Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=5303&start_row=41


Meat is Ital

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 72
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 10/12/2022 12:30:34 PM
Reply

@Evison

Evison: IPXninja, i never knew the i to be disraspectful. Please dont start now w some foolish business about trying to change the definition of ital to suit the i opinion.

I truly sorry you feel this way; that challenging a definition is disrespectful. I had and have no intentions of such. I would like to direct your attention to Proverbs 13:24 and Revelation 3:19. Anything, I say here is with a loving spirit not a spirit of disrespect.

As far as the definition of 'ital' goes I already addressed this in an earlier post.

Evison: I assume the i eats meat and rationalize that guilt away w science, fine but dont claim it as ital even if the i wish to view yaself as ital in self image.

There are a few assumptions here. Your first is correct. However, why would I have guilt? I couldn't remotely feel such a thing for many reasons. If you would like me to elaborate on anything just ask. But let's just say that your view of what is ital came from someone else. If I agree with that person then I would integrate their ideas into my own personal standard. If an idea has any value or merit then it can and should be questioned; not blindly accepted. Questioning it doesn't mean you're being disrespectful. It simply means you're not a child and therefore you're seeking wisdom and understanding, not trying to earn brownie points from blind obedience. And again... obedience to who? Do you know? Definitions are added and changed all the time. People use words in different ways. It's not written in stone. Part of the problem is that we as a human species are always holding on to some ideas for the sake of tradition while blasting other ideas that also came by way of the same. So in the end, you are simply choosing your own path by looking at others.

Evison: Even i cannot claim self as fully ital bcuz i know i am a work in progress.

Brotha, I am not claiming any such thing. I'm simply keeping it real with everyone as far as what MY opinion is. My opinion is heavily influenced by certain scientific realities which I do not try to hide. I put it out there to be scrutinized because it's not about me or me being right or wrong. So therefore please do not feel any need to justify yourself or not because there is no judgment here.

Evison: Ital livity is free of death and even the term "meat" is down playing the fact that your eating animals. Just call it animals not meat.

Why? Not to play semantics, but as I said previously, the writer of Genesis was most likely a meat eater because "it shall be for meat" underscores that they had already connected meat with food in their language. You can see more about this in my previous post talking about Cain and Abel. Do you actually think they were all farmers? Israel spent much of its time being nomads and at least a generation in the desert. They made a golden calf and were forced to eat it. Do you see the significance there beyond their idolatry? Well... whether you do or not its okay since its getting beside the point.

Ital living is not "Death free". Plants are living organisms. The only thing separating them from animals is "intelligence". But this is not a binary thing. It is a spectrum. Life is not binary thing. It is a spectrum. Plants have cells just like animals. Plants generate energy from an external source, just like animals. Plants grow just like animals. Plants have melanin (chloraphyl) just like animals. Plants pull nutrients from the ground, just like animals when they eat plants and other animals when they eat them. And you all can laugh at me if you want to, butthe reality is that both plants and animals share a common ancestor.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209004485

If we understand that plants are also "children" of a common ancestor of animals then how is one more "natural" than the other? Neither is the original. A lot of people may disagree. That's okay. I'm not trying to convince everyone. I'm just giving you a different perspective.

Evison: Dont try to say eating animals is ital because it is the opposite of ital in the definition that has already been defined from our incients from long time and needs no further revisions from anyone.

I'm sorry but I have to completely reject this form of logic. Humans have been enslaving each other for more than a thousand years. And it has been quite lawful to own another person until recent years. So to say "no further revisions" are needed... I just cannot get behind that sentiment. It's like saying "evolution is done. we are perfect" I think such a viewpoint is condescending and therefore a bit disrespectful. The very person whose definition of 'ital' that you are following came thousands of years after the original humans who were hunters AND gatherers because we evolved from hunters and gatherers (animals). And man is still a mammal (animal).

Evision: Ive met many rasses who eat meat and do so without claiming ital. Raspect to them for they do not try to change what ital means.

Okay? And? I'm sorry but I'm somewhat impervious to logical fallacies and this is one called argumentum ad populum. In other words, X number of people believe X so you should too. Again... this doesn't pass the "slavery is bad" test. If the result of a person's logic is that slavery is okay because many people had slaves then that logic simply doesn't work to make the thing okay. It can be enough for you, perhaps. And that's fine. Again, convincing you is not my intent here.

