Disillusioned Reality

[cristaphin]

I feel sorrow that your feeling a little fustrated with your fellow beings.  If allowed, one can certainly get swept away by the perceived negativity.

May I suggest that you take a moment to search Indigo/crystal children?

Perhaps another perspective on the current energy pattern might be helpful to you.

Peace

[coolbreeze]

CaCoDeMon, I'm 15, and my parents don't really like my liberal views and all that. The vegetarianism is a tough issue for them and I'd like to honor their wishes until they get more used to it. I really love them and don't want to estrange myself from them.  

I don't think people should have suffering. The way I see it, problems should help us learn, but suffering is caused by the way we deal with our problems. It is simply perceived. Even for people who are born into suffering - refugees, and such.  I think they were put here to help put a  stop to their problems. Not that I think its fair, just that it is the way it works. This view does have some holes in it, I really haven't thought about it too clearly, but off the top of my head  

[CaCoDeMoN]

15? So your parents are right, your body needs proteins and other substances that are contained in meat. I've started vegetarianism when I was 17, and already stopped growing(193cm). In a few days it will be year from when I started, and I am perfectly healthy. The most important thing is to eat heavy amount of milk products, to supply body with proteins that are not available in vegetables and fruits.The other really important thing is that milk/cheese should be really good quality, in Poland it's no problem, but I've read somewhere that in US milk products frequently contains antibiotics, steroids and other harmful substances. Also the meat/milk industry in US in not protected against mad cow disease at all, and I've heard that this disease can be transfered to humans through milk too.

[CaCoDeMoN]

I don't think people should have suffering. The way I see it, problems should help us learn, but suffering is caused by the way we deal with our problems. It is simply perceived. Even for people who are born into suffering - refugees, and such. I think they were put here to help put a stop to their problems. Not that I think its fair, just that it is the way it works. This view does have some holes in it, I really haven't thought about it too clearly, but off the top of my head

If only things were so simple...
What you would say about children that were/are used in medical experiments? I am sure that they have souls, and why they must endure extreme pain and suffering? Frequently it's only thing in their life that they know. If everyone would choose where he will be born, then why would anyone want to choose such thing?

[beavis]

Selski

We watch mindless, numbing, idiotic programmes on TV and call it "entertainment". (This stems for a conversation today with someone who has been watching "I'm a celebrity – get me out of here" – a UK programme). I had absolutely no comprehension as to how anyone would want to watch a programme like that, and yet I was told it has millions of viewers. After this conversation, I seriously contemplated throwing my television out of the window.

when I'm scanning the descriptions of tv shows, if it has more text listing the actors' names than the plot, I usually skip it.

But its not all about stupid things like celebretys' birthdays, trivia, or fashion. Star trek, for example. I watched an interesting (mechanic type) show the other day where they converted a school bus to a boat where the roof hinged out left and right to make a square platform.

The biggest "Thing" we are chained to is something we created – little pieces of paper with ink on – money – and these bits of paper cause so much negativity (to name a few; sadness, anger, greed, hatred, and jealousy).

There has always been trading. Money is a better form of it. Or are you a communist (blashpemer!)?

We want to save the animals, but only the ones that are cute and appealing. If kitten became a fashionable dish in the UK... (Well, that simply wouldn't happen).

If you cook a cat I'll eat it.

We eat animals. Let me say that again. WE EAT ANIMALS. Good grief. And we create all sorts of excuses for the reason we eat our fellow inhabitants.

The only other option is eating plants, and they're alive too. What kind of uncivilized person are you to want to kill more plants?

the fact that I am a human really gets me down.

lol me too

cacodemon

must endure extreme pain and suffering? Frequently it's only thing in their life that they know. If everyone would choose where he will be born, then why would anyone want to choose such thing?

We dont choose which body to be born in, OR maybe theres a high demand for bodies and the suffering wasnt too high a price.

[CaCoDeMoN]

There has always been trading. Money is a better form of it. Or are you a communist (blashpemer!)?

In communism there were money too, only there was no private ownership of means of production...

If you cook a cat I'll eat it.

It wil probably taste like chicken  

The only other option is eating plants, and they're alive too. What kind of uncivilized person are you to want to kill more plants?

This is not true at all. If people would not consume animals, then the plant consumption would go down drastically, because animals need food too, and they consume much more food than they produce. And think about carnivore animals - it is possible to calculate how much plants are needed to feed a cat or dog until it's ready for consumption.(in Asia such things are very popular...)

[beavis]

Capitalism is still a better system than communism. The owner of a factory should feel pressured to run it efficiently. The worst problem capitalism is causing is that laws are for sale. Capitalism separated from government (except for allocation of a fixed budget within the government) would be close to perfect.

There were too many cats around my parents house. If it werent for the arguing of my relatives about it, I would have killed it with a knife (fast) and cooked it. Could have been free meat and variety. Sucks only having a few kinds of meat to choose from.

