Why I am not a vegan

[Diana]

I do not expect conclusions to be reached as that would require much more unveiling of one's past than it is available to most in this 3D. Perhaps a common understanding will be reached, but surely not in this density. What we do is more akin to planting seeds for further work and creating entanglement.

This is a lovely way to see it. I disagree that it is beyond us at this point however. If I use my own life as an example, I have evolved and changed and let go of paradigms, changed opinions according to the information many, many times. I knew many things outside of the 3D consciousness even as a little girl. So I think the potential is there to understand some, regardless of the veil, if we continue to open up to whatever that knowledge is and let go of judgments.

Your rapist analogy resonate very little since I have no desire for rape, nor did I ever let myself think badly of rapists and such. If I were to contemplate a rapist, I'd probably feel sad for the entity rather than feeling repulsed by it like you seem to be.

This would be my reaction also. This is why I think prisons should be places of healing, where the "criminals" can learn they they can be loved.

To relate this to being vegan, I don't think in general there is any repulsion or hatred toward humans who eat meat/dairy, or who factory farm and slaughter them. The emotions are focused on the repulsion of what is happening to the animals, and the sadness felt at knowing or seeing it. It is sad to see others suffer, even if it is the rapist.

[AnthroHeart]

It is sad to see others suffer, even if it is the rapist.

I need to do a compassion meditation.

[Aion]

I do not expect conclusions to be reached as that would require much more unveiling of one's past than it is available to most in this 3D. Perhaps a common understanding will be reached, but surely not in this density. What we do is more akin to planting seeds for further work and creating entanglement.

This is a lovely way to see it. I disagree that it is beyond us at this point however. If I use my own life as an example, I have evolved and changed and let go of paradigms, changed opinions according to the information many, many times. I knew many things outside of the 3D consciousness even as a little girl. So I think the potential is there to understand some, regardless of the veil, if we continue to open up to whatever that knowledge is and let go of judgments.

Your rapist analogy resonate very little since I have no desire for rape, nor did I ever let myself think badly of rapists and such. If I were to contemplate a rapist, I'd probably feel sad for the entity rather than feeling repulsed by it like you seem to be.

This would be my reaction also. This is why I think prisons should be places of healing, where the "criminals" can learn they they can be loved.

To relate this to being vegan, I don't think in general there is any repulsion or hatred toward humans who eat meat/dairy, or who factory farm and slaughter them. The emotions are focused on the repulsion of what is happening to the animals, and the sadness felt at knowing or seeing it. It is sad to see others suffer, even if it is the rapist.

Do you think there are sometimes approaches to 'raise awareness' which might come across as repulsion? I admit, a lot of the propaganda I see on the subject seems to be trying pretty hard to make people feel guilty about themselves and instill a sense of self-repulsion. Maybe that isn't the intention, but methods and techniques often don't fully represent their true intentions.

The problem is that it isn't easy for someone who is an observer to distinguish between the repulsion towards the situation and repulsion towards the people because they often appear to go hand in hand, especially when meme's and heavy biases become involved. There are times when the language itself that is being used comes across as degrading as though those who 'don't get it' are 'missing the obvious' and they somehow lack the sensibility to 'see the facts'. It's hard to feel like one's intelligence is not being insulted at times.

I just wonder if the approaches in language to discussion and raising awareness are sometimes shooting the effort in the foot because of the other separations that sometimes come about.

[Aion]

I'm not yet sure if free will means that an entity is able to have its desires met or that free will means that an entity is able to choose how to respond to experience.

I think it's the latter.

The simplest definition of free will (in a Law of One context) is the ability to choose.

I don't think it even has to be a conscious choice. A human child might not think consciously whether s/he wants an apple or a cookie, but if you offer both, s/he will choose one or the other, none, or both. That is choice. Is a 2-year-old toddler consciously choosing the cookie? Maybe not. But s/he is choosing nonetheless.

The degree of consciousness associated with the choice seems to be commensurate with the degree of sentience, but not necessarily with spiritual awareness, so it seems to have nothing to do with spiritual awareness. Even fully sentient beings (like adult humans) don't always consciously think about their choices. Yet they do choose, nonetheless.

Does free will automatically mean an entity should have its desires met,

In most cases, no. Ask anyone what they want in life and most will say some variation of the same theme: a happy family, a nice house, financial prosperity, good health, etc. Every one of those people has made choices (within preprogrammed parameters) which got them to the point they're at now. But how many of them have achieved their desires? Not too many.

I don't think choice has much to do with getting desires met. Only by learning from life, do we begin to make choices that are more in alignment with our deepest desires.

In the meantime, what happens is that choices simply get added in to the karmic mix.

As Mick Jagger said: You can't always get what you want...But if you try sometimes you might find...You get what you need.

whether these are instinctual or of higher intellect? Or is free will more a matter of the ability for an entity to choose from the moment it's actions, feelings and thoughts? What is that ability to choose, exactly? To have preference?

In the context of this discussion, I'm anticipating that some may argue that an animal's choice is based on instinct rather than intellect.

I would counter that by pointing out that human toddlers, even babies, make choices, and their intellectual ability hasn't developed much yet. (In fact, as a side note, studies have shown that dogs and pigs figure out puzzles faster than human toddlers!) So unless one is going to say that human toddlers are also acting purely on instinct, then that whole argument falls apart.

Even adult humans, who may be intellectually advanced but not necessarily spiritually aware, often make choices that aren't very conscious. So I really don't think it matters where the choice is based, or if they can even prove that at this point. We do, however, know that human babies and animals all make choices.

I realized in assessing the many approaches in this conversation that it often comes back to the idea of free will, however I am not sure there is actually a consensus on what free will is or what the idea of it implies.

