Dignity for Doomed Dogs

[Monica]

Are you suggesting an eye for an eye mentality here?

Good heavens NO!

Are you saying that war is sometimes necessary to solve a war?

No, never!

Balance is the compromise of an extreme at one end toward the extreme at the other end. balance is a process of trying to disallow the extreme of either end to overwhelm the other. At some point in between the two perfect balance is assumed where movement stalls and there is not motion toward either extreme.

Not necessarily. Yes, sometimes balance can be achieved by both poles 'compromising' as you say to the middle. But the middle is very nebulous. Who decides where the middle is? Depends on the frame of reference. And, to say that this is the solution implies that compromise is the goal. Some things however cannot be compromised; nor should they be.

Sometimes balance of an extreme negative, is an extreme positive.

To use the numerical analogy again: Let's say war is a -1,000,000. It will take a positive... +1,000,000 to balance it.

Adding war to stop war is ludicrous. That's like adding another -1,000,000 to the existing -1,000,000. The result of that is -2,000,000 or maybe even -10,000,000 because it's likely exponential.

It is not a mathematical equation to be balanced with negative and positive integers.

It's an analogy. And maybe more than an analogy. Ra used numbers to explain concepts like polarizing and harvestability, so why not? The entire universe is mathematical.

This is life and social dynamics that are so complex and constantly evolving and changing that the perfect balance is elusive. There is never a point of immobility with human life, and so there is never a fixed point of perfect balance.

Exactly! But you see, neither is there is a point of extremity. :idea:

Without a point of balance, one cannot claim that anything is 'extremist' because that is just as intangible and elusive.

I don't object to your views on balance. What I object is the first claiming that there's no such thing as balance, then saying something is 'extremity.' You can't have it both ways.

Something is considered extreme only if we have a point of reference. I call war, starvation, and, yes, the entire meat industry extreme from the point of reference of the STO path. Is this biased? Yes indeed.

The concept of balance gets even more difficult to define when we take into consideration that entities can 'balance' their experiences from one density to the next.

We're talkin' millions of years!

Kinda makes the whole idea of balance kinda moot.

The objective in 3D is to polarize, not to balance. Balance what? Balance is something that is done across densities, not in a single density. I think too much lip service is given to the concept of balance.

Perfection is not the goal which is why your hopes for a world where we all are vegetarian with spayed pets is out of your reach.

Once again, you seem to be implying that you think we are trying to "save the world." The very idea is absurd to me. I don't think there will ever be an end to 3D. There will always be new souls inhabiting some version of a violent 3D somewhere. For example, all those cows, pigs and chickens who are tortured by the millions ever single day. What kind of 3D will they inhabit? A dark, oppressive, violent one, no doubt, thanks to the 3D humans who brought forth their sentience in such an obscene way.

And, no doubt, there are other 3D planets which are dark and violent. It's ludicrous for me to think I could change all those realities! To imply that that's what vegetarians are doing, completely misses the point.

The goal is to strive to find harmony in such a way that all/everyone can live together in peace, respect, courtesy and love.

I disagree. That would be imposing my goal onto others. That is an infringement of their free will. Many people don't want to live together in peace, respect, courtesy and love.

And to achieve that compromise is essential. Compromise on your part and theirs. Somewhere within that dynamic resides harmony.

Let's apply that to human slavery and see how that works: Do you think we should compromise if we hear of human slavery, or abuse of children? Let's say we are in a position to do something about it. Are we required to ignore the cries of the victims, in order to appease the victimizers? Let's say the victimizer said "OK I'll compromise...I'll only abuse this child once a week instead of every day." Does that work?

In the dynamic which you seek only those who live as you would will benefit, and you would have made no compromise.

Once again, Shin'Ar, I am further convinced that you haven't read the original meat thread, because you are completely wrong in your assessment of my motivation and my goals.

i admit to having not watched that video Monica simply because I do not like to pollute my field with such images and devastation.

Well then by all means, please stay comfortable!

But to suggest that it is as simple as pointing a finger at the culprits and expecting them to admit to their incompassionate ways and change, in my opi8nion just exacerbates your struggle because your goal is expecting more than can be achieved given the circumstances.

LOL! Respectfully, Shin'Ar, I won't be discussing this topic with you any longer. You have completely misconstrued 3 years' worth of detailed expose on my views. If you aren't willing to understand them, I hope you will understand that I'm not willing to dance with you. Peace.