In regards to eating meat

[_X7]

Perhaps the 'harvest' will (in some aspect) involve fully experiencing our intent... Herein, implying that our preferred and personalized distortions will derive from our intents. Experience implying both cause and effect interactions of our intents. Also implying some sort of spiritual opportunity, a fork in the road, for those who 'will' harmonious existences, (beyond predatory/prey experiences, beyond vegetable and mineral consumerism, beyond justifying -isms, -ologies and labels). We embed the experience of what we eat. May we 'harvest' such experience to 'work' on the next dimension.

[3DMonkey]

Perhaps the 'harvest' will (in some aspect) involve fully experiencing our intent... Herein, implying that our preferred and personalized distortions will derive from our intents. Experience implying both cause and effect interactions of our intents. Also implying some sort of spiritual opportunity, a fork in the road, for those who 'will' harmonious existences, (beyond predatory/prey experiences, beyond vegetable and mineral consumerism, beyond justifying -isms, -ologies and labels). We embed the experience of what we eat. May we 'harvest' such experience to 'work' on the next dimension.

If I hear you correctly, you are saying we "harvest" each of our experiences within our m/b/s complex so as to "raise" them to the next density? I think this is correct in that what we are actively experiencing internally is what we are "harvesting", or "gathering together as desired fruit" for use at the next density expression.

[_X7]

I'd probably rather say it is our individual outcome and especially the 'final' time-frame status. I think the time density concludes at some point rather than loops like a vid or animation. Unless a being wants to return 1d, live through 1d,2d,3d all over, with beings bearing similar intent. Mere scrolling through 1d-2d-3d-4d incidents is more likely limited to discussions like this discussion, methinks.

PS Where i wrote 'will', i meant the verb form of 'will'.

[3DMonkey]

Is there any other form ?

[_X7]

Interesting! My e-dictionary has dropped the noun form! May i correct myself i intended the noun yet wrote verb. My Websters III Intl. (paper) has the noun form. So please accept my point through this post, my PS should have said noun form.

[Bring4th_Austin]

It's REALLY not about changing the other, Monkey. It's not about trying to change the mind of the one's raising animals inhumanely.

It's about ensuring the animal is not treated under horrendous conditions. You actively participate in the system. As a consumer, you are the final participant. You can choose to buy from humane producers or inhumane producers. The choice is there. You choose inhumane. You perpetuate the cruel treatment of animals by supporting those companies.

If no one bought the inhumane meat, would there still be inhumane producers? Who would they sell to? How would they make money to continue their operation?

This is about whether or not eating animals is non conducive to polarization.

To your point, you want me to make them poor? You want to take away their right?

That's a silly way to look at it. Do you want to make the humanely raised producer poor? Do you want to take away their right?

The inhumane producers have the option to raise their meat humanely. If no one bought their meat because it was raised horrendously, they would either change their ways or not raise meat. There are infinite number of ways for them to make money.

Saying that we want to make the inhumane producers poor is the same as saying YOU want to make the humane producers poor, meaning not only are you FOR inhumane meat production, but AGAINST humane meat production.

And then, you want to humanely raise the animals so they can be closer to 3D before killing them?
Wouldn't it be better to suppress them down closer to the plant level, the sarcastically speaking, lower race of 2D beings?

No, I would not prefer that the animals I eat suffer. It would not be better to make them suffer. We give them the life we do not to bring them closer to 3D but to ensure they can live as close to a natural life as possible before we eat them. To ensure that our consumption of meat does not support an industry which causes immense amounts of suffering.[/quote]

Honestly, if it isn't about changing the mind of the "inhumane" employee then is it about eliminated the employee? Again, that is a move to control, not a move to accept. Just like in the other, simpler, hypotheticals.

I feel like you're really stretching here. It is about changing the conditions under which the animal are raised: that's it. It's not about control, it's about realizing that your choices have consequences. Your choice to buy inhumanely raised meat has the consequence of animals suffering.

