Salvijus

And what if at the end of the debate it turns out that it's true? That meat is indeed necessary for some people to be healthy? Plus consider the fact that not everyone has the same availability of food. Plus not everyone has the same body type. And not everyone has the same health issues. Then veganism the way it is being pushed right now becomes impractical.

They should stop force feeding their pets (cats and dogs) with veggies, that's for sure. They should stop seeing killing as some unjustifiable sin. Because you can't live without killing. And they should come to terms that humans are half carnivores. Meat is necessary for many to be healthy. The only thing vegans got right is that it's wise to avoid unnecessary killing and minimize the cruelty as much as possible. But they are pushing those ideals to impractical levels. Even to the point of trying to make pets vegetarian lol. Wtf.

It's not about feeding good. It's about showing the limitations of vegan philosophy and coming to terms with some harsh truths of reality

Maybe if Vegans did more philosophy aswell they would realize their utopian way of thinking doesn't exist and is not practicable. Partially practicable tho. There're some good things in their ways of thinking. But it needs improvement.

There's a certain beauty in studying other people's reasoning imo. Reasoning is an art. Just appreciate it without becoming defensive about your own position. That openess to look and appreciate different reasonings people come up with is an auspicious quality and a sign of intelligence. Yea I watched that interview. It's dope.

I think you've missed the point of the comment. I wanted to bring awareness how much vegans participate in cruelty just by using their phone and enjoying city life. Which goes against everything they stand for. It doesn't matter how many times you respond. You're not going to prove that 1. Life on earth without killing is possible. 2. And that eliminating meat entirely is practicable. Once you accept the first truth, you've justified killing in general to survive. And the only question becomes where do you draw the line of what is too much killing? And the line is wherever it's practicable and sustainable. And that means meat is not outside that line. Although the way it is being done today is unnecessarily cruel and could be reduced. That I agree and support. If that's what vegans stand for then we are best friends.

The only way you can live in alignment with Vegan values is if you're living naked in a jungle. Because guess what, the moment you're using your phone, car, city comforts. It's all participating in destruction and cruelty in some shape or form. Just for you to have your phone people are slaving and poisoning themselves mining cobalt and you're using those products.

Okay but it's yet to be invalidated. You guys are just running circles calling what I say bs and saying nothing of substance.

You're yet to say something that would invalidate any of my points.

Killing is killing. Once you've justified killing even a microbe, knowingly or unknowingly you've justified killing to live in general. My points were: 1. Killing is unavoidable in order to live. 2. Eliminating meat entirely is not practicable. 3. It's good to avoid unnecessary killing. Your input makes no difference to these points.

Okay I was under the impression that RFK had the same level of qualifications and quality of research as other experts giving him an equal weigh in the opinion.

The thing is, even the highest level experts and scientists have differences in opinion on different subjects. How can you possibly know who's right when you're yourself not a scientists or an expert in those fields? And even if you were an expert, your opinion would still not have more weight than any other opinion from other experts that disagree with you.

I go with the flow 🏄

"all those experts are retarded also, he he he, check mate "

You're clearly blessed with a profound insight into all things my friend 💪

I will reflect on that. Thank you. 🌟🌸🦋

🙏 🪷 ❤️

Well said.

Ok

Because the problem is not the perception of the world that people have. It's the condition of the perceiver itself that is either in alignment with truth and integrity or is actually clouded with shadow aspects of the ego. And that is where correction is actually meaningful. Because perception of reality is often just a reflection of the condition of the perceiver. So bringing awareness to the perceiver is most foundational and important and can bring nothing but positive changes since self awareness always aligns the perceiver closer to truth. The opinions people chose to hold is not really my concern. Everyone have always and will always have different opinions on different things. That's normal.

"Let's come together and ridicule people we don't like even more. He he he. What satisfaction. Mm " Edit. Due to lack of vigilance to be self-aware my ego energy got involved into this last reply. Sorry. But the observation of the forum’s bahvior here still holds value I believe so I'm gonna leave the comment.

It's constructive only if it brings value to the table. Unless your nice words help others broaden their perception, it amounts to verbal abuse only.

And what are people going to achieve by complaining about it? And worse then that, extensively deregating and trash talking them? I understand constructive critism can be valuable. But that's not what I see here.

Sorry I edited. "Trash talk"