Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Age]

There is no assertion in this to back or prove.
If you think there is, please prove that this assertion is true.

Once again, this one does not notice and realize what it actually does here.

So, although this one believes that it was precisely not an assertion and believes that there is no assertion to back or prove 'now' it talks about 'this assertion'.

The gaps in your understanding of communication are deep and broad.

Once again, just more attempts at detraction, deflection, distraction, and/or deception.

The word 'this' can indicate disbelief.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one is proposing just one thing out of a just about countless other set of things.

If you haven't caught on that I don't believe there is an assertion in there, then, of course, you cannot interpret that sentence correctly.

But that sentence has never been the sentence that I have been talking about and referring to. And, if you, still, had not caught onto this, then you would not have known that that is not it. See, it was not that and that this is, and was, it and that at the same time.

Just maybe you 'now' know what has been happening and occurring. But, then again, maybe you, still, do not know what it was, exactly.

I was asking you to prove what you are claiming is an assertion.

Here is another claim, made by this one.

So, when and where, exactly, were you, actually, 'asking' me to prove what you are claiming is an assertion?

Will you provide the actual proof of when and where, exactly, you, supposedly and allegedly, did this?

And, are you yet aware what 'asking' actually involves, to me? Or, have you forgotten this, as well?

Ken's issues are now hardened into Age's patterns and considered immaculate.

That is it, add in another 'name' to try to distract, deflect, distort, and deceive here "iwannaplato".

The readers here will never 'see' what you are trying to do here, again 'now'.

But of course you won't prove that assertion true or even try.

But, you believe that there was 'no assertion', so how is it possible to prove some thing true when there was, supposedly, 'no thing' to begin with.

See, you would have to first acknowledge that it was, actually, after all 'an assertion'. And then explain to the readers what 'the assertion' was, exactly, before I could, and would, prove to you, and the readers, that 'that assertion', (if it was one that I actually made), was true, and even actually True, as well.

So, once again, 'we' will await 'on you', here.

You will always find something to focus on in the other person's communication, when you come near to noticing something more seriously wrong than a typo in your communciation.

Okay. If this is what you believe is true, then this 'must be true', well at least to you anyway.

So, you will never get around to proving what you seem to think that statement asserted.

And, I know, absolutely, that you do not even know what that statement even is, exactly.

And, as you will prove me absolutely True, again, by you never providing what that statement even is, exactly.

Because by this time having committed to it being wrong on my part to point out this problem, you simply cannot face that it was you that messed up, not me.

See, how this one just cannot stop, nor change, its habit here.

I withdraw my request because you are incapable of the honesty and introspection required to focus on what you said and this supposed proof.

LOL The actual Truth is you, laughingly, withdraw your request, because you are absolutely incapable of even providing what it even is, exactly.

And you will, again, prove me absolutely True by me requesting that you provide your 'actual request' and in regards to 'what', exactly?

The 'what' referring to the actual statement, that is; 'the assertion', which you also claim is not 'an assertion', which I say and claim I can and will prove is absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

All you can do is focus outward.

Once more, if this is what you believe is true, then this is all you will see me do.

I don't think you are aware of what you are doing here.

Okay. And, what do you think or believe that I am, supposedly, doing here, which you do not think I am aware of doing, exactly?

Not that you will actually clarify and answer.

But in such situations there is often a bit of nagging doubt or peripheral awareness that people just want to jump past as fast as they can.

Okay, but this is another example of where and when I see 'you' have and are just befuddling and confusing "your" own 'self' here.

If someone else had written an incomplete sentence then said they could prove it was true and back it up, you'd likely notice the problem.

Once again, you, still, do not seem to have absolutely any clue nor idea at all what an actual 'problem' even is to me, exactly. And, until you do, then you will continue to make this Truly illogical, irrational, nonsensical, False, and Wrong claims 'about me'.

But since you did it and dug in your heels, you no longer "can be wrong".

Okay, if you say so.

So, yet another Age created dead end.

If this is only what you see here, then this is only what you do, and thus will get.

[Iwannaplato]

Once again, just more attempts at detraction, deflection, distraction, and/or deception.

I understood already that you think this is true.

[Age]

Once again, just more attempts at detraction, deflection, distraction, and/or deception.

I understood already that you think this is true.

I also understood already that you believe this is true.

I can, however, prove what I said and claimed above here. So, what you, supposedly, already understood here is again faulty, and Wrong.

As for eating meat. Eating meat and killing animals, when you do not have to, is Wrong.

Now, for those who are interested in knowing why, then this can be explained fully.

[henry quirk]

1F4542FA-8CA9-4D88-9E17-8DD207EAB5EC.jpeg

[Iwannaplato]

Once again, just more attempts at detraction, deflection, distraction, and/or deception.

I understood already that you think this is true.

I also understood already that you believe this is true.

I can, however, prove what I said and claimed above here. So, what you, supposedly, already understood here is again faulty, and Wrong.

As for eating meat. Eating meat and killing animals, when you do not have to, is Wrong.

Now, for those who are interested in knowing why, then this can be explained fully.

How does one determine when one needs to and when one doesn't really need to? Please explain the criteria for the distinction.

[Age]

I understood already that you think this is true.

I also understood already that you believe this is true.

I can, however, prove what I said and claimed above here. So, what you, supposedly, already understood here is again faulty, and Wrong.

As for eating meat. Eating meat and killing animals, when you do not have to, is Wrong.

Now, for those who are interested in knowing why, then this can be explained fully.

How does one determine when one needs to and when one doesn't really need to? Please explain the criteria for the distinction.

Thank you for asking. I was wondering how long it would take someone to finally ask for clarification.

The word 'need' here is in relation to life and living. So, if one can keep living, thus stay alive, without killing an animal, then this is how one determines when one needs to from when one does not really need to.

In regards to 'morality' issues or decisions the word 'need', in relation to what is called 'staying alive', is a very important point in uncovering and learning what is actually Right, from Wrong, in Life, Itself.

