Dignity for Doomed Dogs

[Monica]

Very poignant.

In this photo taken on Monday, April 9, 2012, in a makeshift studio, Taiwanese photographer Tou Chih-kang tries to make a portrait of a dog in the final moments of its life before being put down by lethal injection at a shelter in Taoyuan, northern Taiwan. Tou has been visiting dog shelters for two years now, making human-like portraits that give a sense of dignity and esteem to some 400 canines, in hopes of educating the public on the proper care of pets. This year Taiwanese authorities will kill an estimated 80,000 stray dogs at 38 pounds scattered throughout the island.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photographe...05822.html

[norral]

ahh tears in my eyes

[Shin'Ar]

This year millions of children will stave to death in famine stricken and war torn countries.

This year millions of infants will be aborted.

This year millions of people will succumb to cancer.

This year thousands of soldiers will die fighting for what they believe in.

This year Taiwanese authorities will kill an estimated 80,000 stray dogs at 38 pounds scattered throughout the island.

PRIORITY?

Humanity seems to have many issues that need to be addressed. Who is going to rule over them all?

[Parsons]

I hate to sound callous, but I prioritize 3rd Density beings(including dolphins) over pets. I do find the problem with over-breeding of pets quite annoying / sad. But in order to fix this problem, you have to handle it at the individual/molecular/quantum level: people just don't bother to get their animal fixed, which is the root of the problem.

How do you get 7+ billion people to not be careless and take responsibility for the stewardship/companionship of their pets? I guess raising awareness of this issue is the only way to help mitigate it; although obviously not something that can be completely solved overnight.

But if I had to choose between what gets people attention: huge swaths of people not having access to basic food, water, and sanitation services or millions of pets being euthanized due to overpopulation... Well the choice is obvious.

Then again, I also see this from the perspective of the observers/inner planes entities/etc: Nothing or none-one is ever lost. And while it may seem horrible from the perspective from a 3rd density being in the proverbial trenches, from a higher perspective, it is all part of the program.

[AnthroHeart]

We have the same problem with shelters here in the United States. It really is sad.
I have two dogs, one is neutered the other is not. I didn't want to put him through it,
and now he's about 5 years old.

[Richard]

Its not a trade off. No one says you need more for one than the other. No is saying that feeling for animals lessens your compassion for your fellow man.

Compassion shouldn't be relegated to species.

Richard

[norral]

exactly. thanks for stating that so elegantly rich. i feel for animals and for soldiers and for the poor. they all have my compassion.

[Patrick]

"All is well" - Ra

I'm barely beginning to realize how this is Truth.

[Monica]

Its not a trade off. No one says you need more for one than the other. No is saying that feeling for animals lessens your compassion for your fellow man.

Compassion shouldn't be relegated to species.

Well said, Richard! We can't all do everything, so we do what we can. This person obviously felt compelled to document these lost doggie souls, to raise awareness. Others feel drawn to other causes.

We can only wonder how much his seeing those dogs as entities might have aided their evolution. Are they any less deserving of compassion, just because they're younger souls? Speciesism is just another ism, like racism and sexism.

I'm surprised at the responses to this. I naively thought this would be one of those warm and fuzzy, feel-good posts, without any debate. It didn't enter my mind that anyone would debate the merit of such a simple act of kindness. In my opinion, any act of kindness and compassion is to be applauded, not criticized.

[Shin'Ar]

I am afraid that you might be seeing criticism where it is not meant Monica, probably because of your strong emotional attachment to the subject.

I think we all agree that compassion is a good thing. I think we all agree that compassion toward all is a good thing.

I see this as an opportunity to discuss the questions which arise from the dynamics of the issues involved.

I point out the need for priority in many cases. especially when it comes to the actual economics and the stretching of the buck to either accomplish or fail at a task.

And I have also spoken on the very real issue of humanity being a creature which cannot be pleased entirely in one grand sweep.

