An Academic Exercise

[bring4th_admin]

Certain points and portions of the so-called meat-debate have been communicated in such a fashion that they were felt to be of an inflammatory nature. In defense of these particular types of points, it’s been said that they are being expressed in an “academic” fashion, meaning, as far as this author understands, that these points are impersonal, pertaining to the ideas of the argument in general and their application to the generic, not the specific, individual.

This is a sound argument and does help to aim ones discussion in a less potentially inflammatory direction. The entity receiving communication can sometimes hear a challenging point made academically with greater ease than a point made towards a specific person or persons in a personal way.

If, then, an academic, dispassionate, detached, and impersonal mode of discussion is the framework within which we can best tackle challenging and button-pushing subjects; if an academic orientation is our goal for the most efficient flow of thought-provoking information from one party to the other, then what could be a greater academic exercise than to put oneself in the other self’s shoes and argue for the other’s position?

Thus, to any member interested and able, we extend a sincere invitation to participate in an academic exercise wherein you are invited to create thoughtful, authentic posts that argue for a position different than your own as it concerns the traditional meat vs veg debate on Bring4th. For instance, if you feel most strongly about a vegetarian diet, you would choose to argue in favor of consuming meat. And vice versa. Things of course don’t always boil down to one side or the other – there are many shades of thought on the matter, but you get the gist.

Make the best case you can. And make it in the ideal way, as you would prefer to receive communication.

With love/light,
The Bring4th Admin Team


PS: If this exercise should fall flat on its face, whether because it was inherently lame or because participation was not appropriately undertaken, know that we tried. : )

[Patrick]

First post !

[Patrick]

OK just to make sure I understand the role of this thread. I would be expected to argue in favor of the vegetarian diet ? This should be fun and most instructive indeed. I like it !

[Diana]

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.

[BrownEye]

I used to believe in the other diet. All of the arguments i used against my wife i later found were false. I would now be lying to try using those arguments in this way.

So, i can't do it lol

[Monica]

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.

[Patrick]

In the past I did something similar where I was trying to argue in favor of rape. That was... can't really find words... it was weird I guess. But this actually helped me latter on to understand STS just enough for me to completely forgive them. Of course, there is no relatedness to our subject here, just a bit of trivia.

[Richard]

Only our lifestyles in our modern cultures of plenty makes this a debate.

If you are hungry enough, if you are starving, you "will" eat any protein regardless of its source.

There is, indeed, something to be said and learned from the old practice of saying "Grace" before you eat. Whomever or whatever you address that thanks to.

I'm just thankful to the creator that myself and those I love are spared from that....this time around. I'm just not going to argue diets with you guys...

Richard