Raw foods
- Thread starter Kila
- Start date
drygol said:
Don't go off on that! I'm pretty much an animal advocate. Difference is, I DO realize that human beings can hurt in ways that are unknown to animals. It's a different kind of empathy. And yes, if you hurt my dog, things might get iffy.
D69
Dagobah Resident
Thanks for answers guys. It has shaken me a bit (if it is a proper English tense :P)
Thing is that I still don't know the answer , maybe someday.
I won't go off that ever. Animals cannot talk for them selves , thats why I stand firm and I will defend them whatever the cost will be.
I mean I am not some kind of animal jihadist since I realized that this is 3D reality we live in , but I can't stand animal cruelty and I cannot tolerate it and I won't.
Well , In fact I can't stand cruelty at all but I feel that I do react stronger if it is about animals. I don't know why though. Movies ? Computer games ? TV news ? made me emotionless ?
Also I am not a vegan nor vegetarian - I was considering being one for a while, because of body detox and stuff but in general, unfortunately to cattle, I am a meat eater and I am not feeling good with that , I wish there was a better option.
Thing is that I still don't know the answer , maybe someday.
I won't go off that ever. Animals cannot talk for them selves , thats why I stand firm and I will defend them whatever the cost will be.
I mean I am not some kind of animal jihadist since I realized that this is 3D reality we live in , but I can't stand animal cruelty and I cannot tolerate it and I won't.
Well , In fact I can't stand cruelty at all but I feel that I do react stronger if it is about animals. I don't know why though. Movies ? Computer games ? TV news ? made me emotionless ?
Also I am not a vegan nor vegetarian - I was considering being one for a while, because of body detox and stuff but in general, unfortunately to cattle, I am a meat eater and I am not feeling good with that , I wish there was a better option.
Stevie Argyl
Jedi Master
Seemingly the Hitler being a veggi and the emphasized animal lover thing was all part of Goebbels propaganda to promote him as sensitive and caring.
Personally I doubt bringing Hitler was a veggie, Gandi was a vegan and Hulk Hogan eats burgers proves anything. Stalin ? what did he eat? Did Bush have Cheerios before giving the OK to invade Iraq?
We have different blood types, different gene pools and come from ancestry with different dietary histories. rather than looking for rules be your own experiment and see what works for you.
Sorry for the rant, just eaten a carrot :)
RyanX
The Living Force
Stevie Argyll said:
Steve,
My intention wasn't to prove anything. I was just posting a piece of information that seemed to go along with the study that Hildegarda posted. I'm certainly not trying to equate animal lovers to Hitler if that's what you thought. Sometimes you can learn stuff about psychology from historical figures and visa versa.
I'm curious where you read that Hitler being a vegetarian was just propaganda? Here are several other sources that claim he was a vegetarian, or something close to that (or at least he liked to think of himself as such):
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism
Stevie Argyl
Jedi Master
There is a summary of the rebuffal of the vegetarian thing here, _http://libaware.economads.com/hitlernotveg.php, seemingly he loved Bavarian Sausage, Ham, caviar and there is an entry from his cooks cookbook referenced. To be honest I don't know what the truth is.
RyanX
The Living Force
Stevie Argyll said:
Interesting. Thanks for the link. I'm not really sure what the truth is either.
It seems that he certainly wasn't a vegetarian in the strict sense. I get the feeling that he was a lot like some vegetarians I've met; they claim to eat a "mostly vegetarian" diet, but cheat in certain ways, like most people do with their diets if they proclaim to be on one.
My other thought is that Hitler really was a vegetarian for the most part, or at least wanted people to believe that. Maybe from a technical standpoint being a vegetarian isn't that important. He didn't prepare his own meals and the cooks he had probably thought he was crazy to want to attempt such a diet, so they only used animal products that weren't "visible". Although even with that it sounds like he probably cheated some.
Maybe what is more important is the image he portrayed, which I'm sure propaganda would have played a role. Now after the war, the control system had to reign in the image of Hitler being a vegetarian for the sake of not turning people away from the vegetarian diet.
In any case, I've probably drifted from the original topic here.
Stevie Argyl
Jedi Master
Laura said:
I have 3 friends who are vegetarians and 2 are smokers.
Perhaps the anti smoking isn't related to vegetarian diet but due to becoming identified with a health philosophy. I.E I want to be healthy therefore no meat no ciggies. Some personalities emotionally indentify with their personal philosophy to the point of becoming a crusader. Perhaps you have experienced these types, who could just as quickly become meat and smoke crusaders should their personal outlook change?
Stevie Argyl
Jedi Master
Just to be clear - I ain't pushing vegetarianism.