Again, by your logic, you not buying humanely raised meat is as if you are trying to control that employee. Your choice would be about control as well.

By all means, you have your own authority to change things that way. But it isn't positive polarization. It just isn't. And that's what I'm talking about. Individual mind/body/spirit implications of this topic.

Mind/body/spirit implications go beyond just polarization. Polarization is not the only spiritual principle at work in our reality. Whether or not it is a polarizing act, supporting the suffering of an animal is a choice like any other choice. Every choice you make has spiritual implications. When you buy inhumanely raised meat and there is an option for humanely raised meat, you're making a very clear choice of which one you support and which one you don't. It's as if you have a ballot in front of you, and you are voting on whether you want animals to suffer. By buying inhumanely raised meat, you are checking the "YES, I want animals to suffer" box.

If you shove the torturer aside because you don't accept the fact they're a torturer, you're right. If you shove the torturer aside because you wish to stop the suffering of the victim, it has nothing to do with the torturer, acceptance or not.

Life doesn't work that way. We can't pretend the torturer doesn't exist.

We're not pretending the torturer doesn't exist. Our actions simply don't have anything to do with the torturer.

If we were to stop the torturer and chastise him, call him a terrible person and tell him we hate him because he wishes to torture, punish him and cast him into exile, then what we are doing is coming from a place of unacceptance. I know that this is how you feel because you follow Norral's stance. Beyond that, Norral wants to torture the torturer, which I'm unsure if you do or not, but that is unacceptance. I'm not denying that.

If we stop the torturer simply to stop the suffering of a helpless being, and help the torturer find an environment where he can thrive without the helpless suffering of a being, then our actions come from only a desire to help a helpless being. We don't chastise the torturer for who they are or what they desire to do. We accept that they wish to torture. What we don't accept is the helpless suffering of another being. There is not hate for the torturer. Nothing we did was because of unacceptance or hate. It was our love for the victim which causes us to stop the torturer.

Accepting the fact that the torturer wishes to torture, and loving them despite of it, doesn't mean we have to allow their victims to suffer. If the "victim" were willing and there weren't forced suffering, then there would be no issue.

Again, it is NOT about unacceptance of the torturer's desires or actions, but rather about the effect it has on a helpless being. We protect the helpless being.


The torture example is slightly misplaced. Saying that it is a parallel to supporting inhumanely raised meat isn't an accurate supposition.

It would be akin to having a person in front of you. This person does not wish to suffer. You have a voting ballot, on it there are two choices. "Send this person to a torturer and let them suffer for the duration of their life," or, "Allow this person to live their life without suffering as they wish to do."

You are saying that by not voting to send the person to the torturer, you are persecuting the torturer.

.... Wait a minute. Has this whole thing been about creating a consumer base? Creating a consumer that doesn't exist?

No, this whole thing is about the practical and spiritual consequences of buying inhumane meat (using your freedom of choice to decide what you find acceptable), and the fact that we can accept the inhumane producers while disagreeing with their actions.

[3DMonkey]

See. I knew it would get intense.

I'm not being silly because I'm not thinking my purchase will persuade humane practices.

If its about changing the way animals are raised, then raise them how you want and stop focusing on the other guy. I stand behind you on that. On the other hand, I do not stand behind finger pointing because I won't do that.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I'm not sure what is more intense about that last post than any other post I've made. It has the same exact energy behind it.

I didn't say you were silly because you weren't thinking about the consequence of your purchase. I said that particular line of thinking...the fact that buying humanely raised meat is persecuting inhumane producers...is silly. Mainly because the logic could be used the other way around to say that you are persecuting humane producers.

And what about finger-pointing? I don't agree with the suffering of animals. The actions of others cause suffering in animals. It's discernment to realize what causes the suffering and what doesn't.

[3DMonkey]

Discernment is what effects your choice. It isn't to be used decide what others should do.