Good idea to clarify this!

I am looking for the connection between free will, choice and impulse.

When that toddler gets an impulse to grab a toy, it's still a choice.

Is free will only a conscious activity or is it also unconscious activity?

Could be either. We participate more in the programming of catalyst when we start making conscious choices, instead of it being done automatically for us based on our unconscious choices. But it's all still choice.

At what point does the free will of one entity 'cross' that of another? What exactly is the manifestation of this apparent reality or is it just a philosophical idea of 'freedom' that has been shaped from a particular ideology?

I think it's summed up well by the adage: One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

Profound concepts such as this predate religious ideologies.

...

Just sounds to me like everyone is enslaved by everyone by that measure. If free will is about choices made in experience then what relevance does the desires of an entity have to their free will? Thus, the desire to live would have nothing to do with free will except for the choice not to end one's life. If free will is a matter of response then the infringement only comes when the response is controlled and manipulated.

If we consider free will to be a universal concept then it would function the same across all densities. So, an act against another which is not in accordance with their desires isn't necessarily infringement of free will unless they are manipulated in a way that they cannot respond to the act freely. The easiest example on that note, to me, would be 'brainwashing'.

Do you think animals can be brainwashed and their responses manipulated?

Or is it that you see the 'limiting of choices' as being an infringement? That wouldn't make sense to me if free will is a function of response because if that is the case then it doesn't matter what act occurs towards an entity so long as that entity has the freedom to respond in whatever way it chooses, whether that be with pain, joy or anything else.

What it seems to me that various people are suggesting is that free will is more about the life conditions one has and their state of relative freedom of body and mind. This, however, appears to me to fit in to the first concept where free will is about desires rather than the second where free will is about response, so that's why I'm mentioning it.

[Diana]

Do you think there are sometimes approaches to 'raise awareness' which might come across as repulsion? I admit, a lot of the propaganda I see on the subject seems to be trying pretty hard to make people feel guilty about themselves and instill a sense of self-repulsion. Maybe that isn't the intention, but methods and techniques often don't fully represent their true intentions.

The problem is that it isn't easy for someone who is an observer to distinguish between the repulsion towards the situation and repulsion towards the people because they often appear to go hand in hand, especially when meme's and heavy biases become involved. There are times when the language itself that is being used comes across as degrading as though those who 'don't get it' are 'missing the obvious' and they somehow lack the sensibility to 'see the facts'. It's hard to feel like one's intelligence is not being insulted at times.

I just wonder if the approaches in language to discussion and raising awareness are sometimes shooting the effort in the foot because of the other separations that sometimes come about.

Yes, that's possibly true. I don't plug into the media much, so I don't have my finger on the public pulse.

But I'm not trying to figure out the best way for the general populace to get onboard with compassionate consuming. And I frankly don't care if anyone's feelings get hurt because they are made aware of what they are doing when they consume factory-farmed meat and dairy. It's analogous to being made aware that the human slave you keep in servitude is suffering. It then presents a choice to be made, and that is all on the recipient of the knowledge rendered, and up to him/her to continue or change, and forgive him/herself and take responsibility for the decision.

Becoming defensive is always a heads-up for me. If I become defensive, it is a message to look at why, and it does not involve pointing any fingers. I look within at my self, my beliefs, and possible self-deceptions and illusions.

[Aion]

You don't think it's possible to be compassionate towards those who are seemingly shocked by their realization? As though they deserve that pain as 'payment' for their ignorance? I know that is likely not what you mean, I just want to point out that compassion, like love, can often be conditional.

[Diana]

deleted because the post repeated

[Diana]

You don't think it's possible to be compassionate towards those who are seemingly shocked by their realization? As though they deserve that pain as 'payment' for their ignorance? I know that is likely not what you mean, I just want to point out that compassion, like love, can often be conditional.

I do have compassion. Perhaps I sounded harsh. I certainly do not feel their pain is payment for their ignorance. Jeez.

What I meant is that I am detached (for the most part) from this situation in the general public. I'm not an activist. The part that I play, if I have a part, is to be who I am. Part of who I am feels immense compassion and sadness for the needless suffering of animals (and humans such as those who are starving, etc.). I do have compassion for those waking up to these things, but I am what I call a warrior spirit. So from my point of view, yeah, it's hard to wake up and see things you don't want to see, but I personally face those things with courage as much as possible. So my compassion for those waking up is comparatively weaker than for those suffering. I hope this doesn't sound conditional because it's not. 

Do you feel the same reaction to a scratch as you would to someone stabbing you with a knife? Their are varying degrees of emotional content. This is what I mean. I hope I have made myself clear. If I haven't, I will try to explain more comprehensively.

[Aion]

You don't think it's possible to be compassionate towards those who are seemingly shocked by their realization? As though they deserve that pain as 'payment' for their ignorance? I know that is likely not what you mean, I just want to point out that compassion, like love, can often be conditional.

I do have compassion. Perhaps I sounded harsh. I certainly do not feel their pain is payment for their ignorance. Jeez.

What I meant is that I am detached (for the most part) from this situation in the general public. I'm not an activist. The part that I play, if I have a part, is to be who I am. Part of who I am feels immense compassion and sadness for the needless suffering of animals (and humans such as those who are starving, etc.). I do have compassion for those waking up to these things, but I am what I call a warrior spirit. So from my point of view, yeah, it's hard to wake up and see things you don't want to see, but I personally face those things with courage as much as possible. So my compassion for those waking up is comparatively weaker than for those suffering. I hope this doesn't sound conditional because it's not. 