Evision: Even tho ya humbly started the post sayin respectfully disagree. Lol. No it does com across that way Bredren. Nuff time we haf deal w all type ah people come try change sumthn about Rastafari. Next man could come say GMO food is ital. And if u dont trust gmo you dont trust science. Science made the atomic bomb and i dont love that, does that mean i dont trust good science?
Ya see me. Love ya still IPX.

The love is mutual. 100% Grade A Love. Well... I would never claim GMO food is natural. My understanding of 'natural' is "from nature". Once you modify it, it's not exactly that anymore. Doesn't mean it's bad automatically; just isn't natural. I do believe animals to be natural. If you genetically modify an animal then it is unnatural. But I'm not arguing that all animals should fair game for food. I love you but you seem to be introducing a few more logical fallacies here. The atomic bomb is a bit of a red herring. I'm not saying you don't trust science. I'm not all the other people you have to deal with it. Although I fully understand why you are bringing these things up, all these other things are irrelevant to our discussion.

Evision: Vital i feel is necessary for achieving a certain goal or outcome.

That's why I started by saying "protein is vital". I didn't say that meat is vital. Meat is a source of protein and other nutrients. So if you are vegan then plants are vital because it is your only source of protein. That's your dietary choice. But I grew up with people who thought their diets were superior and even had some superior effect on their spiritual path. And while everyone is free to believe this or not it is not necessarily true. One person may esteem animal cells to be inferior to plant cells but that's simply an opinion. Animals and plants came from the same ancestor. Life consumes life. There are even predatory species of plants that eat animals.

reminds me of Romans 14:14

Evison: for a youngster we all do our best to guide them in the direction we feel is in they best interest.

I have no reason to believe you are doing anything but the best for your son. And as long as he's getting enough protein then it's all good. But that would be my point. We all need to get enough of the nutrients we need to survive and grow. I was skinny growing up. Was it because I wasn't getting enough protein? Was it because eating too much soy can resemble estrogen?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/

Honestly, I started eating a little meat in middle school and started eating more in high school but any food my mother made for dinner was always vegetarian. When I got to college I went to THE school for black seventh day adventists, now "Oakwood University". There, while I expected my Life Science professor to preach the virtues of vegan or vegetarian diet, instead he preached moderation and I never forgot that. That is not a message that is anti-anything. It simply means that you need to get your nurtients in their proper levels.

Evision: Rastafari, the same, 1 Family and for all of them its only love and Raspect w no seperation in i sight.

Separation is often a choice we make when we see someone different and we cut them off. It's not a crime to be different or have different ideas or opinions. That's called diversity. Diversity makes us stronger. That's why if a family inbreeds the offspring are weak and may be given to mutations. This is why we should "come and reason together". It's not that we MUST ALL AGREE but that we are united in harmony with common purpose whether we agree on what it takes to get there or not.



Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 10/12/2022 2:40:17 PM
Reply

@Jahcub

I want to give praises to you for your contributions to this thread.

One of the interesting points that came out of this discussion was about relative scarcity and dietary changes as a result of how much food was present in the form of vegetation.

A couple of things/factors to note here.


Land ownership

Without having land, this creates a social effecton on evolution as far as where and how we get our food.

Agriculture

Innovations in this area of science has been happening from ancient times but we cannot assume that what we know now was always known.

crop rotation

This requires even more land so that one field may be used while another is allowed to regenerate. Overtaxing the soil could cause long term sustainability issues.

Pesticides

I don't like the chemicals but it takes additional knowledge or means to keep crops from being consumed by insects and other foraging animals. I stupidly started planting some stuff without realizing I was just going to be feeding local wildlife. So unlike original humans I need to do "something unnatural" (ie. create some kind of unnatural barrier) to prevent what I grow from getting eaten.

