are not going to argue about semantics here, a human has a lot more creative power that he could put to use to evolve the world than an animal. I acknowledge each animal playing it's own essential part in the ecosystem of nature, but what I'm trying to say is that humans can go beyond their survival, whereas animals seem to not be able to. 

Concerning your point about a human who is not capable of 'anything positive' and perhaps is equal to an animal in how much they could accomplish (which is a very small percentage of people, but let's entertain the possibility nonetheless). I'd say that's a really difficult topic. We can take that to nasty extremes like the ideas of eugenics and genetic favorism. I'd have to think about that more. But right now, if you were to put two people at gunshot: one being a extremely disabled person who some would label a 'vegetable' and one being a well functioning human being who is ambitious and deeply involved with projects that could help evolve society forward, then I would always pick the person who could mean more for the world. But then again, this is difficult and I'd have to think it through more. 

And finally I want to say to you, that morals are entirely groundless. There is nothing upholding them except human minds. No person has the same conceptual structure in their minds as someone else, which means there is nothing objective about them. This does not mean you cannot be a well functioning person while realizing this. Even all the more so I would say. Because at that point you are open to everyone's perspective and experience, and ultimate love has the chance to fill you, because you are not conceptually defining it and sticking to that, but simply letting it be. You can see that everyone and everything is just doing their best and their part.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Max_V

[Scholar]

35 minutes ago, Max_V said:

Exactly, I am a human and I need to survive too. I have a lot of things I want to do with my life, and a lot of problems I want to help find solutions to, and so I value my life. Veganism has showed not to work for me, my body doesn't tolerate it. So I eat what my body feels like it needs to survive and feel good.

You can do whatever you want, I am just here to reveal your devirly.

 

35 minutes ago, Max_V said:

Also, you are shoving a lot of extrapolated assumptions into my mouth that I haven't even given you my perspective on. I don't support factory farming whatsoever, and only try to buy what's local, well cared for, and organic. You probably have your contentions with that too, but I value it. Next to that, I told you that generally I value human lives more than animal lives because they are capable of more good in the world. This is simply a fact. If we are not going to argue about semantics here, a human has a lot more creative power that he could put to use to evolve the world than an animal. I acknowledge each animal playing it's own essential part in the ecosystem of nature, but what I'm trying to say is that humans can go beyond their survival, whereas animals seem to not be able to.

I wasn't addressing factory farming nor even veganism. I was specifically addressing the way your ego is operating. I don't really think a discussion on veganism will be productive at all with someone like you because your identity is too constricted. You fundamentally cannot see Soul.

It is not a simple fact. You are falling into the trap of the ego. You have no clue why you value humans more than animals, you simply claim that the reason why is because "humans are capable of more good in the world". The reason why I am showing you this in another context is so you can see that this is not at all the reason why you care about humans more than animals. It is a story your mind came up with so that it could continue with it's behaviour. You are not a perfectly rational being that one day decided that it will value other things by virtue of that capacity to achieve good in the world. Instead you have an emotional attachment, a configuration of identity, which then you rationalize by whatever means possible. This is fundamentally because of a lack of self-love. That which you judge others for is present in yourself, you simply hide it really well.

If you think you do not judge anyone, watch a video of a human being tortured by a sadist. Unless you have abnormal psychology or are truly enlightened beyond humanity, you will judge that person deeply. And you will fail to recognize that you are judging yourself, that you are watching someone do something which you are doing to others aswell.

 

Think about a racist who says black people are less worthy of life than white people because black people are less capable of creating good. The reason why the racist eventually has to abandon his position is because if there is a white human on the level of capacity to create goodness as what he perceives a black person to be, he has to agree that one of his ingroup is the same as one of the outgroup.

This is really basic identity stuff, I don't know why so many people here fail to see this.

 

35 minutes ago, Max_V said:

Concerning your point about a human who is not capable of 'anything positive' and perhaps is equal to an animal in how much they could accomplish (which is a very small percentage of people, but let's entertain the possibility nonetheless). I'd say that's a really difficult topic. We can take that to nasty extremes like the ideas of eugenics and genetic favorism. I'd have to think about that more. But right now, if you were to put two people at gunshot: one being a extremely disabled person who some would label a 'vegetable' and one being a well functioning human being who is ambitious and deeply involved with projects that could help evolve society forward, then I would always pick the person who could mean more for the world. But then again, this is difficult and I'd have to think it through more. 

Notice how your mind is creating a convinient example to escape the true horrors that your mindset would actually reduce to. We are not talking about a vegetable here, we are not talking about killing a disable person vs a healthy productive person. What we are talking about is killing a human on the level of ability to generate goodness as a cow, an ant or any other being, for nothing but your perception that you feel like veganism is not healthy to you. How much effort have you put into veganism, how many alternatives have you considered? And now ask yourself how much effort would you put into your diet if it wasn't a cow that you were killing, but instead a mentally handicapped person? Not a vegetable, a simple mentally handicapped person on the level of productivity of a cow.

A cow can play, it can have children. It can show affection. It suffers, it feels loss.

Imagine there was a 4 year old that would stay a 4 year old forever. Would you sacrifice that 4 year old to have optimal health? How much effort would you put into not killing that child? How much effort would you put into become a vegan if that was the only alternative?

The fact that you have to think things through shows that you are operating from a post-hoc rationalization, an emotional (egoic attachment) position that you are trying to sell as anything but that.

 

35 minutes ago, Max_V said:

And finally I want to say to you, that morals are entirely groundless. There is nothing upholding them except human minds. No person has the same conceptual structure in their minds as someone else, which means there is nothing objective about them. This does not mean you cannot be a well functioning person while realizing this. Even all the more so I would say. Because at that point you are open to everyone's perspective and experience, and ultimate love has the chance to fill you, because you are not conceptually defining it and sticking to that, but simply letting it be. You can see that everyone and everything is just doing their best and their part.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Again, listen to your emotions. Watch an ISIS video and come back to tell us how you feel. If your feelings tell you that "He is just doing the best he can!", then your identity is actually evolved. If not, you are exhibiting ego, and your entire game of relativism is nothing but a tool for your ego.

 

This is the fundamental problem with this kind of ideological relativism. We are talking about the Absolute Nature of existence, when you apply this to the relative world without bias, you will not be human anymore. Your positions will look like horror to any ego, because that is precisely what the ego is. It is the father of lies, the judge of Perfection. You are applying this relativism only in contexts in which it is convinient to your ego.

 

Again ask Leo what the difference between exploiting a cow and exploiting a human is. Ask him if there is a difference between stepping on an ant and the jewish holocaust. It is funny to me how the ego appeals to the Absolute. You are playing with fire.

If you can suffer on the cross and forgive all sinners, then I will accept your moral relativism.

 

The Absolute is so radical that there are things Leo will deliberately not say to not look like a complete monster. It is even worse. It's not a position of Leo, but it is actually the Absolute Truth. That Truth will look like horror to any ego if it truly saw it's full breath.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Scholar