Do you feel the same reaction to a scratch as you would to someone stabbing you with a knife? Their are varying degrees of emotional content. This is what I mean. I hope I have made myself clear. If I haven't, I will try to explain more comprehensively.

I understand what you mean, I am just philosophizing on the nature of this. You say you have a warrior's spirit and so treat things with a certain degree of courage. If I am incorrect please correct me, but you then say that because of this nature within yourself you thus comparatively have 'less' compassion, presumably from the sense of perhaps expecting others to be able to match your own warrior's spirit?

Do you expect that all will be as courageous as you are? I know you don't, I am asking intentionally blunt questions because I want to sort of mirror the way I see others approaching questioning to examine its efficacy.

For myself, I have always had a hard time 'comparing' conditions between individuals. Saying 'more' or 'less' suffering doesn't make any sense to me, as if suffering can be quantified. So, in the same vein, 'more' or 'less' compassion also doesn't make sense to me. I understand the concept, I just don't have it in my experience because for me, compassion is compassion, suffering is suffering. In my eyes no matter how great or small they are recognizable as the same.

I guess you could say I apply as above, so below, the holographic principle. Within every slight suffering is the greatest suffering and in the most subtle compassion is the most radiant compassion. So, for me, it is hard not to view others equally through the eyes of compassion. I am not intending to counter your experience, only to offer you some experience had by another self for your contemplation.

[Aion]

Oh and having been both scratched and stabbed I can't say my reaction has been the same on a physical level but on an emotional level they are not very different. The difference wasn't the actual experience of suffering or pain, although sure one is more intense and nauseating, but in the context of the situation. The emotion I felt was not towards the suffering but towards the conditions of the situation and my ability to accept them.

However, I can say that I had very different emotion towards myself and this is more reflective to me of the experience of having compassion for those who realize the nature of the suffering of others.

[Monica]

If free will is a matter of response then the infringement only comes when the response is controlled and manipulated.

Not necessarily. Most people would agree that it's still a violation to rape a drugged or comatose person, even though they can't respond.

Do you think animals can be brainwashed and their responses manipulated?

Well brainwashing is usually done by the media. I really don't see the application in the case of animals. Animals are certainly manipulated, but it's more on a physical level. Brainwashing is when a person's natural free will is overpowered unfairly, through drugging them for example, as in the case of fluoride in the water and rampant use of medications, and repeated conditioning by the media.

Or is it that you see the 'limiting of choices' as being an infringement? That wouldn't make sense to me if free will is a function of response because if that is the case then it doesn't matter what act occurs towards an entity so long as that entity has the freedom to respond in whatever way it chooses, whether that be with pain, joy or anything else.

What it seems to me that various people are suggesting is that free will is more about the life conditions one has and their state of relative freedom of body and mind. This, however, appears to me to fit in to the first concept where free will is about desires rather than the second where free will is about response, so that's why I'm mentioning it.

Response doesn't have to be a physical action. Someone who is paralyzed and mute can't take any action at all, yet still has free will, regardless of whether s/he is able to act on his/her free will or not. To knowingly violate that person is still an infringement, a violation, maybe even more so, because the aggressor is taking unfair advantage of the disabled person.

...

[Aion]

If free will is a matter of response then the infringement only comes when the response is controlled and manipulated.

Not necessarily. Most people would agree that it's still a violation to rape a drugged or comatose person, even though they can't respond.

Do you think animals can be brainwashed and their responses manipulated?

Well brainwashing is usually done by the media. I really don't see the application in the case of animals. Animals are certainly manipulated, but it's more on a physical level. Brainwashing is when a person's natural free will is overpowered unfairly, through drugging them for example, as in the case of fluoride in the water and rampant use of medications, and repeated conditioning by the media.

Or is it that you see the 'limiting of choices' as being an infringement? That wouldn't make sense to me if free will is a function of response because if that is the case then it doesn't matter what act occurs towards an entity so long as that entity has the freedom to respond in whatever way it chooses, whether that be with pain, joy or anything else.

What it seems to me that various people are suggesting is that free will is more about the life conditions one has and their state of relative freedom of body and mind. This, however, appears to me to fit in to the first concept where free will is about desires rather than the second where free will is about response, so that's why I'm mentioning it.

Response doesn't have to be a physical action. Someone who is paralyzed and mute can't take any action at all, yet still has free will, regardless of whether s/he is able to act on his/her free will or not. To knowingly violate that person is still an infringement, a violation, maybe even more so, because the aggressor is taking unfair advantage of the disabled person.

...

Hmm, I think I see here now more of where things are. That idea of violation is the key to the argument surrounding free will because it is the idea that free will can somehow be made 'less free' by the actions of another free will. This suggests that free will has a spectrum of sorts, from 'total' free will, to 'minimal' free will. The concept of violation I guess lies somewhere along the spectrum where free will becomes less than total. The difficulty I see now is the fact that it appears to me that many people place that point of violation along different points in the spectrum and so what may appear to be a violation to one may not appear so to another. The challenge then is reconciling a mean with extremes.

Suppose then that what we consider 'normal' free will is like 50/50, not total but not minimal, enough to get around but still being influenced. Creator would be absolute, total free will. What then would no free will be?

Interesting things to ponder.

[Monica]

Hmm, I think I see here now more of where things are. That idea of violation is the key to the argument surrounding free will because it is the idea that free will can somehow be made 'less free' by the actions of another free will. This suggests that free will has a spectrum of sorts, from 'total' free will, to 'minimal' free will. The concept of violation I guess lies somewhere along the spectrum where free will becomes less than total. The difficulty I see now is the fact that it appears to me that many people place that point of violation along different points in the spectrum and so what may appear to be a violation to one may not appear so to another. The challenge then is reconciling a mean with extremes.