And... I hate to bring this up (but not that much) but the chances of anyone eating pure plants only is... a bit of an illusion. And that is because animals exist in different sizes/scale. Not only is the planet host to trillions upon trillions of tiny animals and creatures, making homes and all-you-can-eat buffets out of the plants we eat, but even our bodies are homes to millions of microscopic life forms who feed on whatever we consume.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/i-hate-to-break-it-to-you-but-you-already-eat-bugs/

So technically speaking, we're all "kind of" eating both plants and animals anyway. Animals are killed throughout all stages of the plant-food production industry. Not only that but taking plant food away from animals for human consumption robs those animals of nutrition. So the more we grow food to feed ourselves the more we would either eat animals (many times the number of small animals vs large ones) or interrupt the lives and ecosystems of trillions of others to the point that many trillions of them would die. This is somewhat comical and cynical but the point is that ANYTHING we do will have an impact on the environment.


And just to show the depths of the rabbit hole:
https://entovegan.com/about/


One more thing... just as it was recommended to me that a plant-based diet is better for my health and to combat disease I also would like to contribute the following about Lectins and raise awareness on the other side.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/lectins/#:~:text=They%20are%20found%20in%20all,the%20highest%20amounts%20of%20lectins.

According to this research lectins are both "good and evil" which is basically how I feel about all food. Almost all has pros and cons and our bodies have adapted systems to help deal with the cons of each that may or may not always work as intended. For example: my wife is allergic oranges and mangos. Orange peels have a chemical called limonene. Most of us can tolerate this chemical. Some of us can't. Each person's body is like its own universe of complex biomes. It seems unbelievable but some people, very rare, are even allergic to water. Crazy right? I mean what can be more natural than water?


Messenger: Black heart Sent: 10/12/2022 3:31:05 PM
Reply

When I said ital means vetarian life I meant vegan life. Vegan is vegetarian.no animal products.Don't call people who eat fish vegetarian fo dey are not. We don't come from evolution we come from creation. Ital is a livication to Almighty Creator. Oneness


Messenger: Cedric Sent: 10/12/2022 8:32:03 PM
Reply

Blessed Love Idren

Bless Up IPXninja, give thanks for the kind words. Glad InI are able to clearly communicate InI hearts and positive energy even through digital means.

This is becoming a lively reasoning!

Yes Iah! Macka B’s Wha Me Eat!!

Jahcub I said, “Most the grain grown on planet is fed to livestock. Around 65% of it.”

Yes I, this is central to the point the author of “Diet for a Small Planet” is trying to teach InI, and I really think what InI need to focus on to use science to prove to IPXninja what InI are trying to say.

I found parts of the book in pdf form. IPXninja I would really be interested in hearing the I’s response to some of the issues brought up in this book, specifically about how the meat industry is based off viable food crops that could be more efficiently used as plant protein to feed hungry humans. Here is a quick quote from the text:
“The first edition of this book explained how our production system takes abundant grain, which hungry people can't afford, and shrinks it into meat, which better-off people will pay for. But I didn't fully appreciate that our production system not only reduces abundance but actually mines the very resources on which our future food security rests.”

Page 65 of the pdf

https://files.oakland.edu/users/leidel/web/ENV312/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet_ONE_LESS_HAMBURGER.pdf

I would also be interested to hear the I’s response to the “Protein Myths” section
From the pdf:
“Myth No. 1: Meat contains more protein than my other food.
Fact: Containing 20 to 25 percent protein by weight, meat ranks about in the middle of the protein quantity scale, along with some nuts, cheese, beans, and fish...

Myth No. 2: Eating lots of meat is the only way to get enough protein.
Fact: Americans often eat 50 to 100 percent more protein than their bodies can use. Thus, most Americans could completely eliminate meat, fish, and poultry from their diets and still get the recommended daily allowance of protein from all the other protein-rich foods in the typical American diet.”

Pages 8-9 of the pdf

https://files.oakland.edu/users/leidel/web/ENV312/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet_PROTIEN.pdf

IPXninja said, “The reason I can push back, challenging the mainstream narrative, is because no narrative should go unchallenged or untested. If it survives the test, no problem. Right? But if it doesn't then we're holding on to something because it was handed down, not because it is true.”

Yes I, very true. InI should not be complacent and should question the narrative. Each one of InI should be fully invested in making the choices involved in how one lives. I do think in this case the I might not be giving enough credit to how one can hold on to something just because one likes it, not necessarily because it was handed down or even the truth.

IPXninja said, “As far as Jah "seeing n knowing"... the same book that says "to you it shall be for meat" already, at the time of that writing, understood "meat" to be food. The very word for food was "meat" which comes from animals. The Israelites were not gardeners primarily.”

