Are You Vegan?

[Michael569]

@Socrates my point is that there doesn't need to be a conversation. You don't need to throw facts to someone's face. Be the change you want to see in the world and you will disarm your opponent because they will have nothing to defend against. 

Your thoughts and actions will attract those who are like minded and to be honest, screw the rest. He who doesn't want to change will not be changed regardless of the amount of science you demonstrate to them. 

[Loreena]

45 minutes ago, Light Lover said:

Socrates is on a rampage!

Socrates is a Dumpster Diver! he  digs through heaps of trash to separate the trash from the recyclables.

 

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

@Michael569 No dude it doesn't work like that. The cognitive dissonance takes the steering wheel of the conversation and then it is a mess. They bring up spirituality and all kinds of woo-woo and theoretical stuff that don't have anything to do with the real world. You need to bring up real arguments and shift the conversation back to reality where your actions actually have some meaning in order to nail this point down. But when you have so many preconceived notions about reality, ethics, morals, good and bad you can't do that.

 

[Socrates]

@Michael569 Yeah for sure, as Socrates said "The secret to change is to focus all your energy, not on fighting the old, but building the new".

My point here goes deeper. If our work here has margin for even the possibility of not understanding my simple argumentation, something needs to be fixed. It also shows how cognitive bias rules this human machine and that is extremely important for us if we want to be objective and improve. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Socrates

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, BeginnerActualizer said:

Isn't that your own projection onto animals? How do you know that animals don't conceptualize? 

Technically yes. But once you have some direct experiences of non-conceptualized consciousness, you'll get it.

Human babies do not have concepts such as good/evil. At all! They must learn it. They don't even have a concept of self/other until about age 2.5

Try thinking back to when you were a baby.

When you start to a hit on how the mind constructs all these things, then you see the world in a whole new light. And moralistic speeches like Gary's look as absurd as the meat-eater's he's criticizing. Both militant vegans and meat-eaters are using their minds to rationalize their positions without being conscious of what they're really doing. Yes, the vegans are more ecological and kill less animals.

The argument for veganism shouldn't be: killing animals is evil, you are a Nazi murderer.

It should be: in most cases eating animals is unecological, lazy, selfish, and unconscious.

[Godex]

Why if we torture animals, it's a heinous crime, yet when nature does it, nobody complains(and I do mean nobody, never heard that question discussed on TV or in the "mainstream"). If we tried hardest to cause as much suffering as possible, I don't think we'd come anywhere close to what nature is doing. 

Before you start flaming me, I'm vegan. I'm for everybody going vegan as soon as possible. I think the majority of vegans love nature, being in nature, marveling at its "beauty and magnificence". So to me, they're sleeping with the enemy. 

Save the whales, save the pandas, save the lions. Save them for what, so we can harvest them or force them to reproduce when they don't want to? Would you like to live the life of a lion? 9 times out of 10 you won't reach maturity, you'll get eaten by hyenas, die of disease, get killed by other male lions, etc. Lions have probably relatively low attrition rates, prey animals have it way worse, in the oceans it's another order of magnitude worse.

What if insects feel metamorphosis? Nature would have no reason to not make them feel their body getting transformed, they're trapped, they might be in intense pain. Even if they feel a fraction of what we do, the huge amount of insects everywhere makes it a terrifying thought. 

I haven't heard many vegans tackle this issue, they're usually on the wrong side of the fence from my perspective and are concerned with preserving animals in the wild. Obviously, eradicating all of the suffering on this planet would leave no room for human activities, for me it's a small price to pay, for most, they'd rather see the carnage go on.

Maybe we could have virtual reality machines on Mars and blow this planet up, while we "watch" from our virtual environments. I don't know if we can cure the disease without giving the average person something in return. I see the chance of we ever coming to grips with reality relatively low, there are even talks of spreading life onto other planets. So it'll be another billion years of this until the sun blows up. The only silver lining is that life is not something the universe summons easily. 