Suppose then that what we consider 'normal' free will is like 50/50, not total but not minimal, enough to get around but still being influenced. Creator would be absolute, total free will. What then would no free will be?

Interesting things to ponder.

That sounds like a good topic for its own thread.

In the context of this discussion, we know that directly causing suffering, and then killing a sentient entity who is obviously struggling to escape, is an obvious violation of free will.

...

[Diana]

I understand what you mean, I am just philosophizing on the nature of this. You say you have a warrior's spirit and so treat things with a certain degree of courage. If I am incorrect please correct me, but you then say that because of this nature within yourself you thus comparatively have 'less' compassion, presumably from the sense of perhaps expecting others to be able to match your own warrior's spirit?

Do you expect that all will be as courageous as you are? I know you don't, I am asking intentionally blunt questions because I want to sort of mirror the way I see others approaching questioning to examine its efficacy.

For myself, I have always had a hard time 'comparing' conditions between individuals. Saying 'more' or 'less' suffering doesn't make any sense to me, as if suffering can be quantified. So, in the same vein, 'more' or 'less' compassion also doesn't make sense to me. I understand the concept, I just don't have it in my experience because for me, compassion is compassion, suffering is suffering. In my eyes no matter how great or small they are recognizable as the same.

I guess you could say I apply as above, so below, the holographic principle. Within every slight suffering is the greatest suffering and in the most subtle compassion is the most radiant compassion. So, for me, it is hard not to view others equally through the eyes of compassion. I am not intending to counter your experience, only to offer you some experience had by another self for your contemplation.

The problem here is that I am not communicating what I mean very well. Some things are very hard for me to articulate as my views are so often outside the box. I will think on it and retry.

[Aion]

Hmm, I think I see here now more of where things are. That idea of violation is the key to the argument surrounding free will because it is the idea that free will can somehow be made 'less free' by the actions of another free will. This suggests that free will has a spectrum of sorts, from 'total' free will, to 'minimal' free will. The concept of violation I guess lies somewhere along the spectrum where free will becomes less than total. The difficulty I see now is the fact that it appears to me that many people place that point of violation along different points in the spectrum and so what may appear to be a violation to one may not appear so to another. The challenge then is reconciling a mean with extremes.

Suppose then that what we consider 'normal' free will is like 50/50, not total but not minimal, enough to get around but still being influenced. Creator would be absolute, total free will. What then would no free will be?

Interesting things to ponder.

That sounds like a good topic for its own thread.

In the context of this discussion, we know that directly causing suffering, and then killing a sentient entity who is obviously struggling to escape, is an obvious violation of free will.

...

'We' don't know this apparently 'obvious' thing and while I understand you are generalizing for your own views I think it's important to keep in mind that it isn't the only way to describe the situation. I do accept that as your assessment of the situation and consider it valid.

However, this 'obvious' thing you are saying is clearly not so universally obvious or else everyone would just be agreeing already. I am exploring in to the nature of this disagreement. I, so far, have been unable to stand in a position on either side but I believe in my confusion I can't really tell why the argument exists. Again, it appears to come back to the fact that different people have different ideas regarding freedom of being and what the boundaries of that freedom are.

[Diana]

I guess you could say I apply as above, so below, the holographic principle. Within every slight suffering is the greatest suffering and in the most subtle compassion is the most radiant compassion. So, for me, it is hard not to view others equally through the eyes of compassion. I am not intending to counter your experience, only to offer you some experience had by another self for your contemplation.

No need to apologize for countering my arguments. I invite counterpoints—it's mind expanding.

As to your above supposition, well said. It is a good theory. But in practical terms is it useful, beyond intellectually, here in 3D?

Making choices while under the veil is what we are doing here. So to know the above intellectually, in my opinion, is less useful than having a discernment system within which to make choices based on higher principals such as compassion (as opposed to personal gain at the expense of others).

Regarding humans, I have always been of the opinion that everyone's pain, whether they're stuck in a slum or in a privileged situation, is relative and to each just as intense and challenging. So I get the idea. Let me say that yes, intellectually, compassion is compassion, pain is pain. But in the case of the suffering of a factory-farmed animal and a human waking up to the horrors of it, let me break it down.

The factory-farmed animal, and I am going to be general here as I don't want to be too graphic about specific circumstances, is kept penned all it's life—some in crazy-small places where they can barely move, force fed unnatural food, unable to enjoy walking around in the sun, unable to keep warm in their herd by huddling together, it's babies torn away from them, is jabbed with antibiotics and growth hormones and some are branded, beaks are cut off, they are tortured and treated without compassion their whole lives, then they are taken to slaughter. Every sort of meat animal tries to flee and is in terror. The slaughter is not kind, Some are bled. There ends a life of suffering every day, lived only to be cheap food for humans.

Compare this to a person. The person is living his or her life in blissful ignorance of where their meat comes from. She sees a show on TV that enlightens her about the situation. She loves her family and is a compassionate person. She is appalled at the conditions. She may even be sobbing and heartbroken at the plight of the animals. She then is forced to confront some choices and other emotions that arise, perhaps guilt or anger. This person also has a life. She may have a job. Her life is full of happy, sad, challenging, enjoyable etc. experiences. She is free to choose them each as they arise. If she wants to get married and have children that is a possibility; if she wants to sit in the sun and drink lemonade on a Sunday afternoon, she can. So she becomes aware of the plight of meat animals. It causes her pain, and now a choice is before her: what does she do about it? She can choose to do nothing or something. If she makes the choice that is in her heart, she will feel good about it.

