In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Do you not understand that you going to such an extreme comparison is most likely a desire for you to find inside of me, to search for hate. We shouldn't be here encouraging one another to burn with anger toward an entity.

What made it extreme? That Monkey's children were mentioned, or that a comparison to any human children was made?

It is the latter. In the early days of this thread, I offered the same analogy, but in a generic form. I didn't refer to anyone specific, but just said "a pedophile abusing children" and I got pounced on as though I had said something highly offensive!

Why? what is so offensive about comparing violence towards a 3D entity, to violence towards a high-2D entity?

We are trying to argue the case the animals are worthy of compassion too. The only way to do that, is to use an analogy of something that people already do have compassion for: violence towards a human child.

What is so offensive about that? (Again, setting aside any particular person or their children, and just looking at a generic version of the analogy.)

It's really not worth it, this thread is just like someone said, worthy of a huge bonfire...I will probably print it up and burn it myself.

Yes, as soon as someone who eats animals gets offended, the whole thread should go in the trash. Never mind how many times the vegetarians have been attacked and spat upon.

This is a volatile topic. Emotions run high. Every so often, one of us is going to say something that isn't perfect. Why? Because none of us is perfect.

All this talk of compassion and acceptance...where is the compassion and acceptance of our other-selves who feel strongly about a topic?? I even asked if anyone had developed more compassion for the vegetarians, and got a loud silence.

It works both ways...Compassion and acceptance for the other-selves who are feeling uncomfortable, for whatever reason, as well as compassion and acceptance for the other-selves who have strong convictions, without expecting them to give up their convictions. Why can't we all just forgive one another, when one of us says something that pushes another's buttons, instead of right away withdrawing our love and participation?

---

Well, you are looking in the wrong places.

Remember your beloved toy from childhood, then one you attached yourself to for so many years?

Remember the first time your left your child with a sitter?

Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone got along during this year's holidays?

These are beginnings points to find compassion.

Those are all fine, but you are evading my question. WHY NOT ask for compassion for the animals?

Why is this such a radical idea?? And considered 'extreme' even?? Why?

[Diana]

If anyone likes, they are welcome to react melodramatically to my analogy, which was a direct response to Monkey's statement.

It was just so obvious to me that Monkey's statement would not hold up if we plugged humans into the equation (if humans were the ones getting hurt).

I actually did not directly mean your particular children Monkey; I meant it as a hypothetical statement, such as saying it to anyone, whether or not they had children.

But if anyone likes, they may use my "indelicate" analogy as an excuse to hate the vegetarians.

[3DMonkey]

If anyone likes, they are welcome to react melodramatically to my analogy, which was a direct response to Monkey's statement.

It was just so obvious to me that Monkey's statement would not hold up if we plugged humans into the equation (if humans were the ones getting hurt).

I actually did not directly mean your particular children Monkey; I meant it as a hypothetical statement, such as saying it to anyone, whether or not they had children.

But if anyone likes, they may use my "indelicate" analogy as an excuse to hate the vegetarians.

Well, I don't disagree with Shemya's response, but My responses were applied to the hypothetical example as such. Please re-read them coming from that perspective because what I had to say was about such hypotheticals and what their purpose may be.

[Monica]

If anyone likes, they are welcome to react melodramatically to my analogy, which was a direct response to Monkey's statement.

It was just so obvious to me that Monkey's statement would not hold up if we plugged humans into the equation (if humans were the ones getting hurt).

I actually did not directly mean your particular children Monkey; I meant it as a hypothetical statement, such as saying it to anyone, whether or not they had children.

But if anyone likes, they may use my "indelicate" analogy as an excuse to hate the vegetarians.

That's precisely my point too. I too made some 'indelicate' analogies. But then, others have said far worse. But it's the vegetarians who catch all the flak for it. Our 'less than perfect' comments are used as an excuse to conveniently toss out the whole discussion.

Not surprising though, because the issue is important to the vegetarians, because we're the ones with convictions. We are disappointed because, to us, this is a very crucially important issue. There's a lot at stake.

Whereas, to those who don't think animals matter, it may just be an academic exercise, or it may even just about what's for dinner tonight.

