08-22-2012, 06:46 PM
(08-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: And no matter what my reasons, you would, if in the mood for further conversation, seek to counter or negate any reason I might offer.
(08-22-2012, 02:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: No, actually I wouldn't. In that scenario, in which you offered your reasons for your own personal choices, rather than discussing in general terms as I had requested, I'd ignore those comments, as I've consistently done each and every time others did that.
It's not my place to judge, invalidate, or shoot down others' choices. I haven't done that in these threads so I wouldn't do it to you.
If, however, you avoided discussing your own personal choices and instead continued an impersonal, general discussion, then of course I'd likely respond to your comments. (Which of course is acceptable, being that this is, after all, a discussion.)
So if I list reasons a, b, and c regarding why I choose to eat meat, then, according to what you say above, the discussion stops, yes? Because you're up against the barrier of personal decision and you're committed to ignoring that arena.
In your thinking, even if unexpressed, you would disagree with the logic and rationale behind my thinking, but you wouldn’t contend with my personal choice? You wouldn’t express your disagreements?
In actuality, everything I’ve posted thus far in the recent past stems from my personal choice. I’m posting about how I see this situation and the decisions I make accordingly. How, then, does that affect your position and orientation?
(08-22-2012, 02:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: This is accurate, with the added note that there might be some rare, unusual cases of medical need due to extreme conditions, which I'd classify under 'survival.'
So in this statistically small category that, according to your understanding, *requires* animal protein in order to survive, through what means would you propose they acquire said animal protein?
(08-22-2012, 02:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I'm a little uncomfortable with your choice of term ascendent as though we're having a competition.
In my opinion, it’s inherent in your position. The sheer momentum and energy and passion and conviction you have behind your thoughts speak to the certainty you have regarding the superiority of this particular way of thinking. And that’s fine. I have plenty of modes of thought and activity that I think are superior to other modes of thought and activity, and that will come through in conversations I have with others, though I will of course strive to respect the choices and thoughts of others, as you likewise attempt to do when conversing with the omnivore.
(08-22-2012, 02:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: OK, your mind is made up. I get that. But you seem to think I have a mission to change you. I don't. So, I don't really understand why you are explaining to me why your mind is made up. shrug It's just a "friendly conversation" after all.
Because, there’s a pushing, assertive, challenging nature to your discussion in this arena. I don’t perceive that you approach this with pure inquisitiveness, or pure interest in an other’s point of view, or pure discussion for the sake of discussion – like one might discuss their favorite music, or share past experiences.
Your mind is totally and wholly committed to one proposition, and you, naturally and understandably, hope for real-world change. This is reflected in the way you relate on this issue, as I perceive it. Not knocking you for this, just helping to explain why I emphasize that it comes down to committed, generally mutually exclusive positions that won’t find a middle ground except to say, “I see/understand why you’ve made your choice, and accept/love you as you are without desire to change you.”
It’s a tough balancing and juggling act you have in this regard. On one hand, you love people and seek to live/exemplify love, knowing that love asks that all beings be accepted for who they are as they are without need or desire to change them. On the other hand, that act of acceptance involves accepting ways you consider unnecessary and brutal; ways that potentially and in actuality harm other beings. So what do you do?
(08-22-2012, 02:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Then that is the source of our miscommunication, because I'm not really interested in what you personally desire. No offense, but I'm simply not interested in that. As I've stated many times in these discussions, I'm interested only in philosophical discussion, not in analyzing other people's choices.
I began my recent participation in this thread stating that which I personally desire, sharing an excerpt from an article that captured that which I personally desire, reflecting my personal thoughts on the matter, and giving my personal thoughts an avenue of expression.
I didn’t remove the person from the equation, and I don’t understand how you believe you’re doing that. I grasp that you wish to respect the choices of others. In my years of working with you, you never attempted to change me or even hinted that I should make a change. But I don’t believe that your position in this discussion is as removed, impersonal, and philosophical as you say, or would sincerely like to believe, it is.
(08-22-2012, 02:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: In a strictly philosophical context, if you care to answer, I ask this: I noticed you chose the term "eat animal meat" rather than "kill an animal." This indicates to me a disconnect between killing an animal and eating an animal.
I have zero interest in what people eat. My interest is only in the topic of killing.
