Quote:Tenet Nosce Wrote:
But the fact is- we don't know. We don't know how "the animals" feel about this situation because they haven't spoken to us.

Actually, yes they have. They do every single day. Every single one of them.

(Oceania alert!)

Here is a very clear example. Watch carefully, from 1:29 to 1:49. Can you spare 20 seconds of your time to watch this?

Observe the body language. Oh, that's not 'speaking'? Ok, then watch and listen very carefully starting at 1:39. You can HEAR the cow speaking to us, very clearly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDXvm8Vwb1I&feature=related

Tenet Nosce Wrote:
And as far as I am aware, there is not a single example of any entity from beyond the veil that has channeled a message on behalf of the animals imploring us to stop eating them.

Hmmm...I wonder if any entity from beyond the veil has channeled a message on behalf of the starving children telling us to feed them?

Wait! I got it! Maybe the reason there isn't any is...because....it's so flippin obvious! It's not necessary for those entities to tell us, because starving children are just so obviously in need of...food!

We've all seen the pictures of starving children, right? They're so skinny you can see their bones...big protruding belly...Do we really need some discarnate entity to tell us these children need food?

Quote:Observe the body language. Oh, that's not 'speaking'? Ok, then watch and listen very carefully starting at 1:39. You can HEAR the cow speaking to us, very clearly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDXvm8Vwb...re=related

(07-30-2012, 05:45 PM)Oldern Wrote: Honestly, I do not know what to do at this point. I keep running into walls with those around me that refuse to look at their food eating habits, and I do not see a way around it other than bringing it up again and again - that would create even more resistance towards the subject.

I guess the only way to do this is really the peaceful one for me: keep exercising, stay in better and better shape and be an example of how one can stay fit even without meat. (Also, donate, but to whom? I cant donate to lessen the pain and restriction on those poor animals.)

Quote:Honestly, I do not know what to do at this point. I keep running into walls with those around me that refuse to look at their food eating habits, and I do not see a way around it other than bringing it up again and again - that would create even more resistance towards the subject.

I guess the only way to do this is really the peaceful one for me: keep exercising, stay in better and better shape and be an example of how one can stay fit even without meat. (Also, donate, but to whom? I cant donate to lessen the pain and restriction on those poor animals.)

Quote:Those videos are designed to increase the drive in the heart chakra.

Not a good thing to watch if the heart chakra is already in overdrive.

(07-30-2012, 10:07 PM)ocean50 Wrote: Maybe I'm in overdrive, because I got tears in my eyes just watching that video clip.

(07-30-2012, 05:45 PM)Oldern Wrote: Honestly, I do not know what to do at this point. I keep running into walls with those around me that refuse to look at their food eating habits, and I do not see a way around it other than bringing it up again and again - that would create even more resistance towards the subject.

I guess the only way to do this is really the peaceful one for me: keep exercising, stay in better and better shape and be an example of how one can stay fit even without meat. (Also, donate, but to whom? I cant donate to lessen the pain and restriction on those poor animals.)

Quote:

VANISHING VOICES

When I ask university students in Kyzyl what Tuvan words are untranslatable into English or Russian, they suggest khööomei, because the singing is so connected with the Tuvan environment that only a native can understand it, and also khoj özeeri, the Tuvan method of killing a sheep.

If slaughtering can be seen as part of humans’ closeness to animals, khoj özeeri represents an unusually intimate version. Reaching through an incision in the sheep’s hide, the slaughterer severs a vital artery with his fingers, allowing the animal to quickly slip away without alarm, so peacefully that one must check its eyes to see if it is dead.

In the language of the Tuvan people, khoj özeeri means not only slaughter but also kindness, humaneness, a ceremony by which a family can kill, skin, and butcher a sheep, salting its hide and preparing its meat and making sausage with the saved blood and cleansed entrails so neatly that the whole thing can be accomplished in two hours (as the Mongushes [the family interviewed for the article] did this morning) in one’s good clothes without spilling a drop of blood.

Khoj özeeri implies a relationship to animals that is also a measure of a people’s character. As one of the students explained, “If a Tuvan killed an animal the way they do in other places” – by means of a gun or a knife – “they’d be arrested for brutality.”

(07-30-2012, 02:39 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: The pic below brought to mind this past dialog:

Quote:Tenet Nosce Wrote:
But the fact is- we don't know. We don't know how "the animals" feel about this situation because they haven't spoken to us.

Actually, yes they have. They do every single day. Every single one of them.

(Oceania alert!)

Here is a very clear example. Watch carefully, from 1:29 to 1:49. Can you spare 20 seconds of your time to watch this?

