Forestluv

All animals do not eat meat.

I've found it super easy to conflate relative and absolute. Yes, what is considered "bad" is relative and there is singularity of all relativity as One Absolute. This can allow for openness to various views, yet this doesn't mean that all relative views are equal in another context. In practicality, we cannot live in a fully nondual state without distinctions. There is both formless and form - and a continuous interplay between the two. What would actually being in a permanent nondual state look like? Sitting as emptiness all day and night without making any distinctions? Nondual vs dual is itself a duality. If I was sitting with a family in which the alcoholic father was beating his wife and kids, I would understand the relativity of his view and from his perspective he is relatively true. I can also see how he has been conditioned and cannot help but to act the way he acts. However, I would not take a "both sides" neutral position. To me, acting in a loving way would be to promote healing within the family (including the father). If you saw an drunk man beating a young child in the street, would you take a "both sides" position and think "the father and child both have a relative view and neither is better". Would you stand by and watch the child being beaten? If you intervened, would you help the father in beating the child? Or would you try to help the child? If you chose to help the child? Why?

As I described above, going the relativist route has truth - yet is often used to bypass and rationalize behavior. If you go a pure relativist route, abusing children is no different than not abusing children. Both are relative and the both are the same in one context. However, this does not mean we don't have values in a relative world. Even though I know that abusing children and not abusing children are the same in one context, I don't use this as a rationale to abuse children. My value is to not abuse children. This is a very common dynamic for minds learning about relativism. The mind can get into an "anything goes because everything is relative" mindset.

@B_Naz I'm not pure vegan. I'm just vegetarian and eat fish every once in a while. Yet, I try to reduce my meat and animal product consumption. In particular, I really like cheese and fake cheese is nowhere near the real thing. I realize by eating cheese I am still contributing to inhumane treatment of animals, yet I'm still in the process of evolving. As well, I tried going 100% vegan for a while and I found it difficult. I know these are selfish reasons, yet that's just where I'm at now in my development. Yet humans don't need to torture life before consuming life. Hopefully, we rise to a higher conscious level. For me, there is a difference between consuming the life of a plant and consuming a chicken that has led a life of pain and suffering.

This is taking a meta view to all relativistic positions. This has value in one context, yet lacks value in another context. It can be a form of bypassing. This is not the "pre/trans fallacy" in this context. An alcoholic father that beats his wife and children may tell his wife "I think I am a good father. Calling me a "bad" father is your relative opinion. Don't be dogmatic about it. My opinion that I am a good father carries as much weight as your opinion that I am a bad father". . . In one context this is true, however in another context it is nonsense and can be used to bypass and rationalize behavior that harms others. (And yes, I understand that "harm" is also a relative term).

Veggie patties have about the same amount of protein as meat patties. There is no need to eat meat to reach your protein goals. You can choose to eat meat, yet it is not necessary to meet your protein needs if you live in a developed country.

@Parththakkar12 Regarding holding men accountable, I'm curious about the backlash if a man sticks up for a woman. In general. . . Let's say that a guy was at a gathering and a couple men were sexually harassing a woman. Perhaps, they have isolated her and touching her inappropriately (yet not as extreme as grabbing her genitalia). The woman is visibly uncomfortable. If a man stepped in and said "This is inappropriate. Respect women and stop harassing her". . . How would this go over? . . . I would think that the response could still depend on circumstances - yet I'm curious about in general how a man who came to the defense of a woman in this situation would be treated.

I add protein powder to my smoothies. I often see protein powder on sale for 50% off, and then I stock up. It is actually cheaper than meat protein and more convenient.

