In regards to eating meat

[Shemaya]

I think it's safe to say that everyone on this forum is compassionate in their own way. Some topics combined with fishhook and pinball theory often makes us express ourselves in unfortunate ways.

Definitely agree, there are some huge hearts here.....I have definitely pinballed this topic myself, there's been a food thread on and off in my house in the past. Food issues, sigh.

Tenet, someone in my house may need your help, I will pm you

[BrownEye]

There are two reasons why Neophytes well on the Path toward the achievement of spiritual (Soul) Consciousness should abstain from warm-blooded animal foods.

One of these reasons is spiritual, the other is material. Everyone on the Path should be familiar with both that he may properly govern his attitude and practice in the selection of proper and harmonious foods.

The spiritual reason for abstaining from the meat of warm-blooded animals may appear as a "dark mystery" to the profane, but we are not dealing with these. The present information is only for those seeking the Light and making an effort to become one with the Light. All Neophytes who have read Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress are familiar with his animal symbols representing the carnal passions of man which must be subdued or transmuted to permit the Neophyte to advance spiritually.

There is also the representation or symbolization of the Godly emotions by other animals, as for instance, the dove as peace.

The more advanced students recognize that while these passions and emotions are symbolized as animals, it is equally true that each and every one of the passions and emotions are likewise made manifest to the Neophyte by means of colors in the Light; the "gross" colors representing the carnal passions, the finer colors the Godly emotions.

In the process of Arcane practice and development, the colors, with few exceptions, symbolize carnal passions or Godly emotions, both of which are a part of the Neophyte, and either or both may manifest at different times, because the carnal passions have not yet been purified, while Godly emotions may still be quite weak. It is by the manifestation of color that the Master in part guides the Neophyte from "mortality to Immortality."

It is to be especially noted that the aura, as the result of ureas and toxins in warm-blooded animals, is identical with the aura of the gross or carnal passions not yet refined or transmuted in the Neophyte. When the Neophyte partakes of such warm-blooded meats and reports certain colors it would be impossible for the Master to say whether these colors in the Light are the result of his yet unregenerated inner self, or the auras of the flesh he has eaten.

His progress is judged by these colors, the Master assuming that they represent one or more of the gross passions, when in fact these may no longer be present. With this explanation the difficulty of guiding the meat-eating Neophyte correctly will at once be recognized. It is for this reason especially that Neophytes are instructed not to eat warm-blooded meats during a certain period of Arcane training.

This is during the period when the development of the inner spiritual Light must finally result in (a) bringing the Divine Spark into Consciousness; (b) developing the inner center of Light, the Holy of Holies bringing about Illumination and God, or Cosmic Consciousness; the purpose of the Great Work. Is it impossible to continue the eating of warm-blooded meats and also attain to Soul Consciousness?

A frank question demands an equally candid answer.

It is no doubt possible that by continued effort this barrier may be overcome, but the work will be much more difficult and greatly prolonged. Much of the work must be done again and again, because the Master or teacher is being misled by the auras which cannot be separated. The real cause for the unfavorable colors can only be discovered by continued experience, examination and reexamination.

It is also admitted, truth being our aim, that there are instances where the seeker is sincere, but due to physical conditions, faulty digestion present in certain serious ailments, he may require warm-blooded meats as protein. These, by long effort and special guidance, can attain to Illumination and Soul Consciousness.

The difficulties in both instances led the early Master Initiates to instruct their Neophytes to discontinue eating warm-blooded meats during the period commencing with the Light- Arcanum practices, and continuing until final Consciousness is attained. When this is done, the Initiate seldom returns to the warm-blooded meat diet unless there is a special reason for it.
This, in brief, is the spiritual aspect relating to the eating of warm-blooded meats.

The material reasons follow............
http://www.denverspiritualcommunity.org/...hor1230923

[Monica]

I responded to this.

I also watched the slaughterhouse video.

But for some reason the people in this thread tend to lump me in on the "vegetarian team" because 3 years ago I made a few posts in the first three pages of this thread, which then turned into 113 pages, all of which did not include me.

Oh, I can see how it might have seemed that way! I apologize for seeming to misrepresent you.

But see, I'm not dividing people into "veg vs meat-eater" so the very concept of "veg team" doesn't work for me. I never thought of you as being "on the veg team" but I can see how it might have seemed that way.

If there are any 'sides' I see them as being "those wishing to discuss" vs "those preferring to deny and ignore the discussion in favor of lashing out"

I knew that you are now eating meat, but you made it very clear that you are fully aware of the meat industry. I saw no reason for you to watch the video again, since you are already aware and making a fully conscious choice. I respect that!

This confirms my point: Someone who didn't need to watch it (you) watched it, while those who continue to claim eating animals is no big deal, apparently aren't willing to fully face the impact of their choice.

That's fine. They have that freedom. But for them to then intentionally and voluntarily enter into a discussion about that very topic, while being unwilling to fully face the reality of the topic, and then complain when others do face it, seems contradictory to me.

So, when I said "did any of the meat-eaters watch it" I didn't mean those who eat meat. I meant those who eat meat but think it's no big deal, and are unwilling to face the reality of their choice. Even that is still fine, but when those same people come into the discussion complaining about those who do wish to confront the whole issue, that is what's causing the 'separation' in my opinion.

In other words, if they don't want to become aware of the plight of animals, fine. But I don't understand why they would even bother to join the discussion, if all they're going to do is complain about those who do care about animals.