Would you feel the same compassion for both? It's not about being conditional. It's discernment. The meat animal is in more need. Would Ra have come to us without the call—our need for them? The animals are calling to us. We as humans can make our own decisions and we are sometimes in pain. The animals in question live their whole lives in some sort of pain. Is there no difference between the two?

[Aion]

Yes, I would feel the same compassion as I said, for me, compassion is compassion. The FEELING is the same, but how that compassion manifests will be different based on the situation. I feel this is a subtle but important point and one I feel you are trying to make. I am making a distinction here between the experience of compassion and the actions that derive from compassion.

So, to me, 'more' compassion is no more practically useful than 'less' compassion, because the function of compassion is effected the same regardless of degree. It sounds to me when you say 'more compassion', I think you mean 'more pain experienced through empathy', correct me if I'm wrong? It seems that you tie compassion and empathy together so that more empathy means more compassion, perhaps?

In the eyes of the Law of One, there is no difference, but I believe this aspect of 'usefulness' is the next major key to this argument after the concept of free will. This one is, however, much stickier because usefulness means addressing desires. There is no 'universal usefulness', it has to have context. So the question is, useful for what exactly?

How is FEELING compassion more acutely one way or the other more practically useful? It is only more useful one way or the other if you have an active bias towards service in one way or the other but to someone without those same biases it probably wouldn't be viewed as usefully.

Maybe you cannot hear but humans are also crying for help, just as animals are. The problem with your example is that it is highly idyllic. You've taken an extreme example of cruelty and put it against an extreme example of ignorance and while hyperbole is useful for making contrast I think the actual situation is considerably less clear than that.

That is what it seems to me, I guess, that this compassionate 'discernment' is based on a conceptualized image in the mind rather than, in my eyes, taking place in any practical way. I admit, I do not understand the practical benefit of your approach. Is it supposed to be that more compassion is supposed to be more inspiring towards helpful service and that's the practicality?

The usefulness of any feeling in 3D is a matter of how one chooses to use it as catalyst so either way the situation appears the same to me on a metaphysical level. It does not make sense to me to make the comparison because ultimately my actions don't lead from feelings, so whether or not I feel more or less compassion is actually somewhat irrelevant to whether or not I wish to be of service. This is perhaps different for others, I do not expect the same.

My whole point here being that 'feeling compassion' is not the same as engaging in service although one might lead from the other. I may feel the same compassion for all, but I do not blindly follow compassion, it is always accompanied with wisdom and it is wisdom which does the discernment. I guess that might sound strange likely, but I do not see it that wisdom 'limits' compassion so much as uses it as a 'launchpad' of sorts.

[Monica]

'We' don't know this apparently 'obvious' thing and while I understand you are generalizing for your own views I think it's important to keep in mind that it isn't the only way to describe the situation. I do accept that as your assessment of the situation and consider it valid.

Aion, any 'average' person will agree that victimizing, harming and killing another person is wrong or even evil. That is generally accepted by most civilized societies. Violence is frowned upon and considered 'bad', and acceptable only in matters of self-defense. Most people also allow exceptions for war, because they've been brainwashed into believing that's acceptable too. They also allow exceptions for those considered 'not human' ie. animals, unborn babies, and, in the past, even humans who've been dehumanized based on the color of their skin or some other racial or cultural trait. But for the most part, hurting others isn't cool. That's just basic.

Most average people also believe in a talking snake and an ancient book and simplistic ideas of heaven and hell, so that really doesn't mean anything, except to point out that they do at least grasp the BASICS, whereas the basics seem to have been lost here.

Here, in the hallowed halls of Bring4th, where highly evolved aliens told us there is no such thing as right or wrong, while simultaneously going to great lengths to emphasize the importance of honoring free will, it has become fashionable to be so politically correct that nothing can ever be said to be 'wrong' and anyone who dares to do so is deemed unpopular.

If we were discussing whether it's acceptable to torture and kill a human, most people would agree that DUH of course it is wrong, because DUH of course it's violating that person's free will and right to life.

But because we're talking about animals, somehow it's ok to question whether keeping them confined to a tiny cage where they cannot even turn around for their entire lives, and then slitting their throats as they struggle in terror, is a violation of their free will???

I know your musings are valid, but do you really have no concept of the 'wrongness' of violating another entity? Is that seriously a foreign concept to you? Or is it the speciesism that's so difficult to shake? Would you be asking these questions if we were discussing raping and killing humans?

No disrespect intended. I really am just incredulous that you're disputing whether the animals wish to be treated well and live their lives. This is a basic, fundamental drive shared by all sentient entities, unless they're literally insane or otherwise emotionally messed up.

But here's the kicker: Even for those who ARE so emotionally damaged that the normal, healthy desire to live has been taken away from them, how is that even relevant to this conversation? How does that ever justify harming that person just because there is some remote possibility that they might be that 1 in 1000 who has a death-wish?

However, this 'obvious' thing you are saying is clearly not so universally obvious or else everyone would just be agreeing already. I am exploring in to the nature of this disagreement. I, so far, have been unable to stand in a position on either side but I believe in my confusion I can't really tell why the argument exists. Again, it appears to come back to the fact that different people have different ideas regarding freedom of being and what the boundaries of that freedom are.

I think it's very simple: Societal conditioning creates neuropathways in the brain, and it's easier to just stay on those same neuropathways than it is to create new neuropathways. This has been proven by science. It requires some sort of leap in consciousness to create new neuropathways. (See What the Bleep for an illustration of this.)

I contend that it IS obvious that the animals have free will and don't want to be tortured or killed. It is obvious to anyone who is willing to actually LOOK at them and SEE what is obvious.

