In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

So I simply disagree with that message, and I would take it so far as saying that I really strongly disagree with that message.

It would just take away the truth of who I am, if I were believe that eating meat is incongruent with the STO path.

You seem to be saying that it's incongruent, simply because you've done it. Or is there another reason you think it's incongruent?

I've done things that were incongruent with the STO path. Like yelling at my kid. We've all done things that were incongruent with the STO path.

That doesn't make us "not STO" since there is an allowable percentage of STS. Although, if we consciously capitalize on that allowable %, then wouldn't that be depolarizing?

Questions for you, if you care to explain:

Do predominately positive entities sometimes do negative things? Provided their overall polarity is still 51+%, then aren't they still STO?

Why is the 49% STS allowed? And what sort of things comprise that 49%? And should we be satisfied with 51%, or should we seek to polarize more if we are consciously able to do so?

How is declining an opportunity to feel compassion, congruent with the STO path? In other words, if we are given an opportunity to feel compassion, and we turn our backs on it, then how is that STO?

---

I would add separately, that I think that taking time to think that others actions are abominations, or that others actions are incongruent with STO, is in and of itself not the example of an STO thought.

So is nothing an abomination? Is war an abomination?

---

It would just take away the truth of who I am, if I were believe that eating meat is incongruent with the STO path.

I think yelling at my child, when it wasn't even his fault, is incongruent with the STO path. Yet I have done this. I don't think it takes away the 'truth of what I am' because I am not defined by a single action. That single action of yelling at my child cannot negate all the positive actions I have had throughout my life. I just put the 'yelling at child' in the STS column.

Who among us can claim to be 100% STO?

The only person who came close to that, that I know of, was Jesus.

So why does it "take away the truth of who we are" to acknowledge that we're not 100% STO?

---

Yes Monkey I would agree with you . If someone is judging another's choices in diet , it is not an STO thought.

By that logic, then if you judge the actions of a violent criminal, it's an STS thought.

Or does your logic only apply to diet? And if so, why?

And I am not saying that anyone personally thinks that, I usually cannot read otherselves minds.

There's no need to dance around it. We've made it very clear, that we aren't interested in judging the choices of others, because we have no idea if they are, for example, eating animal products only to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.

But do you not see a distinction between 'judging' an action and judging a person?

For example, Monkey said I could eat his dog if I wanted to. But, there was a teeny tiny little detail left out: That I would need to kill his dog, before I could eat him.

This is exactly what Huxley was talking about: The dissociation by use of words. Have you noticed that the meat-eaters tend to focus on the act of eating meat, whereas the vegetarians tend to focus on how the meat was produced?

One cannot eat meat without someone first killing the animal.

That's the dissociation. The meat-eaters tend to gloss over the killing part, and say the vegetarians are "judging their choice of diet" but that's not it at all. The vegetarians aren't judging their diet! It's the torture and killing that's being judged.