posted May 24, 2009 07:12 AM         

You said (I don't know how to quote on here )

"Diabla,
Do you respect their meat-eating
more than my protest against it?

Do you tolerate their actions
more than you tolerate my words?"

No.
I never said that. I replied to your post directed at me on "how could I be so politically correct on this subject". And I answered what I think and feel, (whether valid or understandable to you or not).

I said I care a lot about animals but do not condemn meat eaters. And that you having an extremist/different view doesn't make you more considerate.

Everyone is free to think whatever they want. I've already said- "to each their own". I'm not trying to change anyone's mind in here, and not defying you Valus.

posted May 24, 2009 03:53 PM         

quote:

---

I replied to your post directed at me on "how could I be so politically correct on this subject". And I answered what I think and feel, (whether valid or understandable to you or not).

---

I'm not objecting to your response, but,
inquiring about your original position.

We are not talking about condemning anyone.

All I'm doing is sharing my point of view,
and saying that this treatment is immoral.

When you see a person eating meat,
you keep your opinion to yourself,
and you call this tolerance...

But when you see me objecting to meat-eating,
you share your opinion that my objection
is an act of intolerance.

So, you don't mind sharing your opinion on this,
and are comfortable speaking against my "intolerance",
but you "tolerate" it and say nothing when meat is condoned?

I guess I still do not understand your position.

But I understand if you don't wish to debate,
or take the time and energy to be understood.

I'm sure you have a lot of other things going on.

take care,
Valus

posted May 24, 2009 04:12 PM         

I'm making a point about "tolerance", and the freedom to choose, when it means making choices that result in the sufferings and deaths of others. You can decide for yourself whose sufferings are worthy of your empathy and compassion, and whose sufferings must never be compared. Personally, I feel that the same tendencies which led to the holocaust are alive and well in the meat industry. And what we do to animals, we will probably do to people, too. The inability to see a Jew as a person is not far removed from the inability to see an animal as deserving of compassion. And those who tortured and killed Jews because they saw them as animals, must first have seen animals as expendable.

Tell me this isn't horrific:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyoGVJ1KxpY&feature=related

posted May 25, 2009 10:13 AM         

I personally do not think it's worth my time to support anything I'm saying because I have been through this same thing with you before and you will never agree to disagree with me, so why bother? Call me weak or whatever else you want and sit on your high horse once again, I tire of this game, as always, I guess I expect you have grown...

posted May 26, 2009 12:09 AM         

I would like to thank you again for your positive feedback for my posts. I didn't say enough the last time I posted.

By the way, you've made many really good points and counterarguments.

I totally agree on what you said in your most recent post- no matter how "The Messenger" contradicts himself all the time and displays his Messiah complex, we have expected him to have grown, but...I suppose it could only happen should a major transformation take place for "The Messenger" to mature, on his own terms- that was exactly what I meant when I wrote about "transformation" and "on our own terms"- and obviously my point was misunderstood.

Diabla,

Somehow I forgot to address you the last time I was here. I think you are doing just fine- as vegans and vegetarians, the best thing for us (I am a vegetarian by the way, in case you didn't know) to do is to live by example, not prosyletizing. Today's human society is full of contradictions and violence for a great deal of reasons. We as vegans and vegetarians need to master the art of flexibility in thinking and relating to nonvegetarians with consideration and humility. By contrast, preaching vegetarianism with a flair of moral superiority is a fatal mistake.

You said:

quote:

---

I said I care a lot about animals but do not condemn meat eaters. And that you having an extremist/different view doesn't make you more considerate.

---

Ditto

I don't mean to attract more counterarguments from "The Messenger", you folks know it just goes on and on and it seems endless. Or it stops and resumes very soon.

As vegans and vegetarians, it is essential for us to raise awareness, promote vegetarianism in a compassionate and peaceful way, meanwhile the most important thing is, as I said earlier- live by example. That's the best way for us to positively influence others.

