(06-23-2012, 04:27 PM)Diana Wrote: I like this exercise and have been doing it for years; I enjoy debate proper.
I have argued the opposite side countless times as an academic exercise, and it is always enlightening, it opens new paradigms within self, and is generally a great device for expanding perspective and shifting one from a stubborn belief or rigid stance.
However, with this subject I cannot participate. Neither would I argue the side of "murder is good because," or "it's good for humans to destroy the planet and all life on it because," or "it's good to have wars because," for these reasons:
1. Every cell in my being revolts from such a device being used in instances where obvious, unnecessary physical harm and cruelty are involved.
2. I don't want to add any energy into something which would so obviously (to me) assist de-evolution rather than evolution.
3. There is no belief or paradigm to shift from in the perspective of not participating in the lack of compassion inherent in a meat-eating society, as regards the animals being used for such. It is a key milestone on the path of evolution, or enlightenment, or back to the Creator, or however one views the journey forward. This is not meant as a judgment, only (to me) an obvious conclusion based on what anyone might envision that future to be.
For example, if one takes Ra's view, and envisions merging with the Creator, and that all is finally one complete whole, and that eventually all distortion will balance and all will be coexisting harmoniously, and that compassion would be extended to all things, how is it possible to argue for eating animals and all it involves? Why would one want to do that, if one was seriously committed to evolving?
I will, however, be interested to hear what others have to say on the subject, and through their efforts I will no doubt learn things. In the original meat thread, this was certainly the case, and I am grateful for the widening of my understanding, and the points of view which were new to me.
Ditto for me.