Both of these problems are relevant to your discussion in my opinion, and worth discussing. None is meant to be critical of your path or your choices to focus on one aspect while others remain as delicate.

I simply enjoy looking at the full picture when I discuss matters and try to speak to the All whenever possible.

[Parsons]

I apologize if my post came off as critical of you, I was merely trying to expound on Shin'Ar's post since the thought of many forum member's priorities of pets/2D creatures over 3D beings puzzles me. I am just curious why so many 'calories are burned' over worrying about 2D beings vs worrying about 3D beings?

Perhaps this discussion is derailing your thread and warrants peeling off this concept to a new thread?

[Monica]

I apologize if my post came off as critical of you,

No prob. I didn't perceive it as critical of me at all. I'm not the one taking pictures of doomed dogs! (I could never do that! I'd want to take all the dogs home with me and that would be impossible. I admire the courage of this person, to be able to offer love to those dogs and then walk away. That's beyond my capabilities.)

I was merely trying to expound on Shin'Ar's post since the thought of many forum member's priorities of pets/2D creatures over 3D beings puzzles me. I am just curious why so many 'calories are burned' over worrying about 2D beings vs worrying about 3D beings?

You say "many" forum members? Hmm...I've never seen a single person on this forum suggest that we show compassion to 2D entities instead of 3D entities. I must have missed that!

Perhaps this discussion is derailing your thread and warrants peeling off this concept to a new thread?

Nah, that's fine. I didn't really expect this to turn into a discussion at all.

---

your strong emotional attachment to the subject.

I would appreciate it if you didn't tell me what my emotions are. Thank you.

None is meant to be critical of your path or your choices to focus on one aspect while others remain as delicate.

"Delicate"? LOL!

Today's going to be a glorious day! Nothing like laughter to get the day off to a great start!

[Shin'Ar]

No one else knows our emotions better than we ourselves. I was simply acknowledging what seems to be your heartfelt effort to address what you feel a major concern. My wording could probably use a little editing.

as with 'delicate' really not stating the dire aspect of such concern. But hey, I did get you to smile. There is no way for a person to laugh and not smile while they're doing it.

[Diana]

. . . I was merely trying to expound on Shin'Ar's post since the thought of many forum member's priorities of pets/2D creatures over 3D beings puzzles me. I am just curious why so many 'calories are burned' over worrying about 2D beings vs worrying about 3D beings?

All things are connected. The only reason humans put themselves above other sentient creatures, and other things in general, is ego, egocentric thinking, and self-centeredness. This is why we thought the stars and planets revolved around the Earth.

There is no reason to be in one camp or the other. Having compassion for humans is one step along the path. Widening that compassion to pets another. Widening compassion to include ALL is another.

Or, simply remain in the egocentric world most humans occupy, where the planet, and all the non-human life on it is destroyed because we (humans) matter most, and we use everything with that in mind.

[Shin'Ar]

. . . I was merely trying to expound on Shin'Ar's post since the thought of many forum member's priorities of pets/2D creatures over 3D beings puzzles me. I am just curious why so many 'calories are burned' over worrying about 2D beings vs worrying about 3D beings?

All things are connected. The only reason humans put themselves above other sentient creatures, and other things in general, is ego, egocentric thinking, and self-centeredness. This is why we thought the stars and planets revolved around the Earth.

There is no reason to be in one camp or the other. Having compassion for humans is one step along the path. Widening that compassion to pets another. Widening compassion to include ALL is another.

Or, simply remain in the egocentric world most humans occupy, where the planet, and all the non-human life on it is destroyed because we (humans) matter most, and we use everything with that in mind.

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.

[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.

[LetGo]

I'll add that animals may be "willingly" offering catalyst.

Although i disagree, but if you believe that:
"humans are not evolved enough in general to understand the underlying concepts of compassion"

the picture is complete.