It won't be obvious to those who refuse to watch the slaughterhouse videos and face what they are actually supporting. But that doesn't mean it isn't obvious. It just means they are in denial and stubbornly refusing to SEE what is obvious.

...

[Matt1]

For me its fairly simple. To eat an animal is to cause suffering, if we can survive without the eating of animals it makes sense to do so as this creates less suffering. That being said i still have my limits as i eat dairy and i understand a lot of suffering happens to animals through dairy products as well but for the time being this is my way.

I think that we can philosophise anything to justify almost any desire or action, but this can often miss the core lesson of this density which is compassion. Before we move onto the insight of wisdom i believe we should be well awakened in the heart.

[Monica]

For me its fairly simple. To eat an animal is to cause suffering, if we can survive without the eating of animals it makes sense to do so as this creates less suffering.

Exactly! That's really it in a nutshell.

That being said i still have my limits as i eat dairy and i understand a lot of suffering happens to animals through dairy products as well but for the time being this is my way.

It took me a long time to get off dairy too, so I can relate.

I think that we can philosophise anything to justify almost any desire or action, but this can often miss the core lesson of this density which is compassion.  Before we move onto the insight of wisdom i believe we should be well awakened in the heart.

Well said!

The elephant in the room is that many people apparently just don't care if they inflict suffering on others.

...

[Minyatur]

For me its fairly simple. To eat an animal is to cause suffering, if we can survive without the eating of animals it makes sense to do so as this creates less suffering. That being said i still have my limits as i eat dairy and i understand a lot of suffering happens to animals through dairy products as well but for the time being this is my way.

I think that we can philosophise anything to justify almost any desire or action, but this can often miss the core lesson of this density which is compassion.  Before we move onto the insight of wisdom i believe we should be well awakened in the heart.

But then would you describe suffering as a meaningless experience, or can it be seen as having value?

Say that mini-creator #7777393027 was born into a 3D world as a 2D entity that was caused suffering by the 3D individuals, along it's path it came to see the experience as useful and that it has shaped itself in a way that he wouldn't wish otherwise.

Were those who created the experience wrong? Or were they right?

How could mini-creator #whatever have known without first experiencing it?

[Aion]

'We' don't know this apparently 'obvious' thing and while I understand you are generalizing for your own views I think it's important to keep in mind that it isn't the only way to describe the situation. I do accept that as your assessment of the situation and consider it valid.

Aion, any 'average' person will agree that victimizing, harming and killing another person is wrong or even evil. That is generally accepted by most civilized societies. Violence is frowned upon and considered 'bad', and acceptable only in matters of self-defense. Most people also allow exceptions for war, because they've been brainwashed into believing that's acceptable too. They also allow exceptions for those considered 'not human' ie. animals, unborn babies, and, in the past, even humans who've been dehumanized based on the color of their skin or some other racial or cultural trait. But for the most part, hurting others isn't cool. That's just basic.

Most average people also believe in a talking snake and an ancient book and simplistic ideas of heaven and hell, so that really doesn't mean anything, except to point out that they do at least grasp the BASICS, whereas the basics seem to have been lost here.

Here, in the hallowed halls of Bring4th, where highly evolved aliens told us there is no such thing as right or wrong, while simultaneously going to great lengths to emphasize the importance of honoring free will, it has become fashionable to be so politically correct that nothing can ever be said to be 'wrong' and anyone who dares to do so is deemed unpopular.

If we were discussing whether it's acceptable to torture and kill a human, most people would agree that DUH of course it is wrong, because DUH of course it's violating that person's free will and right to life.

But because we're talking about animals, somehow it's ok to question whether keeping them confined to a tiny cage where they cannot even turn around for their entire lives, and then slitting their throats as they struggle in terror, is a violation of their free will???

I know your musings are valid, but do you really have no concept of the 'wrongness' of violating another entity? Is that seriously a foreign concept to you? Or is it the speciesism that's so difficult to shake? Would you be asking these questions if we were discussing raping and killing humans?

No disrespect intended. I really am just incredulous that you're disputing whether the animals wish to be treated well and live their lives. This is a basic, fundamental drive shared by all sentient entities, unless they're literally insane or otherwise emotionally messed up.

But here's the kicker: Even for those who ARE so emotionally damaged that the normal, healthy desire to live has been taken away from them, how is that even relevant to this conversation? How does that ever justify harming that person just because there is some remote possibility that they might be that 1 in 1000 who has a death-wish?

However, this 'obvious' thing you are saying is clearly not so universally obvious or else everyone would just be agreeing already. I am exploring in to the nature of this disagreement. I, so far, have been unable to stand in a position on either side but I believe in my confusion I can't really tell why the argument exists. Again, it appears to come back to the fact that different people have different ideas regarding freedom of being and what the boundaries of that freedom are.

I think it's very simple: Societal conditioning creates neuropathways in the brain, and it's easier to just stay on those same neuropathways than it is to create new neuropathways. This has been proven by science. It requires some sort of leap in consciousness to create new neuropathways. (See What the Bleep for an illustration of this.)

I contend that it IS obvious that the animals have free will and don't want to be tortured or killed. It is obvious to anyone who is willing to actually LOOK at them and SEE what is obvious.

It won't be obvious to those who refuse to watch the slaughterhouse videos and face what they are actually supporting. But that doesn't mean it isn't obvious. It just means they are in denial and stubbornly refusing to SEE what is obvious.

...

This post is my point in case with what I was saying. Nothing more to say here. I will just concede and say sure, I'm morbid and damaged, thank you for noticing.