---

May I suggest cutting Diana a little slack. She's done an exemplary job of avoiding any personal references. Like I said, we've all gotten a little heated and sometimes our choice of words isn't perfect. We all sometimes slip up. I understand what Diana was trying to say - which was that generic analogies weren't working, so the attempt was made to get the point across in a way that could be related to. I know everyone is well aware of how strongly I feel about using personal references. And yet, in this particular case, I truly don't think it would have mattered if the analogy had been generic, because I used a generic version of the exact same analogy, and the eruption was so loud it took weeks for the dust to settle.

We're all human. As I suggested on another thread recently, why not have some compassion for the other-self and set aside any less-than-perfect choice of words, in favor of actually trying to understand their point?

[Shemaya]

Why? what is so offensive about comparing violence towards a 3D entity, to violence towards a high-2D entity?

First of all it was not generic, so to say it's generic now is kind of self-serving.

Secondly, I feel there is a difference between my children and my pets. An example from my life (though I realize i am inviting all kinds of negativity by sharing from my life, I've come this far on this thread)

My mother-in law loves my dog. She'll buy gifts for her, take care of her, make a big deal about her. I also have three children whom she doesn't seem to care much for. There have been several things that have happened through the years that led me to see it this way. Maybe i am wrong, maybe she cares for my kids, but it seems she cares more for pets than kids. So with my unmet desire for my children to have a loving and warm grandmom, I have some disappointment over this. Does it cause me to rage, and ban her from my home? No, she is welcome here, still there is this discomfort.

I feel that she transfers her love and compassion to animals because it's easier, it's not uncomfortable and difficult like dealing with humans. Just my opinion, but still I wish my kids had a grandmom that they knew loved them.

It's really not worth it, this thread is just like someone said, worthy of a huge bonfire...I will probably print it up and burn it myself.

Yes, as soon as someone who eats animals gets offended, the whole thread should go in the trash. Never mind how many times the vegetarians have been attacked and spat upon.



All this talk of compassion and acceptance...where is the compassion and acceptance of our other-selves who feel strongly about a topic, and for the other-selves who are feeling uncomfortable, for whatever reason? Why can't we all just forgive one another, when one of us says something that pushes another's buttons, instead of right away withdrawing our love and participation?

What are you asking here, do you need me to say something specific?

Not that many have right away withdrawn participation, we have tried to gain mutual understanding of different perspectives. 25-30 pages of participation isn't enough? If I don't have equal compassion for animals and humans, so what? Some people have more compassion for animals than humans. That's just not me.

And I am not saying that I have no compassion for animals , because I do. But I have more compassion for humans.

And if I don't want to discuss this anymore so what? I am not succeeding in helping you understand my point of view, what's the point of spinning wheels going nowhere? There are other things that deserve my attention that would be productive.

I agree with you on many things and it's fine to leave it at that.

[Monica]

First of all it was not generic, so to say it's generic now is kind of self-serving.

I didn't say it was generic. Did you read my post? I mentioned that I had made a similar analogy in the early days of this thread, and got the same reaction, and even worse, and it lasted for weeks before the dust settled. But my analogy was generic!

Therefore, this indicates that the analogy itself will trigger such a response, regardless of whether it's generic or not. Meaning that it's not the personal reference, but the analogy itself that people find offensive.

I was asking why.

Did that clarify my meaning?

Now I am wondering: why be so quick to say my intentions were "self-serving," when all it was was a simple lack of understanding of my point? That sure seems odd to me. If I misunderstood something you said, or disagreed with it, I wouldn't say you were self-serving.

Secondly, I feel there is a difference between my children and my pets. An example from my life (though I realize i am inviting all kinds of negativity by sharing from my life, I've come this far on this thread)

My mother-in law loves my dog. She'll buy gifts for her, take care of her, make a big deal about her. I also have three children whom she doesn't seem to care much for. There have been several things that have happened through the years that led me to see it this way. Maybe i am wrong, maybe she cares for my kids, but it seems she cares more for pets than kids. So with my unmet desire for my children to have a loving and warm grandmom, I have some disappointment over this. Does it cause me to rage, and ban her from my home? No, she is welcome here, still there is this discomfort.

That's awful! Gosh, Shemaya, I would be very upset if my mom (if I had a mom) did that to my kids! I adore all my cats and dogs, but my child comes first!