[Parsons]

I hate to re-stir the pot, but I feel intense compassion for 2D beings as well; I just think that beyond having a 2D pet or two (to teach them 3D lessons and bring about their transition to 3D), we shouldn't be seeking to control the lives/paths of 2D life-forms in any way. I am ALL for ending any kind of control in their lives (except pets being "fixed"). My whole thing is our attention is very limited, and I am wondering why some focus much more attention on coming up with ways to "save" 2D lifeforms than focusing on ways to help suffering 3D life.

[BrownEye]

Where i live there is no suffering 3D without consciously choosing it.

However, i am surrounded by GMO corn and feedlots of suffering 2D.

The choice is easy for me.

If i look at suffering 3D in my area it tends to be health problems resulting from chosen farming methods. Heck a whole family died from the fumes of their own feedlot over here. They chose not only to kill themself, but to also affect the health and comfort of everyone else in the area.

[Parsons]

Perhaps I am seeing things this way because I have always seen things from a global perspective. I have difficulty focusing on anything locally. If my (ex)wife mentions something about being outraged over some local immigration law, my response usually is "huh, I wasn't even aware of that". I have always had my head way up in the clouds rather than in the present moment. I actually have been finally attempting to work on this recently.

[Shin'Ar]

There is much suffering in this world that should not be blamed on the victims, or excused as catalyst.

This we are all aware of, even those who pretend not to be for the sake of convenience.

The fact that no one here has said anything about actually burning down a restaurant does not mean that my thoughts around extremism are not part of the topic being discussed at large.

And I have repeatedly tried to point out the broader considerations which are being ignored, and then avoided by responses like 'we did not say such' here in this thread.

It is these broader considerations that create the problem of why we cannot all think in the same frame of mind on these matters.

But I have made my point as clearly as I can, and if those broader considerations are to be bounced out of the discussion as though they are meaningless, than there is no need for me to continue to try to make a point.

People will deliberately choose to think what they want, and also deliberately be deaf to what they do not want to hear.

Their thoughts are here, and my broader considerations of their thoughts are here. It is not important to designate a 'debate winner'.

Point in short, 'we cannot expect all of humanity to come together in like mind, and if one goes to any extreme to try to make that happen in total disregard for the complex issues, we will always have our stubborn headed battle for the Promised Land of milk and honey.'

Who deserves it? You with your way of thinking, or them with theirs? And do they even have a right to theirs if it contradicts yours?

Yes, it's so easy to just think locally and overlook the complexity. It's so easy to say this isn't about global harmony, it's just about saving a few cows and compassion. But it is NOT that simple. And we all know it.

The Arab says it is a simple matter of them being there first. To them no broader consideration need be made.

The Hebrew says it is the simple matter of God giving the land to them. To them no broader consideration need be made.

If we cannot figure out what this has to do with eating meat or saving kittens and puppies, then no broader consideration need be made, moreso than it already has above and in a few other threads here.

I am not here to rain on people's parades. Just trying to get my thoughts across on these matters just like everyone else here, but that is now done in my case. We shall all think how we choose, despite broader issues, or in consideration of them. And to me that is the difference between extremism and actual activism with positive results.

A picket sign hollers out a message, but it can also be used to try to beat someone over the head, at which point the message goes roight out the window and the cause lost.

[Diana]

Yes, it's so easy to just think locally and overlook the complexity. It's so easy to say this isn't about global harmony, it's just about saving a few cows and compassion. But it is NOT that simple. And we all know it.

To me, it is as simple as this: Respect and consideration for all life (which to me includes things). Everything will flow from that.

The complexity (in my opinion) arises from humanity dealing with ego and the illusion of separation (which seems a natural result of self-awareness in its developing stages, just as children have to separate from parents to become individuated around age 7).

Saving a few cows and global harmony are enmeshed; they cannot be separated. They both flow from the same understandings. Humans cannot remain separate and achieve harmony, unless they live on a dead rock with no other life (and even then the dead rock should be considered).