[Iwannaplato]

Thank you for asking. I was wondering how long it would take someone to finally ask for clarification.

The word 'need' here is in relation to life and living. So, if one can keep living, thus stay alive, without killing an animal, then this is how one determines when one needs to from when one does not really need to.

So, does anyone need to eat meat? Do you eat meat and if you couldn't you be a vegetarian?
Do you need to use a digital device even though this leads to the deaths of animals?

[Age]

Thank you for asking. I was wondering how long it would take someone to finally ask for clarification.

The word 'need' here is in relation to life and living. So, if one can keep living, thus stay alive, without killing an animal, then this is how one determines when one needs to from when one does not really need to.

So, does anyone need to eat meat?

you speak and ask like you have a very, very narrowed view and perspective of things.

When you say 'anyone', if you are referring to absolutely every human being, then all of you human beings who need to eat meat to stay alive and keep surviving l, obviously, need to eat meat. Now, for the rest of you, you, obviously, do not need to eat meat.

If, and when, one looks at this from a Truly open perspective, or from a much larger perspective, the, obviously, once upon a time human beings needed to eat meat, to stay alive, to keep surviving. But, just as obvious is the irrefutable Fact that, in the days when this being written, quite a lot of you human beings do not need to eat meat, at all.

Do you eat meat and if you couldn't you be a vegetarian?

1. If one 'chooses' not to eat meat, then that does not necessarily mean that they 'could not' eat meat.

2. If one chooses not to eat meat or even could not eat meat, then that does not mean they they are a so-called "vegetarian", as though that is only what that 'human being' is.

See, there is no such, actual, things as "americans", "christians", "doctors", "mothers", "alcoholics", nor "vegans". These names are just 'labels' placed onto to some individual 'human beings'.

All of 'you', human beings, are just the exact same things, which are just different individual human bodies with different individual thoughts, with-in.

Absolutely none of 'you' are actually any of those names nor labels above here.

Do you need to use a digital device even though this leads to the deaths of animals?

Of course not.

But, then again and just as obvious, is that my answer would all depend on in relation to 'what', exactly, are using the 'need' word here?

In relation to life, and living, itself, for you human beings, to stay alive, and to keep surviving and existing, only four things are 'needed'. And one of them is obviously not digital devices?

Also, why do you seem to be 'stuck' on relating the killing of animals, for food, with the killing of animals due to other reasons?

(What 'we' have here is more examples of how and when these human beings would try to 'justify', or deflect away from, their, obviously, Wrong doings.

[Iwannaplato]

you speak and ask like you have a very, very narrowed view and perspective of things.

Wow, very judgmental of questions. And no information here about if there is anyone who needs to eat meat.

When you say 'anyone', if you are referring to absolutely every human being,

Anyone is used, in this context, to find out if one or more of the people existing at this time need to eat meat.

then all of you human beings who need to eat meat to stay alive and keep surviving l, obviously, need to eat meat.

Please reword this sentence.

Now, for the rest of you, you, obviously, do not need to eat meat.

It seems like you are saying only you need to eat meet. Is that the case?

If, and when, one looks at this from a Truly open perspective, or from a much larger perspective, the, obviously, once upon a time human beings needed to eat meat, to stay alive, to keep surviving.

Agreed.

But, just as obvious is the irrefutable Fact that, in the days when this being written, quite a lot of you human beings do not need to eat meat, at all.

OK, here you say a lot of people need to eat meat to survive. This implies others do not. Are there any in Western society?

Do you eat meat and if you couldn't you be a vegetarian?

1. If one 'chooses' not to eat meat, then that does not necessarily mean that they 'could not' eat meat.

Yes, though I was asking if you were vegetarian.

2. If one chooses not to eat meat or even could not eat meat, then that does not mean they they are a so-called "vegetarian", as though that is only what that 'human being' is.

Where I come from, when someone says they are a vegetarian, no one I know assumes that means they are nothing else.

But, do you eat meat?

Do you need to use a digital device even though this leads to the deaths of animals?

Of course not.

Thank you for a clear answer. Let's see if it holds.

But, then again and just as obvious, is that my answer would all depend on in relation to 'what', exactly, are using the 'need' word here?

To survive. Do you need to use a digital device to survive? If yes, how so? If not, and given that using/purchasing such devices leads to animal deaths, is this moral behavior on your part?

Also, why do you seem to be 'stuck' on relating the killing of animals, for food, with the killing of animals due to other reasons?

It is both common and useful when looking at moral claims, such as the one you made in relation to eating meat, to see if the justification holds by using other situations to examine it.

(What 'we' have here is more examples of how and when these human beings would try to 'justify', or deflect away from, their, obviously, Wrong doings.

that is what it looks like you are doing, given your own moral justification related to eating meat, but perhaps the clarifications will make it clear if you are or are not deflecting away here.

[Age]

you speak and ask like you have a very, very narrowed view and perspective of things.

Wow, very judgmental of questions. And no information here about if there is anyone who needs to eat meat.

LOL
LOL
LOL

It is an absolute obvious Fact that there has been some who have needed to eat meat, in order to live and keep surviving.

If you, really, did not know that you human beings/any one needed/s to eat meat, then you were more closed than your very obvious very narrowed field of view reveals here.

When you say 'anyone', if you are referring to absolutely every human being,

Anyone is used, in this context, to find out if one or more of the people existing at this time need to eat meat.

AH, now here is the proof of just how narrowed a field of view this one was, and is, having.

Why would you ask a question about 'any one', only in the very, very tiniest and narrow of 'frames', 'fields of views', or 'perspectives', only?

By the way, the actual fundamental and irrefutable answer to this question is very simple and easy to come to understand and know.

Now, why only 'this time'? And, what are the words 'this time' even in relation to, exactly?

then all of you human beings who need to eat meat to stay alive and keep surviving l, obviously, need to eat meat.

Please reword this sentence.

What would you like me to reword that sentence to, exactly?

And, the 'I' word was not meant to be there. Does that help 'you' in any way, here?

Maybe if you explained what part you are having trouble with, exactly, then I might know how to reword that sentence, for you, exactly.