The attitude and the behavior of the other person is irrelevant. Look at the issue, your own personal values and ask if you are behaving according to your values. In this case, ask "How do I feel about factory animal farming? Is this something I want to contribute to?". Focusing on other people is a distraction from forming your own structure of values. If you decide that your values mean contributing to factory animal farming, great. Own it as your personal value.. . If you decide that your values mean not contributing to factory animal farming, great. Own it as your personal value.. . . If you have an inner conflict between personal values and personal behavior, great - then be that. . . . Focusing on the behaviors of others can be a distraction from introspecting one's own values and whether one is behaving in a way that is consistent with their values. With this introspection, there are many different responses a person can take. For example, after this introspection a person may decide "I am no longer willing to eat factory farmed meats. I will now only eat free range meats. This feels aligned to my values". If I was mistreating my pet dog and people around me brought this to my attention, I could react by saying "These people are like PETA jehova witnesses. They are so rude to shove their beliefs down my throat!!". This is a distraction from looking at one's own values and one's own behavior. It is a distraction from self reflection and asking "How has my behavior toward my dog impacted my dog? Do I want to be the type of person that contributes to harming my pet dog?" In asking this, the person may decide "Beating my pet dog allows me to release anger so I don't beat my wife and kids" and they may decide to continue abusing their dog. Or the person may realize "I'm harming my pet dog when I get angry. That isn't aligned with my values. I should look for other ways to release my anger. Perhaps rather than beating my dog when I get angry, I can go to the gym and lift weights to blow off steam. That way I'm not harming any beings".

Jesse Jackson was a prominent civil rights leader decades ago. His influential peak was probably in the 1980s. He likely has a positive impact on older black voters, yet less so with younger black voters. I imagine that a lot of young people haven't even heard of Jesse Jackson. For young black voters, I think someone like Cardi B's endorsement of Bernie would have much more impact.

Rather than doing whatever is uncomfortable, I would ask if engaging in something uncomfortable will lead to growth and expansion - and then trust my intuition. For example, last year I was hiking up to the top of "Devil's Bridge" in Sedona, AZ. Towards the top, things got precarious. I was right on the edge of cliffs that had drops of hundreds of meters. I have an intense fear of high cliffs and my mind and body went into fight or flight. My body was pumped with stress hormones and I started to experience vertigo and was losing my balance - my mind and body went into a panic. I asked myself "would continuing this hike lead to growth and expansion?". Perhaps facing this fear of heights could expand myself and overcome the fear. Yet the feeling was an emphatic "NO!! Do not do this. Turn around now". There was a sense that if I didn't turn around, I might actually jump off the cliff to make the extremely intense panic stop. That's how intense it was. I decided to turn around - and I'm grateful I did. Yet other contexts are different. Last year I did some EMDR therapy and the psychologist brought me back into some earlier traumatic episodes of my life I had with my father. This also triggered my fight or flight. I became filled with stress hormones and wanted to run away. I again asked my self "Would continuing this lead to growth and expansion?". In this case, the answer was "Yes" and I intuitively knew to continue - even though it was uncomfortable. Yet the psychologist and I agreed that it was good to enter an uncomfortable "stretch zone", yet not enter a "panic zone" that could re-traumatize me.

This is an individualist view that excludes a collectivist view. If I personally stop buying meat in a store, it will have a very small effect. My meat purchases might be only 0.01% of the meat sales in the grocery store (I am only 1 of 1,000 people that buy meat in this store). Obviously, if demand goes down by 0.01% it will go down. Yet I am also buying non meat-products so that demand goes up by 0.01%. As well, I am no ordering vegetarian dishes in restaurants, which means demands for meat dishes goes slightly down and vegetarian dishes goes up. I've been vegetarian for about 20 years and have noticed vegetarian dishes in restaurants keeps increasing. This is because more and more people (including myself) are asking for vegetarian options. As well, I've noticed 100% vegetarian restaurants appearing. And now, there are all sorts of meat-substitute options in grocery stores. Did I personally cause these changes by myself? No. However, I personally participated and contributed to a rising consciousness of what we eat. Both in terms of benefits to animals and benefits to the person's own health. I can't tell you how many times I've order a vegetarian dish in a restaurant and the person I'm with also orders a vegetarian dish. Or the person might make a comment like "I should probably eat less meat". I don't say anything about vegetarianism. It is a collective interaction. . . Collectively, this has an impact on demand for meat and change the meat industry. This could be positive or negative. For example, the meat industry might see the changing cultural attitudes and create a market for "cage free" meats and animal products. Or the meat industry may respond by starting a propaganda campaign that vegetarian diets are unhealthy and meat is needed to get enough protein and vitamins. I still see many people with this attitude. Individual, social and systemic changes are all inter-related and important. At an individual level, someone might go vegetarian - this could peak the interest and curiosity of their friends and family. They could be a good example of living a healthy vegetarian lifestyle. At a systemic level, there could be investment into developing lab grown meats. Both have an impact and are inter-related. It's not like only one has an impact. Factory animal farming is brutal to animals. It causes a lot of pain. It's not like I'm making this up. If anyone visited a factory animal farm and saw the treatment, I don't see how anyone could perceive it as humane. To see it otherwise, one would need to be totally desensitized to the suffering of other beings or create some sort of bizarre story about how it's not really suffering because the animals don't have a sense of self. Or that animals don't really feel pain, or that they don't matter. . . The question then becomes whether a person decides to participate within this or not. The thought of "My behavior won't change anything" does not justify participating in the behavior if one finds it inconsistent with their behavior. For example, a lot of people are tortured for crimes they did not commit. I may think "My behavior won't stop the torture". Even if this is true, it doesn't mean I now have license to participate in the torture. I doesn't mean I can now send money to fund people that torture innocent people.