[Socrates]

@Leo Gura Well stated here. Although does it really change anything to tweak the argument? Like they are many people who are completely aware of non-duality and wait for vegan advocates to drop their moralizing aspect to switch. It seems more likely that the message should be tailored for the reciever who is highly unconscious (of course not intentionally by Gary). At the end of the day it is better to make his kind of argument than non at all. At least there is some action involved in his case that is actually helping.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Socrates

[pluto]

Well said, Michael and Leo

Edited May 9, 2017 by pluto

[Scholar]

14 hours ago, Godex said:

Why if we torture animals, it's a heinous crime, yet when nature does it, nobody complains(and I do mean nobody, never heard that question discussed on TV or in the "mainstream"). If we tried hardest to cause as much suffering as possible, I don't think we'd come anywhere close to what nature is doing. 

Before you start flaming me, I'm vegan. I'm for everybody going vegan as soon as possible. I think the majority of vegans love nature, being in nature, marveling at its "beauty and magnificence". So to me, they're sleeping with the enemy. 

Save the whales, save the pandas, save the lions. Save them for what, so we can harvest them or force them to reproduce when they don't want to? Would you like to live the life of a lion? 9 times out of 10 you won't reach maturity, you'll get eaten by hyenas, die of disease, get killed by other male lions, etc. Lions have probably relatively low attrition rates, prey animals have it way worse, in the oceans it's another order of magnitude worse.

What if insects feel metamorphosis? Nature would have no reason to not make them feel their body getting transformed, they're trapped, they might be in intense pain. Even if they feel a fraction of what we do, the huge amount of insects everywhere makes it a terrifying thought. 

I haven't heard many vegans tackle this issue, they're usually on the wrong side of the fence from my perspective and are concerned with preserving animals in the wild. Obviously, eradicating all of the suffering on this planet would leave no room for human activities, for me it's a small price to pay, for most, they'd rather see the carnage go on.

Maybe we could have virtual reality machines on Mars and blow this planet up, while we "watch" from our virtual environments. I don't know if we can cure the disease without giving the average person something in return. I see the chance of we ever coming to grips with reality relatively low, there are even talks of spreading life onto other planets. So it'll be another billion years of this until the sun blows up. The only silver lining is that life is not something the universe summons easily. 

You have a misunderstanding of what suffering is. Pain is not suffering, it's not bad at all. If you like pain, you like pain, like any other feeling there is. The feeling pain is just a way of communication. Suffering is when one is resisting a certain sensation, a certain feeling. The feeling of love can cause just as much suffering as the feeling of pain, the only reason it doesn't, is because we do not resist it.

The feeling is not what is causing the suffering, the resulting resistance is. All of it is part of the survival mechanism, it evolved out of efficiency. There is no reason for a fly to resist pain, it's behaviour does not require that much of a complex system to operate. And what is unnecessary is what gets selected out.

One day we will most likely be capable of creating creatures that do not suffer whatsoever. If a being is not programmed to resist, it will not resist, no matter what is happening to it. Infact, it will even be possible to make beings enjoy what they previously resisted. Death, pain, loneliness, all that we human consider as bad.

You are projecting your own programming onto that of other beings. A fly does not feel lonely, because there is no reason for it to suffer in that instance. Human beings feel lonely for the only reason that it was an effective tool for survival. Beings that felt lonely, and resisted the feeling, had to find companionship, which in turn increased it's chances for survival. The same goes for fear of death, for pain, for all that makes us suffer.

 

The lion does not suffer the way you suffer. In a natural enviroment there is always a balance of suffering and enjoyment, even if there are exceptions. The lion is not sad because he can only live 10 years, that's a human projection that you do. Your empathy is delusion.

What we as human beings have created is an enviroment that creates suffering that is most likely comparable to that of a mass extinction. The trillion of beings that we put into an enviroment that they are not made for, is what is causing resistance in them, which in turn is suffering.

This is why I think your evaluation is wrong. Humans do create far more suffering than nature does. But this very statement implies that humans are seperate from nature, which is of course a very naive thought. We are the process of nature. There is absolutely nothing about us that is beyond natural.

Beings avoid suffering, which is the very reason why we want to get enlightened. It is the absolute solution to that problem. But once it's there, you don't see suffering as problem anymore. It is quite interesting, because it is a change in the fundamental programming of the mind.