I feel that she transfers her love and compassion to animals because it's easier, it's not uncomfortable and difficult like dealing with humans. Just my opinion, but still I wish my kids had a grandmom that they knew loved them.

I can sure sympathize with that! My child didn't have any grandparents at all. But it would be even worse if they had doted on my dogs or cats more! That would bother me too! In fact, I'm quite sure that, were I in your situation, I would find such behavior intolerable, and would speak up about it, for the sake of my kids. I would probably establish some rules in my house, to avoid my kids growing up with the idea that Grandma loves the dogs more than them. But that's just me.

But Shemaya, no one is suggesting that animals be considered more important than humans or even as important. In fact, I've said repeatedly on this thread, that I'd save the human child before the dog, no question. We're just wondering why there can't be enough compassion to go around.

If I don't have equal compassion for animals and humans, so what? Some people have more compassion for animals than humans. That's just not me.

Again, no one is suggesting equal. Just enough to have compassion for their pain and suffering.

And I am not saying that I have no compassion for animals , because I do. But I have more compassion for humans.

Of course. So do I. But I see no reason I can't have both.

And if I don't want to discuss this anymore so what? I am not succeeding in helping you understand my point of view, what's the point of spinning wheels going nowhere? There are other things that deserve my attention that would be productive.

I agree with you on many things and it's fine to leave it at that.

You can choose to quit participating at any time you wish, Shemaya. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Peace to you (and to your kids! and to Grandma...and to your dogs and cats...in that order ).

[Diana]

Well, I don't disagree with Shemya's response, but My responses were applied to the hypothetical example as such. Please re-read them coming from that perspective because what I had to say was about such hypotheticals and what their purpose may be.

Thank you for seeing my comment the way I intended it.

I did reread your comments. From a certain perspective, I can see how you would think I was trying to get your personal "revenge" feelings engaged. In a way, this is true, in the sense that I wanted to find an analogous example which those who are human-oriented would "get." It was not meant as a personal attack at all.

It is understandable from an instinctive perspective that humans would have more empathy and connection to their "tribe"--other humans. But I have always been different in this respect; I see all things as equal. I do have different responses to human suffering or death, in that I cannot disregard my physical body, genetic programming, and societal influences entirely; I grieve differently, more deeply and with more complexity, over the loss of my brother than my pet Fluffy, but I don't grieve less (if that makes sense). My compassion has always extended to all life.

To answer your question: As for extending compassion to vegetation, this has been explored extensively in this thread, but I don't mind recapping here. I do feel compassion for vegetation. I wrote a short story about trees as a result of the pain I felt when seeing them cut down in neighbors' yards. All life wants to live. The thing about vegetation is that it is made to be eaten, at least in part. All vegetation has seeds that will propagate by animals eating them. Plants thrive when pruned. All this suggests to me that taking plant life for food is less cruel than taking animal life. We must eat at this juncture in our evolution. Plant life is obviously a gentler, less cruel, and more balance ecologically (because it is more renewable) choice.

I do not condone commercial farming methods for vegetation, in the same way I don't condone commercial farming of animals. Ideally, the farming of vegetable food would be kinder, and with respect (being in communication with the plants for instance). Not poisoning and depleting the soil for short-term profit.

Given a choice between commercially farmed animals and vegetables, I would choose the vegetables. There is so much more cruelty in the meat industry, so much more. This is why I think plant-based diets are a step in the right direction.

[3DMonkey]

Well, I don't disagree with Shemya's response, but My responses were applied to the hypothetical example as such. Please re-read them coming from that perspective because what I had to say was about such hypotheticals and what their purpose may be.

Thank you for seeing my comment the way I intended it.

I did reread your comments. From a certain perspective, I can see how you would think I was trying to get your personal "revenge" feelings engaged. In a way, this is true, in the sense that I wanted to find an analogous example which those who are human-oriented would "get." It was not meant as a personal attack at all.

It is understandable from an instinctive perspective that humans would have more empathy and connection to their "tribe"--other humans. But I have always been different in this respect; I see all things as equal. I do have different responses to human suffering or death, in that I cannot disregard my physical body, genetic programming, and societal influences entirely; I grieve differently, more deeply and with more complexity, over the loss of my brother than my pet Fluffy, but I don't grieve less (if that makes sense). My compassion has always extended to all life.