Say, if you were a non-red meat eater, but still a chicken-and-fish eater, as you spread radical and intolerant messages about the imminent ethical lifestyle of vegetarianism, if other people were just like you, and convicted you, imprisoned you for your chicken-and-fish eating, how would you feel? Put yourself in other people's shoes. Comparing nonvegetarians to child molestors, child abusers, Nazis...that's severely distorted reasoning. Do you even try to understand where all the meat-eaters are coming from? Your concern for the right to life of animals may be applaudable, yet as though there is blockage in your comprehension to tolerate a society that is anything but Utopia (and who would want to live in Utopia, anyway?) and you just have to be so harsh toward your fellow human beings who eat meat. As "The Messenger" naturally your message may have done some good, but far from the most effective. You felt that "you've succeeded" yet you may not realize how many people you have turned away from ever considering vegetarianism exactly because of your holier-than-thou attitude. You obviously have problems relating to nonvegetarians, which means you surely have problems relating to people in general. Your perception on omnivores is shockingly inhumane. The majority of us vegans and vegetarians are not born veggies, meaning we used to be meat-eaters. Were we supposed to be convicted, punished, imprisoned then, before we discovered vegetarianism? It is certainly intriguing to probe how you perceive and relate to your fellow human beings. Always fighting for the underdog? Fighting for animal rights while having issues with nonvegetarians, even with a vegan (Diabla) whose viewpoints differ from yours, makes one wonder if you truly had compassion- only for animals, but not for humans who eat animals? If you said those people do not deserve any compassion at all, and they are all murderers...you have no compassion, you are just self-absorbed and always insist you are right, while vehemently denying this trait of yours whenever being confronted by one of us.

I am well aware that this message is very likely to draw the attention of "The Messenger", but I am like Ghanima81- tired of this seemingly endless conversation, and trying to make him see the sides other than his own to no avail. I feel you, Ghanima81

Peace.

D

posted May 26, 2009 07:06 AM         

D for Defiant,
You also perfectly understood my words.
Exactly, this is not about preaching constantly, but just live by example and be true to ourselves. Remaining always humble and aware to the fact that us for having a different diet or perception of animals doesn't make us better human beings.

You said: "preaching vegetariansim with a flair of moral superiority is a fatal mistake"
And I fully agree. This approaching only creates opposition and instant rejection(like preaching about anything with a moral superiority).

Of course that raising awarness is important, but theory without practice is totally not useful. And by my life experience I can totally tell, that I had more reactions of people coming to my birthday (for example) and eating delicious vegan foods (and realizing- "wow! this is healthy and yummy, you don't live on raw lettuce only") than giving a 2 hour conference about why they should not eat meat.

Valus,

Respecting other lifestyles and options, (like eating meat) does not mean "keeping the opinions to myself"- or "not saying anything" on this subject when in a group- (you obviously didn'tunderstand what I meant in my other posts).

I think my position is pretty clear for most.
If you don't understand (or don't want to accept my take on this)- it's fine.
I'm done with this, because I see no point in repeating myself.

posted May 28, 2009 03:59 AM         

quote:

---

I am like Ghanima81- tired of this seemingly endless conversation, and trying to make him see the sides other than his own to no avail.

---

quote:

---

I'm done with this, because I see no point in repeating myself.

Peace out.

---

posted May 28, 2009 03:59 AM         

~ Linda Goodman, Star Signs, p.39-40

"The ideal way to cleanse your body temple of the impurity of years of eating animal flesh is to begin by eliminating all 'red meat' -- beef, steak, hamburger, pork, ham, and bacon, -- for a five-year period. During this five year period, eat both fish and fowl -- vegetables and fruit -- breads, cereals, and all dairy foods (eggs, milk, cheese)... During the second five-year period, eliminate fish and fowl and eggs..."

~ Linda Goodman, Star Signs, p.43

"Meat-eating races have always been warlike and aggressive, all through history, whereas non-meat-eating races have been passive and peaceful."