 

It's quite ironic if you think about it. We resist suffering so much that we even resist the idea of suffering itself. The not wanting to suffer itself is creating suffering.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scholar

[WaveInTheOcean]

 

[Emerald]

On 5/8/2017 at 5:19 PM, Socrates said:

@Leo Gura Well stated here. Although does it really change anything to tweak the argument? Like they are many people who are completely aware of non-duality and wait for vegan advocates to drop their moralizing aspect to switch. It seems more likely that the message should be tailored for the reciever who is highly unconscious (of course not intentionally by Gary). At the end of the day it is better to make his kind of argument than non at all. At least there is some action involved in his case that is actually helping.

It really does make a difference how you frame the argument. If the argument reflects something true and integrating as opposed to something false and divisive, the message is going to be heard by far more people. I know from firsthand experience that the expansion in awareness that Veganism (done consciously) entails is very uncomfortable. You come face to face with your own feelings of powerlessness to deal with such a huge and truly gruesome issue. It's really a "Soylent Green is people" moment. And you give up an often cherished behavior that you've had your entire life. You will never sway someone by shaming them or saying they're evil or that their actions are evil. People are wired to identify themselves with goodness, and are unlikely to accept this interpretation of their actions. So, to resist what feels negative, people will clamp down tighter on the thing about them that's criticized, and meat-eating will become a cherished identity as opposed to just something that they do. They will be so turned off by Veganism and Vegans, that they will resist it with vehemence. That's why so many people hate Vegans, and see them as self-righteous and judgmental. No one wants to be that. So, the shaming game works at cross-purposes to Veganism, because a lot of people don't want Veganism as part of their identity. 

Whenever, I converse with people about my choice to be Vegan, I always want to make sure to make a person feel a sense of non-judgment from me. After I tell them, a lot of people begin right away with a justification, and a kind of guilty reaction. Deep down, many know that the behavior is incongruent to their values. As I said in a comment before: most people have Vegan values even if their actions don't match those values. So, they unconsciously judge themselves, and fear the same from others who have chosen to abstain. So, my intention is to ease the tension and open them up, so I just tell them, "Dude. My clothes were sewn together by slave children. I'm not better than you." This makes people let their guard down and they get a feeling of positivity from the conversation. When a person feels positively about someone else and they feel heard, they are likely to mirror some of your behaviors. And if they'd already been considering giving up meat or going Vegan, it might just be the inspiration that gives way to the lifestyle change. But you can't expect people to make a colossal leap before they're ready. I know I wouldn't have been ready for Veganism even a few months before my transition. So, I just want to lead by example, and maybe open people up to new perspectives and give them the sugar needed in case they should decide to take the bitter medicine. And if they decide not to take the bitter medicine, I still gift them the sugar. 

[Prabhaker]

51 minutes ago, Dead_Mouse said:

Siddartha Gautama ate meat if it met those criteria as well.

Some Buddhists claim that eating meat is acceptable according to the Buddha, and that even the Buddha himself ate meat. But this claim is gainsaid by the Buddha in this final of his Mahayana sutras. If one wishes to cultivate Great Loving-Kindness and not frighten sensitive sentient beings by the stench of death which meat-consumption causes to linger about one’s person, one should refrain from eating all and every kind of meat. This is the Buddha’s final Mahayana pronouncement on the matter. 

     Here is the whole relevant section – a mini-seminar between the Buddha and his Bodhisattva follower, “Maha-kasyapaika-gotra” - on vegetarianism, from the Tibetan version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

     Then Maha-Kasyapaika-gotra asked, “If it is very important to uphold the

     impropriety of meat-eating, would it not then be wrong to give meat to those

     who do not want meat?”

     [The Buddha replied:] “Excellent, noble son, excellent! You have understood

     my intention. One who protects the authentic Dharma should not do that.

     Noble son, henceforth I do not permit my sravakas [disciples] to eat meat. If I 

     have said that [one should view] the country’s alms-food as the flesh of one’s 

     son, how could I permit the eating of meat? I teach that the eating of meat

     cuts off Great Loving-kindness [maha-maitri].”

     “Blessed One, why did you permit the eating of meat that was blameless in

      three respects?”

     “Because I stipulated these three types of blameless as a provisional basis of

      training; I now discard them.”

   http://www.nirvanasutra.net/mpnsvegetarianism.htm

[pluto]

On 5/10/2017 at 5:12 AM, Dead_Mouse said:

I eat some meat, but I'd rather be a vegetarian. I'll also eat it when offered. Humans evolved to eat meat, and for our bodies to function properly we need nutrients that are difficult to come by outside of animal protein.