But, if you cannot understand that those who need to eat meat, to stay alive and to keep existing, are the ones who need to eat meat, then I do not know how else I could help you to understand here.

Now, for the rest of you, you, obviously, do not need to eat meat.

It seems like you are saying only you need to eat meet. Is that the case?

Not at all.

Are you sure you are, really, a so-called "teacher of the engilsh language"?

If yes, then you, really, do have a considerable amount of trouble with comprehension of "english words" here.

If, and when, one looks at this from a Truly open perspective, or from a much larger perspective, the, obviously, once upon a time human beings needed to eat meat, to stay alive, to keep surviving.

Agreed.

Well if you are just finding this out 'now', then okay. But, if you knew this previously, then why did you ask such the Truly stupid question above here.

If human beings needed to eat meat, then, obviously, there was 'some one' who needed to eat meat. So, why, exactly, you asked the question above here, only 'you' really know.

But, just as obvious is the irrefutable Fact that, in the days when this being written, quite a lot of you human beings do not need to eat meat, at all.

OK, here you say a lot of people need to eat meat to survive. This implies others do not. Are there any in Western society?

What are you even on about here? I did not say that a lot of people need to eat meat to survive at all.

I think that you, really, do need to 'slow down', and read, and focus on, the actual words that I actually do say, write, and use here.

I choose and use 'the words' that I do for very specific reasons. you, continually, missing or misunderstanding the 'actual words' that I use here has been slowing down things way too far, and way too much, here.

Do you eat meat and if you couldn't you be a vegetarian?

1. If one 'chooses' not to eat meat, then that does not necessarily mean that they 'could not' eat meat.

Yes, though I was asking if you were vegetarian.

But, you did not ask me a question at all. As can be clearly seen here you wrote a statement, although obviously with a question mark at the end.

Saying and writing, 'Are you a "vegetarian"? for example, is a question. What you said and wrote here is not 'a question'.

2. If one chooses not to eat meat or even could not eat meat, then that does not mean they they are a so-called "vegetarian", as though that is only what that 'human being' is.

Where I come from, when someone says they are a vegetarian, no one I know assumes that means they are nothing else.

And, this here is the very reason why these human beings, back then, took so, so long to catch up, and understand.

But, do you eat meat?

When 'you' say, 'you', here, who and/or what are 'you' referring to, exactly?

Do you need to use a digital device even though this leads to the deaths of animals?

Of course not.

Thank you for a clear answer. Let's see if it holds.

LOL How could it so-call 'not hold'.

But, then again and just as obvious, is that my answer would all depend on in relation to 'what', exactly, are using the 'need' word here?

To survive.

If you, really, need to ask the question, 'Do 'you' need to use a digital device ...? when the 'need' word is in relation to surviving, and the 'you' word is in relation to a human being, because 'you', really, were unsure, then 'you', really, do need to consider just how 'narrowed field of a view and of a perspective' of things you really have.

you did use the 'you' word above here in relation to a human being, right?

Do you need to use a digital device to survive?

LOL you just said and wrote, 'Thank you for a clear answer', then you go on to ask the exact same question.

If yes, how so?

Do you think you are 'open' at all?

So, 'I' inform 'you' that 'i' do not need to use a digital device, to survive, but you, still, want to know 'how so?'

Now, let 'us' take the 'presumption' that that 'you' assume that 'I' am a human being. ('you' do presume this right?) Now, if this is correct, then 'how so' I do not 'need' to use a digital device, to survive, is in the exact same way that you human beings have 'survived' for millions upon millions of years, without digital devices.

And/or, for those who think or believe that you human beings have not lived for millions of years, then 'how so' a human being or human beings can live, and survive, without digital devices is in the exact same way for however you human beings have lived, and survived, for, before the invention and introduction of digital devices, obviously.

If not, and given that using/purchasing such devices leads to animal deaths, is this moral behavior on your part?

What do you even mean by 'moral behavior'?

Let 'us' not forget 'you', personally, and collectively, in the days when this is being written are, still, struggling with what the words 'moral behavior' even means, and/or even refers to, exactly.

But, if 'you', personally, have an absolutely clear understanding here, then will 'you' share with the rest of 'us' what the words 'moral behavior' mean, or are referring to, exactly?

If no, then why not?

Also, why do you seem to be 'stuck' on relating the killing of animals, for food, with the killing of animals due to other reasons?

It is both common and useful when looking at moral claims, such as the one you made in relation to eating meat, to see if the justification holds by using other situations to examine it.

But, and LOL, I have only ever said and written in regards to the killing of animals, for food, when one does not need to eat meat, (for survival), is Wrong.

Now, if you, really, do want to 'look at', and 'see', if the killing of animals, for other reasons, which are not necessary for the survival of one animal species, that is; the human animal species, is Wrong, or not, then let 'us' proceed.

But, 'we' are wondering if you even actually accept and agree that the killing of animals, for food, when it is unnecessary to do so is even Wrong, or not, to you, first.

See, you might just be 'trying to' find 'a tactic' to 'try to' 'justify' what, essentially, cannot be.

So, do you agree and accept that the killing of animals, for food, when it is unnecessary to do so is Wrong? Or, do you believe that it is not Wrong?

(What 'we' have here is more examples of how and when these human beings would try to 'justify', or deflect away from, their, obviously, Wrong doings.

that is what it looks like you are doing, given your own moral justification related to eating meat, but perhaps the clarifications will make it clear if you are or are not deflecting away here.

I agree 'clarifications' here WILL PROVE what is actually 'justifiable' and what is actually 'not justifiable'.

So, again, 'we' will wait, and 'see'.

[Iwannaplato]

you speak and ask like you have a very, very narrowed view and perspective of things.

Wow, very judgmental of questions. And no information here about if there is anyone who needs to eat meat.

LOL
LOL
LOL

It is an absolute obvious Fact that there has been some who have needed to eat meat, in order to live and keep surviving.