Supply and demand is obvious.

Determining that I will boycott specific types of demand in an attempt to effect specific supply is conscious intent. It sounds to me like "fine I'm not buying from you because I don't like you anymore. Nanny boo boo ". I'm not on board with that.

[Tenet Nosce]

I live in Texas.

Sorry about that!

All of the hunters I've met brag about their big trophies. Sure, they get the does too, but they still choose the buck with the big rack, over the buck with the small rack. Every time.

Insert "men" for "hunters" and "woman" for "buck" and now I think we're on to something!

Just a thought... but perhaps if bellicose and warlike men stopped gaining near unlimited access to so many vaginas, their bellicosity and warlike behaviors would no longer be passed to the next generation.

Back in the old days, these men had to rape and pillage in order to spread their seed. Nowadays, all they need is a very large belt buckle/hat combo and legs start spreading like warm butter.

Cue the latest Disney teen star. In 3... 2... 1...

"OMG! I just love a guy with big, strong shoulders. Muscular men are just -so- sexy! Doesn't hurt if he is a little on the dumb side too! That way he won't be able to figure out how much of his money I spend shopping!"

**Raucous laughter from the audience**

[Diana]

Without the consumers, it all goes away.

What goes away? "animal cruelty"? No. STS nature of third density energy? No. Human desires to be unkind? No.

No. The demand for slaughterhouse meat goes away, not animal cruelty. What I am saying in this instance--only this instance--is that the person who buys slaughterhouse meat contributes to its perpetuation by purchasing it. Many here have said in different ways that they are not trying to control the "torturer."

---

---

Supply and demand--a very simple concept. If you buy the product, you contribute to the demand

I assume there is a utopia in "potentiation"

It does not support factory farming or capitalism.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Discernment is what effects your choice. It isn't to be used decide what others should do.

But what about what other beings should be subjected to?

Determining that I will boycott specific types of demand in an attempt to effect specific supply is conscious intent. It sounds to me like "fine I'm not buying from you because I don't like you anymore. Nanny boo boo ". I'm not on board with that.

If for some reason you don't want to use the power of your choice to affect how other beings are treated, that's your right. But buying inhumanely raised meat is accepting and supporting the way that being was treated. You can tell yourself otherwise, but the money from that purchase goes to continue the system which causes suffering. It's not like the money goes into a big pool and all meat producers get to grab from it. The money you spend will inevitably be used to cause suffering in an animal. It is inescapable. It is a conscious decision to ignore the choice to support a system which does not cause suffering in animals.

[3DMonkey]

I told you I didn't want to get in an argument about that. I'm firm on that. My purchase does nothing. Just like my conviction that my vote in elections does nothing. So, let's get the thread back to topic.

[Bring4th_Austin]

You don't have to participate in discussion.

But there's a reason Beta Max isn't available any more. Or HD DVDs. Or any product which was not supported by consumers.

Don't answer if you don't want to. But please explain how the money you spend on inhumanely raised meat does not go to the company which raised meat that way. I know that the money I receive for my meat supports my meat production, allowing me to continue it. Where does the money go from inhumane meat purchases if not to the company causing animals to suffer? I'm very confused.

[Tenet Nosce]

Given enough energy they can keep you from submitting new posts that disarm the aura of anger.

Or to scroll right past the posts of those who are attempting to bring a thread back into balance. The coup de grâce for such an entity would be to get the majority of users in a thread to turn as rabid dogs in unison against a single person. Let's see how this one turns out...

[Diana]

Determining that I will boycott specific types of demand in an attempt to effect specific supply is conscious intent. It sounds to me like "fine I'm not buying from you because I don't like you anymore. Nanny boo boo ". I'm not on board with that.

Okay, now I think you are willfully missing the point. As abridetoofar stated, you are making a choice either way (eat slaughterhouse meat/eat humanely raised meat). For that matter, you are making a choice by not making a choice.

