[split] Obtaining Animal Blood

[Matt1]

So...why was an on-topic post of mine split into ANOTHER war-on-meat thread, raped of its context, so I could be collectively be hung out to dry? I was commenting on a post about consuming blood, after that post's author had already connected the topic to vampires. I was on topic. It's not my fault that some other individuals decided to turn it into yet another outlet for their ongoing crusade, and for the record I think this is bull. 

I have purposefully avoided the meat vs. veg debate for years now because I feel that an individual's personal eating habits are their business. I do not owe anyone an explanation of the ethics behind my mode of consumption (and believe it or not, I do actually have ethics), nor do I feel a need to get others to share in my ethics, nor do I feel owed an explanation of anyone else's ethics. However, since I've been FORCED in, here is my two cents on the matter:

I don't care what anyone else thinks of my eating habits. I eat meat, as raw as I can get it, and I will likely keep doing so until the day I die. If I had access to animal blood via hunting, I would drink it (and you have no idea how careful or not careful I would be while hunting because, well, you don't know me at all). If I had access to clean human blood from a willing donor, yes (collective gasp), I would drink that, too. Call me evil, STS, non-compassionate, whatever. I do not care. Eat whatever you feel comfortable eating, but don't for a minute think you know me well enough for your judgment of my character to mean a thing to me. My conscience is totally clean. 

I assume that you are referring to me as I was the one to respond to your post. I detest dishonesty and cowardice (which I am not directing at you, Yera) and prefer to address this post with transparency and directness.

I don't care what you eat, either. From my standpoint, the whole so called "war on meat" conflict here has been completely misunderstood. It's not about telling anyone what to do or what they "should" do. It, for me, has only been about compassion, and I don't feel compassion is only for other humans.

To refer to the subject of eating meat as the "war on meat" is in itself a judgment. There is much irony to me in the accusations directed toward those trying to include animals in the idea of the LOO and compassion as being controlling, when I see control happening the other way—it is controlling to not allow opinions that conflict with what is, opinions that are out of the box with general societal, cultural, and human accepted behaviors.

The idea that humans have free will is not the end-all of everything in the universe. It is so utterly egocentric to me to think this way.

No one has forced you Yera, by the way, to respond. No one has forced anyone here at B4 to react, respond, be offended, or feel judged concerning the "meat" issue. It's not possible to MAKE anyone feel anything. Feelings, reactions, attitudes are a person's own responsibility. 

You are in alignment totally with what I think about individuals: it is their personal business and responsibility concerning what they choose to do in every aspect of their lives. Yet here we are, participating in a forum that canvasses subject matter beyond 3D. We are exploring concepts from Ra and higher densities and conscious expansion. What we discuss here goes BEYOND 3D human concerns, so to limit everything here to only honor free will is not in alignment with exploring outside of 3D. Within this context, why was my post which responded to your post (and I address everyone here not you particularly) inappropriate? Because I didn't stay in the box? Because I perceived aspects of the topic that were not just about humans and their free will, and I wanted to include those in the discussion? Many here may have pigeonholed my responses to be about the tired subject of meat-eating. This is both incorrect and closed-minded. 

Frankly I think drinking human blood would actually be better than animal blood. My reason is that I think there is a collective consciousness in a species; so for humans, whatever suffering they cause in order to evolve through the process of free will, might well be limited to the species only rather than lesser evolved beings who haven't developed free will. I am opposed to all suffering, but recognize it as a necessary component in evolution at least at this time (unfortunately).

So if I, who have a different mindset from the vast majority of humanity, cannot express my opinions about compassion here, at B4, then what is this site for? Does it exist so members can perpetuate human limitations, or does it exist to expand our views on, and awareness of, the infinite universe? 

I've seen this used a couple of time on bring4th and it's made me question, if true, does that mean that individuals don't have any responsibility in how they make other's feel and that we are each entirely responsible for our feelings (I believe Spaced brought up this point in another thread)?  Have I misunderstood something?  If true, I've got some serious work to do.

Its an interesting point. I think we can effect others emotionally, even through words or text. Although its only likely to have an deep effective if someone already has a strong bias towards something that is being said. On another note, haggis is the national food of Scotland. It contains blood and all types of other things.