Sure, I agree. But I never said that was not the case. I asked a question. I thought the answer was obvious, but that's the thing with philosophy, sometimes people do not agree with things that are obvious. I asked the question to be sure we had agreement there. I was getting your answer to the question. I have my own. In this case they match. But, wow, important not to assume, right?

If you, really, did not know that you human beings/any one needed/s to eat meat, then you were more closed than your very obvious very narrowed field of view reveals here.

Again, a very poor reaction to someone asking a question. I wanted to know your position. You seem to think if I ask you a question it means I have no knowledge on the subject. What I am doing, and you will find others will do this also, is trying to get a clear answer about your position.

When you say 'anyone', if you are referring to absolutely every human being,

Anyone is used, in this context, to find out if one or more of the people existing at this time need to eat meat.

AH, now here is the proof of just how narrowed a field of view this one was, and is, having.

Why would you ask a question about 'any one', only in the very, very tiniest and narrow of 'frames', 'fields of views', or 'perspectives', only?

By the way, the actual fundamental and irrefutable answer to this question is very simple and easy to come to understand and know.

Now, why only 'this time'? And, what are the words 'this time' even in relation to, exactly?

So, he manages not to answer my question, as usual, a trait he only sees in others.

then all of you human beings who need to eat meat to stay alive and keep surviving l, obviously, need to eat meat.

Please reword this sentence.

What would you like me to reword that sentence to, exactly?

So, that the changes lead to it making sense.

Here's the full sentence:

When you say 'anyone', if you are referring to absolutely every human being, then all of you human beings who need to eat meat to stay alive and keep surviving l, obviously, need to eat meat.

Perhaps there is punctuation missing, perhaps there is some other problem.

And, the 'I' word was not meant to be there. Does that help 'you' in any way, here?

That helps. It seems like you are saying that some people need to eat meat to survive.

Maybe if you explained what part you are having trouble with, exactly, then I might know how to reword that sentence, for you, exactly.

Oh, you managed on your own.

Now, for the rest of you, you, obviously, do not need to eat meat.

It seems like you are saying only you need to eat meet. Is that the case?

Not at all.

Are you sure you are, really, a so-called "teacher of the engilsh language"?

I don't know what the 'engilsh language' is. I don't teach it. I do teach English.

If yes, then you, really, do have a considerable amount of trouble with comprehension of "english words" here.

So, my trouble is dependent on whether I am an English teacher or not? Hm. You still have a strange sense of causation. (see, that's the kind of shit you pull. I did know what you meant, but since literally the sentence implies an unreal causation, I focused on that, so you'd understand what you are like.) In any case, sure I do make errors, even though I am an English teacher (in his free time). I even explained why that happens. But I suppose you have forgotten that, and it seems you can't imagine someone might write hastily with errors in one context, like yourself for example, and in other contexts be professional and careful. I guess considering this is beyond you.

If, and when, one looks at this from a Truly open perspective, or from a much larger perspective, the, obviously, once upon a time human beings needed to eat meat, to stay alive, to keep surviving.

Agreed.

Well if you are just finding this out 'now', then okay. But, if you knew this previously, then why did you ask such the Truly stupid question above here.

To find out YOUR position. Just in case you have forgotten my explanation above...aleady.

But, just as obvious is the irrefutable Fact that, in the days when this being written, quite a lot of you human beings do not need to eat meat, at all.

OK, here you say a lot of people need to eat meat to survive. This implies others do not. Are there any in Western society?

What are you even on about here? I did not say that a lot of people need to eat meat to survive at all.

I think that you, really, do need to 'slow down', and read, and focus on, the actual words that I actually do say, write, and use here.

Woh, woh. I think you need some English lessons. You said quite a lot of people do not need to eat meat. That wording does not even imply a majority of people. Phrases like 'most people' 'nearly everyone', those phrases imply that it might just be a few who need to eat meat. Hell, there are lots of people in the city I live in which is just a tiny fraction of the world's population. I guess you can't see what is entailed by what you write. I think you need to write with greater precision and stop blaming people, based on knee-jerk assumptions, for your own lack of precision.

I choose and use 'the words' that I do for very specific reasons. you, continually, missing or misunderstanding the 'actual words' that I use here has been slowing down things way too far, and way too much, here.

You're being a pedantic ass slows things down. So, here we are. I still pity anyone who has to deal with you in person, unless you hide 'Age' and all his frills then.

Do you eat meat and if you couldn't you be a vegetarian?

1. If one 'chooses' not to eat meat, then that does not necessarily mean that they 'could not' eat meat.

Yes, though I was asking if you were vegetarian.

But, you did not ask me a question at all. As can be clearly seen here you wrote a statement, although obviously with a question mark at the end.

Saying and writing, 'Are you a "vegetarian"? for example, is a question. What you said and wrote here is not 'a question'.

And yet you successfully treated it like a question.

2. If one chooses not to eat meat or even could not eat meat, then that does not mean they they are a so-called "vegetarian", as though that is only what that 'human being' is.

Where I come from, when someone says they are a vegetarian, no one I know assumes that means they are nothing else.

And, this here is the very reason why these human beings, back then, took so, so long to catch up, and understand.

ACtually it is you who are confused about what people mean. But I see signs occasionally that you are catching up. It was great that you stopped all that near constant capitalization and citation marks. You went from being an incredibly poor communicator to one approaching the flexibility and understanding of the average person fluent in the culture and language.

But, do you eat meat?

When 'you' say, 'you', here, who and/or what are 'you' referring to, exactly?

And then you fall back into not understanding the langauge. Of course, you don't want to answer.

Perhaps Ken eats meat, but Age is the all consciousness or the one True Mind that doesn't eat meat. If Ken doesn't eat meat, this moron could have just said 'no' Because neither Age or Ken eats meat. But what he wants to do is get people to create more text and justify more things is some endless interrogation. I don't think Age consciously intends this, but even after all this time, he manages not to notice what he does.

Do you need to use a digital device even though this leads to the deaths of animals?

Of course not.

Thank you for a clear answer. Let's see if it holds.