Part of spiritual evolvement as I perceive it, is in becoming conscious (of choices/consequences, and creation).

[Tenet Nosce]

You don't have to participate in discussion.

But there's a reason Beta Max isn't available any more. Or HD DVDs. Or any product which was not supported by consumers.

Don't answer if you don't want to. But please explain how the money you spend on inhumanely raised meat does not go to the company which raised meat that way. I know that the money I receive for my meat supports my meat production, allowing me to continue it. Where does the money go from inhumane meat purchases if not to the company causing animals to suffer? I'm very confused.

I would offer a response to this. Beta Max, HD DVDs, and other wastebin technologies were discarded after something new was offered which better met the demand for high-density media.

Nobody outlawed Beta Max. And nobody went around preaching that HD DVDs were wrong. If they had, surely there would be a huge black market for Beta Max, and a growing cult of HD DVD watchers.

A larger issue here with "follow the food money" applies just as well to all the vegetarians and vegans that purchase all manner of GMO soy products, processed garbage, and various grain-based foods, and who in doing so support land-based agricultural practices which (I would venture to say) are killing just as many animals as slaughterhouses.

Surely, our land-based agricultural practices rob the animals of their natural habitats and restrict their natural migration patterns.

And yet some of these folks are uber-quick to turn their noses up at the meat eaters. Interesting.

[Diana]

See. I knew it would get intense.

I'm not being silly because I'm not thinking my purchase will persuade humane practices.

If its about changing the way animals are raised, then raise them how you want and stop focusing on the other guy. I stand behind you on that. On the other hand, I do not stand behind finger pointing because I won't do that.

We are discussing the topic, not pointing fingers. There is more than one viewpoint, so necessarily there may be "opposite" or diametrically opposed views; this is good; it raises awareness for all involved.

I don't think "pointing the finger" is what's happening here. It is expression. And why isn't intense good? The more emotion, the more energy, the more movement. This is not a static universe. Humans dislike change (not pointed at anyone, rather a general statement) which is ironic as change is constant.

---

I would offer a response to this. Beta Max, HD DVDs, and other wastebin technologies were discarded after something new was offered which better met the demand for high-density media.

Nobody outlawed Beta Max. And nobody went around preaching that HD DVDs were wrong. If they had, surely there would be a huge black market for Beta Max, and a growing cult of HD DVD watchers.

This is an excellent point. Humans cling to things.

But there is the issue of awareness. Would it have been better to not help others become aware that black people are not sub-human?

[Tenet Nosce]

But there is the issue of awareness. Would it have been better to not help others become aware that black people are not sub-human?

You speak as if this issue has been settled in the minds of men. Take a survey of how many white American parents would be happy about their daughter mating with a black man, and you might notice some tunes changing right quick.

[Diana]

A larger issue here with "follow the food money" applies just as well to all the vegetarians and vegans that purchase all manner of GMO soy products, processed garbage, and various grain-based foods, and who in doing so support land-based agricultural practices which (I would venture to say) are killing just as many animals as slaughterhouses.

This is a good point. I don't know about the comparison of numbers of animals killed. But the point is taken. For my part, I am aware of what I consume--this is not just about killing animals to me. Responsibility and accountability is all actions is what I strive for.

---

But there is the issue of awareness. Would it have been better to not help others become aware that black people are not sub-human?

You speak as if this issue has been settled in the minds of men. Take a survey of how many white American parents would be happy about their daughter mating with a black man, and you might notice some tunes changing right quick.

Yes, that's very true (unbelievably so). But change seldom happens in one lump. There is a process involved, but the first step is becoming aware of it.

[3DMonkey]

Here is a hypothetical story that may explain my perspective.

