In regards to eating meat

[Bring4th_Austin]

You said "not love" = "disagree" when you said "It is possible to love somebody but not love their ways." and then said "You can disagree with an action and not hate it." So if disagreeing is not loving then perhaps you think I am not loving you. That's why I asked "So, I'm "not loving" you right now?"

Perhaps "love their ways" is a poor way to word it? I think it's differing definitions of hate that is causing confusion here. Again, to me, hate is a seething emotion. To not love does not mean to hate.

For semantics sake, I'll just reword the whole thing.

It is possible to love someone but disagree with their actions.

(key word is actions)

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

You seem to think it is persecution of a person and not protection of another person. It has nothing to do with persecuting a person. If someone could torture without another person being tortured, then go for it. I could care less. Indulge yourself in torture. But the fact that someone else has to be tortured means that I feel that action shouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with the fact that one person wants to do it, but rather that another person is being forced to participate in a situation they do no wish to be in.

Yes, I do. It is persecution of the torturer. I see no way around that.

There are two relationships in there, as far as I am concerned. One between me and perp, another between me and victim.

While the torturer may feel persecuted because he is not allowed to torture, the intent of the disagreement is to protect the one being tortured. Like I said, if one could torture without another being tortured, I'd have no problem with it. It is about protection and not persecution. I do not wish to inhibit the torturer from expression, but above that I wish to protect the one being tortured. It is not about "hate" for the torturer, like you feel, but rather love for both torturer and the one being tortured. I don't think there's much debate that being tortured causes more suffering than not being allowed to torture.

If you feel the suffering is the same, it's your right, but nothing in any of this means I don't love the torturer.

I think to not allow someone their choices/actions is to not accept them, and that is green ray blockage.

Again, I have no problem with the torturer torturing if it were not causing suffering which cannot be avoided by the one being tortured. I am not disagreeing with their desire to torture, but rather the suffering of the one being tortured. It is not about stopping the torturer from torturing but rather protection the one being tortured from suffering.

Here, I'm simply owning up to some personal STS nature. I find it dishonest to say I am loving while I am restraining.

I'm not sure where the dishonesty is. Could you point out where there is a lack of honesty given the torturing scenario? I'll spell out my perspective again.

I am not restraining the torturer because he wishes to torture. I am protecting the victim from suffering. The victim has no choice but to be tortured and suffer. Restraining the torturer from torturing does not cause as much suffering as torturing. The torturer can choose not to torture, the victim cannot choose to not be tortured. If I could allow the torturer to torture without another unwillingly suffering, I have no problem allowing it. Since there is a helpless victim, I do not allow it. The seed of this dis-allowance is not to restrain the torturer but to protect the victim.

What about this perspective is dishonest?

I think you are disassociating your love for a victim to be love for his/her perpetrator. It's not love, it is control, which is not acceptance.

I'm not sure where you land on that conclusion. Again, I love both victim and perpetrator. The victim is suffering. To stop that suffering, we dis-allow the perpetrator from torturing. I do not control the perpetrator because I wish to control their actions. I control the perpetrator because I wish to protect the victim. The perpetrator is controlled out of protection for an other-self.

The actions of the perpetrator are protected up to the point where they cause unavoidable suffering.

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about polarization and metaphysical implications. I'm talking about the archetypal structures in play within every decision we make. People. People can and will do what they want.

Again, you can't say you accept me without accepting what I do. What I do is who I am.

You can't tell me what I can and can't accept. If that's how it is in your mind, then so be it. But I accept you while disagreeing with your choices. It is how it is. And there is no dishonesty there. That is as honest as I can be.

Any action you take which I disagree with has nothing to do with you AT ALL. It has only to do with the VICTIMS OF YOUR ACTIONS.

To say, 'I'm a really nice guy in reality, I just can't stop abusing my wife' is just false. I'm not really a nice guy, I'd be an abuser. (I do not abuse my wife. As for me being a really nice guy... I don't know, lol).

Being a "nice guy" has nothing to do with whether I love you or not. Abusing your wife has nothing to do with whether I love you or not. The action I disagree with is the one which causes suffering in your wife. I do not disagree with your abusive nature, but rather the fact that there is a helpless victim being abused. I accept your abusive nature while protecting the victim.

See? There's a heart. Undeniable proof that I love you!

See? You do accept my choices.

I do! I just disagree with them.

Language sucks. I feel there is not a good way to get this point across. It is easy to mis-speak. To say I don't "love your ways" is wrong. To say I don't "accept your decisions" is wrong too.

To disagree with your decisions because they cause suffering, that is the ultimate message here.