Looks like a good candidate for a dream board:

This reminds me of an experience I had in Belize a couple years ago. I spent two weeks in an isolated village that was full of love and acceptance. The people had healthy diets - they grew their own fruits and vegetables and caught fish in the ocean. There was a man there from the U.S. that was a Wall Street Broker that had a nervous breakdown and went "insane". He was destined to live in an assisted-living home for the mentally disabled, yet found his way to this small community in Belize. After two years there, he was completely healthy again. That's how healing love and acceptance can be. For me, everyday was like a month of therapy. One day, I was floating in the ocean and had an experience similar to your MDMA experience. My self dissolved. All negative connontations about myself dissolved. There were no more mind attacks. There was simply beingness. This beingness of Now was complete as it is. In the absence of self and mind attacks, the default state of being is what is happening now and it was beautiful. Yet then when I returned home, self-centered thoughts would re-appear. Yet I know had a new perspective. Because awareness "above" these self-centered thoughts arose, there was now an awareness observing them - noticing how they form and the impact on my mind and body. It took some practice and effort - that self-centered attachment/identification and anxiety can dissolve. For example, I would be doing Yin Yoga and reach deep levels of relaxation and "I returned" to that space of floating on the ocean in Belize. . . in my living room!!! I didn't need to spend thousands of dollars and take to weeks off to go to Belize! This was great news. I would be mindful of creating a thing called "enlightenment" that I desire to attain, pursue and experience. In one sense, having an "enlightenment" goal can be motivating to do practice, yet in another sense - the mind/body can become desirous of escaping discomfort and experiencing bliss. This can lead to chasing experiences. For example, I may start thinking that "enlightenment" is that place in Belize, which is not Here and Now. Yet that place in Belize is always Here and Now. Certain practices and psychedelics can reveal this, yet it's very tempting to chase that and think "Here and now isn't it. I want a better here and now". For me, the process has included both: 1) To become aware of, and release, self-referential thought stories and 2) to become unconditionally present Here and Now, regardless of what is happening.