LOL How could it so-call 'not hold'.

But, then again and just as obvious, is that my answer would all depend on in relation to 'what', exactly, are using the 'need' word here?

To survive.

If you, really, need to ask the question, 'Do 'you' need to use a digital device ...? when the 'need' word is in relation to surviving, and the 'you' word is in relation to a human being, because 'you', really, were unsure, then 'you', really, do need to consider just how 'narrowed field of a view and of a perspective' of things you really have.

Oh, dear. Age is regressing. I'll need to call in Atla soon to throw more Chatgpt regurgitations of your 'punctuation' if it gets any worse.

you did use the 'you' word above here in relation to a human being, right?

Oh, I certainly did. But it seems this one does not know even the most basic things.

Do you need to use a digital device to survive?

LOL you just said and wrote, 'Thank you for a clear answer', then you go on to ask the exact same question.

It's not the same question, asshole. See, blunt, less pretentious. If I had misread, you would on and on about my being an English teacher and how I need to slow down and all the rest of your usual judgments. Feel free to be honest and just do a direct, less passive-aggressive, less smarmy expression of you anger.

Anyway, poor reading by Age here.

And from there the idiocy continues.

[MagsJ]

.
Since when has food choices become an autocratic dictatorship?

My diet is free-range grass-fed meat and eggs/Organic lettuce/home-made Organic kombucha/Organic wines and fizz/Organic teas and teasans/live [spring] water-heavy.. I can’t digest vegetables.

Why is my conventional diet, now becoming unconventional?

[henry quirk]

Since when has food choices become an autocratic dictatorship?

Cuz there's a lotta sons of bitches who can't mind their own damn business, that's why.

5CFCEA75-414A-42C6-967D-15C02A03CA75.jpeg

[Age]

Wow, very judgmental of questions. And no information here about if there is anyone who needs to eat meat.

LOL
LOL
LOL

It is an absolute obvious Fact that there has been some who have needed to eat meat, in order to live and keep surviving.

Sure, I agree. But I never said that was not the case.

Obviously you did not. But, what is just as obvious is 'the answer' to the question you asked above here. Absolutely every one knew 'the answer' to your clarifying question, including even 'you' "iwannaplato". So, what the real motive and reason was for, and behind, you asking such the question that you did some of 'us' can 'see' very clearly, while others, including even 'you' might not yet know.

I asked a question.

Yes you did. So, this is True.

I thought the answer was obvious, but that's the thing with philosophy, sometimes people do not agree with things that are obvious.

Yes I have noticed that with you people.

I asked the question to be sure we had agreement there. I was getting your answer to the question. I have my own. In this case they match. But, wow, important not to assume, right?

So, you are learning here, right?

Yes it is very, very important to not assume things. That is, of course, only in relation to one wanting to come-to-know the actual Truths, in Life, correct?

If you, really, did not know that you human beings/any one needed/s to eat meat, then you were more closed than your very obvious very narrowed field of view reveals here.

Again, a very poor reaction to someone asking a question.

If you believe this, then this must be true, right?

If you cannot work out and discover, by "your" own 'self' those very things that are obvious, and which are instinctively and/or unconsciously 'known' by all human beings, and have to ask for 'clarification' about 'those things', then you really are not a very open human being.

See, what is 'already known' within all human beings, although they may still be 'unconsciously known' by some of you, does not need to be clarified among you people to become 'consciously known knowledge'.

But, 'you' do 'you', "iwannaplato", as some might say or suggest here.

I wanted to know your position. You seem to think if I ask you a question it means I have no knowledge on the subject.

This is not Correct as I was just pointing out the exact opposite, that is; you, actually, did have 'the knowledge', on this subject, all along, and the fact that there was no need to seek out clarification, from any one else, as 'the answer' is just an, obvious, absolute, and thus irrefutable, Fact, which every one instinctively knows anyway.

So, the actual Truth is, once again, the exact opposite of what you were imagining here.

I never thought that if you ask a question, then it means that you have 'no knowledge' on the subject. Just out of curiosity when another asks a question do you think that they have no knowledge, or do not yet have 'the knowledge', on the subject? Anyway, and again, I already knew that you, and every other human being, already knew, although unconsciously, 'the answer' to 'your question' here.

What I am doing, and you will find others will do this also, is trying to get a clear answer about your position.

What I think you will find is getting a 'clear answer', on 'another's' position, quite often, can be a lot harder than it really needs to be. Well this is what I am finding, anyway.

When you say 'anyone', if you are referring to absolutely every human being,

Anyone is used, in this context, to find out if one or more of the people existing at this time need to eat meat.

AH, now here is the proof of just how narrowed a field of view this one was, and is, having.

Why would you ask a question about 'any one', only in the very, very tiniest and narrow of 'frames', 'fields of views', or 'perspectives', only?

By the way, the actual fundamental and irrefutable answer to this question is very simple and easy to come to understand and know.

Now, why only 'this time'? And, what are the words 'this time' even in relation to, exactly?

So, he manages not to answer my question, as usual, a trait he only sees in others.

LOL 'This one', once more, is 'trying' its hardest to deflect, in order to not have to answer and clarify here.

1. I have already, even by your own admission, answered 'your question'. So, claiming that I have not is beyond absurd.

2. By making the very False claim that I have 'managed to not answer its question' it is, actually, deflecting and not answering 'my question', which I posed and asked it here.

then all of you human beings who need to eat meat to stay alive and keep surviving l, obviously, need to eat meat.

Please reword this sentence.

What would you like me to reword that sentence to, exactly?

So, that the changes lead to it making sense.

Here's the full sentence:

When you say 'anyone', if you are referring to absolutely every human being, then all of you human beings who need to eat meat to stay alive and keep surviving l, obviously, need to eat meat.

Perhaps there is punctuation missing, perhaps there is some other problem.

And, the 'I' word was not meant to be there. Does that help 'you' in any way, here?

That helps. It seems like you are saying that some people need to eat meat to survive.

Are you, really, still only up to the 'seems like' part, in 'our discussion' here?