I am sitting with a friend at a restaurant. She orders a hamburger. Now, we already recognize our power to create, our spirit complex, and our direct spiritual ability to lift a 2D to 3D status. If I look at her plate and think 'that meat is tainted spiritual energy from inhumane practices it experienced and ingesting it will harm her body', then I am creating a bad spiritual energy. I, ME, the one with the thoughts. I am the one opening the door for negative thought forms. ME! Not the guy that killed the animal. ME!!!

---

Finding the love in the situation is to appreciate the life of the animal, the sacrifice of the animal, the life giving properties of the food on the plate. In that way, positive thought forms will cause the molecules in that dish to sing. Sing!

[Bring4th_Austin]

You don't have to participate in discussion.

But there's a reason Beta Max isn't available any more. Or HD DVDs. Or any product which was not supported by consumers.

Don't answer if you don't want to. But please explain how the money you spend on inhumanely raised meat does not go to the company which raised meat that way. I know that the money I receive for my meat supports my meat production, allowing me to continue it. Where does the money go from inhumane meat purchases if not to the company causing animals to suffer? I'm very confused.

I would offer a response to this. Beta Max, HD DVDs, and other wastebin technologies were discarded after something new was offered which better met the demand for high-density media.

Nobody outlawed Beta Max. And nobody went around preaching that HD DVDs were wrong. If they had, surely there would be a huge black market for Beta Max, and a growing cult of HD DVD watchers.

Just because the reason demand fell was because better technology was offered means nothing for this discussion. The issue is how demand controls the market. If people bought HD DVD's despite the fact that Blu Ray was better, HD DVD's would still be around. That's the only point here.

Do you really think that if inhumane animal treatment were outlawed, there would be a black market for inhumane meat? Beside that point, I never suggested it be outlawed, I only said that supporting the market is supporting the system which causes animals to suffer. Is giving your money to someone who causes animals to suffer not enabling them to continue?

A larger issue here with "follow the food money" applies just as well to all the vegetarians and vegans that purchase all manner of GMO soy products, processed garbage, and various grain-based foods, and who in doing so support land-based agricultural practices which (I would venture to say) are killing just as many animals as slaughterhouses.

Surely, our land-based agricultural practices rob the animals of their natural habitats and restrict their natural migration patterns.

And yet some of these folks are uber-quick to turn their noses up at the meat eaters. Interesting.

Go back about 10 pages and re-read the thread, specifically post #1005, where I spell all this out very clearly. There were numerous responses to it as well. This has been discussed.

[Tenet Nosce]

Yes, that's very true (unbelievably so). But change seldom happens in one lump. There is a process involved, but the first step is becoming aware of it.

This is most certainly true. I only point out that the shining of the lamp of awareness works within as well as without. There is a fine line to be walked.

I'm not speaking directly to you, but I believe there are many people out there who take up a cause somewhat as a distraction technique. By being so outwardly-focused, they miss opportunities to truly see how the outside world they are so desperately trying to control, is a reflection of what is going on inside.

So... raising awareness is good. But which awareness? What is the most over-arching and non-inflammatory awareness which can be raised?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Here is a hypothetical story that may explain my perspective.

I am sitting with a friend at a restaurant. She orders a hamburger. Now, we already recognize our power to create, our spirit complex, and our direct spiritual ability to lift a 2D to 3D status. If I look at her plate and think 'that meat is tainted spiritual energy from inhumane practices it experienced and ingesting it will harm her body', then I am creating a bad spiritual energy. I, ME, the one with the thoughts. I am the one opening the door for negative thought forms. ME! Not the guy that killed the animal. ME!!!

---

Finding the love in the situation is to appreciate the life of the animal, the sacrifice of the animal, the life giving properties of the food on the plate. In that way, positive thought forms will cause the molecules in that dish to sing. Sing!

But does that change the fact that the animal suffered? And does it change the fact that if you follow the money spent on the burger, it will lead to the person causing the animal to suffer, and allow them to continue causing the suffering of animals?

I agree with you that appreciation for the animal is paramount, but no matter how much you appreciate it, it won't stop the suffering.