[Aion]

For me its fairly simple. To eat an animal is to cause suffering, if we can survive without the eating of animals it makes sense to do so as this creates less suffering. That being said i still have my limits as i eat dairy and i understand a lot of suffering happens to animals through dairy products as well but for the time being this is my way.

I think that we can philosophise anything to justify almost any desire or action, but this can often miss the core lesson of this density which is compassion.  Before we move onto the insight of wisdom i believe we should be well awakened in the heart.

How is that not just a justification for your desire for compassion? More of that 'this is the reason we're here' used to push one's own endeavours.

[Monica]

'We' don't know this apparently 'obvious' thing and while I understand you are generalizing for your own views I think it's important to keep in mind that it isn't the only way to describe the situation. I do accept that as your assessment of the situation and consider it valid.

Aion, any 'average' person will agree that victimizing, harming and killing another person is wrong or even evil. That is generally accepted by most civilized societies. Violence is frowned upon and considered 'bad', and acceptable only in matters of self-defense. Most people also allow exceptions for war, because they've been brainwashed into believing that's acceptable too. They also allow exceptions for those considered 'not human' ie. animals, unborn babies, and, in the past, even humans who've been dehumanized based on the color of their skin or some other racial or cultural trait. But for the most part, hurting others isn't cool. That's just basic.

Most average people also believe in a talking snake and an ancient book and simplistic ideas of heaven and hell, so that really doesn't mean anything, except to point out that they do at least grasp the BASICS, whereas the basics seem to have been lost here.

Here, in the hallowed halls of Bring4th, where highly evolved aliens told us there is no such thing as right or wrong, while simultaneously going to great lengths to emphasize the importance of honoring free will, it has become fashionable to be so politically correct that nothing can ever be said to be 'wrong' and anyone who dares to do so is deemed unpopular.

If we were discussing whether it's acceptable to torture and kill a human, most people would agree that DUH of course it is wrong, because DUH of course it's violating that person's free will and right to life.

But because we're talking about animals, somehow it's ok to question whether keeping them confined to a tiny cage where they cannot even turn around for their entire lives, and then slitting their throats as they struggle in terror, is a violation of their free will???

I know your musings are valid, but do you really have no concept of the 'wrongness' of violating another entity? Is that seriously a foreign concept to you? Or is it the speciesism that's so difficult to shake? Would you be asking these questions if we were discussing raping and killing humans?

No disrespect intended. I really am just incredulous that you're disputing whether the animals wish to be treated well and live their lives. This is a basic, fundamental drive shared by all sentient entities, unless they're literally insane or otherwise emotionally messed up.

But here's the kicker: Even for those who ARE so emotionally damaged that the normal, healthy desire to live has been taken away from them, how is that even relevant to this conversation? How does that ever justify harming that person just because there is some remote possibility that they might be that 1 in 1000 who has a death-wish?

However, this 'obvious' thing you are saying is clearly not so universally obvious or else everyone would just be agreeing already. I am exploring in to the nature of this disagreement. I, so far, have been unable to stand in a position on either side but I believe in my confusion I can't really tell why the argument exists. Again, it appears to come back to the fact that different people have different ideas regarding freedom of being and what the boundaries of that freedom are.

I think it's very simple: Societal conditioning creates neuropathways in the brain, and it's easier to just stay on those same neuropathways than it is to create new neuropathways. This has been proven by science. It requires some sort of leap in consciousness to create new neuropathways. (See What the Bleep for an illustration of this.)

I contend that it IS obvious that the animals have free will and don't want to be tortured or killed. It is obvious to anyone who is willing to actually LOOK at them and SEE what is obvious.

It won't be obvious to those who refuse to watch the slaughterhouse videos and face what they are actually supporting. But that doesn't mean it isn't obvious. It just means they are in denial and stubbornly refusing to SEE what is obvious.

...

This post is my point in case with what I was saying.  Nothing more to say here. I will just concede and say sure, I'm morbid and damaged, thank you for noticing.

????? When I used the term emotionally damaged I was referring to those you mentioned earlier, who do want to be harmed. (Or was it Elros who said that? One of you pointed out that Not everyone wants to live.) My point was that the normal, healthy way of life is to want to live, to NOT want to be harmed or tortured. Sure, some do, but those are deviations.

HOW in the world did you think I was talking about YOU?? The only thing I said about you directly was when I asked you the direct question, do you truly Not see harming others as inherently wrong? That's the only time I referenced you directly. I never said you were damaged.

...

[Aion]

Those I mentioned at one point included myself, so yes, you were talking about me even though you did not know that. You have not said it, but you have heavily implied that I am brainwashed. There is no point in me responding, you're just going to twist my views in to your own argument again anyways.

I genuinely do not see 'right' and 'wrong'. Good and evil are completely relative ideas in my mind. I see creation, destruction, feeding and devouring. I see systems of dynamic, of movement and exchange. Rest assured, you are not the first one to be appalled by the expression of my viewpoint.

There are actions and consequences, but I do not believe in any spiritual judgement.

[Monica]

Those I mentioned at one point included myself, so yes, you were talking about me even though you did not know that. You have not said it, but you have heavily implied that I am brainwashed. There is no point in me responding, you're just going to twist my views in to your own argument again anyways.

Whoa!!! I've never even THOUGHT that you were brainwashed, so how could I imply that?

Seriously, Aion, you are reading things into my words that aren't there!

I genuinely do not see 'right' and 'wrong'. Good and evil are completely relative ideas in my mind. I see creation, destruction, feeding and devouring. I see systems of dynamic, of movement and exchange. Rest assured, you are not the first one to be appalled by the expression of my viewpoint.

There are actions and consequences, but I do not believe in any spiritual judgement.