The amount of plants we could eat is very small compared to the plants eaten by animals that we could eat. If you eat animals, a lot of plants will die to feed those animals, but if you dont eat animals, those animals and those thousands of plants will never get to live. Better to live and be killed than not live at all. You might be killed tomorrow, but would you want never to have been born if you were? So bite that kitten's head off and cook him. It will help the environment and taste great!

The only thing that bothers me about it is the small cage-like areas some animals are kept in.

[CaCoDeMoN]

Capitalism is still a better system than communism. The owner of a factory should feel pressured to run it efficiently. The worst problem capitalism is causing is that laws are for sale. Capitalism separated from government (except for allocation of a fixed budget within the government) would be close to perfect.

Yes, it would be close to perfect, but alternative economical systems(like participatory economics) could be even better...

There were too many cats around my parents house. If it werent for the arguing of my relatives about it, I would have killed it with a knife (fast) and cooked it. Could have been free meat and variety. Sucks only having a few kinds of meat to choose from.

This is not a good idea, cats can have really nasty diseases...

The amount of plants we could eat is very small compared to the plants eaten by animals that we could eat. If you eat animals, a lot of plants will die to feed those animals, but if you dont eat animals, those animals and those thousands of plants will never get to live. Better to live and be killed than not live at all. You might be killed tomorrow, but would you want never to have been born if you were? So bite that kitten's head off and cook him. It will help the environment and taste great!

This is not true. For farm animals life is hell, and it would be better for them to never live at all. Another advantage is that there would be much more free land, that could be used for production of biodiesel(that is 100% harmless to enviroment) and for forests. It would be good to see all cars running on free solar energy(biodesel) instead of petoleum....

[coolbreeze]

Quote:

I don't think people should have suffering. The way I see it, problems should help us learn, but suffering is caused by the way we deal with our problems. It is simply perceived. Even for people who are born into suffering - refugees, and such. I think they were put here to help put a stop to their problems. Not that I think its fair, just that it is the way it works. This view does have some holes in it, I really haven't thought about it too clearly, but off the top of my head


If only things were so simple...
What you would say about children that were/are used in medical experiments? I am sure that they have souls, and why they must endure extreme pain and suffering? Frequently it's only thing in their life that they know. If everyone would choose where he will be born, then why would anyone want to choose such thing?

I'm not saying people choose where they want to exist; its more of along the lines that they are placed there by a greater being, whether for good or evil. I'm not sure if you believe in such a thing, but I do and I like to think they are working toward a greater good and hasn't abandoned us yet. I also never said those who are in pain don't have souls! Quite the contrary, they probably must have very strong souls to endure such pain!
Also, where did you hear about children being used in medical experiments? I have heard of animals being used but not children. Can you give me some info on this?

I don't know if many of you have heard of the disputes over Kentucky Fried Chicken in the US, where the company that KFC was getting its chicken from seared the beaks off of baby chicks to prevent them from hurting workers. The chickens there live in very cramped conditions and are fed drugs to make them grow so fast that their legs couldn't support. This isn't the only report of activity like this, but it got national attention because KFC is a large national fast food chain.

[CaCoDeMoN]

Also, where did you hear about children being used in medical experiments? I have heard of animals being used but not children. Can you give me some info on this?

Ok, but there's not much info available on this. It only happens in communist(like China and former Soviet Union) and fascist(WW II Germany, and USA now) countries. In USA it is not even kept secret, and there was an article at BBC News about one case of such experiments being conducted now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm
I think that they are probably many more, but they are being kept secret.
Also in WW II Germany such experiments were conducted in death camps on Polish and Jewish children. Of course they were kept secret, and were discovered after Germany lost the war. There are many books about these experiments, but I don't want to talk about them, they were too cruel. I've read somewhere that even Aspirin was invented that way.
Also from my past life memories I can tell that in one of my incarnations I probably died in a medical experiment.

[Blackstream]

I think the point about eating plants was in reference to the argument against eating animals.  In other words, eating animals is wrong because they are alive.  Therefore, the person was making the argument that if that was so, then eating plants is also wrong as they are also alive.

Unfortunately, there's no escaping the fact that we need to eat living things to live.  Look at it another way, animals eat animals to live as well.  It is the natural way of things, obviously.

If that for some reason bugs you, it's time to survive off of plants that you don't have to kill to eat :p

[beavis]

This is not true. For farm animals life is hell, and it would be better for them to never live at all.

What about the plants that get to exist because of those animals?

Still nothing wrong with eating wild animals.

Another advantage is that there would be much more free land, that could be used for production of biodiesel(that is 100% harmless to enviroment) and for forests. It would be good to see all cars running on free solar energy(biodesel) instead of petoleum....

Crappy cars exist mostly for reasons other than lack of land.