[Tenet Nosce]

Do you really think that if inhumane animal treatment were outlawed, there would be a black market for inhumane meat?

Yes. Perhaps unbelievably. But yes. Would you believe there is a black market for young children and infants for men to have sex with?

Beside that point, I never suggested it be outlawed, I only said that supporting the market is supporting the system which causes animals to suffer. Is giving your money to someone who causes animals to suffer not enabling them to continue?

I wasn't arguing with this.

Go back about 10 pages and re-read the thread, specifically post #1005, where I spell all this out very clearly. There were numerous responses to it as well. This has been discussed.

Great post.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Do you really think that if inhumane animal treatment were outlawed, there would be a black market for inhumane meat?

Yes. Perhaps unbelievably. But yes. Would you believe there is a black market for young children and infants for men to have sex with?

Perhaps you're right, though I cannot wrap my head around the idea that someone would prefer that their meat suffer.

[Tenet Nosce]

Perhaps you're right, though I cannot wrap my head around the idea that someone would prefer that their meat suffer.

Perhaps you're right as well, though I cannot wrap my head around why somebody would be so concerned about the suffering of animals, meanwhile helpless children get beaten, raped, abducted, and murdered on a daily basis.

Just saying...

[BrownEye]

Here is a hypothetical story that may explain my perspective.

I am sitting with a friend at a restaurant. She orders a hamburger. Now, we already recognize our power to create, our spirit complex, and our direct spiritual ability to lift a 2D to 3D status. If I look at her plate and think 'that meat is tainted spiritual energy from inhumane practices it experienced and ingesting it will harm her body', then I am creating a bad spiritual energy. I, ME, the one with the thoughts. I am the one opening the door for negative thought forms. ME! Not the guy that killed the animal. ME!!!

---

Finding the love in the situation is to appreciate the life of the animal, the sacrifice of the animal, the life giving properties of the food on the plate. In that way, positive thought forms will cause the molecules in that dish to sing. Sing!

No matter how much love you project to that burger it can still make your friend suffer the long death of prions. You have no effect on that portion of this illusion. Simply a result of the current system some of us do not agree with. IMO everyone has the right to suicide, but it should be an educated choice.

[3DMonkey]

Here is a hypothetical story that may explain my perspective.

I am sitting with a friend at a restaurant. She orders a hamburger. Now, we already recognize our power to create, our spirit complex, and our direct spiritual ability to lift a 2D to 3D status. If I look at her plate and think 'that meat is tainted spiritual energy from inhumane practices it experienced and ingesting it will harm her body', then I am creating a bad spiritual energy. I, ME, the one with the thoughts. I am the one opening the door for negative thought forms. ME! Not the guy that killed the animal. ME!!!

---

Finding the love in the situation is to appreciate the life of the animal, the sacrifice of the animal, the life giving properties of the food on the plate. In that way, positive thought forms will cause the molecules in that dish to sing. Sing!

But does that change the fact that the animal suffered? And does it change the fact that if you follow the money spent on the burger, it will lead to the person causing the animal to suffer, and allow them to continue causing the suffering of animals?

I agree with you that appreciation for the animal is paramount, but no matter how much you appreciate it, it won't stop the suffering.

We stop our own suffering from the inside out. We can't stop it if we accuse others of being its source.

[BrownEye]

Perhaps you're right as well, though I cannot wrap my head around why somebody would be so concerned about the suffering of animals, meanwhile helpless children get beaten, raped, abducted, and murdered on a daily basis.

Just saying...

To have them in front of us they would be lynched. These types are always hidden in the shadows, only brought to light if they are caught.

In fact, what kind of discussion would take place focusing on one of us that is a molester? I would bet someone would take it upon them self to visit the person in question to purposefully force their point. Not a very good comparison LoL. Folks tend to concern themselves with what they can affect or change. Hard to change what you can not see, hear, or find. Once out in the open we definitely force a change.