THAT right there is the only opinion I have of you, that you don't see right and wrong. But you just said it yourself, and have said it before. So discussing this with you is difficult because you don't have the same foundation. That's the point I was trying to make in my last post...that most average people do agree on the basic concept of right and wrong. You don't. I get that. So if you don't even think there is such a thing as wrong, and don't see harming others as wrong, then there's no way you'll understand the points we're making.

Again I wonder if you're just skimming my words. I wasn't even referring to you at all when I mentioned brainwashing! If you read my post again, you'll see that I was referring to 'average people' who are generally brainwashed by religion, yet despite that, they do share a common grasp of right and wrong.

How in the world did you think I was saying you are brainwashed??? Aion, this has happened numerous times. You can't possibly be reading my posts...there's just no way you could misunderstand so profoundly, unless you were skimming through them and Not really reading all my words. You did say that I 'write a lot' and that you had trouble reading long posts on your phone, so I can only conclude that you must be reading only about half of what I'm writing. Fine. But do you see how that is causing you to reach false conclusions?

I read every word you write, if I'm going to respond to it. Please extend the same courtesy to me, if you wish to discuss. If you aren't going to read all my words, then please don't reply, based on reading only part of what I wrote and then jumping to erroneous conclusions.

...

[Diana]

Those I mentioned at one point included myself, so yes, you were talking about me even though you did not know that. You have not said it, but you have heavily implied that I am brainwashed. There is no point in me responding, you're just going to twist my views in to your own argument again anyways.

This is unfair and untrue, in my opinion.

I genuinely do not see 'right' and 'wrong'. Good and evil are completely relative ideas in my mind. I see creation, destruction, feeding and devouring. I see systems of dynamic, of movement and exchange. Rest assured, you are not the first one to be appalled by the expression of my viewpoint.

There are actions and consequences, but I do not believe in any spiritual judgement.

Everyone here is unique; you are not the only one. I would venture to say that most here are outside the "norm." If you feel misunderstood, then I suggest you try harder to communicate and listen. This is not a judgment on you; it's simply what I do when faced with an impasse—I take the responsibility to make myself clear, if I can.

I also would be surprised that anyone here believes in spiritual judgment. I would guess that members here are advanced enough to at least intellectually not want to judge.

There seems to be such confusion around the issue of judgment here. Because I stand up in conversations for the rights of animals does not mean I judge anyone—it just means I'm standing up for the rights of animals. If I say that eating meat contributes to the suffering of animals, it is a fact (or can be argued that it is a fact and that's how I personally see it), and it is not a judgment. These are two separate things. Saying these things may imply that those who eat meat are x, y, z; but that is putting more into than intended. This conversation does not have to be about any "meat-eater," rather, it is about ending the suffering of animals.

[Aion]

I actually read and re-read your posts multiple times, including that last one. You realize it is possible to refer to someone indirectly by expressing a statement over a group which that individual may be part of or feel part of? No, you did not say those things directly but you have implied that certain beliefs and acceptances are due to brainwashing and when I find I have some similar ideas then it would come across that I too am brainwashed.

I'm not responding in the sense of blame. I don't blame you for my own analysis, nor do I place responsibility for my interpretation upon you. I can simply only respond to the point of my experience and there are times you make blanket statements that appear to cover me even if you do not intend. I do not expect my responses to always make sense as they often come from a place that is working on very deep concepts so by the time they make their way out in to words they kind of stick together and get jumbled because there are subtle ideas I see which are very hard to put in to words.

[Aion]

Those I mentioned at one point included myself, so yes, you were talking about me even though you did not know that. You have not said it, but you have heavily implied that I am brainwashed. There is no point in me responding, you're just going to twist my views in to your own argument again anyways.

This is unfair and untrue, in my opinion.

I genuinely do not see 'right' and 'wrong'. Good and evil are completely relative ideas in my mind. I see creation, destruction, feeding and devouring. I see systems of dynamic, of movement and exchange. Rest assured, you are not the first one to be appalled by the expression of my viewpoint.

There are actions and consequences, but I do not believe in any spiritual judgement.

Everyone here is unique; you are not the only one. I would venture to say that most here are outside the "norm." If you feel misunderstood, then I suggest you try harder to communicate and listen. This is not a judgment on you; it's simply what I do when faced with an impasse—I take the responsibility to make myself clear, if I can.

I also would be surprised that anyone here believes in spiritual judgment. I would guess that members here are advanced enough to at least intellectually not want to judge.

There seems to be such confusion around the issue of judgment here. Because I stand up in conversations for the rights of animals does not mean I judge anyone—it just means I'm standing up for the rights of animals. If I say that eating meat contributes to the suffering of animals, it is a fact (or can be argued that it is a fact and that's how I personally see it), and it is not a judgment. These are two separate things. Saying these things may imply that those who eat meat are x, y, z; but that is putting more into than intended. This conversation does not have to be about any "meat-eater," rather, it is about ending the suffering of animals.

Trust me, I cannot describe the lengths I go to to try and communicate. That I am hard to understand doesn't mean I'm not trying.

[Monica]

Aion, you seem to be taking personal offense at things I've said that weren't even about you at all. I don't think ANY of those things you seem to think I think!

Honestly, the only think I consciously thought about you was that you didn't seem to value the concept of polarity. But that is true about a lot of people here.

Other than that, whatever ideas you have in your mind about what you think I think about you, are almost surely misperceptions.

One thing is for sure: You and I don't connect very well via online posts. Perhaps it's best if cease responding to each other, or, at the very least, each of us respond only to short posts, leaving out the longer ones which seem to more easily misunderstood.

I wish you well.

...