~ Linda Goodman, Star Signs, p.44

"The excuse many hunters give to justify murdering wildlife... makes me feel that their thought patterns are only a fraction removed from finding murder a likewise 'practical and humane' way to 'clear out' overpopulated areas of China and India and America's slums... Nature herself is fully capable of solving her own problems without man's "helpfulness", comprised of murder and killing... I personally know several hunters who are otherwise kind, gentle, generous, and truly good people, possessing only this one blindness."

~ Linda Goodman, Star Signs, p.44-45

"I dreamed I was a stranger in a strange land, where humans were silent...and animals were wise, and kind...to their human pets, and not so blind as man and woman, to the linking of God's creatures...and the Oneness of All."

posted May 28, 2009 02:09 PM         

Ayurveda is a traditional system of medicine which originated from India, and is more than 5,000 years old. "Ayur" means life and "Ved" means knowledge. This holistic science is the knowledge of complete balance of the Body, Mind and spirit, including the emotions and psychology, on all levels. It includes in its consideration, longevity, rejuvenation and self-realization therapies through herbs, diet, exercise, yoga, massage, aromas, tantras, mantras, and meditation. It includes diet and herbal remedies and emphasizes the use of body, mind, and spirit in disease prevention and treatment.

Ayurveda and the 3 Gunas

According to the ayurveda, medicines and foods are sattvic, rajasic or tamasic or a combination of these gunas.The gunas are three fundamental attributes that represent the natural evolutionary process through which the subtle becomes gross. In turn, gross objects, by action and interaction among themselves, may again become subtle. Thus the three gunas are defined as:

Sattva : Essence (subtle)
Rajas : Activity
Tamas : Inertia (gross)

Sattvic foods:
Are fresh, juicy, light, unctuous, nourishing, sweet and tasty.
Give the necessary energy to the body without taxing it.
The foundation of higher states of consciousness etc

Examples: juicy fruits, fresh vegetables that are easily digestible, fresh milk and butter, whole soaked or also sprouted beans, grains and nuts, many herbs and spices in the right combinations with other foods,…

Rajasic foods:
Are bitter, sour, salty, pungent, hot and dry.
Increase the speed and excitement of the human organism.
The foundation of motion, activity and pain etc

Examples: sattvic foods that have been fried in oil or cooked too much or eaten in excess, specific foods and spices that are strongly exciting etc

Tamasic Foods:
Are dry, old, decaying, distasteful and/or unpalatable.
Consume a large amount of energy while being digested.
The foundation of ignorance, doubt, pessimism etc
Examples: foods that have been strongly processed, canned or frozen and/or are old, stale or incompatible with each other - meat, fish, eggs and liquor are especially tamasic.

Saints and seers can survive easily on sattvic foods alone. Householders that live in the world and have to keep pace with its' changes also need rajasic energy. They ought to keep a balance between the sattvic and rajasic foods and try to avoid tamasic foods as much as possible.

posted May 28, 2009 03:03 PM         

Agree to disagree.

I found this article and please understand, I am only posting it as a joke, sometimes we all need to laugh at ourselves.

"A report published this week in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association appears to show that teenagers and young adults are more likely to suffer from eating disorders if they have tried being vegetarian.

And I'm, like, “duh!” (I'm like that because that is how American teenagers talk, you understand, and I want them to understand what I am about to say). And the reason that I am, as I say, like, “duh!” is that vegetarians are more likely to suffer from eating disorders because vegetarianism is an eating disorder.

It's a better eating disorder than many others, because at least it doesn't make you fat, and in general it doesn't cause you to wither away and die. But it does make you pale, and flaky, and unbelievably tedious to be around.

Vegetarianism is a cry for help. A sadly transparent attempt to exercise control over your body, which you feel the need to do for psychological reasons of which you are probably unaware. It's why so many vegetarians have tattoos and exotic piercings (you know it's true). It's why anarchists, squatters, G20 protesters and art students are usually vegetarians. Frustrated that they cannot, and never will, control the world, or anything else of any significance, they starve themselves and carve holes in their bodies. It's as primitive a lifestyle as there is. It's why the very oldest religions eschew meat altogether, and others eschew some forms of it - because one exercises what control one can in the shadow of a mighty God with miserable little gestures of abstinence.

