Why I am not a vegan

[anagogy]

Let's apply that to humans and see how that works:

Again, abuse of children and killing them are different topics.  By all means, avoid abusing children.  Killing a child quickly by skillful shooting is less cruel than dying slowly of starvation in Africa...To assume one is worse 100% of the time otherwise, is naive.

2nd density, and 3rd density are different, thus, your cross examples are not compatible.

I agree about killing in self-defense or to protect another. But you still haven't answered my question:

Why is the same action (controlling and dominating an other-self to the point of using them and killing them against their will) 'naturally different' when done to a late 2D entity vs a 3D entity?

No one said anything about control and domination.  Those are ideas you brought into it.  Animals willfully incarnate into a realm of prey and predation.  Humans are exploring those systems in more of a societal way.  And your interpretation of "late 2D" is much different than my own.

If you wish to discuss the topic, then please quit with the sideways jabs and insinuations.

You mean like the insinuations that eating meat is entirely concomitant with being a straight up murderer?  I'm not sure what insinuations/jabs you were referring to, but if you find my posts too offensive, you are not obligated to respond.

You seem intent upon twisting my words. C'mon, you know that's NOT what I said AT ALL.

I was referring to your interpretation of the logic of manifestation as I related it, because you were offering hypothetical examples that didn't make logical sense to me.  If I was less than clear, it wasn't intentional.  I'll try to be more specific in the future.

I can tell you that souls know there is a high probability something of that nature will occur in a given incarnation.  The flaw in your logic is that it doesn't make rape any more good or less negative. You still have a situation where someone is raping someone.  And it doesn't mean the victim isn't creating their own reality.  It's just a simple reality of the situation that a given victim wandered into a vibrational vicinity that was not in their best interest.  Their consciousness was tuned to fear and they attracted what they feared.  It doesn't make the rapist not a rapist, and it doesn't make the rape victim deliberately responsible, either.  

EXACTLY!!!! Finally, a glimmer of understanding!

It is exactly the same with raping and killing animals. Exactly the same.

The following is just my intuition and opinion:

I think you may be interpreting this situation differently than I do.  There are plenty of times when death is desired by an animal.  Just as there are plenty of times when humans do. Animal thoughts aren't generally as specific as human thoughts (their consciousness is, usually, more resistance free, but less specifically focused than human consciousness) but when an animal is in pain, and generally desires to not be in pain anymore, it will then attract those experiences that will end such pain by virtue of said desire.  In many cases, this is swift merciful death.  Whether by animals, hunters, or having a random massive brain aneurysm and god knows what else.  Or it might just get better, if that is the path of least resistance.

There are also times, when animals simply get out of alignment with what is wanted, by focusing on what is not wanted, and then attract that, resulting in their death (sometimes very slow death).

The point being, you can't know which.  But if you *ASSUME* it is one or the other, which is judgment, you will tend to only attract that circumstance into your experience.

You can't know the polarity of a given action just by seeing said action.  So whatever point you thought you were making is not really effective since you can't know the polarity of an act just by observing it.

Then you have misunderstood. I never said that. Of course animals are playing a role in creating their own circumstances, just like the human rape victim.

And, just as you said "rape is still rape" and is "still negative" so too is it still negative, when done to ANY victim, whether human or animal! There is NO difference! Except that one is socially acceptable and the other isn't.

You can't know the polarity of an act.  That is judgment.

How *long* does a given animal (a human for example) have to, in virtually every culture, partake of a given food source before you accept it is natural for them to do so?  If an alien race were observing us, as anthropologists, they would automatically assume it was in our nature to thrive on animal protein.

What if the alien race likes the taste of human?

I have it on good authority, that some STS versions do.