Are you, really, still not yet aware that I have already acknowledged that when any one needs to eat meat to survive, then those ones need to eat meat, AND, that it is an obvious irrefutable Fact that some human beings need to eat meat to survive, which I have already agreed with?

Why are you, still, only up to 'seems like' stage, and have not yet got to 'this has already been clarified' stage here?

Maybe if you explained what part you are having trouble with, exactly, then I might know how to reword that sentence, for you, exactly.

Oh, you managed on your own.

1. So was it just the misplaced 'I' word that was confusing you, only?

2. How could have I, actually, managed to clear things up, for you here, on my own, if you are, still, only at the 'seems like' stage in our discussion here?

If you are, still, not absolutely sure that I have been saying that if one needs to eat meat to stay alive, then they need to eat meat to survive, then I do not know how else I could 'clarify' this to make this 'absolutely clear', to and for you.

Now, for the rest of you, you, obviously, do not need to eat meat.

It seems like you are saying only you need to eat meet. Is that the case?

Not at all.

Are you sure you are, really, a so-called "teacher of the engilsh language"?

I don't know what the 'engilsh language' is. I don't teach it. I do teach English.

Okay, but do you believe that you have a good enough grasp of the "english language" to be able to teach it Correctly?

If yes, then you, really, do have a considerable amount of trouble with comprehension of "english words" here.

So, my trouble is dependent on whether I am an English teacher or not? Hm.

Not at all.

And, notice how this one, pretends, to ask a clarifying question as though it is open, but, actually, it asks from a very closed perspective. This can be clearly seen and proved True by the very words that it says, writes, and uses here.

You still have a strange sense of causation.

See, how 'this one' asks a clarifying question, does not wait for the actual answer to be provided, answers its own question, "itself", and then proceeds and carries on as though its own answer is the Correct one.

This is the very reason why 'this one' misses and/or misunderstands so, so much here.

'This one's' trouble here is not at all dependent upon if it is a so-called "english teacher' or not (Although this is contrary to its belief here.)

But rather, that 'this one' has so much trouble comprehending and understanding here is quite amazing considering that it is a self-confessed "teacher" of the english language.

What can be clearly seen here is another example of how and when one 'assumes' some thing, before they have grasped actual clarification, then this is why they end up making so many False and Wrong accusations, as well as being so lacking in 'comprehension skills'.

(see, that's the kind of shit you pull. I did know what you meant, but since literally the sentence implies an unreal causation, I focused on that, so you'd understand what you are like.)

But, your first assumption was Wrong, from the very beginning. Which is what led you to 'see' so many other False and Wrong things here.

For example 'the causation' that you have 'seen', and are 'looking at', exists solely in your own imagination, only.

'The causation' that you are 'seeing' and 'believing' is true and is here came about of your own False and Wrong 'presuming'.

Once more I will suggest that you seek out and obtain actual clarification, and thus clarity, first, before you ever end up proceeding and carrying on. If you did, then, again, you will not be so Wrong, so often as you are.

In any case, sure I do make errors, even though I am an English teacher (in his free time).

What do you mean, exactly, by 'in your free time'?

Are you in, or under, some sort of 'captive time', as well?

I even explained why that happens.

So, you have, supposedly, explained to the readers here why you do so-call 'make errors', I now wonder if you would like to repeat 'that explanation', here now, for those readers who have not yet read 'your, previous, explanation'.

But I suppose you have forgotten that, and it seems you can't imagine someone might write hastily with errors in one context, like yourself for example, and in other contexts be professional and careful. I guess considering this is beyond you.

In case you have forgotten, or in case you are trying to deflect, I was talking about and referring to your lack of comprehending abilities here, and not how you write at all.

If, and when, one looks at this from a Truly open perspective, or from a much larger perspective, the, obviously, once upon a time human beings needed to eat meat, to stay alive, to keep surviving.

Agreed.

Well if you are just finding this out 'now', then okay. But, if you knew this previously, then why did you ask such the Truly stupid question above here.

To find out YOUR position. Just in case you have forgotten my explanation above...aleady.

Why would you jump to the presumption that I might have forgotten your explanation, already, in just a few sentences above in the exact same post?

Also, I hope you have not forgotten that you do not have a very open perspective, nor field of view, if you have to ask another if any one of you human beings need to eat meat, to survive, to find out THEIR position.

Just so you become fully aware "iwannaplato", there is not a human being who does not have THIS position.

It is like on the very few times that it is absolutely completely safe to make 'an assumption' you do not, but on every other time when it is best to not make any assumption at all you do.

But, just as obvious is the irrefutable Fact that, in the days when this being written, quite a lot of you human beings do not need to eat meat, at all.

OK, here you say a lot of people need to eat meat to survive. This implies others do not. Are there any in Western society?

What are you even on about here? I did not say that a lot of people need to eat meat to survive at all.

I think that you, really, do need to 'slow down', and read, and focus on, the actual words that I actually do say, write, and use here.

Woh, woh. I think you need some English lessons. You said quite a lot of people do not need to eat meat. That wording does not even imply a majority of people.

1. I did NOT say, 'quite a lot of people do not need to eat meat'. (Again, it appears that you, really, do need to just 'slow down', and just read only 'the words' that I actually have chosen to say, write, and use here.

2. Why did you jump to the 'presumption' about 'my wording', (which, by the way, you have, still, not yet got Correct and Right,) was or was not about implying a majority of people?

Phrases like 'most people' 'nearly everyone', those phrases imply that it might just be a few who need to eat meat.

See here is another prime example of how this one ends up on some not talked about nor in discussion tangent because of its own made up assumptions, which, if ever clarified, would have been found to be completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect from the very outset of their being made up inception.

Hell, there are lots of people in the city I live in which is just a tiny fraction of the world's population. I guess you can't see what is entailed by what you write.

And, 'we' will have to wait to 'see' if 'you' can get 'back on track', as some might say, and comprehend and understand what 'it' was that I was, actually, talking about and referring to, exactly.