True. But again, I don’t think it would be useful for InI to bring this argument based on original humans or what has gone on in the past. Even as InI must recognize that HIM Haile Selassie I ate animals (as meat), InI can see nuff examples of meat eating in the bible and throughout history. Even with InI Most beloved Highest choosing something, it shouldn’t discount the fact that InI can evolve with an eye towards the future and strive for the most harmonious methods and livity. InI can choose vegetable only diets even if that is not what InI ancestors or spiritual heads chose.

seestem said,”About HIM eating meat, I and I has not reached the ites of HIM to compare Iself to HIM like that. Also HIM follows the Ethiopian culture I and I follow Rastafari livity. Just like HIM did not dread up (no need, HIM wear the triple crown already), kinda like the students wear the school uniform and not the teacher.”

Yes Iah! I didn’t mean to skip this in I last post. Give thanks for the I sight! I see it very similar.

IPXninja said, “What I meant by this is that if person A has a primarily meat-based diet then meat is their primary source. If person B is vegetarian then meat is an alternative source (eggs for example, are meat). Many vegetarians also occasionally eat fish. If a person is a vegan then their only source of protein is plant-based. So what is "main" and "alternative" are subjective to the lifestyles (and survival methods) of different organisms.”

I think I overstand now how the I was using “main” and “alternative” to define an organisms diet, not to define the most abundant source of protein. I was trying to make the point that plant protein is the most abundant source of protein on earth and as the foundation of the food chain should be known as the main source of protein. That isn’t an important point on its own, but it does support the main point I am trying to make that humans feed human food to farmed animals which raises the price of plant based proteins to create a meat product that is a less efficient protein. Besides the fact that yes, a lot of people sure enjoy the taste of meat.

IPXninja said, “And then what happens to the animal populations we normally eat? Will they not consume the plants? Wouldn't some species of animals reproduce out of control if they weren't hunted by predators? My point is that the ecosystem is complex and has evolved in ways that are built on the foundation of predators vs prey.”

Pretty much all the animal populations “we normally eat” are all farmed animals that are raised to become meat products. So what would happen to them is, if we stopped farming them for meat there would be less of them. They won’t consume the plants (viable food grains) because we will stop feeding grains to them. Of course some species of animals would reproduce out of control if they aren’t hunted by predators, but that fact has nothing to do with the current way the average person eats meat. Buying meat from the grocery store that has been fed viable human-food crops is not related to a natural, healthy, complex and evolved ecosystem.

IPXninja said, “When it comes to capitalism people will always find and exploit those loopholes. It doesn't mean they all are but it means if you truly want to know if the "organic" label is true you have to do more homework.”

Yes I, I see. Give thanks for the links too.

IPXninja said, “I understand the point you're trying to make and would really like to agree with it in its entirety. But I think you are considering an ideal situation where each person on the planet could have enough land to farm. The way that land is owned, in some areas would be just as easy as slaughtering animals whereas in other areas, like cities, a person may own no land at all or be under regulations for how the land they do own is used. For example, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to use my entire front lawn as a garden. And the back of my house has a creek and is shrouded in tall trees. I love it but I'm only left with a semi-large raised bed that doesn't get a whole lot of direct sunlight. I couldn't even think of being able to produce enough food to feed even one person.”

I disagree with this. I think if anyone took a square foot comparison of how much land was available and tried to either raise and slaughter animals or grow food crops, one could get much more calories from that square footage by growing plant based calories compared to meat based calories. I know that can be proven by science. The only way someone could temporarily fudge the numbers to show otherwise, would be if that square footage of land happened to have a large number of wild animals on it, and one was going to compare the calories one could get by slaughtering all those animals vs growing food crops on that piece of land. But one would be fudging the numbers because that source of wild animals would be quickly hunted to extinction without the support of a much larger piece of land with a healthy and thriving ecosystem to support the growth of those wild animals.

IPXninja said, “Ital living is not "Death free". Plants are living organisms. The only thing separating them from animals is "intelligence". But this is not a binary thing. It is a spectrum. Life is not binary thing. It is a spectrum. Plants have cells just like animals. Plants generate energy from an external source, just like animals. Plants grow just like animals. Plants have melanin (chloraphyl) just like animals. Plants pull nutrients from the ground, just like animals when they eat plants and other animals when they eat them.”