Just trying to get my thoughts across on these matters just like everyone else here, but that is now done in my case. We shall all think how we choose, despite broader issues, or in consideration of them. And to me that is the difference between extremism and actual activism with positive results.

A picket sign hollers out a message, but it can also be used to try to beat someone over the head, at which point the message goes roight out the window and the cause lost.

Your viewpoints are welcome, and they do not rain on anyone's parade, at least not mine.

I allow others to be in charge of their own thinking, boundaries, integrity, and self-esteem. I am in charge of mine. I allow no one to hit me over the head with a sign (metaphorically speaking). I will think for myself, consider content and ideas, and come to my own understandings and working theories.

Sometimes extreme activism is needed to shake humans out of their complacent grooves. Think of black slavery. Inertia must sometimes be overcome with a large initial burst of energy to get it moving. I prefer to work behind the scenes for the most part, but discussing interesting subjects here with people who have read the Ra Material is too much fun and opportunity for stretching my mind and perception to pass up.

[Shin'Ar]

I will agree that extremity has a way of getting attention and even results in some cases, but it will always be fraught with consequences that are also extreme, even though they may not be obvious at the time or in their future manifestation.

Extremity is not balance, nor harmony, and results in further extremity. This is my understanding.

[Monica]

Extremity is not balance, nor harmony, and results in further extremity.

Let's test this. First, let's ask the question: What is extremity?

Is human slavery extremity?

Is starvation extremity? How about war? Is that extremity?

How was the 'extremity' of human slavery 'balanced?' By sitting back and doing nothing? Or were there human activists who helped those black people find freedom and liberation? Were their actions 'extremist'?

How about this? Would you said it's extremity?

http://earthlings.com/

Please do watch the whole trailer before deciding on an answer.

Extremity alone isn't balanced. However, extremity may need an equal amount of opposing energy to balance it. As in math, -100 + +100 = 0 (balance). The greater the negative, the greater the positive is needed. +100 won't balance out -10000; it will take +10000 to do that.

Extremity results in further extremity only when it's the same nature. ie. -1000 + -1000 is adding extremity to extremity, of the same nature (both negative).

People often talk about 'balance' here on this forum. But if one is going to talk about balance, perhaps they could look at the big picture. Of course a single 'extremist' action isn't balanced. It must be balanced with its counterpart.

What, then, pray tell, is the balancing mechanism for THIS extremity:

http://earthlings.com/

??

[Shin'Ar]

Extremity is not balance, nor harmony, and results in further extremity.

Let's test this. First, let's ask the question: What is extremity?

Is human slavery extremity?

Is starvation extremity? How about war? Is that extremity?

How was the 'extremity' of human slavery 'balanced?' By sitting back and doing nothing? Or were there human activists who helped those black people find freedom and liberation? Were their actions 'extremist'?

How about this? Would you said it's extremity?

http://earthlings.com/

Please do watch the whole trailer before deciding on an answer.

Extremity alone isn't balanced. However, extremity may need an equal amount of opposing energy to balance it. As in math, -100 + +100 = 0 (balance). The greater the negative, the greater the positive is needed. +100 won't balance out -10000; it will take +10000 to do that.

Extremity results in further extremity only when it's the same nature. ie. -1000 + -1000 is adding extremity to extremity, of the same nature (both negative).

People often talk about 'balance' here on this forum. But if one is going to talk about balance, perhaps they could look at the big picture. Of course a single 'extremist' action isn't balanced. It must be balanced with its counterpart.

What, then, pray tell, is the balancing mechanism for THIS extremity:

http://earthlings.com/

??

Slavery, famine and war are all the consequences of extremity having been applied in some way.

Are you suggesting an eye for an eye mentality here?

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

This debate has also been ongoing for millennium as philosophers try to address the human social structure.

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.

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

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. The goal is to strive to find harmony in such a way that all/everyone can 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.