Observe the body language. Oh, that's not 'speaking'? Ok, then watch and listen very carefully starting at 1:39. You can HEAR the cow speaking to us, very clearly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDXvm8Vwb1I&feature=related

Tenet Nosce Wrote:
And as far as I am aware, there is not a single example of any entity from beyond the veil that has channeled a message on behalf of the animals imploring us to stop eating them.

Hmmm...I wonder if any entity from beyond the veil has channeled a message on behalf of the starving children telling us to feed them?

Wait! I got it! Maybe the reason there isn't any is...because....it's so flippin obvious! It's not necessary for those entities to tell us, because starving children are just so obviously in need of...food!

We've all seen the pictures of starving children, right? They're so skinny you can see their bones...big protruding belly...Do we really need some discarnate entity to tell us these children need food?

(08-20-2012, 09:48 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: To the avowed vegetarian, no form of animal slaughter is permissible, no matter how painless and no matter with what respect the animal is regarded.

Quote:40.14 Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products.

(08-20-2012, 09:48 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Nevertheless, in my world view what’s mentioned in this NatGeo article offers a needed alternative to current factory farms, and presents a model I support and am comfortable with given my understanding of the principles of the Law of One.

(08-20-2012, 03:32 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Your point about "it's so flippin obvious" is well-taken

(08-20-2012, 03:32 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: but as I recall, that's not the conversation we were having at the time. I believe my general train of thought was more having to do with if not eating meat was important for 3D graduation.

(08-20-2012, 03:32 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: To which I concluded "not" or else we would have heard about the importance of this in channeled messages.

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Since I am one of those 'avowed vegetarians' you are speaking for, I will respond and tell you it's not accurate.

Most vegetarians I know all agree that such a slaughter as you just described, when done out of absolute necessity, is acceptable.

The key here is necessity.

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: However, I don't know of a single vegetarian who would approve of any killing of any animal, no matter how it's done, when it's not necessary.

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: One cannot expect the employees of any farm, or even the farmer himself, to extend love to the animal they are killing for profit. Our own Austin does so, and there are undoubtedly others, but not on a wide scale. The idea of replacing factory farms with such 'conscious' killing, while maintaining the current rate of meat consumption, isn't practical. Not by a long shot.

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: If you are truly comfortable with such killing, then the only way to ensure it's done like that is to do it yourself.

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Doing the killing yourself would ensure full responsibility for the death of the entity.

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I have a question for you: If it were feasible (which I don't think it is, but just IF), then why is this method preferable to just avoiding meat?

(08-21-2012, 09:49 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: At any rate, I understood that no form of animal slaughter is acceptable to the vegetarian, no matter how painless for the animal; and acknowledged such in my post. What I didn't think about was that the vegetarian would add an asterisk saying, "unless it is necessary for survival".

(08-21-2012, 09:49 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: If you are truly comfortable with such killing, then the only way to ensure it's done like that is to do it yourself.

No thank you. I'm comfortable with using the toilet but have no desire to be a plumber.

(08-21-2012, 09:49 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Indeed. A lot of things done by myself would ensure that they were done to my particular standard on the matter. But in an interdependent complex society, we rely on sources we trust to produce that which we need or desire. Whether it's my kitchen table, or the seatbelts in my car, or the clothing I wear, or the foodstuffs I consume.

(08-21-2012, 09:49 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Why are you interested in knowing my reasons for retaining meat as a part of my diet?

(08-21-2012, 03:21 PM)Patrick Wrote: What if nothing is wrong and the Creator is free to experience the Creation/Creator in anyway it wishes to ?

What would such a Creation look like, especially from the perspective of veiled 3d ?

(08-21-2012, 09:49 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Indeed. A lot of things done by myself would ensure that they were done to my particular standard on the matter. But in an interdependent complex society, we rely on sources we trust to produce that which we need or desire. Whether it's my kitchen table, or the seatbelts in my car, or the clothing I wear, or the foodstuffs I consume.

(08-21-2012, 02:43 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Right. But meat 'foodstuffs' involve the taking of the lives of beings who feel pain and emotions.

(08-21-2012, 09:49 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Why are you interested in knowing my reasons for retaining meat as a part of my diet?

(08-21-2012, 02:43 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I'm not. That's not what I asked. My question was a general one, out of sheer curiosity, and it was asked in the context of your idea of replacing factory farming with 'love-based' killing. I said I didn't think that idea was feasible on a wide scale, but if it were feasible, why would that be preferable to just avoiding meat altogether? I said nothing about your personal choices.

Meat hasn't been part of my life for 30 years. It's really no big deal to avoid it, and it's even easier now, with all the veggie options at even fast food restaurants.

So I was just curious: With veggie options freely available, that didn't cause the death of an animal, why go to all the trouble of trying to find 'humanely slaughtered' meat? Seems like a lot of hassle to me, with dubious results, so I was just wondering why, in general, meat-eaters go to such great lengths. It seems a lot easier to just quit eating animals.

(08-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: And in order to answer your question, I would have to explain why I keep meat in my diet rather than, as you suggest, eliminating it altogether.

(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, 12:43 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: In your valid perception, eating animal body complex is a categorical non-necessity and absolute moral wrong and thusly cannot, no matter the reasoning, be justified. (Excepting cases of self-defense or survival.)

(08-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: You would, if interested in the energy investiture, put forth great, solid reasons to substantiate your point of view as the ascendent.

(08-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: I would acknowledge them and their validity, but I would remain unmoved because I see things differently

(08-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Your question doesn't quite acknowledge what I had already put forth. The National Geographic article I quoted makes clear that I don't desire to avoid the death of the animal for food. I just desire to support a more humane system that reflects my own ethics; ethics that were given the catalyst to evolve thanks in part to this thread.

(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, 02:29 PM)Patrick Wrote: Monica, are you saying that if we desire meat we should overcome this desire ?

(08-22-2012, 02:52 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: ...differentiating between need and desire...

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(08-20-2012, 09:48 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: To the avowed vegetarian, no form of animal slaughter is permissible, no matter how painless and no matter with what respect the animal is regarded.

Since I am one of those 'avowed vegetarians' you are speaking for, I will respond and tell you it's not accurate.

Most vegetarians I know all agree that such a slaughter as you just described, when done out of absolute necessity, is acceptable.

The key here is necessity.

(08-22-2012, 03:07 PM)Pickle Wrote: My wife had made some sweet treats for the kids years ago. For fun she had put a face on the cookies and boy was my daughter pissed. This was before she was speaking yet. She handed the dish back indignantly and would not eat anything until my wife had removed the face. Is it odd to refuse to eat anything with a face on it?

She pretty much lives on fruit now. It has bothered me as to how she focuses on fruit, but after a reading done on her it seems to be a preprogrammed trait that is focused on health at a very young age. I still try to sneak greens and supplements into her food.

Quote: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, 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.)

(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.'

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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?

(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."

(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.

(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.)

(08-21-2012, 02:43 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: So I was just curious: With veggie options freely available, that didn't cause the death of an animal, why go to all the trouble of trying to find 'humanely slaughtered' meat? Seems like a lot of hassle to me, with dubious results, so I was just wondering why, in general, meat-eaters go to such great lengths. It seems a lot easier to just quit eating animals.

(08-21-2012, 03:43 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: But try telling that to the animals who are suffering (or to humans that are suffering).

Quote: 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.

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: 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?

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: you're up against the barrier of personal decision

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: 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, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: 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, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: 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.
...
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, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:

(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, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:

(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.

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.

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?

Again, not directed at you personally. This is a philosophical question.

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:

(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.

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: 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, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: including the classic and commonly evoked vegetarian Hitler.

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: what one eats is not an objective measure of depth of understanding, just one among many possible indicators.

(08-22-2012, 07:14 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: Responsibly grown produce takes just as much effort to find as humanely raised meat. If you're unaware of the source of your vegetables (and a quip on the grocery store shelf doesn't count), then you have no clue exactly what sort of suffering is caused by it's production. How do they deal with pests/varmints? (For wholesale producers, varmints are probably poisoned and die suffering.) What sort of animals are harmed and displaced by the production? (And not just insects, but the millions of living beings which might have previously called an acre of monoculture home.) What sort of harm is done to the local and surrounding ecosystems causing suffering? What sort of harm is done to the greater ecosystem? What sort of labor do they use? (For wholesale producers, most likely underpaid immigrant workers working and living in conditions I wouldn't consider "humane".) Also, just as importantly for me, what is their intent in growing the food? I believe fully that our intent will affect the "emotions" of a plant...if a lettuce plant is viciously uprooted from the ground by a disgruntled worker, having only been placed there for the sole reason of profit, do you think that lettuce plant lived a happy life? These are a small fraction of considerations given to food production which could cause suffering on some level.

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: I know that most vegetarians feel that it is more ethical to slaughter a plant rather than an animal, and that's where the philosophy departs from my own beliefs; there will be disagreement there that is beyond recourse. But the argument that finding ethically raised meat is wasted effort when there's plenty of vegetarian options available I do not buy at all. It takes just as much effort to be sure that the vegetables you're eating were grown without unnecessary harm to living beings, directly through production or indirectly through influence on the ecosystem, as it does to find meat that is humanely raised.