I disagree with this. Plants are living organisms but I don’t think the death of a plant can be compared to the death of an animal. I think it is too much of a stretch to say plants grow just like animals. What cow ever gave birth to new life after it was cut up on a dinner plate? I can literally consume and expel plant seeds from I body and still grow the next plant haha. To say that the only thing that separates plants from animals is intelligence doesn’t tell the whole story. Whether one sees a cow as a smart animal or not, a stalk of corn isn’t going to react the same as a cow if one were to cut it. Just because every thing is made up of cells doesn’t mean those cells create the same thing.

IPXninja said, “And... I hate to bring this up (but not that much) but the chances of anyone eating pure plants only is... a bit of an illusion. And that is because animals exist in different sizes/scale. Not only is the planet host to trillions upon trillions of tiny animals and creatures, making homes and all-you-can-eat buffets out of the plants we eat, but even our bodies are homes to millions of microscopic life forms who feed on whatever we consume.”

Yes I, this is unavoidable if InI are to take the microcosms into account. However microbes and enzymes and microscopic life are a totally different ballgame than farm raised meat. If it’s all unavoidable, but InI can decide which microorganisms to put in I bodies, I choose the microorganisms that feed off of plants haha.

IPXninja said, ”So technically speaking, we're all "kind of" eating both plants and animals anyway. Animals are killed throughout all stages of the plant-food production industry. Not only that but taking plant food away from animals for human consumption robs those animals of nutrition. So the more we grow food to feed ourselves the more we would either eat animals (many times the number of small animals vs large ones) or interrupt the lives and ecosystems of trillions of others to the point that many trillions of them would die.”

This I disagree with and even though I am not well versed on logic definitions, I think there are a few logical fallacies in that paragraph. If humans stop feeding viable food crops to animals that only robs an animal of nutrition if the same number of animals are farmed. InI are arguing to decrease the number of farmed animals because farmed raised animal protein is an inefficient process. And because InI can prove through science that it takes more land per square foot to get a comparable amount of animal protein vs plant proteins, InI could actually feed a lot more people with less land and less deforestation and less ecosystem destruction if InI chose to eat a diet based on plants. That is still true even taking into account the fact that one needs to consume more plant biomass to equal the same amount of animal protein.

Anyways theres my book for the night haha

Yes I vegan is vegetarian but vegetarian doesn’t necessarily mean vegan

Blessed Love Iahs

Empress Menen I and HIM Haile Selassie I Love


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 10/13/2022 2:51:02 PM
Reply

@Cedric

“The first edition of this book explained how our production system takes abundant grain, which hungry people can't afford, and shrinks it into meat, which better-off people will pay for. But I didn't fully appreciate that our production system not only reduces abundance but actually mines the very resources on which our future food security rests.”

To this, I would say that the writer underestimates capitalism and the subsequent greed that offers no response at all to the needs of those who cannot afford to play its game. In other words... Whether you are paying for meat or grain, someone still has to actually produce it on land that someone owns. So this introduces a profit motive. Whether it's a factory farm or field, the produce of both is still going to be sold and therefore the supply will be sent to the (paying) demand. To send it to the non-paying demand would not only lose money but would cost money in transportation and distribution. And who is going to "eat" those costs? Either the writer is asking the wealthy corporations to eat the cost or we should all eat the cost. But we can already do this by donating money to numerous programs that exactly grow or buy food to feed the hungry.

Here are 9 very real options that anyone can currently donate to.

World Food Programme
Heifer International
Action Against Hunger
The Hunger Project
Rise Against Hunger
World Central Kitchen
Feeding America
Mercy Corps

Instead of asking the wealthy to voluntarily redistribute their own wealth to ignore supply and demand and force people to eat a different diet because of their own operation for food security that absolutely WILL result in them losing market share to new (global) competitors who will not FORCE the population to be vegans (and this is actually one of those irrational fears conservatives have against liberals), and will renew the SAME cycle but with different players, and why should anyone sacrifice themselves and their own profits when they KNOW they will simply be replaced by someone who might be even more greedy?