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

i admit to having not watched that video Monica simply because I do not like to pollute my field with such images and devastation. It is horrible to say the least. But it is human life and undeniably so. For all of us who wish it was different, there are millions more who either do not care or have no desire to give up their luxuries for the sake of your cause.

This is the world we live in and they have as much right to live their way as you do.

you also have the right to question their lifestyle and to try to bring awareness to situations that you feel are incompassionate.

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.

All I am saying is that if one wants to challenge humanity than one should consider the complexity of humanity in order to prepare their compromise in order to achieve some movement toward realizing a portion of their goal. If one acts as though humanity must comply fully with their proposed lifestyle, they will become their own enemy and find no movement at all.

Do not fight fire with fire, but compromise by allowing the fire to burn a little less extremely by casting your water slowly upon it.

War begets more war! Hate begets more hate.

Peace and love are found in compromise and understanding that others deserve their way of life every bit as much as we do.

[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.

[Shin'Ar]

Apologies for any misunderstanding. It was not intentional.

We seemed to be in synch in the meat thread until I perceived that in my opinion you seemed to be perplexed at the reactions of others to what you thought should be unquestionable logic.

In one of these threads you stated,

"Therefore, can you see how it logically follows, in my mind, that any unnecessary killing is incompatible with the STO path?

And, can you see how it logically follows, in my mind, that animals are being oppressed and victimized?

It then logically follows, that if these other-selves are being victimized, and are calling for help, and I am hearing their call, and I am STO-oriented, can you see why I would want to answer their call?"UNQUOTE


It appeared that you became disappointed when people would continue to debate and would not drop their meat eating habits even though you had revealed serious cruelty involved in the process of acquiring that type of meal.

I was attempting to address what I thought was your disappointment and confusion over people's responses.

If, as you seem to say here, that you are not surprised at such apathy, and that you do not expect to change the eating or pet keeping habits of others, than I have been mistaken.

I guess for one to understand this in its entirety one would have to read through the posts of Dignity for Doomed Dogs, Motives of Activists, Cats and Kittens, Animal Monogamy, Exploring Omnivorous vs vegetarian, and the infamous Meat Thread in which you stated,

"If what you eat, happens to conflict with my efforts to save the animals, you and I may have a bit of discord." UNQUOTE

I might have misunderstood your frustration. I will respect your choice not to discuss it further with me and will watch to see if you decide to respond further. There are alot of threads to keep track of though so forgive me if I miss one.

[Monica]

Apologies for any misunderstanding. It was not intentional.

No problem! Thanks.

We seemed to be in synch in the meat thread until I perceived that in my opinion you seemed to be perplexed at the reactions of others to what you thought should be unquestionable logic.

I was perplexed at the intense reactions, to the point of defensiveness to the point of absurdity, and even hostility, of Law of One students. I'm not perplexed at all when I encounter that sort of thing in everyday life. My mistake was expecting greater understanding and compassion from those who I thought were on the same page, spiritually.

It appeared that you became disappointed when people would continue to debate and would not drop their meat eating habits even though you had revealed serious cruelty involved in the process of acquiring that type of meal.

I had no expectations of them dropping their meat eating habits. What they do is none of my business and I don't keep tabs on people. Some did report back to me that they'd cut back on meat, but I refrained from giving approval, just the same as I refrained from giving admonishment. It's not my place to validate anyone's choices. My objective was to have a philosophical discussion.

I did feel disappointment and confusion that Law of One students would go to such lengths to defend something that is obviously supporting cruelty. I suppose I expected a response more along the lines of "Gosh, thanks for sharing...I had no idea factory farms were so atrocious. Now that my eyes have been opened I may reconsider my dietary choices." No commitment to become a vegetarian. Just an acknowledgement that, duh, eating meat contributes to the suffering and death of animals. That's it. I just didn't expect such strong attempts to defend it and rationalize it.

But it was a learning experience for me. It taught me to never have any expectations of anyone, even someone who I thought was of like mind. It also made me realize the depth of people's defensiveness when it comes to personal lifestyle choices.