Obviously, what you are talking about and referring to here is absolutely nothing at all to do with what I was, actually, talking about and referring to, exactly.

But, then again, 'I' might just have 'this ability' to 'make you' 'see' what was 'not even actually there'. And, that 'I' do 'this' to show and to reveal to the readers here just how often people like "yourself" "iwannaplato", back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, would just 'jump to conclusions' and 'presume' things before they would ever just 'stop' and just 'consider' seeking out clarification and clarity first.

I think you need to write with greater precision and stop blaming people, based on knee-jerk assumptions, for your own lack of precision.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If you only knew "iwannpalto". If you only 'knew'.

Now, for any one who is even just the slightest bit curios, all you have to do is just 'look back' over what 'I said and wrote' here to 'see';

1. "iwannaplato" has not yet comprehended and understood the 'actual words' that I used here.

2. "iwannplato" cannot even just copy the 'actual words' that I have used here, Correctly, and not just in one sense but in at least two senses. Which is why it has not yet been even able to comprehend and understand what I am actually saying and meaning here Correctly.

3. "iwannaplato" is trying to imply that the words 'a lot' in a particular group of things can also be inferred what is meant is less than half of that group. So, I will, once again, suggest that if one seeks out and obtains actual clarification, and thus obtains actual clarity, first, then that one will be far less confused and will make far less errors in its comprehension and reading abilities.

I choose and use 'the words' that I do for very specific reasons. you, continually, missing or misunderstanding the 'actual words' that I use here has been slowing down things way too far, and way too much, here.

You're being a pedantic ass slows things down. So, here we are. I still pity anyone who has to deal with you in person, unless you hide 'Age' and all his frills then.

1. Who 'you' pity or do not pity has absolutely no bearing on absolutely any thing here.

2. If you want to call the Fact that me pointing out how often you are, continually, missing and misunderstanding things here, because you are not even being able to just 'see' the actual words that I use, let alone pointing out just how you are missing and misunderstanding here, because of your lack of reading and comprehension skills, as being 'pedantic', then so be it. But it is 'you' who is misunderstanding, and thus missing out, here.

Do you eat meat and if you couldn't you be a vegetarian?

1. If one 'chooses' not to eat meat, then that does not necessarily mean that they 'could not' eat meat.

Yes, though I was asking if you were vegetarian.

But, you did not ask me a question at all. As can be clearly seen here you wrote a statement, although obviously with a question mark at the end.

Saying and writing, 'Are you a "vegetarian"? for example, is a question. What you said and wrote here is not 'a question'.

And yet you successfully treated it like a question.

Because, as I, obviously, have already pointed out, you put a question mark at the end of it.

you even admitted and acknowledged that you were, attempting, 'to ask'.

Also, why do you believe that I treated 'it' as 'a question'? Did I answer 'it' as 'a question', by 'answering' 'it' as though it was 'a question'? Or, did I actually do what I did and point out by saying and writing that 'you did not ask me a question', at all?

2. If one chooses not to eat meat or even could not eat meat, then that does not mean they they are a so-called "vegetarian", as though that is only what that 'human being' is.

Where I come from, when someone says they are a vegetarian, no one I know assumes that means they are nothing else.

And, this here is the very reason why these human beings, back then, took so, so long to catch up, and understand.

ACtually it is you who are confused about what people mean.

LOL Why do you, once again, jump to the presumption and conclusion that I am confused about what you people here mean?

Is it not possible in your tiny little and narrowed perspective and view of things that, actually, 'I' do 'know' what 'you', people, are 'meaning', but 'I' am just pointing out and showing how 'you', people, back when this was being written, would say, and claim, things, which 'in all Reality', as some might say, could not be True nor Correct, at all?

See, when a human being calls, or labels, what is just 'a human being', a "vegetarian", 'where "iwannaplato" comes from', then where these human beings calling, or saying, things for how they, actually, were? In other words were they expressing the actual Truth, that is the whole Truth, and only the Truth? Or, were they, in fact, twisting and distorting the, actual, Truth to 'try' and 'fit' the Truth into 'their own little individual worlds' and 'perspective' of things?

Now, when you human beings call and label each other of 'you', human beings, with names like "vegetarian" for example, and you 'know' that 'that human being' is, actually, a 'human being', then why do you do this?

Did you not learn, as children, calling 'others' 'names' is not the best nor the Right thing to do?

Do you, really, believe that placing, or putting, labels onto 'human beings', "themselves", is, really, the best thing to do?

Is 'naming' things, which they are not, the most sensible and Correct thing to do?

Does calling a 'thing' by a 'name', of which 'it' is not, express what the actual Truth is, exactly?

Could it be a possibility that by the very thing of trying to put names and labels onto 'things', of which 'those things' are not, has been part of the reason why 'you', human beings, have been, in hindsight, been so, so very slow in uncovering, discovering, learning, and/or understanding what the actual Truth of 'things', in Life, is, exactly?

But I see signs occasionally that you are catching up.

Okay.

Also, and it has been noticed for quite a while 'now', you do not like use the 'same words' 'about me', after 'I' had already pointed the very thing 'about you', previously.

Now, what are you trying to claim here is the 'very thing' I have, supposedly, been occasionally showing signs of 'catching up' to, exactly?

And, what 'this one' will prove again, for 'me', is that 'it' will not provide what the 'very thing' is, exactly, which 'I' have, supposedly, been occasionally showing of 'catching up' to, exactly.

It was great that you stopped all that near constant capitalization and citation marks.

Why has me stopping 'that' been 'great', for you?

Also, are you sure that I have slowed down on the so-called citation marks? Or, are you just presuming I had?

You went from being an incredibly poor communicator to one approaching the flexibility and understanding of the average person fluent in the culture and language.

Okay. Thank you for the acknowledgement, and encouragement.

But, I hope that you have realized, through my writing and communication here, that has been 'the way' that you human beings have been 'communicating' with one another, hitherto the days when this is being written, is the very reason why you ones are, still, 'looking and searching for' what 'we' have already come-to-know, and realize.