[Sam]

Biodiesel isn't 100% harmless.  It burns and produces smoke like any other fuel.  It requires the use of large tracts of land to grow canola or soy from which to extract the vegetable oils, which carries with it the usual environmental problems of any type of farm: fertilizers washing into watertables and waterways, raising the watertable causing salinity problems, destruction of forest and jungle as more room is cleared to provide fuel for ever increasing numbers of diesel vehicles...

[CaCoDeMoN]

Biodiesel isn't 100% harmless. It burns and produces smoke like any other fuel. It requires the use of large tracts of land to grow canola or soy from which to extract the vegetable oils, which carries with it the usual environmental problems of any type of farm: fertilizers washing into watertables and waterways, raising the watertable causing salinity problems, destruction of forest and jungle as more room is cleared to provide fuel for ever increasing numbers of diesel vehicles...

Smoke? It doesn't produce smoke at all - only h2o and co2, ant he co2 produced is equal to co2 consumed by plants from atmosphere. So it is 100% harmless.

[Sam]

from http://www.adb.org/vehicle-emissions/General/inuse-conversions-5.asp

Biodiesel is produced by reacting vegetable or animal fats with methanol or ethanol to produce a lower viscosity fuel that is similar in physical characteristics to diesel, and which can be used neat or blended with petroleum diesel in a diesel engine. Engines running on biodiesel instead of or blended with petroleum diesel tend to have lower black smoke and CO emissions, but higher NOx and possibly higher emissions of particulate matter. These differences are not very large, however. Other advantages of biodiesel include high cetane number, very low sulfur content, and the fact that it is a renewable resource. Disadvantages include high cost, reduced energy density (resulting in lower engine power output), and low flash point, which may make it hazardous to handle. The effects of biodiesel on engine performance and emissions over a long time in actual service are not well documented.

Although there are no published field test data on engine emissions, performance and durability for vehicles using blended or neat biodiesel, there are some reports in the literature on short-term effects measured in the laboratory.

The general consensus of these studies is that blended or neat biodiesel has the potential to reduce diesel CO emissions (although these are already low), smoke opacity, and measured HC emissions. However, the studies show an increase in NOX emissions for biodiesel fuel when compared to diesel fuel at normal engine conditions. The higher NOX emissions from biodiesel-powered engines are partly due to the higher cetane number of biodiesel, which causes a shorter ignition delay and higher peak cylinder pressure. Some may also be due to the nitrogen content in the fuel. The reduction in smoke emissions is believed to be due to better combustion of the short chain hydrocarbons found in biodiesel, as well as the effects of the oxygen content. Other data have also shown that mixing oxygenates with diesel fuel helps to reduce smoke.

As for the HC emissions, research shows a reduction in HC emissions when biodiesel is used. However, the effect of the organic acids and/or oxygenated compounds found in biodiesel may affect the response of the flame ionization detector, thus understating the actual HC emissions. The behavior of these compounds with respect to adsorption and desorption on the surfaces of the gas sampling system is not known. Thus more studies are needed to understand the organic constituents in the exhaust gases from biodiesel-powered engines before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects on HC emissions. There is controversy concerning the effect of biodiesel on particulate matter emissions.

The cost of biodiesel fuel is one of the principal barriers making it less attractive to substitute for diesel fuel. Since the heating value for biodiesel is less than that for diesel, more fuel must be burned to provide the same work output as diesel fuel. This adds further to the cost disadvantage of biodiesel.

So in current literature, it burns somewhat cleaner than normal diesel, but it still produces noxious gasses.  And I would consider the other points in my previous post regarding chemical use in the growing of the crops in the first place as being "harm causing" to the environment.

[CaCoDeMoN]

So in current literature, it burns somewhat cleaner than normal diesel, but it still produces noxious gasses. And I would consider the other points in my previous post regarding chemical use in the growing of the crops in the first place as being "harm causing" to the environment.

But CO2 that is emitted to atmospere is equal to CO2 taken from atmosphere, so there's no CO2 pollution.

[RT]

So in current literature, it burns somewhat cleaner than normal diesel, but it still produces noxious gasses. And I would consider the other points in my previous post regarding chemical use in the growing of the crops in the first place as being "harm causing" to the environment.

But CO2 that is emitted to atmospere is equal to CO2 taken from atmosphere, so there's no CO2 pollution.

hmmmm........

You are not taking the CO2 from the atmosphere you are taking it from the Biosphere then emitting it into the atmosphere. You are taking an oil produced from organic plants, processing the plants into oil or biodiesel, then burning it, thus giving off V.O.C's and CO2 quicker than it would break down naturally and give off the CO2 over time.

I think what people are saying is no matter how you slice it oil, fossils fuels of any kind aren't good for the environment.

[CaCoDeMoN]

You are not taking the CO2 from the atmosphere you are taking it from the Biosphere then emitting it into the atmosphere. You are taking an oil produced from organic plants, processing the plants into oil or biodiesel, then burning it, thus giving off V.O.C's and CO2 quicker than it would break down naturally and give off the CO2 over time.

Could you explain what's biosphere?