Background
Gordon Ramsay's tastiest cauliflower recipes
Indian scientists to make curry fit for astronauts
Top tips for your vegetable patch
It's why vegetarians are mostly girls. Because vegetarianism is a way of controlling one's food intake without drawing attention to one's vanity.

“Don't mind me,” they say when they come to your house for lunch. “I'll just have the vegetables.” And you think: “It's immaterial to me what you put in your mouth, darling, because I can tell from the state of you that you're going to be in my downstairs bog with your fingers down your throat in half an hour, spraying whatever you've pecked at all over the Armitage Shanks.”

It's the same with all these bogus wheat allergies and dairy intolerances - codswallop the lot of them. Just a way of not having to say: “I'm on a diet so that I will look nicer and people will fancy me.” Vegetarians never love food. They merely tolerate it.

I absolutely concur with the notion that we in the developed world eat too much meat. We absolutely do. Current meat consumption levels are unhealthy for the people and a drain on the planet's resources. The neo-Malthusian projection that says there is not enough land to feed the nine billion people who will be living here by 2020 unless most of the meat-producing land is turned over to vegetable crops (or something) is probably not too wide of the mark.

So the thing to do is to eat less meat, not none. You don't make meat a moral issue and campaign to end it. You just lay off it a bit. That way there will be plenty to go round, the land will be able to yield its bounty much more efficiently (after all, without cow crap to nourish the soil, how are your precious carrots going to grow all big and juicy?), nobody will have to die of heart disease and we'll all be able to scoff a juicy steak from time to time.

Meat is not something to be eradicated, like cancer. Its total destruction is not a moral imperative for the human race. Nor is meat something with absolutely no visible function whose continued existence is a baffling mystery, like wasps or men's nipples or television chefs. Meat tastes good. It carries vitamins and minerals with a unique efficiency that is critical to the maintenance of a healthy life. And it gives pigs, quite literally, a reason to live.

To eat no meat at all is to take an extreme position in an area where extremism is not called for. People always say “Hitler was a vegetarian”, as if that were some sort of paradox, some sort of surprise. Well it isn't to me. He was a vegetarian because he was an extremist. He was incapable of doing things by halves. Annoyed that the banking system in Weimar Germany was largely controlled by Jews (as it certainly was), he might well have proposed a programme to make banking more attractive to gentiles, offered some economics scholarships to giant Bavarian pork-munchers, dragged some idle Christian dimbos out of the beer halls and taught them to count... but he didn't, he decided to kill every Jew in Europe.

In exactly the same way, had he been a more even-tempered man, he might well have reacted to the meat-heavy traditional German diet (which presumably didn't agree with him) by simply ladling more sauerkraut onto his plate and holding back on the wurst, by eating a bit of salad occasionally, and by not having ham for breakfast. But no. He was an extremist. He had to eat NO! MEAT! EVER! AGAIN!

The ideological road from nut cutlets to Belsen is straight, and short.

A survey of fast-food preferences by Mintel (always there with the really important stuff in a time of global crisis) revealed this week that for the first time Chinese food has overtaken Indian as Britain's favourite takeaway.

I am amazed that it took this long. Chinese is sooooo much nicer than Indian. I mean, who in the world eats Indian deliberately? Round my way the good Chinese closes at 10, the Thai at 11, and the myriad Indians then stay open till midnight and beyond. So it's only a very badly planned evening that ends with four tin boxes of miscellaneous brown slop, gritty rice randomly scattered with scary pink and yellow grains, and a paper bag of giant crisps, partially smashed.

I think that must be how Indian food established its fabled supremacy in this country (chicken tikka masala being Britain's national dish and all that): simply by being the only thing left available when fat, poorly educated men stagger out of the pub.

Taking the lids off in the kitchen and carrying the metal trays of wobbling curry through into the telly room, one is always reminded of those models they used to explain why ships go down when the lower deck floods. Except they don't fill with always-mysteriously-goaty brown gravy full of fleshy flotsam that makes your mouth feel next morning like you spent the night giving mouth-to-mouth to an entire stag party.

