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

[Michael569]

He answered this many times before. Also the vegan / non-vegan topic has been discussed many times before, try a bit of history search

[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

[ivankiss]

No offense to anyone reading... But I find most vegans to be incredibly annoying and judgemental people.

There; I said it.

Edited July 7, 2020 by ivankiss

[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

[ivankiss]

@Max_V You put that very nicely, thanks.

I understand where they're coming from. I just don't feel like that's the way to offer an invitation to others to join in. - If that is necessary in the first place. I think one should have the freedom to decide for themselves what suits them best.

Vegans judging carnivores... Carnivores judging vegans... just a play of polar opposites.

[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