To answer your question: As for extending compassion to vegetation, this has been explored extensively in this thread, but I don't mind recapping here. I do feel compassion for vegetation. I wrote a short story about trees as a result of the pain I felt when seeing them cut down in neighbors' yards. All life wants to live. The thing about vegetation is that it is made to be eaten, at least in part. All vegetation has seeds that will propagate by animals eating them. Plants thrive when pruned. All this suggests to me that taking plant life for food is less cruel than taking animal life. We must eat at this juncture in our evolution. Plant life is obviously a gentler, less cruel, and more balance ecologically (because it is more renewable) choice.

I do not condone commercial farming methods for vegetation, in the same way I don't condone commercial farming of animals. Ideally, the farming of vegetable food would be kinder, and with respect (being in communication with the plants for instance). Not poisoning and depleting the soil for short-term profit.

Given a choice between commercially farmed animals and vegetables, I would choose the vegetables. There is so much more cruelty in the meat industry, so much more. This is why I think plant-based diets are a step in the right direction.

I really don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding industries.

My only opinion is about eating, and what you have justified as your choice is nothing different than the method of justification used by other choices in eating. With that in plain sight, there can be no choice "better" than an other's. However one likes to subjectively define "better".

[Monica]

My only opinion is about eating, and what you have justified as your choice is nothing different than the method of justification used by other choices in eating. With that in plain sight, there can be no choice "better" than an other's.

Diana listed logical, reasonable reasons, not justifications.

However one likes to subjectively define "better".

Right on! That's what it's all about. That is what polarizes/depolarizes us: how we make subjective choices. That is the whole point of 3D! our subjective choices.

[3DMonkey]

My only opinion is about eating, and what you have justified as your choice is nothing different than the method of justification used by other choices in eating. With that in plain sight, there can be no choice "better" than an other's.

Diana listed logical, reasonable reasons, not justifications.

That's the definition of a justification.

However one likes to subjectively define "better".

Right on! That's what it's all about. That is what polarizes/depolarizes us: how we make subjective choices. That is the whole point of 3D! our subjective choices.

And?

Do you consider indifference to be failure? It's not.

Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

[BrownEye]

So uh, balance is NOT indifference. What are you trying to say? Indifference is a bit like disdain.

[3DMonkey]

So uh, balance is NOT indifference. What are you trying to say? Indifference is a bit like disdain.

No it isn't. Disdain requires one to not be indifferent. Disdain is purposely ignoring someone out of pride.

[Monica]

Diana listed logical, reasonable reasons, not justifications.

That's the definition of a justification.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification

Justification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justification may refer to:
Theory of justification, a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs
Justification (jurisprudence), defence in a prosecution for a criminal offense
Justification (theology), God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God
Justification (typesetting), a kind of typographic alignment
In mathematical logic, a justification is an unsatisfiable set.
Justification may also refer to ad hoc hypotheses and explanations
Rationalization (making excuses), a phenomenon in psychology

the one in bold links to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationaliza...g_excuses)

In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]

Do you consider indifference to be failure? It's not.

In the context of spiritual growth, I don't believe in failure. There is only efficient use of catalyst, and inefficient use of catalyst.

We can, however, fail to reach desired goals we might have set for ourselves at the soul level.

Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

Not sure what you're getting at with this quote, but to me, turning our backs on an opportunity to be of service to sentient beings, whose suffering is affected by our choices, isn't exactly being 'fully imbued with love.'

[BrownEye]

It says this...

Balance is the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

But i think he got balance mixed up with indifference. That would be a failed "justification" attempt.

---

Indifference is synonymous with apathy, so i guess that is on point.

[3DMonkey]

Diana listed logical, reasonable reasons, not justifications.

That's the definition of a justification.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification

Justification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justification may refer to:
Theory of justification, a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs
Justification (jurisprudence), defence in a prosecution for a criminal offense
Justification (theology), God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God
Justification (typesetting), a kind of typographic alignment
In mathematical logic, a justification is an unsatisfiable set.
Justification may also refer to ad hoc hypotheses and explanations
Rationalization (making excuses), a phenomenon in psychology

the one in bold links to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationaliza...g_excuses)

In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]

Do you consider indifference to be failure? It's not.