I was a vegetarian for 12 years. Started in 1979 stopped in 1991. During that time my recurrent bronchitis cleared up in year one even though I still smoked. At the time I put this down to vegetarian diet. But there could be another factor. in 1970s there were no vegetarian ready meals where I lived so I learnt to cook and my diet changed to 100% fresh ingredients with exception of maybe tinned tomatoes. This change must have had a massive health impact. So as 2 things changed at once I have no idea which had the impact.
I was a vegetarian for 12 years. Started in 1979 stopped in 1991. During that time my recurrent bronchitis cleared up in year one even though I still smoked. At the time I put this down to vegetarian diet. But there could be another factor. in 1970s there were no vegetarian ready meals where I lived so I learnt to cook and my diet changed to 100% fresh ingredients with exception of maybe tinned tomatoes. This change must have had a massive health impact. So as 2 things changed at once I have no idea which had the impact.
Stevie Argyll said:
That's why I said "often" and not "always."
Stevie Argyll said:
It's rather easy to identify with one's personal philosophy; the only catch is, can you live something in a way that you can also leave your mind open to new data? Many do not.
Lord knows, I'm not pleased at finding myself in a machine that requires animal protein to function best. If I allow myself to dwell on it, I can get downright cranky. It's also impossible, at present, to change the world so that the evils that exist in the food production industries can be done away with, including corporate farming of beef, chicken, etc. I CAN do all I can to not contribute to it by buying family farm raised meats and giving an affirmation in my mind in honor of the creature that is feeding me.
I've tried vegetarianism. One of my children went vegan for a year or two and became so unhealthy, she was practically on the verge of being hospitalized. Her cholesterol and triglycerides were so high, she was a candidate for a stroke.
On the other hand, there are people who have less need for meat protein and can do quite well on mostly vegetables. But I really don't think that anyone is truly healthy who is absolutely strict. I knew a few of that type and they all smelled, oddly, like spoiled musky meat. No amount of bathing covered up this odd odor.
Stevie Argyl
Jedi Master
I wiseacre wonder if this realisation fed into the tradition of blessing food - appreciation that one life has served another.
A friend visited recently and brought Dutch bacon, you know, the stuff from intensive factory high rise pig factories. To him ,'its all the same' and 'nothing will change'. What people don't seem to realise is the power of the consumer. a 10% switched away from factory to homesteaded is a 10% drop in factory profits. They animal factory will catch on to this. not due to morals but due to profit dip. The man in the street doesn't realise or think long enough to realise they do have some power to change things and it involves where and how to spend their pennies.
shellycheval
The Living Force
In regards to the experiment described earlier in this discussion, Laura asked
Possibly, but I don’t think so yet. I think deeply empathetic people have a lot of empathy for both and there is a large variation in the people who express a lot of sympathy/empathy for animals. Some people may convey more empathy for animals because they see them as “innocent” and blame people for being in their terrible situations because “they should have known better,” all the while these critics are not understanding the many ways people on this world are as caged and conditioned as any farm animal and limited to as much real choice about how they will live their lives. If they were more knowledgeable of the true conditions under which humans exist on this planet many would likely be more empathic to humans as well as animals.
Also, I am cautious of making any sweeping generalizations about veg/vegans being more sympathetic to animals and omnivores more empathic to humans from this one study. There are a very small number of people in the test group who undoubtedly self-selected to participate in a study in which they would have known ahead of time that they would be watching videos of torture and violence toward humans and animals—that knowledge alone would turn away many ultra sensitive empathetic types and narrow the diversity of the test group at the start. There may also be age, gender and regional/cultural differences or lack of these differences in the test subjects that would also limit the viability of the test data.
Next, I have known and worked with a lot of animal rescue people over the years and many of them definitely relate better to animals than to people, but I think for different reasons. Some appear to be of the ultra-sensitive types who clearly feel safer relating on a deep emotional level with animals than with people who they have witnessed and experienced as being cruel and less than humane. Others appeared to be doing their animal rescue work with a full heart, but when observed long enough reveal themselves to be narcissistic rescuers who are really getting their own various needs met and do not objectively see the animals as essentially separate sentient entities worthy of our respect and help, but rather see and use them as extensions of their own egos (Hitler? WWII certainly cause a lot of destruction, death, and suffering to animals as well as people). Then, there are many people who seem to have a fairly equal healthy balance of empathy for humans, animals, nature in general, and life itself. I do not see enough evidence in this study to come to some either/or conclusion.