Or, has my 'incredibly poor ability at communicating' not allowed 'this' to be communicated, yet?

But, do you eat meat?

When 'you' say, 'you', here, who and/or what are 'you' referring to, exactly?

And then you fall back into not understanding the langauge. Of course, you don't want to answer.

Why do 'you', continually, believe that it is 'I' who is 'not understanding' the so-called 'language' here?

The very Fact that you do not 'just clarify' what 'you' actually mean, in regards to the 'actual words' that you use, is further proof that it is 'you' who, actually, has not yet fully grasped and understood the actual words that you use, in the language that you use.

Perhaps Ken eats meat, but Age is the all consciousness or the one True Mind that doesn't eat meat.

Perhaps. But, then again, perhaps not.

And, 'you' will never ever know, if you never ever seek out actual clarification.

If Ken doesn't eat meat, this moron could have just said 'no' Because neither Age or Ken eats meat.

Not that you would ever clarify, but what are your use of the words "ken" and "age" referring to, exactly? And, why are 'you' using two different names and labels for here, exactly?

What is the purpose of doing so? And, what is 'it', exactly, are you trying to express and get across here?

But what he wants to do is get people to create more text and justify more things is some endless interrogation.

Well this here is, obviously, absolutely False.

All I did was just try to get you to clarify what you meant by the use of the 'you' word above here.

Obviously, you were completely unable to express "yourself" openly, honestly, and fully here. And, as I have been alluding to, all along here, this is because you, and others around you, (where you come from), had not yet learned just how much you speak and write without actually 'knowing' what 'it' is, exactly, that you were, actually, saying, and meaning.

If you do not yet 'know' what the word 'you' means and refers to, when you use 'that word', then so be it. This explains the very reason why you do not 'just clarify' when you are asked to.

I don't think Age consciously intends this, but even after all this time, he manages not to notice what he does.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Just maybe 'I' have been 'noticing' far, far more than 'this one' believes 'I' have.

Now, for example, this one 'believes' that I was wanting to get 'this one' to 'justify' things here, which, obviously, I was not. I was wanting 'this one' to 'clarify' things, instead. And, 'this one' would have 'noticed' this, if it would just stop assuming and believing things, and thus become more open.

Do you need to use a digital device even though this leads to the deaths of animals?

Of course not.

Thank you for a clear answer. Let's see if it holds.

LOL How could it so-call 'not hold'.

But, then again and just as obvious, is that my answer would all depend on in relation to 'what', exactly, are using the 'need' word here?

To survive.

If you, really, need to ask the question, 'Do 'you' need to use a digital device ...? when the 'need' word is in relation to surviving, and the 'you' word is in relation to a human being, because 'you', really, were unsure, then 'you', really, do need to consider just how 'narrowed field of a view and of a perspective' of things you really have.

Oh, dear. Age is regressing. I'll need to call in Atla soon to throw more Chatgpt regurgitations of your 'punctuation' if it gets any worse.

Again, the 'weak' seek the help of others when they believe they are 'in battle'.

Also, if you are 'unclear' or 'confused', have you ever considered just asking for 'clarification' from 'the other', instead?

you did use the 'you' word above here in relation to a human being, right?

Oh, I certainly did. But it seems this one does not know even the most basic things.

you appear to not have 'noticed' that even 'you' thanked me for providing you with what you called 'a clear answer'.

So, just maybe 'I' do know what you call 'the most basic things'.

And, that 'I' just wrote and asked 'that question', for a 'later date', in regards to something else, which will appear.

This is just something else here to consider, and to 'think about'.

Do you need to use a digital device to survive?

LOL you just said and wrote, 'Thank you for a clear answer', then you go on to ask the exact same question.

It's not the same question, asshole.

Does what you people, back then, called 'name calling' help you here?

Anyway, for now if 'it' is not the same question, then how are the two different, exactly?

Obviously 'the words' are different, and if that is all, then okay. But, if 'the meaning' is different, then how exactly?

See, blunt, less pretentious.

But, still, absolutely False and Wrong. Unless, of course, 'you' really do believe that you are conversing with an actual 'asshole'.

If I had misread, you would on and on about my being an English teacher and how I need to slow down and all the rest of your usual judgments. Feel free to be honest and just do a direct, less passive-aggressive, less smarmy expression of you anger.

Why do you 'perceive', and 'believe', that there is any 'anger' here, on 'my part'?

Just so you become aware, I have found a lot of this very amusing, instead, and certainly none of it 'anger producing'.

Anyway, poor reading by Age here.

So, will you Correct 'my poor reading'?

If no, then why not?

And from there the idiocy continues.

So, now that you have ascertained, hopefully, that, to me, you, human beings, need to kill animals and eat meat when you need to, to survive, and that digital devices are not needed for human beings to survive, although using them kills animals, was there anything else you wished to clarify and learn here, or anything else that you wanted to add to this?

[Age]

.
Since when has food choices become an autocratic dictatorship?

Has anyone ever said that food choices had become an 'autocratic dictatorship'?

If yes, then who, exactly?

My diet is free-range grass-fed meat and eggs/Organic lettuce/home-made Organic kombucha/Organic wines and fizz/Organic teas and teasans/live [spring] water-heavy.. I can’t digest vegetables.

Why are you expressing 'your food choices' as though they might be somehow better, more conventional, or are 'your choices' to 'others', here?

One would hope there is not some kind of underlying motive, which could be seen or viewed as another form of expressing 'one's views' as being somehow better or more than others are. Leading to an unconscious form of trying to 'persuade' others to follow and/or abide by one's own 'values', 'rules', or 'leadership'.

Why is my conventional diet, now becoming unconventional?

Has absolutely any one suggested that:

1. your own food choices was even so-called 'conventional'?

If yes, then who was/is that, exactly?

2. What are you basing your own food choices as being so-called a 'conventional diet' on, exactly?

3. Can not every thing that was once 'conventional', and especially in regards to food choices, become so-called 'unconventional'?

And, if yes, can this not happen for the good and betterment of every one/thing?