But now we are teetering on the edge of what I DO consider judgement. I just wanted to explain why it may have seemed like I lumped you in with the vegetarians.

Honestly, contrary to what has been claimed, I truly don't think of people in terms of 'vegetarian' or 'not veg.'

If anything, I think in terms of "willing to discuss openly and honestly, while being fully conscious of their choices" vs "just lashing out defensively."

I realize that's still labeling and categorizing people.

I'm having to deal with my own feelings of disappointment, when others don't accept that the vegetarians are doing what we believe in. Others cannot accept our convictions. They don't have to agree with us, but it bothers me that we're being blamed for having convictions.

So I am working on clearing/healing my own feelings of non-acceptance of non-acceptance.

---

But this has happened before though: on page 94 I answered to a post made by Oldern, quoting him, post #1875. You chose to reply to that post too

This is the 2nd time someone has brought up me responding to some post that was a response to someone else. Sheeeeeesh this happens all the time in discussions! There's no rule against that.

I wish that I could be of that service to you as well. Maybe if you are patient with me, I will be too, in time. Believe me, Monica, I am trying. Very, very hard. Again, this work has nothing to do with you personally, but with *me*.

Maybe you are taking on a burden that you don't need to take on. I have no expectations of any kind of service from you! May I suggest releasing that burden?

I am not butthurt, Monica.

Ankh, did you miss the part where I said that wasn't directed at you personally? I think I said it twice in that single post. I wanted to make sure you knew that I didn't expect any response from you, since you said you didn't want to discuss it any more. I also said that my new comments weren't for you, but for anyone who might wish to continue.

But I am struggling with my own lessons. I am sorry if I unintentionally hurted you, and that I am not able to be of service to you, for the moment.

We all are. And I too apologize to you, and anyone else whom I have inadertently caused hurt.

This is a volatile topic. This means people get emotionally charged very easily. This is why I keep trying to keep the conversation intellectual and impersonal, but my efforts have failed miserably. It seems that no matter what I say, and no matter what the other vegetarians say, and even no matter what one of the meat-eaters, yosssarian, says, many here keep insisting on making this personal.

Hey, I got it!!! :idea:

Maybe what we need to do is make one of those automatic responder thingys like Ra has. That way we can remove ourselves from the equation. Hmmm....

The reason to why I see a separation is because of statements like below:

Ankh, that's not fair. You speak as though I said those things out of the blue. You are ignoring the fact that I said that, only in response to repeated cries of "elitism! separation!"

Furthermore, those comments were a desperate attempt by me to stop the pattern of separation.

Someone says "we have a problem! YOU are doing xyz!" not once but repeatedly. Then there is a loud chorus: "you are doing xyz!"

Then we say "we're not doing xyz because..."

Then I'm told "you ARE saying you're doing xyz! here's proof: you just mentioned xyz!"

What I personally read (subjectively, and that is not meant in an objective kind of way) is: we=vegetarians accept this and that, so do not judge *us*; and you=meat-eaters did this and that... In short, I see "us" vs. "them" dynamic.

In this respect only, yes. We vegetarians DO accept meat-eaters!!! As proof, we all deal with meat-eaters on a daily basis! We have had to accept them, or we couldn't still love our families and friends who eat meat.

Please note that this is not an attitude of superiority in any way! We all fall short in many ways.

But in this particular instance, when speaking of acceptance only, yes, I do think more non-acceptance is coming from some of the meat-eaters. The vegetarians aren't being accepted because of our strong convictions. We aren't being allowed to have strong convictions. When we express our convictions, even when we keep it philosophical, we are being accused of being "judgmental and elitist" just for having those convictions.

That's non-acceptance, no matter how you slice it.

We can't be accused of the same thing, because we accept meat-eaters every time we step outside of our homes and see the McDonald's billboards...every time we go to the grocery store...every time we go to a restaurant...every time we have Thanksgiving dinner with our families...maybe even every day inside our homes, if our family members eat meat.

We cannot be accused of not accepting meat-eaters.

Then you say that Austin and yossarian is on our (=vegetarians) side, no other of *them* (=meat-eaters).

No, no! You are still thinking in terms of "veg vs meat-eater"! I never said Austin and yossarian were on the "veg" side! Gosh, that would be totally unfair to them!

I said Austin was "on the same team" meaning that he is doing his part to change the awful factory farming industry. I know full well he isn't a vegetarian and even slaughters animals. How could I possibly put him on the "vegetarian" team? I don't, because I don't even think in terms of a "vegetarian" team at all!

I think only in terms of all of us doing what we can, to change the horror that is going on, on a daily basis. I have immense respect for Austin, and yossarian too. See? I can respect them even if they eat meat! Please, please, see that this idea of "us vs them" and dividing us into "veg vs meat-eater" is not coming from me or the other vegetarians!

I am glad that they are able to bridge this separation for you, and be of service to you.

I think it's because they have their eyes fully open, and they are able to accept the reality, and they are also able to accept others with different views, with the understanding that we all are aware of the horror and dealing with it in whatever way we can. They aren't drawing lines in the sand with some arbitrary categorization. They aren't screaming "elitist" when they see others expressing their own convictions.

They aren't judging anyone, but accepting.

One doesn't have to let go of their convictions, in order to accept. I have felt throughout the entire thread, that the only way *some* of the meat-eaters will accept the vegetarians, is if we let go of our convictions.

Peace, love and light to you. I mean it.

Peace, love and light to you too! And I mean it also!

Note: If anyone wishes to continue the discussion, please don't address me personally, so that I won't feel compelled to respond. I am trying to extricate myself from this discussion.

[yossarian]

As a vegetarian I bring my diet to the table

All people bring their diets to the table. It's pretty sad that you've internalized an inferior social position with fewer privileges than meat-eaters. Going to dinner involves extra responsibilities for you in "defusing situations" just because of some diet choice?

---

Vegetarians never got thrown out of carnivore only places. They have never been lynched for not eating meat. They have not been set on fire forced to do menial jobs for low pay, forced to sit in the back of the bus. They have never been enslaved. They could always marry whomever they wanted, yes even meat eaters! There simply are no dietary hate crimes.

Comparing being an ass about your dietary choice, and the struggles racial minorities have had to endure is in my book really really ignorant.

You're dodging. I'm not even a vegetarian I just think it's unhelpful to consider yourself a lower form of life with extra responsibilities just because of a diet.

The discrimination faced by vegetarians is not the same severity as that faced by blacks. DUH! This does not need to be stated, unless you're trying to win brownie points by stating really obvious stuff.

But you are dividing the world into two groups: vegetarians who accept themselves and respect themselves, and vegetarians who believe they are being an "ass" just for existing and must put in extra effort to defuse situations because other people bring up their vegetarianism and start fights about it.

I have a peg leg. I bring my peg leg to the table. Therefore, I take on extra responsibilities at dinner for defusing situations when someone is offended by my peg leg.

I am a midget. I bring my shortness to the table. Therefore, I take on extra responsibilities at dinner for defusing the situation when someone notices that I'm a little person and is offended by it and starts a fight.

I am a Muslim. I bring my hijab to the table. Therefore, I take on extra responsibilities at dinner for defusing the situation when someone notices that I look different and is offended by it and starts a fight.

You're a self-hating vegetarian who believes your own existence must be justified and defused.

---

It's funny that people think there are two teams in this thread. I see at least 8 different broad groups of people.

1. Vegetarians who tease the meat eaters and think it's funny to offend them.

2. Vegetarians who try really hard to be fair and respectful to meat-eaters without sacrificing their vegetarian convictions.

3. Vegetarians who downplay their beliefs and even existence so that they will be "a good vegetarian" and "get along."

4. Meat-eaters who think killing animals is unfortunate but necessary.

5. Meat-eaters who are emotionally offended and triggered by vegetarian ideology but don't know why because their ego defense mechanisms are trying to protect their self-image as a saintly person. So they are subconsciously motivated to find any reason for their emotional reaction OTHER than the vegetarian ideology itself. Like maybe the vegetarian looked at them funny. But the vegetarian ideology itself does and should naturally trigger guilt, doubt, and sadness in those involved in killing animals. The vegetarian ideology is inescapably a statement that meat-eaters are committing cruelty. Most meat-eaters would naturally find this ideology threatening. I think most humans are actually in this group. They haven't learned the simple statement, "Yeah it's too bad we have to kill animals, but it's just necessary." Instead they twist themselves into knots trying to convince people that God commanded them to kill animals or that animals enjoy being killed or whatever. ANYTHING to avoid taking responsibility for the effect of their own choices.

6. Meat-eaters who are inherently offended by the existence of a vegetarian and interpret even non-ideological statements by a vegetarian as an attack. This is likely due to preconditioning--they've seen the PETA ads and now associate those ads with every vegetarian who says ANYTHING at all. Even stuff that isn't food related! The vegetarian says, "I love swimming!" and the offended meat-eater can only think, "A vegetarian loves swimming. Vegetarians are such jerks."

7. People who loathe loud and proud activists in general, regardless of the cause, because it reminds them of their own fear of standing up for themselves and their beliefs.

8. People who just can't tolerate conflict of any sort and believe it is wrong to say anything controversial on any side of any debate anywhere. These people always go to debates and then try to get each side to give up their ideologies so that there will be peace and harmony. They don't realize that giving up your beliefs for the sake of harmony is far more self-destructive than a little harmless conflict. I actually saw a girl in the audience at a serious academic debate do this once. The audience had some mics where they could ask questions, and this girl didn't ask a question but instead pleaded with the various professors to abandon their life-defining convictions and to come together in spineless jelly-fish harmony. The reactions were pretty hilarious.

---

amen even the word negro bothers me. what the hell is a negro. that is a label given by white caucasian society to a people that has absolutely
NO NO validity in my book. i hope i never see that word again here . a good negro PLEASE dont ever use that term around me again i find it very
OFFENSIVE. the word makes me SICK

---

yeah a good negro was my cousin who graduated at the top of her class from hunter college and then couldnt get a job that white high school grads could get , she would have had to work for them she would have had to work for them , then she became a teacher and she got all the s*** classrooms with all the difficult kids because she was a good negro . right a good negro thats what white society wants thats what white society thinks trayvon martin is a good negro because he is a dead negro. now that we are not slaves anymore the only good negro is a dead negro in the eyes of much of white society . thats the reality of freaking hypocritical america running around the world fixing everything but cant fix their own house because they are so filled with hate. heres a toast to more good negroes .
aargh aaargh aaargh.

I agree it's offensive, and so is the term "a good vegetarian"

Dominant ideological groups always want to divide minority groups by defining some of those minorities as "good" especially when those minorities make concessions to them.

So white people--a dominant group--created these two racist definitions of "good black" and "bad black". Extremely racist. The bad ones would be people who talk in ebonics and the good ones are people who happen to fit into white cultural norms.

Then white people, being racist, define one of these as bad and the other as good. Both labels are completely racist.

Likewise, meat eaters (a dominant group) will divide a minority group (vegetarians) into two groups.

"Bad vegetarians" are the ones who are willing to stick up for their convictions when the topic is brought up--even if it's brought up by other people.

"Good vegetarians" are the ones who compromise their ideology and placate the meat-eaters with conciliatory but ideologically inappropriate statements. A good vegetarian might tell a meat-eater, "I don't believe you're hurting animals by eating meat" or "I'm sure you have a good reason to eat meat." These statements are not true; they contradict the ideology of most vegetarians. But the vegetarian says them to spinelessly placate a meat-eater and avoid victimization by the dominant group.

People in the dominant group will even start conversations with the vegetarian just to have an argument. They want to feel the power of their affiliation with a dominant group. They want to see a vegetarian squirm and give up his or her convictions for the feeling of power it gives them. So an ass at a dinner party might notice that a vegetarian isn't eating the meat and start prodding and provoking the vegetarian. The ass is the person who is starting a conflict at a party and trying to bully and single-out someone for their beliefs.

Ass: "Are you a vegetarian? You're not eating the chicken."

Bad Vegetarian: "Yep."

Ass: "Why are you a vegetarian?"

Bad Vegetarian: "Same reason as any other vegetarian. I just don't think it's nice."

Ass: "So you think we're all cruel people for eating animals?"

Bad Vegetarian: "Not necessarily cruel people, just being cruel to animals yes."

Ass: "Now I've got you. You're a minority group who has passed moral judgement on the actions of a majority group. Now I can use the numerical advantage to socially crush you! MUAHAHAHA! POWER!"

In comparison..

Ass: "Are you a vegetarian? You're not eating the chicken."

Good Vegetarian: "Yep."

Ass: "Why are you a vegetarian?"

Good Vegetarian: "Same reason as any other vegetarian. I just don't think it's nice."

Ass: "So you think we're all cruel people for eating animals?"

Good Vegetarian: "No, you're not cruel, you're just doing what you have to do. There's nothing immoral or cruel about eating animals."

The Ass thinks to himself: "Now I've got you. You're a minority group member who has abandoned his own convictions to placate the majority group. You were willing to lie just to avoid persecution, and now I can twist in the knife and make you dance around to avoid labeling all of us as the perpetrators of cruelty. MUAHAHAHA"

Ass: "But I thought you said you think it's not nice to eat animals... doesn't that mean you think we're not nice?"

Good Vegetarian: "Well that's not really what I meant... I just mean not killing animals is a personal choice that is not nice for me to do. But when you kill animals it is nice..."

<blah blah blah>

I've seen both of these conversations play out a million times.

The ass in this situation is the guy named "Ass", not the vegetarian who is being interrogated, not the vegetarian who is being singled-out, isolated, picked on because of his moral beliefs.

[3DMonkey]

61.9 Questioner: This brings out the point of the purpose of the physical incarnation, I believe. And that is to reach a conviction through your own thought processes as to a solution to problems and understandings in a totally free situation with no proof at all or anything that you would consider proof, proof being a very poor word in itself. Can you expand on my concept?
Ra: I am Ra. Your opinion is an eloquent one although somewhat confused in its connections between the freedom expressed by subjective knowing and the freedom expressed by subjective acceptance. There is a significant distinction between the two.

This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other in-pourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.

That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third-density.

[yossarian]

61.9 Questioner: This brings out the point of the purpose of the physical incarnation, I believe. And that is to reach a conviction through your own thought processes as to a solution to problems and understandings in a totally free situation with no proof at all or anything that you would consider proof, proof being a very poor word in itself. Can you expand on my concept?
Ra: I am Ra. Your opinion is an eloquent one although somewhat confused in its connections between the freedom expressed by subjective knowing and the freedom expressed by subjective acceptance. There is a significant distinction between the two.

This is not a dimension of knowing, even subjectively, due to the lack of overview of cosmic and other in-pourings which affect each and every situation which produces catalyst. The subjective acceptance of that which is at the moment and the finding of love within that moment is the greater freedom.

That known as the subjective knowing without proof is, in some degree, a poor friend for there will be anomalies no matter how much information is garnered due to the distortions which form third-density.

How about some self-respect?

Watch and learn.

YOSSARIAN'S CONVICTION:

I believe that meat-eating is necessary for me due to a variety of reasons. I accept and acknowledge that when I ate breakfast this morning, a pig had to die for my bacon. I recognize that this pig was a living, conscious animal who had a mother and father. I recognize and accept that this pig did not want to die but wanted to live out his life doing what pigs do. I played a role in killing and eating this pig because I believe it is necessary for my health and well-being.

I also have conviction that I'm not omniscient. I'm just doing the best I can do given the circumstances. My beliefs are not perfect, they are just the best I can come up with given the circumstances. I'm open to being proved wrong in the future, but as of now, as The Creator, I choose to stand by my best judgement even in the face of those who would condemn me or label my behaviour as unnecessary cruelty.

This is a statement of healthy conviction and self-respect. Omniscience is not required to have self-respect and conviction. A conviction is just having courage To Be, to do the best you can do according to your best beliefs. A conviction is taking responsibility for your behaviour and taking a stand. It is being the Creator--acknowledging that you are the actor, you are the decider, you have created the situation for better or worse. I have killed the pig, for better or worse. I believe it was justified but I may be wrong and I accept the moral fallout for my decision if it was wrong.

Being the Creator means taking responsibility and having self-respect. It means believing in yourself and having the courage of your convictions, even while recognizing that you're not perfect. It means recognizing that you can never know for certain but that you can still trust in your own judgement and must still act on your own judgement.

[3DMonkey]

Yossarian, how does your self respect comment pertain to me, or does it at all?

[yossarian]

Yossarian, how does your self respect comment pertain to me, or does it at all?

Well I often have difficulty understanding your point.

But I understood your comment where you quoted Ra and Don to be a statement that convictions are foolish and subjective and are a poor friend.

I understood your comment to be an expression of your philosophy--basically a sort of "it doesn't matter!" philosophy where you never stand for anything, you never stick up for much, and you often make statements that are meaningless or completely unclear because you believe the vagueness is a good thing.

You also seem like someone who is just generally afraid of conflict.

Maybe you're enlightened or whatever and I just don't "get it" but anyway that was my response to the communication I believe you were sending

[3DMonkey]

Thanks for answering honestly.

It's interested that all "that" was derived from a Ra quote.

I thought Ra would relay it succinctly enough. Our interpretations are different.

---

I thought "conviction" was an accurate summation, so I searched it in the LOO.

---

I "heard" Ra say 'you can think you have all the accurate details, but you can't possible have them'

[yossarian]

I'm interpreting it in the context of YOU though

[3DMonkey]

[edit: this is a continuation of my interpretation of the Ra quote]And 'it would be preferable if you found some way some how in your subjective existence to "like" the moment without thinking the moment is a compilation of all the things you think you know, but really don't'

---

I'm interpreting it in the context of YOU though

That's fine. I'm not arguing your right to do so.

---

But it is representative of the "social dynamic" that some wish to explore

[Ali Quadir]

@Yossarian,

You're saying that your self respect is bound to taking a stand, so it must somehow be connected to the opinion other people have about you. By tie-ing self respect to another persons opinon basically you're letting him, an ass, dictate to you when to take a stand and how to take it.

It seems to me that HAVING to respond to all perceived and imagined threats to your self respect is the exact opposite of self respect. Binding your self respect to the opinions that asses have of you won't get your self respect up anytime soon. You'd better bind your self respect to the opinions good people have of you. In fact, it'd be best if other people had nothing to do with it.

That's what I keep saying: fish hooks and pinball. People bite because there is a fish hook in front of them, the thought of not biting is subconsciously equated to spinelessness and cowardice. The biggest fear of all is to be considered a coward. Therefore everyone keeps biting, the result is like a pinball machine bouncing the ball so hard that it's going to go tilt.

I'll choose fun instead. You can call that whatever you like. That opinion really means very little to me. My personal freedom means so much more.

Ass: "So you think we're all cruel people for eating animals?"
Ali: "No.. I think you're cruel for eating the tomatos, never heard of vegetable rights man?!?"

[yossarian]

@Yossarian,

You're saying that your self respect is bound to taking a stand, so it must somehow be connected to the opinion other people have about you. By tie-ing self respect to another persons opinon basically you're letting him, an ass, dictate to you when to take a stand and how to take it.

It seems to me that HAVING to respond to all perceived and imagined threats to your self respect is the exact opposite of self respect. Binding your self respect to the opinions that asses have of you won't get your self respect up anytime soon. You'd better bind your self respect to the opinions good people have of you. In fact, it'd be best if other people had nothing to do with it.

That's what I keep saying: fish hooks and pinball. People bite because there is a fish hook in front of them, the thought of not biting is subconsciously equated to spinelessness and cowardice. The biggest fear of all is to be considered a coward. Therefore everyone keeps biting, the result is like a pinball machine bouncing the ball so hard that it's going to go tilt.

I'll choose fun instead. You can call that whatever you like. That opinion really means very little to me. My personal freedom means so much more.

I don't care what his opinion is. The "ass" cares what my opinion is. He is the one who asked me.

It's true that if you know ahead of time that he's baiting you, then not responding would make sense. But you don't always know that, sometimes people are just curious in a friendly way. Other times they are looking for a fishhook--better described as looking for a chance to abuse a minority group.

The point is that either way it is he who is the ass. It's not the vegetarian. Just putting out a fishhook ("trolling") is itself an a****** move.

What about people who put out fishhooks for Muslims and Israelis? If you see an Israeli do you immediately throw out a fishhook asking him what he thinks of the I/P conflict hoping to stir up his emotions on something he cares a lot about?

Only a******* do this and they should be confronted, not slinked away from.

Ass: "So you think we're all cruel people for eating animals?"
Ali: "No.. I think you're cruel for eating the tomatos, never heard of vegetable rights man?!?"

This is just a jelly fish dodge. I'd rather just be myself and if it offends him that's his problem.

Ass: "So you think we're all cruel people for eating animals?"
Me: "No I think you're a cruel person for picking a fight with me. I thought you were genuinely curious but now I see you are just trying to bait me. That's an a****** move and is below you."

[Ali Quadir]

You're confirming what I just said. That you HAVE to bite those fishhooks,. "they should be confronted, not slinked away from" Can't you see it's doing exactly what they want you to do? You're making yourself into their puppet and call it "being yourself".. Who is going to decide how you spend your time? You or them? It should be you and not some fool pushing your buttons!

Calling someone an a****** from the starting line is not only doing exactly what they want. You're actually saying in the very beginning of the conversation to anyone who understands these things: "You p0wned me." I regard any expression intended to insult as a sign of that. That guys now is going to continue pushing that button. Not only does this spoil your evening, it and your responses are likely to spoil it for other guests and for your hosts.

You could call it standing up for yourself. But you're not, you're standing up for them. And you'll end up blaming someone else for your behavior.

Not giving them what they want is how you say that you're in charge. The absolute best thing is that if you use a little savvy in social situations. You're simply not going to meet asses.. I imagine some of my best friends to be asses in your book, they like pushing buttons and getting a response.

"No I think you're a cruel person for picking a fight with me. I thought you were genuinely curious but now I see you are just trying to bait me. That's an a****** move and is below you."
That response is 100 points to them. They'll be speaking about it for months and laughing about you. You'd be hearing random guys asking you about your vegetarianism claiming to be "Genuinely curious" until the end of days. I agree it isn't very nice of them, but people like that are all over the place. You have to be stronger than that. You have to see through those games. Unless you prefer to spend your time biting fishhooks. You're not going to make things better by playing into their games. They will continue playing them as long as it is fun.

Publishing that you're a vegetarian simply means you've just put a red flag on top of your head. For all the right reasons. But you're going to attract attention. And you're going to have to deal with that. The way in which you choose to deal with it has consequences. Things may be fair or unfair. But choosing the outcome you personally desire and making it a reality is not jellifish dodging, it is taking control of a situation, looking out for number one, and looking out for the people around you.

[yossarian]

So... who is concerned about their opinion now?

That response is 100 points to them. They'll be speaking about it for months and laughing about you. You'd be hearing random guys asking you about your vegetarianism claiming to be "Genuinely curious" until the end of days. I agree it isn't very nice of them, but people like that are all over the place.

And why should I care? I have no need for friends like this. My friends don't act this way because they aren't shitty people.

It's really not so much about the "words" anyway but about the emotion in the delivery. You must be imagining me with watery eyes crying into my salad.

In any case, at least it's now perfectly clear what you're advocating: deception and social manipulation to avoid victimization by a dominant group that gets kicks out of bullying people.

Get better friends. Good people don't go around pushing people's buttons. The guy I mentioned who would constantly ask me was a coworker and he literally once told me, "You're strange, you just never take any of my s***." This was a guy who was notorious for going around teasing people and trying to rile them up. I would just call him out on it or turn my back to him. I didn't take any of his s*** but his regular attempts to rile me up were still tedious and that's why I have compassion for vegetarians. This guy was basically someone who didn't know how to interact with others except in a negative, adversarial way.

There is a big difference between playing their game and transcending their game. Transcending their game requires seeing "button pushers" for what they are: pathetic bullies abusing people for entertainment. They are little people, sad people, and they slink away when confronted properly.

I would describe your approach as trying hard to look cool in front of these people. My approach is recognizing that I don't need their approval. I'm not afraid of being embarrassed in front of my friends because.. duh! My friends like me and accept me for who I am. Anyone who would (a) bait a person for entertainment and (b) laugh at someone for caring about something is pathetic and I have no respect for them or their values. I reject everything they represent and I reject any authority they would wish to assume. By basing their own value on their ability to abuse and bait others, they inherently betray their own barren inner life, their own lack of standards, their own bankrupt spirituality, their own emotional childishness. Why should I care what someone like this thinks of me? I absolutely don't. f*** them. Let them laugh. My goal in life is not to be a cool kid. I grew out of teenager games a long time ago.

[Pablísimo]

Yossarian and Ali, you guys are discussing something very important, and I sincerely thank you both for this recent exchange. I have this sense that the answer lies in a fusion between the two approaches you are advocating. To me, you are both making sense and I'd like to make a few comments. However, before I do I'd just like to note that we've shifted to handling conversations about the topic of meat eating in the wider world, outside of a thread devoted to the topic in a spiritual discussion forum. This is perfectly fine, but I think it's an important distinction to make that it really is a different situation and calls for a different approach. In my view, giving direct, clear communication is important here, considering the point of it is to discuss the issue in detail. Participation in this thread is optional for those who are interested and easily ignored for those who are not, and it really is not the same thing as the scenarios you guys have been describing. This is OK, of course, I just wanted to point out that difference.

Ali, I agree with you in principle that being confrontational, even when baited, does not give good positive results. In my early vegetarian days, before I had greater compassion, respect, and understanding for those who still eat meat, I took the bait and got drawn into several of these dinner conflicts. Many times it started just as Yossarian had described, with a meat eater looking to get a rise out of me or argue with me even though I wasn't interested in discussing it at that moment. It's not fair that vegetarians are DE FACTO "ambassadors" for their dietary choice and are often called upon to defend it by those people who disagree with the choice or are upset by a vegetarian simply being present at the meal. And yet, this is the reality I find myself in. Fair or not, this topic brings out very strong emotions in many people and some method of dealing with these conversations in a constructive way is necessary. I learned the hard way that direct confrontation does not lead to the results that I want: greater harmony between myself and other humans and greater awareness of the plight of the majority animals raised for meat in the modern world.