Hildegarda asked:
Considering the complex relations between all conscious entities, I don’t see there being a clear either/or answer here either. We know souled humans can be taught and conditioned to act in ways almost devoid of empathy, and that empathetic behavior needs to be modeled and nurtured to fully express in this feeding environment of 3D, so regarding the experiment results, probably both conditions exist and others of which we are not aware yet hence the importance of keeping an open mind.
Anart wrote:
I agree. As has been mentioned in other areas of the forum, there is no feeding without the cost of other lives here in this 3D environment. Vegan and vegetarian meals are produced with loss of life even though it is not as overtly obvious. Every mechanized harvest of field crops results in the deaths of many small and sometimes large creatures, (not considering the evidence that exist for plant consciousness) transporting food often results in road kill and pollution to the air and water, and even humans often suffer and die to produce food for others. As Laura often says, there is no free lunch and there is no feeding for one with out the loss of another—“The total of both mass and energy is retained, although some may change forms.” It is not the eating of animals that is “bad” or “good” but it is the process by which we obtain their energy that is most often without mercy or empathy that I think can be spiritually harmful and that had we the time and power we might fight more to change.
Stevie Argyll
I am sure of it. As it is, humanity now stands on the brink of annihilation and like Laura said, the best many of us can do is buy from the most humane suppliers we can find and treat each meal as a sacred animal sacrifice and be thankful and use their energy to help the Universe. Or so I think.
shellycheval
Possibly, but I don’t think so yet. I think deeply empathetic people have a lot of empathy for both and there is a large variation in the people who express a lot of sympathy/empathy for animals. Some people may convey more empathy for animals because they see them as “innocent” and blame people for being in their terrible situations because “they should have known better,” all the while these critics are not understanding the many ways people on this world are as caged and conditioned as any farm animal and limited to as much real choice about how they will live their lives. If they were more knowledgeable of the true conditions under which humans exist on this planet many would likely be more empathic to humans as well as animals.
Also, I am cautious of making any sweeping generalizations about veg/vegans being more sympathetic to animals and omnivores more empathic to humans from this one study. There are a very small number of people in the test group who undoubtedly self-selected to participate in a study in which they would have known ahead of time that they would be watching videos of torture and violence toward humans and animals—that knowledge alone would turn away many ultra sensitive empathetic types and narrow the diversity of the test group at the start. There may also be age, gender and regional/cultural differences or lack of these differences in the test subjects that would also limit the viability of the test data.
Next, I have known and worked with a lot of animal rescue people over the years and many of them definitely relate better to animals than to people, but I think for different reasons. Some appear to be of the ultra-sensitive types who clearly feel safer relating on a deep emotional level with animals than with people who they have witnessed and experienced as being cruel and less than humane. Others appeared to be doing their animal rescue work with a full heart, but when observed long enough reveal themselves to be narcissistic rescuers who are really getting their own various needs met and do not objectively see the animals as essentially separate sentient entities worthy of our respect and help, but rather see and use them as extensions of their own egos (Hitler? WWII certainly cause a lot of destruction, death, and suffering to animals as well as people). Then, there are many people who seem to have a fairly equal healthy balance of empathy for humans, animals, nature in general, and life itself. I do not see enough evidence in this study to come to some either/or conclusion.
Hildegarda asked:
Considering the complex relations between all conscious entities, I don’t see there being a clear either/or answer here either. We know souled humans can be taught and conditioned to act in ways almost devoid of empathy, and that empathetic behavior needs to be modeled and nurtured to fully express in this feeding environment of 3D, so regarding the experiment results, probably both conditions exist and others of which we are not aware yet hence the importance of keeping an open mind.
Anart wrote:
I agree. As has been mentioned in other areas of the forum, there is no feeding without the cost of other lives here in this 3D environment. Vegan and vegetarian meals are produced with loss of life even though it is not as overtly obvious. Every mechanized harvest of field crops results in the deaths of many small and sometimes large creatures, (not considering the evidence that exist for plant consciousness) transporting food often results in road kill and pollution to the air and water, and even humans often suffer and die to produce food for others. As Laura often says, there is no free lunch and there is no feeding for one with out the loss of another—“The total of both mass and energy is retained, although some may change forms.” It is not the eating of animals that is “bad” or “good” but it is the process by which we obtain their energy that is most often without mercy or empathy that I think can be spiritually harmful and that had we the time and power we might fight more to change.
Stevie Argyll
I am sure of it. As it is, humanity now stands on the brink of annihilation and like Laura said, the best many of us can do is buy from the most humane suppliers we can find and treat each meal as a sacred animal sacrifice and be thankful and use their energy to help the Universe. Or so I think.
shellycheval