In the context of spiritual growth, I don't believe in failure. There is only efficient use of catalyst, and inefficient use of catalyst.

We can, however, fail to reach desired goals we might have set for ourselves at the soul level.

Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

Not sure what you're getting at with this quote, but to me, turning our backs on an opportunity to be of service to sentient beings, whose suffering is affected by our choices, isn't exactly being 'fully imbued with love.'

Um, the wiki page you were looking at was a search option to help people find what they may be looking for. It isn't a list of definitions for a word. The link is for "rationalization".

Here is the definition.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=justification&o=0&l=dir

1. a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
2. an act of justifying: The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.
3. the state of being justified.


justify[ juhs-tuh-fahy ]
verb (used with object)
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.

---

It says this...

Balance is the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

But i think he got balance mixed up with indifference. That would be a failed "justification" attempt.

---

Indifference is synonymous with apathy, so i guess that is on point.

You could plug any synonym in place of indifference. The balance remains.

[Monica]

The link is for "rationalization".

Right. Which is a synonym, in this context.

The term justify and rationalize are both often used to describe the actions of someone who is trying to make themselves feel better about something, or make excuses for something to someone else. As in the example you gave "don't try to justify his rude behavior" see? That statement right there explains what I'm saying; that his behavior isn't justifiable; that's the whole point!

But if you prefer to use the term rationalization instead, ok that works for me! The context is the definition I gave previously, in terms of the psychology of what's been happening.

You could plug any synonym in place of indifference. The balance remains.

OK then you say you are indifferent. Yet you are here, participating in this thread...

[3DMonkey]

This thread, the typing, the logging in, the reading. None of this is eating meat. Yes, I'm here.

[BrownEye]

Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

Pssst! your mask fell off back at Post: #2590

[3DMonkey]

No, I don't want to use the word rationalize. I used the word justify and I presented the definition of the word.

---

Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

Pssst! your mask fell off back at Post: #2590

Are you even using your brain?

---

This might help you understand "is not"

This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions.

[Monica]

This might help you understand "is not"

This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love.

Ah, so are you saying you're not indifferent, but seeing all things as love? Wow, you must be very advanced indeed!

This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions.

That doesn't mean to support STS. Ra doesn't support STS. They decline the offer of STS. Nor does it mean that it's never appropriate to ever have any response; just not "due to catalytic reactions." Ra responds to the call; that's a response.

Respectfully, Monkey, you seem to be cherry-picking quotes while leaving out other concepts that work together.

[Diana]

If I don't have equal compassion for animals and humans, so what? Some people have more compassion for animals than humans. That's just not me.

Again, no one is suggesting equal. Just enough to have compassion for their pain and suffering.

And I am not saying that I have no compassion for animals , because I do. But I have more compassion for humans.

Of course. So do I. But I see no reason I can't have both.

How can having more compassion for humans explain why one eats meat? Eating meat is a choice, and one can still have all the compassion in the world for humans whether one eats meat or not.

The question becomes: if one has any compassion for animals, why eat them? If one feels he/she needs to eat them, then eat the ones who are treated humanely so that they have some sort of life. None of this has anything to do with compassion for humans.

Unless one holds with Monkey's view, and sees the choice of the slaughterhouse worker as more important than the animals being tortured and inhumanely killed for meat. (Monkey, correct me please if I have misinterpreted your stance.)

Which brings me to a general request:

I would like to hear members' descriptions of what they feel compassion is, in the context of the Law of One.

[BrownEye]

you seem to be cherry-picking quotes while leaving out other concepts that work together.

I have brought this up in other threads that take the same direction. Many texts have both sides of the coin. Individuals will tend to cling to the portion of texts that fit their character, and ignore the rest.

[Monica]

I have brought this up in other threads that take the same direction. Many texts have both sides of the coin. Individuals will tend to cling to the portion of texts that fit their character, and ignore the rest.

Yes, I've seen it a lot too, with many people. Like focusing on acceptance and oneness, while leaving out polarity and choice or consideration of the attributes of the different densities. All these, and much more, should be taken into consideration, not just a single quote.