I tried several different approaches over the years for handling such situations, with varying success. I started out with Yossarian's way, as in the early days I was still reeling with the revelations of the consequences of my dietary choices and feeling really self-righteous about it. I felt like these people trying to bait me SHOULD be confronted and that I had to be true to my own convictions. What I got was the results that Ali describes: ruined evenings, strained relationships and bitter feelings.

Yet Yossarian has a very important point as well. We shouldn't accept inferior status and abuse simply because we are in the minority. And vegetarians have, by and large, made their choice on strong personal convictions, that should be honored. You see, I also tried Ali's way of making jokes and downplaying my vegetarian convictions. That worked much better, socially, it really did, but it left me feeling like crap. I didn't have the conflicts, and the dinner evenings went better, and yet I felt like I had betrayed myself and the animals that I care about. The thing is, I DON'T think that meat eating in the modern, factory-farming era is a neutral polarity act. I don't think it's a good thing, or inconsequential, or 'doesn't matter', like I was telling people when the "Ass" baited me. My opinion is that it's a dietary choice that upholds and supports a vast and barbaric system of mass suffering and cruelty involving millions of other beings. Again, I am speaking of the majority of meat produced in the modern era of factory farming, there are some exceptions.

Seriously though, the "Ass" is an Other-Self. That person is the Creator, and I DO care about their feelings. How could I possibly say these "convictions" without it coming across as if I'm attacking them personally or telling them that I'm superior or holier-than-thou? I recognize that sometimes people baiting us are doing it because they feel conflicted on the inside about this and are working through it with Other-selves. It's not always because they enjoy pushing buttons. It may even be well part of their awakening process to explore the feelings that arise about the topic with a vegetarian, and not everyone handles it in the most balanced way.

I also have to balance this with my current understanding. Meat eating vs veg is not a SIMPLE thing and being a vegetarian really doesn't make anyone morally superior. Let's not forgot all the other factors!!! People eat meat due to a variety of reasons. Everyone has unique economic, practical, health, and social considerations. My options are not the same as everyone else's, and what's true for me isn't necessarily true for everyone else. Then there is the very real fact that there are plenty of meat-eating people who are extremely kind, warm-hearted, loving, and spiritual. You also have vegetarians who are absolute a*******. So it's pretty obvious that this one single dietary choice doesn't define a person's moral state of being. Furthermore, we have no RIGHT to JUDGE other people for their choices. We simply don't, and no matter how much I believe that meat eating in the modern era creates a demand for needless suffering, I will not allow feelings of moral superiority, judgement, and separation from my brothers & sisters who see it differently to grow in my heart. I will work on my own flaws, not those I perceive in others. It's not fair for me to judge another, as I am not in their shoes and don't know what life is like for them. I simple will not do it anymore, to the best of my ability.

There is a "Middle Way" between these two approaches, and this is what I try to do: Honor both myself and the Other-self. I try to assess each situation as it occurs, as every situation is unique. When I find myself being baited, I immediately remind myself that the other person is also the Creator. I recognize the confusion present in 3D and remind myself that, however firm my convictions are, I do not have perfect understanding. The Veil is in place. I try to say things that are true to my ideals and yet are respectful to the Other-self and non-judgemental. Sort of like this:

Ass: "Why are you a vegetarian?"
Pab: "Because I decided that it was the best choice for me to opt out of a system I don't agree with."
Ass: "So you think we're all cruel people for eating animals?"
Pab: "No, of course not. I am in no position to judge you or anyone else, and certainly not over one single topic. That wouldn't be reasonable or fair to you, anymore than it would be fair to judge me over one choice I've made."

Now, if a person keeps pushing, then I try again to fill myself with the love and light of the Creator and speak to the Other-Self as someone worthy of respect. I say things like, "Look, yes I do feel that meat eating in the modern era is unnecessary and creates enormous suffering. And yet I also feel that simply the fact that you eat meat does not make you a bad person. I do believe in animal rights but it is just one of many, many, moral and spiritual topics to be concerned about. I am no saint -- I have my own flaws and issues and do not wish to pass judgement on anyone else for what they do. The only person's diet I am concerned about in this space is my own. I have made the choice I believe is best for me, and it is up to you to make the best choice for yourself."

For those people that are "genuinely curious", I tell them that it's complicated to summarize over dinner, and in my experience these kinds of conversations can get emotional just like talking politics, race, or religion. So, how about instead I send you a couple of links and youtube videos that can provide some insight about how animals raised for meat are treated and the vegetarian perspective, if you want to check it out. That way, you can understand my reasons for my choice and we won't ruin a nice dinner if we don't agree. Then after you've checked out the info, we can have an in-depth conversation about it if you still would like to discuss it further. Or if you don't want to, that's fine too. To me, this is respectful both to me and to the Other-self. It recognizes that each person must make their own decisions on their spiritual options in their own good time. It respects free will without me pretending I don't believe as I do.

