Dignity for Doomed Dogs

[Diana]

hi Diana ,

i realize you are responding to Parsons post but might I also add:

I agree with you fully, but the actual point I am making is not from one camp, but simply to consider the state of the world and humanity`s role within it, and the fact that its complexity and the fact that we cannot please everyone all of the time, literally makes it impossible to act on your compassion as though the entire world will conform to what you might consider incontestable logic. the very fact that there is a debate is proof that this is so.

Hi Shin'Ar

As far as getting people to see the logic in, or feel the truth of, compassion, I am not currently sanguine. I only go through my life living the compassion myself, sharing when asked, and in this one instance--Bring4th--discussing it with those open to speaking about it.

It's in debate, I feel, because humans are not evolved enough in general to understand the underlying concepts of compassion. Sorry for the crassness of quoting myself (), but the quote below explains how I feel.

Another example of separation is in where we choose to be of service: humans choose mostly to serve humans, and yet there are many life forms right here with us (animal life, plant life, mineral life, the planet itself). We say there is not enough time to do everything, to be of service to everything; we choose what to focus our service on rather than just to be of service in every moment. Being of service every moment sounds exhausting, yet, I don't think it is. In each moment, if one is connected to all things, it would not be a matter of selecting what to be of service to; rather, one would always simply flow with the idea of being one with all things, that all life is sacred, and one would automatically choose the path of least harm to all.

It might be posited that in choosing what to be of service to, one unintentionally underscores separation.