Understood that you’re interest is on the topic of killing, not eating, per se, and that, I would add, you are only interested in the topic of eating insofar as it precipitates and perpetuates a system of killing.
That said, you ask me regarding how I mentioned “eating” animal meat without making the connection to the obvious necessity of the animal’s death. In fact, I had made exactly that connection earlier in the post you replied to when I said, “The National Geographic article I quoted makes clear that I don't desire to avoid the death of the animal for food.”
I understand that the two go hand in hand: eating meat involves accepting the slaughtering of an animal, and when it finally dawned on me that what I eat helps to contribute to gross animal suffering, I changed my eating habits to reduce that suffering.
Also, your question is very personal. I’m not criticizing you for that or implying that we shouldn’t be having personal discussions, I’m just pointing out that just because you put the word “philosophical” before “context” doesn’t somehow change the bare bones of the fact that you’re asking me if my choice to “eat animal meat” is being consciously connected with the fact that that choice involves killing an animal.
Philosophy allows me to see the rightness of your own point of view, and the possibility of mutually exclusive points of view both being right, and the larger picture within which we are playing our roles on this Earth stage as unknowing seekers – but you’re tackling subject matter that is very personal to both you and myself. We can expand our vision to include the philosophical perspective and find that there’s ample room for love no matter our divergent opinions, but again, there is an inextricable, deeply personal element to this equation that isn’t easily removed.
(08-22-2012, 02:23 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: So, again philosophically, are you saying that it's "ok, acceptable and ethical" to kill a higher 2D entity who can think, feel pain and emotions, when it's totally unnecessary, but just to satisfy a personal desire?
That’s a difficult question to answer because to do so I would have to agree with your terms, especially the last two components: “totally unnecessary” and “personal desire”, neither of which I entirely agree with, though certainly there applicability in many cases.
We could have a philosophical or a practical discussion regarding the necessity/non-necessity of meat-eating, and whether it’s eaten as a mere result of personal desire, and you could make some really awesome arguments to support both contentions, but inevitably personal opinion would have to be invoked on both sides, which is why I mentioned earlier that our opinions won’t be reconciled.
(08-22-2012, 04:20 PM)Diana Wrote: I agree with Monica, as a spiritual being, not as a vegetarian. Yes, I am vegetarian, but I am vegetarian because I respect life, all life. One could just as easily call me a "respecter of life" rather than "vegetarian."
Well put.
(08-22-2012, 04:20 PM)Diana Wrote: In my opinion, the issue is the sacredness of life, not about choice in diet. Life is the underlying principle, and what one eats flows from one's depth of understanding of, and inner-connectedness to, all life.
I can see the connection you make, but I don’t believe that one necessarily and invariably follows the other.
If that were true, ones diet (an indirect way of seeing ones respect of life because certain diets involve killing whereas others do not) would be an objective measure to segregate (in a non-pejorative sense) the advanced entity from the non-advanced. Isn’t that an unavoidable (if unintended) implication of what you’re positing? Vegetarians would have a greater “depth of understanding” and meat eater a lesser “depth of understanding”. But countless examples could be located to nullify both that rule, including the classic and commonly evoked vegetarian Hitler.
Certainly depth of understanding of the interconnectedness of life may lead to changes in diet and changes in the relationship between third and second-density beings. No doubt. But what one eats is not an objective measure of depth of understanding, just one among many possible indicators.
(08-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: The crux of my whole position is that it is okay, acceptable, and ethical to eat animal meat *provided* the animal is able to live a relatively natural life and does not needlessly/excessively suffer in the process of death.
(08-22-2012, 04:20 PM)Diana Wrote: Questions regarding this line of thinking (not directed toward any individual, rather to the philosophy):
1. How is "needless/excessive suffering" defined?
2. What does "relatively natural" mean? (Natural for an animal is in the wild, on its own, in the environment it evolved in.)
In response to both questions, and admitting that I’m no expert on these things, in general I would say that an animal which is not beaten or treated with cruelty, which is given the types of food it naturally desires and not force fed food is wasn’t designed to digest, which is given an environment that attempts to approximate its natural environment (hence the word “releative”) including not being crowded into tiny spaces, being able to see the sunlight, being able to move relatively freely within certain bounds, not being injected with growth hormones and who knows what else, and a slaughtering process that is not alarming, is quick, and painless.
Much love, GLB
Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi