Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

I don't even know why I'm in this argument because I don't agree with you on fundamental basis' of "ethics", so I am just going to bow out.

Also, this is really, really condescending and passive-aggressive sounding and is exactly why I stopped wanting to discuss this with you in the first place.

It is. The difference, apparently, is that I consider animals to be other-selves also...they are our younger brethren. I have learned that many people here on B4 don't consider animals to be other-selves. They think Service to Others applies only to humans. I think that is the crux of the disagreement.

You are talking "generally" to avoid the fact that you are including me in your generalization so as to not seem like you are chastising me when you really are. I am leaving this thread, adieu.

WHOA. (Just when I thought we were making some progress towards understanding.) Major MISunderstanding here! When you said:

I'm not even sure why the discussion goes this way, I thought STO was about thoughtfulness and consideration of others and I see it that we both want the same thing, for there to be less suffering

I interpreted your words to mean:

Why do the meat discussions always get so heated?

NOT just about the discussion between only you and me. I thought 'discussion' meant ALL of the meat discussion, all along, which includes the original meat threads that lasted several years, so I included ALL participants in it, NOT just you! It IS the crux of the disagreement, overall, and has been since the beginning, several years ago. Most of the meat-eaters don't see animals as other-selves, so they were more concerned about the vegetarians respecting their choice to eat animals, than they were about the animals themselves. Why? Because they considered themselves other-selves, but didn't consider the animals other-selves.

You don't know me very well, Unbound. If you go back to all my posts since the beginning of B4, you will see that I tend to speak in general terms, specifically to avoid judging anyone individually. The only time I use the word 'you' is in direct response to a particular action, such as in your littering example or your "But I don't kill animals' example which applied ONLY to you. But when speaking of general concepts, or 'xyz is STS' sort of thing, I avoid mentioning anyone specifically because it isn't my place to do that and I cannot possibly know another person's thoughts, feelings or motivations. I speak in general terms most of the time. It is how I communicate here on B4, specifically to avoid anyone getting their feelings hurt, feeling singled out, or getting defensive.

This part:

I thought STO was about thoughtfulness and consideration of others and I see it that we both want the same thing, for there to be less suffering

...seems to indicate that you might be including animals in your use of the term others, since you then mention suffering, which applies to animals. I wasn't certain though, because by 'thoughtfulness and consideration' you might have been referring to 'being respectful to human other-selves' in the discussion. I wasn't sure exactly which you meant, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and focus on the possibility that you were including animals in your use of the term 'others.' Therefore, if anything, in this particular case, I was actually thinking of other people, less than you, so I made a point to use general terms. You took it the total opposite of what I intended.

---

i am appalled. i feel that basically accusing people of murder, assassination or whatever you want to call it is the epitome of self- righteous, fundamentalist attitudes.

You are confirming what I just told Unbound: This is the crux of the disagreement. We vegetarians consider animals other-selves, and the meat-eaters don't.

See? You just confirmed it. Because, if animals were other-selves, then killng them would be murder, and paying someone else to do it for you would be assassination for hire.

Why, then, are you 'appalled'? Because, apparently, you are reserving those terms for actions against humans only...they don't apply to animals. Why? Because, to the meat-eaters, animals aren't other-selves.

That is the crux of the disagreement. That is what I keep going back to. WHY aren't our younger brethren other-selves? They feel pain and fear just like we do. They have souls. They are individuated. They have personalities. WHY aren't they other-selves?

Taking to the extreme, those kinds of mental ego traps are what is wrong with this world imo and causes the worst kind of separation which is in consciousness/ awareness rather than the material realm.

I can't discuss either because of that reason, there is abolutely no point in bringing an alternative viewpoint , or something else to seriously consider because you will end up being accused of murder! REALLY!!!?

I say all that even after having tofu for dinner last night. Discussing this has been good for me to gradually takes steps forward, but certainly not in a moralistic fundamentalist way, my purpose being to help others who know me open in awareness, not to judge them. And certainly not for me to consider myself more STO or spiritually evolved than them. The epitome of arrogance!!

Oh BLAH BLAH BLAH. How much easier it is for you to just insult me, than to actually consider the ideas and concepts presented! It is you who are making this personal!

Once again, you are illustrating my point: Many (if not most) of the meat-eaters seem to be more concerned that we vegetarians show respect for their 'choices' then they are about animal suffering. Why? Because they consider themselves other-sevles but don't consider animals to be other-selves.

There it is, right there. You just confirmed it.