I don't see a problem with eating animal products like eggs if the animals weren't abused or exploited. Chickens lay eggs anyway, so no reason to let them rot. Of course the type of abuse that goes on at some egg farms is horrific, and it is good to be mindful about sourcing products.

Sorry to break it to ya but this is false and out-dated information, merely the way we have been conditioned to believe and think our whole lives. Highly educated, health conscious people on these subjects know that to thrive optimally plants are the more intelligent choice. Compare Spirulina or Hemp seeds to Meat for example. Beans and Lentils also far outweigh meat in absorption and nutrient density.

Checkout https://nutritionfacts.org/

Edited May 11, 2017 by pluto

[WaveInTheOcean]

2 hours ago, Dead_Mouse said:

Let me preface this with I'm not trying to convert anyone to eating meat. I am trying to be a vegetarian myself.

That said, the facts are the facts: Not all proteins are created equal; animal protein is classified a "complete" protein for humans as it contains all the amino acids our bodies need to function optimally. There are like 2O of these acids your body needs, and there are around 5 of them which either can only be found in animal protein, or if they exist in certain types of soy, for example, it is only in trace amounts and it's difficult to consume enough of the product to get the correct ratio of these amino acids.

There are also some vitamins which are optimally absorbed through animal proteins: such as B12, D, and a certain type of iron which can only be found in animal protein. There are other things, such as BHA, which our brains need to function normally, which do not exist in plants. Vitamin supplements also have a low absorbtion rate (for some people it being 0% with certain vitamins), so it can be very difficult, and frankly, sometimes impossible for some people to get all the nutrients they need without eating meat. This is why some vegans have a lot of health problems--we weren't meant to be strictly plant eaters.

What a big load of crap. Can't you stop writing false information? Never have I read so much fucking bullshit in a comment. I'm puzzled if you just fabricate stuff in your mind or what the hell is going on here?

First of all, a healthy human body only requires an intake of 9 different amino acids, the so-called essential amino acids, which are phenylalanine, valine, threonine, tryptophan, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, lysine, and histidine.

The remaining 11 amino acids that the body also uses in building protein, the body can synthesize itself from those 9 amino acids as necessary.

Do soy beans contain phenylalanine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 2.122 g per 100 g.

Do soy beans contain valine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 2.029 g per 100 g.

Do soy beans contain threonine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 1.766 g per 100 g.

Do soy beans contain tryptophan? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 0.591 g per 100 g.

Do soy beans contain methionine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 0.547 g per 100 g.

Do soy beans contain leucine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 3.309 g per 100 g. 

Do soy beans contain isoleucine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 1.971 g per 100 g.

Do soy beans contain lysine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 2.706 g per 100 g.

Do soy beans contain histidine? Yes, and not in trace amounts. 1.097 g per 100 g.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean)

"Soy protein products can be good substitutes for animal products because, unlike some other beans, soy offers a 'complete' protein profile. ... Soy protein products can replace animal-based foods—which also have complete proteins but tend to contain more fat, especially saturated fat—without requiring major adjustments elsewhere in the diet." - FDA

"There are also some vitamins which are optimally absorbed through animal proteins: such as B12, D, and a certain type of iron which can only be found in animal protein."

"optimmaly absorbed through animal proteins" ... right.. It shrines through clearly that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

When iron is absorbed into the blood by the way, it's iron. There are no special types of iron. Iron is iron. However, it's true that there are certain complexes of iron that are easiler absorbed than others, and these complexes can be found in red meat only, right. However, there are high amounts of iron in many vegetables such as broccoli and also high amounts in corn products. It isn't hard to get enough iron without eating meat.

". Vitamin supplements also have a low absorbtion rate (for some people it being 0% with certain vitamins)" - source? And when I mean source I mean a scientific study, or a site that refers to a study at least.

Again this is just not true. B12 vitamin and iodine, for instance, are easily supplied through a dietary supplement.

"sometimes impossible for some people to get all the nutrients they need without eating meat." No. No. No. 

...