Chinese, on the other hand, is always yummy: lovely plump pink things frazzed in hot oil with a spritz of garlic and chilli, steaming dumplings, brightly coloured nibbly bits and, crucially, delicious piles of vegetables - choi sum, bok choi or gai lan - stir-fried with a splash of something rich and dark to give it a bit of body.

posted May 29, 2009 12:09 AM         

I realize that you posted the article only as a joke, and since it is intended to be a joke, I don't mind most of its contents. However, there is one myth that I feel I must demystify-

quote:

---

To eat no meat at all is to take an extreme position in an area where extremism is not called for. People always say “Hitler was a vegetarian”, as if that were some sort of paradox, some sort of surprise. Well it isn't to me. He was a vegetarian because he was an extremist. He was incapable of doing things by halves. Annoyed that the banking system in Weimar Germany was largely controlled by Jews (as it certainly was), he might well have proposed a programme to make banking more attractive to gentiles, offered some economics scholarships to giant Bavarian pork-munchers, dragged some idle Christian dimbos out of the beer halls and taught them to count... but he didn't, he decided to kill every Jew in Europe.

In exactly the same way, had he been a more even-tempered man, he might well have reacted to the meat-heavy traditional German diet (which presumably didn't agree with him) by simply ladling more sauerkraut onto his plate and holding back on the wurst, by eating a bit of salad occasionally, and by not having ham for breakfast.But no. He was an extremist. He had to eat NO! MEAT! EVER! AGAIN!

---

Unbeknownst to most, the truth is- HITLER WAS NEVER A VEGETARIAN. Please read on:

quote:

---

All right, this is rather a double post. I've already posted the following information on another thread here at HAH, but I feel the need to spread the word, since so many people still think Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Unfortunately, even my history teacher back in England once commented that Hitler was a vegetarian because "he had a dog and he loved his dog..."

While he was not. The fact is, he never was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#Health

After the early 1930s, Hitler generally followed a vegetarian diet, although he ate meat on occasion.

As long as Hitler did eat meat on occasion, that makes him a meat eater, a non-vegetarian. The "Hitler was a vegetarian" myth is hereby invalid.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

“Wasn’t Hitler in favor of animal rights?”
Although the Nazis claimed to pass an anti-vivisection bill, they did not. In fact, they were required by law to perform experiments on animals before carrying them out on humans. Experiments on humans did not replace animal experiments; on the contrary, animal experiments made them possible. In The Dark Face of Science, John Vyvyan summed it up correctly, “The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: All were in continuation of, or complementary to experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence; and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme.”

However, even if this weren’t the case, the merits of an idea cannot be determined by the character of its proponents. If Hitler believed in evolution, would that mean that we should not believe in evolution? What if Gandhi also believed in evolution? How would we reconcile the two? An idea must be judged on its own merits.

For more information on this topic, we recommend the book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian nor Animal Lover by Rynn Berry, available here.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0962616966/qid%3D1087 934184/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-7661546-4224622

"HITLER: NEITHER VEGETARIAN NOR ANIMAL LOVER"- BY RYNN BERRY

Available at Amazon.com

Hopefully more and more people will be properly informed that Adolf Hitler was never a vegetarian. Therefore, when engaging in debates on vegetarianism, they would no longer use Hitler as an example of a "non-spiritual, cruel vegetarian", because he was NOT even a vegetarian!

---

To be continued...

D

posted May 29, 2009 12:10 AM         

Hitler aside, I have a few words to add-

Diabla

As I said in one of my posts on another thread, anger and vegetarianism do not go hand in hand. Not all vegans and vegetarians are spiritually enlightened and ethically superior to nonvegetarians- far from it. There are a lot of angry, fanatic, even violent vegetarians who have been brainwashed by one of those vegan animal rights activist groups. People are better off being the average meat eaters than being those vegetarian fanatics.