@Heaven A few things that have helped me and have been shown effective in studies for some people: 1. Cognitive reconditioning. Learn how to steer the internal narrative away from negative anxiety producing thought stories. For example, if someone was about to give a public talk, they may get nervous and start thinking things like "I'm so nervous. I'm going to screw up and look like a fool. I'm going to fail this course". This can cause a person to spiral down into anxiety and even panic. . . Replacement positive thought stories might include "I've been through difficult challenges before, I can do this. This presentation is a great opportunity for me to develop skills. Even if I make mistakes, I will learn a lot and it won't be the end of the world. And I have a support group of friends and family." Thoughts of resiliency have been shown to reduce anxiety-related activity in the body - such as the production of stress hormones like cortisol. 2. Trivial distraction. Sometimes it's helpful to distract the mind from an anxiety thought story. For example, if we are hiking in nature feeling anxious about our presentation we are giving in two weeks, it does no good to be worrying about it during our nature hike. This is a time to be in a rest and recovery mode. A trivial neutral distraction can help. For example, doing a mental puzzle. 3. Distraction into Now. This is bringing attention away from the anxiety-producing event to what is happening now. For example, returning to the breath or feelings in the body. Even things like dropping a pencil over and over - this can bring the mind back to now and help prevent spiraling down. 4. Meditation and awareness. Being able to sit and observe anxious thoughts and feelings from a detached view. 5. EMDR. I've found EMDR to be highly effective for specific triggers. The idea is that the mind and body underwent some form of traumatic experience that has been stored within the subconscious limbic system. The limbic system is a primordial structure of the brain the has no concept of time or rational thinking. For example, someone who gets headaches may start thinking "Omg, I have a brain cancer just like my aunt. I'm going to suffer and die". This can send a person into "fight or flight" mode for their survival. This is irrational thinking, yet the limbic system is pre-rational. . . EMDR therapy goes prior to thought stories. The person just says one foundational statement that is the theme. Mine was "I can't make this stop and it's never going to end". And that's it. No more thought stories. With EMDR, the person does alternative tapping or listens to alternative beats. The person is guided back to when the seeds of "I can't make this stop and it will never end" were first planted. The person may go back to that period and interact within the situation (for example, to tell the child it's ok and they are loved. Or to tell the perpetrator that their behavior is harmful). Also, EMDR focuses on how the body is responding (no thought stories). For example, where is the discomfort? In the chest? In the abdomen? Is is a sharp pain? A throbbing pain? Nausea? Shortness of breath? . . . When feeling anxiety, the mind will want to engage in thought stories that generally re-enforce the anxiety dynamic. One thing I like about EMDR is that it does not engage in thought stories. 6. Low to moderate doses of psychedelics. For someone with an anxiety-disorder, higher doses of psychedelics can be helpful or can be traumatic. Similar to EMDR, going into the source of the trauma can be helpful, even if it induces discomfort and anxiety. Yet if it gets too intense, it can re-traumatize the mind and body. Imagine healing from a knee injury. During physical therapy, there will be knee exercises and stretches that are uncomfortable that we would rather not do, yet are good for recovery. Yet we don't want to push the intensity so far that we re-injure the knee. . . Related to anxiety, I've found higher doses to be helpful, yet can be very intense and I would advise caution for those with anxiety conditions. As well, it can be difficult to acclimate, integrate and embody afterwards. Going this route, I would suggest working with a health care provider or those with psychedelic experience. . . I've found low to moderate doses to also be effective and much gentler on the mind and body.

The producers of this video edited the clip to make it seem like Biden endorsed Trump. The full unedited quote is: "We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It's got to be a positive campaign." These are awkward sentences, yet clearly Biden is not endorsing Trump. The edited version only includes: "We can only re-elect Donald Trump". This is very misleading. When posting political videos, please double check that they have not been flagged online as being manipulatively edited. There are plenty of genuine videos showing that Joe has lost a step. There is no need to use improperly edited videos out of context.

@Derek White In a certain context, I think it’s a good insight and has a lot of value. I’ve used this example of color perception many times. We could extend it broader to include feelings. How do I know what I feel as frustration is the same as someone else? One may get a sense of what someone else is experiencing, yet how does one know it actually is what another is experiencing? In this context, I don’t. This isn’t a problem because what seems like contradictions can co-exist in Truth. For me, this is a key piece of the puzzle, yet there are also other pieces.

There are various ways of understanding people that are all inter-connected. Imagining what it’s like for other people is great, yet it’s usually only a surface level for most people. One needs to be a developed empath to gain empathic understanding through imagination. For example, I spent years volunteering in a psychiatric hospital - I spent many hours talking with people with all sorts of mental illnesses, PTSD, drug addictions, abuse, insanity etc. It was extremely difficult at times. It took a huge emotional and physical toll on me and there were many nights I had trouble sleeping. The empathic understanding I gained came from these interactions and opening myself up. It’s much harder to reach these empathic levels sitting on one’s couch at home imagining what it might be like for someone with a psychiatric issue. Yet at high levels it’s possible. I’ve watched documentaries on psychopaths and people confined to solitary confinement. I’ve reached places of empathic “getting it” that we’re moderately traumatic. If I went deeper it would have been too traumatic to my mind and body. Yet this has taken 20+ years of work in this area, including psychedelics. Most people are way too immersed, identified and attached to their sense of self and personal filters to access this. Questioning “how do I know this is imagined or real?” has value in certain contexts. Especially early on, when the self wants to remain in control. Yet at deeper levels, this type of intellectual questioning and analysis is a distraction and deterrent. It can actually block development. This is one reason why psychedelics can be extremely powerful in developing this modes because it bypasses this block.