Also, "BHA" ... what the fuck are you talking about? What is this BHA-compound that our brain need? Never heard about it. Are you talking about this carcinogenic compound (?:D) :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butylated_hydroxyanisole

Edited May 10, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[pluto]

^Exactly, simply lack of education. @Dead_Mouse soy, spirulina, hemp and many other plant sources are not just complete but more nutrient dense gram per gram. I don't even want to bother replying to the Vitamin part because that is ridiculous...

You must de-program and re-program if you want to see a clearer picture and again checkout https://nutritionfacts.org/ to properly educate yourself on these subjects.

All those things you are saying are myths, purely profit-based and have been debunked sorry to say. I'm not against anyone that chooses to eat meat or animal products that is their choice and problem but i will not allow out-dated misinformation to be continuously spread. Truth and raising awareness is #1 priority.

I suggest you re-educate yourself because its very silly all those things you are saying and quite out-dated. All the best.

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by pluto

[Socrates]

Well fucking said @pluto & @WaveInTheOcean 

[electroBeam]

@pluto

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316194551.htm&ved=0ahUKEwjNsuOcpeXTAhXBUbwKHbCZCXAQFgivATAT&usg=AFQjCNEjQYmpyawTK7VSGht3MImQzoP8Bw&sig2=LiqwAW9d5izem-l_FgZu4w

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://authoritynutrition.com/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants/&ved=0ahUKEwjNsuOcpeXTAhXBUbwKHbCZCXAQFgiyATAU&usg=AFQjCNF7m8bkCObROUM1FTjVR87rHUWelg&sig2=bbPAgOavfIq6gSk1RMWmaQ

 

Being a vegan, is actually dangerous.

[Prabhaker]

1 minute ago, electroBeam said:

Being a vegan, is actually dangerous.

I don't know it is really dangerous ! India has more vegetarians than the rest of the world put together. We are going to become most populated country in the world soon. It is scary !

[Little Plant]

On 8/5/2017 at 9:30 PM, Leo Gura said:

in most cases eating animals is unecological, lazy, selfish, and unconscious.

not that selfish, since it's severely unhealthy for yourSELF  

Two themes consistently emerge from studies of cancer from many sites: vegetables and fruits help to reduce risk, while meat, animal products, and other fatty foods are frequently found to increase risk. Consumption of animal fat drives production of hormones, which, in turn, promotes growth of cancer cells in hormone-sensitive organs such as the breast and prostate. Meat is devoid of the protective effects of fiber, antioxidants, phytochemicals, and other helpful nutrients, and it contains high concentrations of saturated fat and potentially carcinogenic compounds, which may increase one’s risk of developing many different kinds of cancer.

Vegetarian diets and diets rich in high-fiber plant foods such as whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits offer a measure of protection. Fiber greatly speeds the passage of food through the colon, effectively removing carcinogens, and fiber actually changes the type of bacteria that is present in the intestine, so there is reduced production of carcinogenic secondary bile acids. Plant foods are also naturally low in fat and rich in antioxidants and other anti-cancer compounds. Not surprisingly, vegans are at the lowest risk for cancer and have a significantly reduced risk compared to meat-eaters.

 

loosly from http://www.pcrm.org/ but you can read about this information from THOUSANDS OF SOURCES

[pluto]

10 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

@pluto

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316194551.htm&ved=0ahUKEwjNsuOcpeXTAhXBUbwKHbCZCXAQFgivATAT&usg=AFQjCNEjQYmpyawTK7VSGht3MImQzoP8Bw&sig2=LiqwAW9d5izem-l_FgZu4w

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://authoritynutrition.com/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants/&ved=0ahUKEwjNsuOcpeXTAhXBUbwKHbCZCXAQFgiyATAU&usg=AFQjCNF7m8bkCObROUM1FTjVR87rHUWelg&sig2=bbPAgOavfIq6gSk1RMWmaQ

 

Being a vegan, is actually dangerous.

That's why the longest, healthiest and oldest living people found in small areas and villages around the world are mostly vegan and or vegetarian, 90-99% plant based. Study Hunza Valley and Okinawa people for example. If anything these people consume about 1% of animal products compared to the rest of their intake with average lifespans of 100+ and healthy as well as being able to have children at those ages says it all.

Edited May 10, 2017 by pluto

[Little Plant]

@electroBeam I hope that link was a joke