A Friendly Conversation: Exploring Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diet

[Monica]

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?

I shall try to explain. Throughout this marathon discussion, several people have explicitly asked me for approval of their personal choices to reduce meat, or only eat 'red' meat, or whatever. A few seemed to be seeking praise for reducing or eliminating meat. Others have defended their choices to continue to eat meat, with extensive rationale, also seeking approval.

This put me in an awkward position of being their judge. I decline. It's not my place to judge anyone's choices. It works both ways. If I'm to not judge those who eat meat, then I must not praise those who don't, either. Because both are judging.

Therefore, very early on in this conversation, I chose to adopt a very strict policy of not ever getting involved in assessing anyone's personal choice. I prefer to avoid that altogether, because, you see, regardless of how I respond, I'd still be accused of judging. I don't want to judge you or anyone else. I'm very perplexed that you are persisting in asking me to after I've declined.

So, yes, I have and will continue to ignore any comments that appear defensive of one's own personal choices, or seem to be seeking approval from me. It's unfair to expect me to respond to such, and I won't participate.

The discussion needn't stop, just as it didn't stop when it happened many times before. We can continue an impersonal, philosophical discussion.

you're up against the barrier of personal decision

If what you're really getting at here, with this statement, is to try to point out to me that an other-self's "personal decision" trumps any causes I might believe in (such as championing the oppressed) then we're back to a topic that has already been exhaustively discussed: One person's freedom ends where another's begins. The only reason it's even contentious at all is because there is disagreement as to whether a higher 2D entity, who feels pain and emotion and can think, should be classified as a 'self.' Ie. if this were a human, there would be no debate. No one would ever question those who are championing humans who are being needlessly killed! The only reason we're going round and round is because it's mere animals who are being needlessly killed.

It's the same reason the abortion debate goes round and round. Pro-lifers think the unborn baby is a 'self' and the pro-choicers think it isn't.

Being that we're Law of One students, my interest is in exploring why other Law of One students don't consider higher 2D beings to be other-selves, not judging the personal decisions of those who obviously think they're not.

I consider the former to be a very important topic, being that our task is to love other-selves, and millions of possible other-selves are being tortured and killed on a daily basis, all because of a desire for the taste of animal flesh. No matter how you slice it, needlessly killing an other-self, no matter how "painlessly," would never be acceptable to an STO entity, if that other-self were human.

My interest, then, isn't in your personal reasons and justifications, for I'd rather not tread there into the land of judging you, but in exploring how and why what seems like an obvious "other-self" isn't deemed so by other Law of One students.

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?

It doesn't.

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?

That's easy. Free-range eggs and raw milk from grazing cows or goats.

That wasn't sufficient for primitive peoples because they also needed the hides for clothing. Their situation was different.

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?

I see the same pattern as what happened before: when the conversation reached a certain point, people switched from intellectual discussion to analyzing individuals. I won't participate in that.

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.

Why are you going off-topic into talking about me? I'm not participating in that. I'm only interested in the topic.

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.

Gary, I never asked you any such thing. I never asked you anything about your personal choice at all!

What I said was this:

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.

I said "if you care to share" in the interest of continuing the discussion. If you'd rather not, that's fine.

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.

I thought the question was quite clear. Either it's necessary or it's not. Even the medical establishment agrees that meat isn't necessary. So it really boils down to 2 options:

1. The person disagrees with the scientific community about human need for meat, and believes that they do in fact need meat.

or

2. They recognize that they don't truly need meat, but choose to eat it anyway for whatever reason.

My question had to do with those in category #2, since those in category #1 obviously feel they need it so the question is moot for them.

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.

I''m not seeking agreement. Are you?

including the classic and commonly evoked vegetarian Hitler.

Not all vegetarians care about animals. Many are vegetarians strictly for health reasons. Who knows what Hitler's reasons were, but I think we can safely assume it wasn't out of concern for animal suffering!

Perhaps we need a better term, such as "animal welfare activists" or something like that, to distinguish those who care about animals from those who are veg for other reasons.

For purposes of this discussion, I think we can safely say that the vocal vegetarians in these threads are so because of concern for the animals.

what one eats is not an objective measure of depth of understanding, just one among many possible indicators.

We've stated this many times. We've also stated that it's not about what one eats per se, but about one's response to the opportunity for compassion.

---

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.

All good points! I was thrilled to recently discover a local farmer's market. The farmer and his wife run the store and I often ask lots of questions about how their raise their produce. Thank you for suggesting to me awhile back that I search for a farmer's market!

I learned that not all farmer's markets are the same, however!

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.

I wouldn't say it's a wasted effort. It's a positive step in the continuum.

If it takes "just as much effort" then it seems to me that by eating both meat and produce, that effort is doubled, since those who eat animals do eat produce too.