That is not what I am referring to as post-rational. I don’t consider your thought construct to be empathy. One does not learn and understand empathy through thought stories of what empathy is. To learn about empathy in this case, it would be more beneficial to actually go live with people that are suffering in harsh conditions for a while. Perhaps three months to a year. Volunteer to help them. Listen to them. Cry with them. Experience the struggle with them until one knows what it’s like. That is much more than thinking up stories at a surface level. Empathic understanding of another through imagination is a very high empathic level for developed empaths. Not for normies. Most normies could only reach a moderate level of sympathy or compassion through their imagination - nowhere near empathic understanding.

I’ll write some ideas. I’m not claiming that they are objectively true. There are many views possible. Why would yellow be empathetic? . . . Does yellow include rational thinking and logic (stage Orange). Of course it does. Yellow doesn’t lose or discard their rational thinking. Similarly, yellow doesn’t discard or lose empathy (stage green). It all gets integrated together. For many people, logic is more dominant to empathy. Yet a well-integrated yellow will be balanced with both logic and empathy. Regarding the empathy with stones: there are a lot of nuances and developmental stages of empathy, similar to intellectual nuances and stages. One could say having empathy for stones is an irrational because it is based on an irrational belief (thoughts). Is this not the same as saying the beliefs are stage purple (magical) beliefs. If so, yellow can factor in that this feeling with the stones as stage purple. Yet such a phenomena can also be post-rational and go as high as Turqoise. Here, what is real and imagined breaks down. Here we create our own reality - the energetic connection with the stone is as real and imagined as the energetic connection with a human. Regarding the original topic, empathetically knowing harm dynamics is a high level of understanding, imo

@TrynaBeTurquoise It's not just the method of killing. The life experience is an issue as well. Some animals are kept in crowded cages and are so stressed they attack each other. As well, animals are often pumped up with drugs to increase productivity. There is a huge amount of stress and pain. For those into energetics and karma - the karmic trauma and suffering endured by these animals is in the meat one eats.

That is a point from a collectivist systems view, yet that doesn't mean the individualist view is a strawman. People don't need to eat factory farmed meat to survive. In developed countries, there are plenty of other options that are just as easy as eating factory farmed meat. I'm vegetarian and it's super easy. It's so easy to be vegetarian in the US that it doesn't even cross my mind. There are vegetarian options everywhere, it is just as convenient and isn't more expensive. As well, the collectivist systems view you offer assumes it is of value to continue animal farming for human consumption. We could also have a collectivist systems view that includes synthetic meat or lab grown meat.

I try to help Orange up to Green and Green up to Yellow (if they desire). I sprinkled in plenty of Yellow in my last comments and can sprinkle in some more: This is not confirmation bias. Notice how several relative views were offered. There is the relative view that suffering of sentient beings is bad, there is the relative view that the suffering of sentient beings is not bad. As well, there are human biases I've been pointing out. which is stage Yellow. Notice how nearly all humans have a human-centric view on this issue. Yellow has integrated and embodied Green. Thus, yellow understands the relative view of Green - and not just intellectually. Yellow has embodied and understands the green trait of empathy. Yellow will have empathy for the suffering of sentient beings and understand how other humans have empathy for the suffering of sentient beings. Yellow will integrate this into a holistic view. . . One of the dangers of Orange trying to skip green is that there will be splotches of yellow with huge green deficiencies and green shadows.

First, microbes are not sentient beings. So that argument is irrelevant. Second, I stated that the view I offered was based on the assumption that suffering of sentient beings is bad and causing that suffering is unethical. From a yellow-level perspective I understand that this is a relative view, which is why I stated the assumption. As well, the pro-meat eating arguments in this thread are at an Orange level. If one accepts the relative claim that suffering of sentient beings is bad, it is very difficult to justify participating in the animal suffering of factory farming. If one does not accept the relative claim that suffering of sentient beings is bad, then that opens up a can of worms. . . now harvesting, suffering and eating human babies is not bad. It would be ok to raise babies in crowded cages, pump them full of drugs so their meat tastes tender, slit their throats and allow them to slowly die before we eat them. Either way, there is a dilemma because of the biased human-centric view. We could add in all sorts of rationalizations why humans are an exception, yet we would continually encounter human bias. And my diet is irrelevant to the underlying truths.

Imagine if AI robots arose that ate humans for energy. The robots don’t need to eat humans for energy, yet they like the crunching sound human bones make when eaten. The robots then create massive concentration camps in which humans suffer. How would humans react to this scenario? . . . This highlights how human-centric and self-biased humans are.