The act of eating is a service.

[Monica]

I see what you are saying- although I think there is some gray area you missed. Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody who eats meat thinks animals aren't deserving of life. Though I would imagine that some do.

I would say that everyone who eats meat, considers the animal's life less important than their desire for meat. (That is, if they have given it any thought at all.)

As regards murder- yes this means intentionally taking the life of another person. Clearly, we could go round and round about what constitutes a "person" and probably wouldn't get anywhere!

I think it's a very valid question. Ra referred to "other-selves" and there seems to be an assumption that they were referring to humans only. I question that assumption.

But at the least, I think we could agree that the term "animals" represents such a vast range of lifeforms that to make a blanket statement that "animals are people too" is quite a stretch.

I didn't actually say "animals are people too" except maybe in an analogy. I've actually stated that animals aren't people, when I explained that I'd save the child before saving the dog.

I do, however, think animals are "other-selves" and this is where much of the disagreement lies.

I mean- if I tried to make a case against the "murder" of shrimp wouldn't you consider that a little absurd? Are shrimp to be considered people?

What I'd find absurd about that, is the same thing I'd find absurd about trying to get people to recognize the supposed suffering of plants. If animal rights activists can't even succeed in getting people to recognize the suffering of a cow, what hope is there for a shrimp, cockroach or tomato plant?

Is it really? I mean- do you really consider the slaughter of a pig in a factory farm as the same action as swatting a housefly? Flies not only have a beating heart, but nine of them!

Why must it be "all or nothing"?

You are right that there is no clear demarcation. But that's irrelevant since, as you and I both agreed, it's impossible to 100% avoid all killing of all lifeforms, as long as we are here in 3D.

But that isn't a logical argument to not even bother trying to avoid those which we can avoid.

I get it- however I simply question whether or not that actually works to elicit more compassion or not. I will admit- I do not really know! But what I do know is that vegetarians could say "killing animals is unnecessary" and that would be a much less contentious point. I imagine it would result in a much greater percentage of a given audience being willing to open their hearts and listen to whatever else they have to say.

I agree, which is why I avoid the dreaded M word when talking about meat-eating and abortion.

Surely, if a vegetarian is unable to establish a basic sense of compassion and rapport with a meat-eater, then the chances of being successful in their objective to increase the meat-eater's compassion toward animals is pretty small.

Meh. It's already small anyway. Unless the meat-eater just got diagnosed with cancer and is exploring alternative healing options, the chances of them suddenly having compassion for animals is almost nil. As our infamous meat thread showed, this is true even among 'spiritually-oriented' Law of One students.

So I wouldn't say compassion and rapport increases our chances of getting our point across. We should still have compassion and we should still cultivate rapport, because that is the proper thing to do, but not because we'll get better results, because we aren't likely to get any results anyway.

Yes, I am referring to the vandalism and such. But I am also referring to the employment of extreme language. I seem to be having difficulty communicating this effectively.

Let's take a totally different example, and one which I know we are on the same page about. Look at the media reporting on the Ron Paul campaign this last week: "Ron Paul Drops Out", "Ron Paul Ends Presidential Campaign", "Ron Paul Admits He Will Not Be President" are a few examples. None of these are true! The language these articles are using is more extreme than what is actually the case. That is different from calling these reporters extremists.

Getting back to our example with animals- and in my opinion- murder is an extreme term. One could say: kill, slaughter, or slay and it would be more accurate. Again, in my opinion.

One could also say: murder, assassinate, or annhiliate. These are valid synonyms, but tend to connote something more extreme.

So- yeah- you could say that I murdered a fly last week. But what would be the point in doing so? Wouldn't that actually detract from the argument?

I agree. If you look back at all my old posts, you won't find much use of the M word, if at all.

there is nothing I can do to change it. So why should I try?

Um...because you feel compassion for the cow? There IS something we can do to change it! We can't change all of it, but we CAN change some of it!

Here's a different example from pop culture: AMAZING! Everything is frigging AMAZING nowadays. People say: wow that hummus was AMAZING! Really? Were you really AMAZED by that hummus? Was there something puzzling or inexplicable about the hummus? Or was it just tasty and delicious?

Oh and let's not forget AWESOME! But those are just reflections on the illiteracy of society. They just don't have many options regarding word choice.

Oh no, I agree with you about all that! I just mean from a pragmatic standpoint of achieving the stated outcome of influencing people to eat less meat, or to stop eating it altogether.

Glad to hear we agree on something!

However I disagree with your 2nd statement. I disagree in having a stated outcome at all. That doesn't work. That is attachment. It's not my job to influence people, and it's not my burden of responsibility as to whether they quit eating meat or not. My only task is to answer the call, in whatever way I am able to.

What I am trying to say is: people are people. And for better or worse (I think worse) people seem to be more and more on edge and looking for any reason to get butthurt or offended.

If that's the case, then why? I contend that anyone looking for an excuse to get butthurt, has an imbalance and they are hoping that other-selves might offer some catalyst.

In which case, retracting the 'offending' viewpoint to avoid their butthurt, isn't serving them. It's actually a disservice.

To clarify: I would never intentionally cause butthurt in someone. (To do so intentionally would be STS.) But if I just speak my truth, and my intentions are loving, and they get butthurt anyway, that is their catalyst, not mine. If I withdraw my energy, or retract my statement or water it down, then that is a disservice.

At the end of the day, if something we say results in butthurt or offense of our audience (whether or not we think it is an appropriate response) then all we have done is alienate them, and then they aren't going to listen to ANYTHING we have to say.

That is their choice isn't it?

Thus, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Why would we do that?

We're shooting ourselves in the foot only if we do it intentionally. If our efforts are genuine, then good will prevail, eventually. It just might take awhile, and the road might get a little rocky along the way.