[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."

[JustLikeYou]

I admit I made an assumption. I have never met a single meat-eater claiming to buy only 'humane' (sic) meat who never ever ate at restaurants.


If you never do, then you'd be the first one I've met.

While hypocrisy might be par for the course, that doesn't make it a necessary element of meat eating.

I buy meat and dairy from local farmers whom I know and trust and whose farm I can visit. The dairy farmer uses bulls to impregnate (and they do get around), not a rape machine. The meat farmers raise their animals without recourse to cheap grain and kill chickens by severing the spine. The chickens never even knew anything happened. I've seen it. It's shocking how clean and simple it is. Cattle are killed with the skull puncturing machine. I didn't ask about pork, though I will.

I dislike and avoid restaurants. The reasons I eat as I eat, though, are not entirely moral. That is to say, I didn't get here through moral outrage. Rather, it was a combination of palate sensitivity and desire for a different way of life. I believe in a local economy because in a local economy you can't remove yourself from the consequences of your actions. If you're killing your own animals, you have to be okay with how you do it.

I also don't trust organizations that inspect for how animals are treated. I trust people whom I can look in the eye and whose hand I can shake. I find you can read a good heart that way.

Morality for me has proven to be a simple matter of preference. I am kind because I dislike the way it feels when I am anything else. I am careful about my food because I don't like the way it feels (or tastes) when I eat food whose sources are questionable. Coke is disgusting to me because it doesn't taste like food.

Unfortunately, though, few if any of us can afford to be purists. I don't like eating anything whatsoever at restaurants, whether animal or plant. I do not trust the quality of any of it. But sometimes I find myself at a restaurant because of the company I've chosen to keep. How I handle those moments is a matter of instantaneous decision. You make a fine point about restaurants and I agree. If today you ask me about my attitude about restaurants, I'd say, "I don't need them." However, if I never eat at a restaurant again, it will not be because I took a principled stance against them. Rather, it will be because I don't like the way it feels when I do eat there. That is to say, it will be because I am done with the experience. Perhaps I am already done with the experience.

I was referring to your assertion that certain animals couldn't be pets (which, by the way, I effectively refuted with visual proof).

I maintain that point. Your evidence to the contrary is evidence against the claim that certain species of animals couldn't be pets. I am not making that claim. I am making the claim that certain specific animals can't be pets---or at least not without a prohibitive degree of investment. I am also making the claim that certain species are much more conducive to pethood than other species, though there are always exceptions.

The theory underlying these claims is that individual portions of an animal group soul reincarnate, leaping from species to species until they land in the home of a human being. Most animals that become pets are cats, dogs and the like. Others can also, but they are the exception. Until these individual portions of an animal soul reach the point in their evolution where they are ready for the final investment of consciousness by devotion to a human, they move progressively closer to the experience. The claim I'm staking out is that livestock, when treated respectfully, presents an intermediate option that is not easily available otherwise. Could these animals become pets with sufficient investment? Sure. But it takes a rare person to have the patience to domesticate a stubbornly feral animal. We have our own problems to contend with, so I don't see this as a plausible 3D scenario---not on Planet Earth anyway.

You have made many assertions without any evidence at all, but instead based on arbitrary demarcations, and you have ignored many of my points.

The evidence I'm presenting is a coherent set of concepts whose instances can be easily found in the world. Meet the farmers around you. You'll see how they treat their animals. Don't just look for the farmers who are cruel. Look for the best in humanity. I ignored many of your responses for precisely this reason. It doesn't seem like you're looking for the best in my words. I don't have the time or the patience to try to convince people who are looking for things to criticize.

When I said you were arguing against a strawman that was because you were using information about practices I don't support and, on the very rare occasion when I have found myself eating restaurant food, am very conscious of.

The thing is, for a topic to go anywhere or evolve, it would be better if anyone posting had some idea of what had already transpired (just as members here would presumably have some idea of the Ra Material). That is what I was referring to in saying you hadn't studied. In this case "study" means looking at the whole progression, rather than just jumping in.

You are right that I have not read that many posts that have preceded this discussion. You'll also notice that I didn't linger on points that I knew had been discussed. I haven't read what came before because I can judge what has been discussed already by the existing nature of the debate. Then I contributed something original. I hope you'll forgive me for not thoroughly investigating the previous material while also recognizing that I was correct in my perception that I could contribute something original.

I am, indeed, interested in rigorous study, but I have to be very careful about where I spend my time. Just as you have seen many of these points raised before, so have I. I do not need to be primed yet again in baseline analysis.

The way you talked so cavalierly about killing ants and termites bothered me. I am one of those very few people who does not kill "pests" or see them as such.

I assert that ants and termites serve a very important function in the natural ecology of Planet Earth. Without termites, we'd have dead trees everywhere. With that said, however, we have to make peace with the necessities of the moment. If I could, I would choose an eco-village that learned of more natural methods for warding off nature's deconstructive influences. I believe in this way of life. It is not, however, accessible to me right now. When the house you own is a very important part of your livelihood, which is difficult enough to secure in this world, certain protective measures become necessary. I have no ill will toward termites, but I won't allow them to eat my foundation. I was also happy to put up with the ants until I was informed that they, too, will destroy the integrity of the wood in this house. With the ants, we've tried all manner of gentle solutions, but the infestation was just too extreme.

Will I eventually recant this stance? Perhaps I will. But I won't do so on an extreme moral ground, because I know the consequences of extremism for me: it becomes impossible for me to not be a hypocrite. My incense was probably made by 6-year-olds in India. I don't really like that. But that 6-year-old's income is crucial to the survival of her family, so how could I possibly feel morally vindicated in boycotting the Indian incense? I could boycott on a protest of principle, but my moral principle comes at the cost of families in poverty. They become the collateral for my moral stance.

There is no handbook for a correct moral stance. The more you investigate the nature of your actions, the more complicated the moral consequences turn out to be. Do I, for example, have a moral commitment to protecting my family's livelihood or a moral commitment to protecting the lives of termites? We bozos here just do the best we can. I respect your moral stance because I know it is sincere. I only wish you could see the sincerity of mine.

And by the way, using insecticide poisons isn't any good for any of it or us.

I agree. I'm still not sure how I feel about it, but I had to make a decision.