I understand this is a cynical view but if you search your feelings you will also see that I'm right. These corporations are controlled by some of the most greedy people on the planet and capitalism harnesses their greed for the sake of production. But using force is in no way any kind of answer because free will would simply find another outlet for satisfaction. So what good is it to interrupt one single business cycle when the markets will literally self-correct and bring you right back where you started? What we are up against is not necessarily corporations, you see. We're up against human nature itself.

So the answer is that changing food production is NOT an answer to the world's hunger or food crisis. This would also be like me saying, "since it takes X amount of food to feed X number of people then simply reduce the 'surplus population' to the point where the existence percentage who are hungry is no more." Would that solve the problem? No. The same percentage would exist because it is capitalism and failures in economics that create the percentage.

I don't mean to insult the writer but you CANNOT view plants vs animals in terms of abundance when this relies on ownership. Because when it comes to ownership and profit motive the number of plants OR animals is irrelevant because there will always be enough produced to meet the paying demand. If there is more demand, more will be produced and the extra profits will expand facilities and be invested in innovations that decrease costs over time. I'm sorry, but all this is true. That is the nature of any machine when it comes to finding efficiencies. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if a growing percentage of food comes from lab-grown meat or hybrid plant/meat organisms. Some will eat it. Others won't until its normalized. Even if you increase the population by 2 billion, as long as those extra 2 billion can afford to eat? Production will grow to meet that demand just like it has done so historically. But if you think of the total number to be fed without consideration to whether or not they can pay? Well, it's never worked like that. Even in ancient times, which is why indentured servants and debt slaves existed.

So no, neither the meat industry, agriculture industry, fishing, etc. etc. none of them are charities. If you want their labor to be used for charity then it's best to donate to a charity that pays them for their efforts. Otherwise, if people are working for free then how do they avoid the same poverty they're being asked to feed? All this being said, I am not pro-capitalism. But you cannot be inside a soccer game and pick the ball up and start throwing it like a football. The rules of the game are like the rules of the system, like the rules of the Matrix.


Messenger: Cedric Sent: 10/13/2022 7:12:59 PM
Reply

Bless Up IPXninja. Ah yes, greed and capitalism, the major drivers of world operation. As an idealist I often forget how much those factor into whats going on.

I see what the I says that in the current economies of the world there is little incentive to do the right thing. The I brought up a very good point that InI are up against human nature itself. Thats why InI should help spread the knowledge that InI each have immense power to create change, not only with InI day-to-day choices but also by voting with InI money. After all one can say one is not pro-capitalism, but if one justifies one’s choices based on the greed of capitalism than the system certainly won’t ever change by itself.

For the record I wasn’t trying to promote forcing someone’s choice, I was promoting putting all the facts onto the table and hoping one would choose the more harmonious option. Harmonious like for the good of the planet. But as the I said, this is a battle against human nature itself.

Right now the world is perfectly fine carrying on the illusion that nothing needs to change and food production has no ceiling, but I think this will be an issue that people face more and more as the population increases. I hope we don’t get to the point where food production needs to change to solve the world’s hunger problem, because I hope the out-of-control greed of capitalism gets bridled somehow. But if the world was looking for an answer to produce more food in a natural way and in limited space, plant based foods are the answer. To I, that is a very different argument than the illogical and harmful argument of reducing the “surplus population”.

As far as lab-grown plant/meat organisms goes, the I forgot the third option: Lament that humans couldn’t figure out how to tame their greed and grow more plants, go on hunger strike, then starve and die. If future humanity’s answer to world hunger is Soylent Green, I’m already lining up for option #3 haha

Give thanks for the reply IPXninja

May InI be able to follow the rules and still be able to do what InI think is right

HIM Haile Selassie I Earth’s Rightful Ruler


Messenger: Black Christ in Flesh Sent: 10/14/2022 7:20:37 AM
Reply

Confusion iyah


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 10/14/2022 8:41:57 PM
Reply

I would also be interested to hear the I’s response to the “Protein Myths” section
From the pdf:
“Myth No. 1: Meat contains more protein than my other food.
Fact: Containing 20 to 25 percent protein by weight, meat ranks about in the middle of the protein quantity scale, along with some nuts, cheese, beans, and fish...