There is a secret of why many aspiring vegans/vegetarians never come around. Because most, if not all, of these failed aspiring veggies are full of anger and all the other forms of negativity deep inside them, be it anger toward meat eaters, meat-eating, factory farming, slaughterhouses...the more angry, intolerant, resentful you are, the more likely you will fall off the vegan/vegetarian wagon every time you attempt to quit eating animal products cold turkey, or otherwise. This is exactly the reason why you fail every single time and never come around.

Say if you finally managed to become a vegan- and still managed to incorporate your vegan way of life (veganism is more than a diet, it's a lifestyle; whereas vegetarianism is usually a dietary choice) with self-righteousness, fanaticism, extremism, intolerance, moral superiority and so forth...who would want to be like you, a "vegan"?

Nonvegetarians would respect you only when you live by example.

There are certainly many different types of vegans, vegetarians, fallen vegans/vegetarians, and aspiring vegans/vegetarians- IMO, it would be fascinating to study each type's psychology.

For some of us, if not more than some of us vegans and vegetarians, our ways of life are not about the issue of control. Or abstinence. We know what we are supposed to eat and what we are not supposed to and do not need to eat, that's all. But we wouldn't force our nonvegetarian friends to adopt our lifestyles. Live and let live.

D

posted May 29, 2009 08:18 AM         

I love your wise words!

"Live and Let Live"

posted May 29, 2009 03:14 PM         

quote:

---

And doing drugs is also part of this "foundation of higher states of consciousness" in some people's logic, am I correct?

---

More correct than you know. Have you read "Food of the Gods"? Terence McKenna's theory, which he defends with his usual brilliance, is that psilocybin mushrooms may be responsible for the accellerated evolutionary development of homo sapiens. I think he may be onto something.

posted May 29, 2009 03:16 PM         

I'll drink (and eat) to that.

posted May 29, 2009 04:29 PM         

So, meat eaters enjoy the food they eat. They have either been raised eating meat or chose to eat it if they were raised in a vegetarian environment, probably because they like the taste, they (in cases like Xodian's) have a certain diet that requires them to eat a certain amount of meat, or they have never really thought about why they do, they just do. It is a part of their life and an enjoyable experience most likely. People generally like to eat.

Now, some may suggest that it is our lower selves that succomb to this eating of the flesh of other creatures and that God did not put the animals we eat on the planet, nor did he give us the urge to hunt and kill, for any purpose but for us to overcome these murderous ways and eat only grains, vegetables, etc.

There are certain people who use drugs. Whether it be smoking pot, hash, eating mushrooms or peyote, or various other recreational or "spiritual awakening inducing" chemicals. They most likey enjoy this experience and will list off any number of reasons why they partake in this particular activity, whether it be for spiritual reasons, or just to get effed up.

Seeing as how the drugs I listed come from the earth, and therefore are about the same, in estimation, as the fruits, grains and vegetables that non meat eaters consume, this comparison is on an even playing field.

Is it wrong to suggest that God did not put these things on the planet for us to use, but actually to OVERCOME the need or want to use, just like some suggest we should do with meat?

Just a question.

All opinions welcome, it just occurred to me that the two topics that Valus has brought up recently in LLC share some interesting ideas.

posted May 29, 2009 06:31 PM         

Definitely.

Ibogaine is fascinating, too.

posted May 29, 2009 06:40 PM         

It's a fair question. My response is that, if these substances are not merely recreational, but, actual promoters of higher consciousness, stemming from, as well as leading to, a desire that is more than sensual, -- substances that catalyze our evolution, causing us to become more socially conscious and self-reflective, -- well, then, why would God want us to "overcome" them? I'd think He'd want us to use them as allies (just as shaman, and assorted holy men and women all over the world, have been saying and doing for ten thousand years, if not tens of thousands of years). On the other hand, we have the consumption of meat, which evidently stems from, and leads to, a lack of respect (to say nothing of reverence) for God's most innocent and peaceful creatures, and which causes untold suffering in these higher lifeforms. So, here we see actual reasons, which transcend mere sensual gratification, and even biological considerations, to support a theory of why God might wish us to overcome the consumption of meat, rather than make an ally of it. I hope that answers your question.