Look at what that did to organized religion! There are hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations just in Christianity, because they cherry-pick individual quotes without integrating it into the whole.

[3DMonkey]

This might help you understand "is not"

This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love.

Ah, so are you saying you're not indifferent, but seeing all things as love? Wow, you must be very advanced indeed!

This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions.

That doesn't mean to support STS. Ra doesn't support STS. They decline the offer of STS. Nor does it mean that it's never appropriate to ever have any response; just not "due to catalytic reactions." Ra responds to the call; that's a response.

Respectfully, Monkey, you seem to be cherry-picking quotes while leaving out other concepts that work together.

I asked you about your bias of the concept "indifference", and I provided a quote. Then Pickle starting twisting us up (like he enjoys doing). I was not providing the quote to begin a discussion on "support". You chose not to recognize my question.

The balance is entity specific. The entity is a thought. I'm no more an "advanced" being than anyone else, and I never indicated I was.

---

you seem to be cherry-picking quotes while leaving out other concepts that work together.

I have brought this up in other threads that take the same direction. Many texts have both sides of the coin. Individuals will tend to cling to the portion of texts that fit their character, and ignore the rest.

You describe yourself.

---

Unless one holds with Monkey's view, and sees the choice of the slaughterhouse worker as more important than the animals being tortured and inhumanely killed for meat. (Monkey, correct me please if I have misinterpreted your stance.)

It is accurate as a result of my stance, but it is not the basis of my stance.

[Monica]

I asked you about your bias of the concept "indifference", and I provided a quote. Then Pickle starting twisting us up (like he enjoys doing). I was not providing the quote to begin a discussion on "support". You chose not to recognize my question.

Monkey, no one is intentionally twisting your words. You speak rather sparsely, so it's just difficult for us to understand sometimes.

Suggestion: Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, and trust that we really do want to understand you correctly, rather than assuming we're trying to twist your words?

The balance is entity specific. The entity is a thought. I'm no more an "advanced" being than anyone else, and I never indicated I was.

OK good to know. But it was a valid question. I was wondering what you meant, when you posted that quote. That's all. Just having a conversation.

You describe yourself.

Are we doing the tit-for-tat thing again? Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

[βαθμιαίος]

You describe yourself.

I think that's always true whenever we describe someone else. What we notice about them is relevant to our own balances. If there's an emotional charge, it may be something we're having difficulty accepting or forgiving.

[3DMonkey]

You describe yourself.

I think that's always true whenever we describe someone else. What we notice about them is relevant to our own balances. If there's an emotional charge, it may be something we're having difficulty accepting or forgiving.

Yes. I didn't mean to leave myself out. Nobody escapes it, IMO.

---

I asked you about your bias of the concept "indifference", and I provided a quote. Then Pickle starting twisting us up (like he enjoys doing). I was not providing the quote to begin a discussion on "support". You chose not to recognize my question.

Monkey, no one is intentionally twisting your words. You speak rather sparsely, so it's just difficult for us to understand sometimes.

Suggestion: Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, and trust that we really do want to understand you correctly, rather than assuming we're trying to twist your words?

Well, my difficulty is how often you veer off track from the conversation at hand. It is literally impossible to get your full attention.

The balance is entity specific. The entity is a thought. I'm no more an "advanced" being than anyone else, and I never indicated I was.

OK good to know. But it was a valid question. I was wondering what you meant, when you posted that quote. That's all. Just having a conversation.

In what way did you display wonder for what I meant?

You describe yourself.

Are we doing the tit-for-tat thing again? Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

That was not a post to you. This is an example of veering off track to create an entirely different conversation.

[Monica]

Well, my difficulty is how often you veer off track from the conversation at hand. It is literally impossible to get your full attention.

Oh, that again? to someone who answers point-by-point and is clearly considering all that has been said....OK whatever!

That was not a post to you.

Ah! You're right! :idea: I see now you quoted both Pickle and me, and I mistakenly thought that comment was directed at me. Thank you for the clarification!

[Patrick]

Humm, this is quite the thread.

[Monica]

Humm, this is quite the thread.

Yeah, this is THE place to be at Bring4th! Be here or be square!

Please join the party! The more the merrier!