I love the Morning Star Breakfast patties made from soy. Great taste but I'm paying more for less. And then "some nuts" which is great if you're a nut lover or if you're not allergic like my cousin is. Nuts could literally kill him. And I love how vegetarian lists include cheese and fish as if fish isn't meat. But we can ignore this. The point is that it really breaks down into personal choice and preference. If we were out in the wild all these choices would be limited.


Myth No. 2: Eating lots of meat is the only way to get enough protein.
Fact: Americans often eat 50 to 100 percent more protein than their bodies can use. Thus, most Americans could completely eliminate meat, fish, and poultry from their diets and still get the recommended daily allowance of protein from all the other protein-rich foods in the typical American diet.”

Fact: Americans in general eat too much food period. One only has to look at the curves of our figures. I'm not sure if I should respond to myths I never stated as fact. But sure, let's play. What are these "other foods" that we should be eating? Can I replace the steak burrito I just had yesterday with a nut burrito? This is one of those things that sound good in theory, but growing up in a vegetarian house if you're honest you have to admit that giving up meat is a sacrifice. I simply see that sacrifice as optional and opt not to.

Cedric: InI can choose vegetable only diets even if that is not what InI ancestors or spiritual heads chose.

Absolutely! 100% You are "FREE" to make different choices. These choices may, in fact, violate biblical laws but I am not Moses or the police/watchdogs of the Pharisees. Therefore, I'm not arguing Numbers 9:9-13. I'm not even arguing Matthew 15:9, pointing out the fact that people often make rules out of vegan/vegetarianism that are doctrines not according to biblical laws but the "commandments of men". I'm not arguing Genesis 9:3. Again, I'm not arguing on behalf of the bible because I think its position is clear on the matter. Clear and... at times... unfairly dogmatic in the other direction. Let's look at Romans 14:1-3 as an example of this.

14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.


Cedric: Pretty much all the animal populations “we normally eat” are all farmed animals that are raised to become meat products.

But you just killed one of the other arguments that talk about not killing animals. I agree with you. It's not the same as hunting and the vast majority of these animals wouldn't even be alive at all if it wasn't for humans raising them for food, clothes, shoes, blankets, and a myriad of other animal-based products. If we use certain other animal parts that only come from the animal's death then not eating the meat is a waste. Without these animals, we would be switching to crops that would require tons of land. And your arguments against grains and corn or whatever would be great, winning arguments, if many animals didn't simply feed on grass.

https://www.rastellis.com/collections/beef/source:grass_fed?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=17311165634&utm_content=136918389797&utm_term=grass%20fed%20beef&gadid=599390401106&gclid=CjwKCAjw7p6aBhBiEiwA83fGukwNk0P-lZTtD9KeDSHaiF5EBymIKvSdzJQq3ZTXsQ2gSxKd4oSEkBoC810QAvD_BwE

The last I saw a human grazing on some tasty grass was... never-never saw that. I'm sure someone eats grass because a lot of people get off on being weird. And to be fair I looked it up and wow... grass has protein, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, calcium, potassium, and zinc! We should all be eating grass! Why are there so many hungry people when they can eat grass? Do you know how much grass is wasted every day when we mow our lawns?? Look, I'm having a little fun with the topic so I hope you won't hold it against me. Of course, you know why we don't eat grass and it's the same reason why most of us will continue to eat meat. But there's no grass shortage though right? Can we agree on this? There's no grass shortage just a shortage of people who desire to eat grass. Hey look, I just solved the food crisis :P

On a more serious note, this goes back to economics as a driving force of poverty in general, not just hunger. The only reason I can't get behind changing human nature around the world is that this is exactly what we've all been trying to do since we gained consciousness. Once you represent one religion those of the others most often will ignore you. Since there are so many religious systems that people go to in order to upgrade their human nature for the better your chosen system would have to win.


Messenger: Black heart Sent: 10/15/2022 11:10:02 AM
Reply

I don't eat meat bcos I don't want animals to b killed fo I food. I can't create life dehfo I don't want to kill life. Ital livity preserve life. Ital is vital. Jah know, Jah see


Messenger: Black heart Sent: 10/16/2022 4:11:36 AM
Reply

Now we know dat u IPXninja like meat so much dat u are prepared to defend d eating of it. I can't tell u to stop eating it but I tell u to stop trying to change d defination of ital. Meat is not ital, but is d opposit of ital. U too can't make us eat it.


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 72

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I