I was attempting to address what I thought was your disappointment and confusion over people's responses.

OK thank you for your efforts! It's ok. I've pretty much accepted it and moved on.

I believe strongly in not being attached to the outcome, regardless of what it is or how important it is to me. Attachment just brings disappointment. Maybe it's my Pagan background, but my philosophy is to do my work, then let it go and let the UniVerse do its work.

If, as you seem to say here, that you are not surprised at such apathy, and that you do not expect to change the eating or pet keeping habits of others, than I have been mistaken.

To clarify: I'm not surprised when I see apathy in the general public. I was surprised to see it in Law of One students. But that's what I get for making assumptions!

I guess for one to understand this in its entirety one would have to read through the posts of Dignity for Doomed Dogs, Motives of Activists, Cats and Kittens, Animal Monogamy, Exploring Omnivorous vs vegetarian, and the infamous Meat Thread in which you stated,

"If what you eat, happens to conflict with my efforts to save the animals, you and I may have a bit of discord." UNQUOTE

I remember that particular quote. It needs to include its original context, to be understood. We were discussing whether respecting the 'right' of the oppressor should trump answering the call of the oppressed.

In that post, I was explaining that I wasn't trying to change the oppressor, and in fact wasn't even thinking about the oppressor. My focus was solely on answering the cry of the oppressed. If the oppressor got in the way of me answering the call of the oppressed, then there might be a bit of discord, but it was nothing personal towards the oppressor. I wasn't concerned with the oppressor.

This was in response to people saying that activist were trying to 'control' the oppressor. I was explaining that this was not the case.

It would be a misinterpretation for one to take that quote to mean I would walk up to someone in a restaurant and harass them for eating a hamburger. I never ever ever do that.

I might have misunderstood your frustration. I will respect your choice not to discuss it further with me and will watch to see if you decide to respond further. There are alot of threads to keep track of though so forgive me if I miss one.

I have no expectations of you following every thread. I perceived a recurring theme in your posts, indicating to me that you thought we (the vegetarians) were trying to force our views on the world. I was trying to explain that while yes, we do believe this planet will eventually become non-violent, forcing change upon those who aren't ready to change has never been our objective. This is evident upon reading the original meat thread.

I said I'd be backing out of the conversation, rather than repeat what I'd already explained ad nauseum in the other thread. I'm always open to discussing new topics and ideas.

[Shin'Ar]

Then it seems that you have learned two things here Monica.

First, that instead of disappointment, attachment should simply bring learning/realization.

And secondly, that 'spiritually minded' does not mean 'separated from our physical state' when speaking of humanity.

Instead of seeing this as oppressor and oppressed, see it as oppression, one aspect of the natural duality of creation, free will and the learning experience that makes existence evolve.

We can each hope that as creation evolves love will increase. But we must also realize that the duality will always remain.

We have the option to act upon our choices, and in that action we create our experience and our part of this universe.

Yours is one of love and compassion. Many others are of darker things.

All is One.

When we give in to this Design, it becomes easier to comprehend our place within it, and theirs.

[Monica]

Then it seems that you have learned two things here Monica.

First, that instead of disappointment, attachment should simply bring learning/realization.

OK I'll go along with that.

And secondly, that 'spiritually minded' does not mean 'separated from our physical state' when speaking of humanity.

I didn't think that at all. My background is one in which I see the physical as just as sacred and divine as other realms.

Instead of seeing this as oppressor and oppressed, see it as oppression, one aspect of the natural duality of creation, free will and the learning experience that makes existence evolve.

We can each hope that as creation evolves love will increase. But we must also realize that the duality will always remain.

We have the option to act upon our choices, and in that action we create our experience and our part of this universe.

Yours is one of love and compassion. Many others are of darker things.

All is One.

When we give in to this Design, it becomes easier to comprehend our place within it, and theirs.

Thanks for your thoughts, Shin'Ar!