I did recently have an odd conversation on this. I called my brother (who is very different than me in personal philosophy) up to wish him Happy Birthday. He was cooking steaks for himself (birthday dish) and was half-drunk (also due to the birthday). Because of this I guess he was a little more aggressive than usual and kept saying stuff to me like "Oooo man I wish you could see this flesh cook. That meat smells so goood. Man, I can cook a steak so good. Sorry, I know you love those cows but I just love to eat them. Mmmm Mmm goooooood!" and on and on. Which was really strange considering we weren't talking about food, and I think he was trying to start an argument. This is what I said to him:

Pab: "Oh well steak is much more compassionate than Chicken. If you have to have a meat speciality, you picked a great one!!"
Brother: "Huh? What are you talking about? How is it more compassionate than chicken?"
Pab: "Tibetans eat alot of Yak, which are similar to cows. That area is so poor for agriculture that their civilization never would have been able to exist there in the past without meat eating. And yet they are strong Buddhists devoted to Loving-Kindness. Well, I heard this from them while visiting."
Brother: "So some Buddhists in Tibet told you eating Yaks was more compassionate than Chickens and that's all the proof you need? Sorry I don't get it"
Pab: "No, they just explained it well. They explained that every single life is precious on this earth. All Beings are of equal value -- The human, the Yak, and the chicken. When a Yak is killed, it provides food for many, many people, whereas a chicken only provides food for one or two. Since every life is of equal value, it is far more compassionate to take just one and feed a village than to take a hundred lives to feed the same village. I just really thought this was profound, and I'm proud of you for specializing in more compassionate meat eating. Just remember to thank that Cow for all the many meals it provided you and all the others with its one life."
Brother: "HAHA! Whatever man. I love you, bro, you're such a damn hippie!"

My point is there is ALWAYS something we can say that is both true to our ideals and yet respectful to the other self. You can't get into a conflict with someone else unless you allow it. If you genuinely love and care for other human beings, you will always find a way to communicate with them without causing anger or hurt. And if you genuinely care about the treatment of animals and aren't just trying to judge others, then you will find a way to speak about this issue in a way that helps raise awareness rather than just turn people off to your cause.

The thing to keep in mind here is that we are all Brothers & Sisters. We are all the Creator. As soon as we lose sight of that fact, the conversation is lost, no matter what words we use.

Love to all

[3DMonkey]

I don't know what the discussion is about anymore. It is reinforcing my opinion that you can't think about thought without being thought because you are thinking. You can't discuss a discussion without being part of the discussion you are discussing.

[Pablísimo]

I don't know what the discussion is about anymore.

I think the discussion is about a myriad of interrelated issues involving meat eating vs vegetarian/vegan eating. Factory farming and sustainable farming, reincarnation, polarity, health issues, moral implications, systems, social dynamics, and on and on and on. There really are many branches to this tree, for sure!. Interestingly, even when we are discussing, ostensibly, the same "branch", it's clear to me that different participants are subjectively experiencing the conversation very differently. It's fascinating, really.

It is reinforcing my opinion that you can't think about thought without being thought because you are thinking. You can't discuss a discussion without being part of the discussion you are discussing.

3DM, this quote just blew my mind. Sometimes your light-hearted banter comments lull m. I shouldn't be by now, but I'm regularly startled by the depth and profundity of your mind with these little gems. Thank you for this thought, I will be chewing on it for the rest of the day I am sure.

I mean, wow.

Love to all

[Oldern]

I don't know what the discussion is about anymore. It is reinforcing my opinion that you can't think about thought without being thought because you are thinking. You can't discuss a discussion without being part of the discussion you are discussing.

Spot on.

[drifting pages]

You think a thought and the thought thinks you after a while. I know this feeling.

The more you feed it, the bigger it gets to a point you go back to it even when you do not want to.

We are thought and thought begets thought... so makes sense

This works for many things in many ways.

[Monica]

Great post, Pablisimo! I too have tried various approaches, over the past 30 years, and I too strive for a balance between being true to my convictions and respecting where people are at. My own experience has been that people generally aren't interested in getting educated about the suffering of animals. At least, I haven't had any success with that, even doing it the way you describe. They just plain don't care. The most I can usually hope for is that they might be interested in how cutting back on meat can improve their health. Even that, they usually don't care about, until they get sick and are desperate. Then, they are receptive.

PETA is very unpopular, but, like it or not, their approach does work. Any advertising pro can attest to the effectiveness of shocking people to get their attention. It's the 'getting attention' that has to happen, before they are receptive to raising their awareness. Getting cancer is an effective attention-getter. More vegetarians changed their diet because of health challenges, than because of someone telling them about animal suffering.

I'm sorry to sound cynical, but I have concluded that most people just really and truly don't care. They might be really good people, and care about many other things, but their caring and compassion just don't extend to farm animals. Dogs and cats maybe, but not farm animals.

I can only speculate that it's because they're hardwired to believe that farm animals are for food, and dogs and cats are for pets. That's what they've been taught, and it's so deeply ingrained that it takes great effort to modify that program. Sort of like the "Bible is the word of God" program. It took me years to deprogram that one, so I understand that the "animals are for us to eat" program is at least as hardwired, maybe more so.

Then, on top of that, the 2 programs are inextricably linked. Because, in 1 program (Bible) 'God' said to "take dominion over the Earth" so that's 1 program reinforcing the other. A double whammy.

Then there is the "Jesus ate fish so God must want us to eat meat" thing. A triple whammy!

I wasn't immune to this programming. What got me to go veg was The Essene Gospel of Peace, attributed to Jesus. At that time, I was still quite Christian. I had already read Survival into the 21st Century 6 months prior, so he idea had been planted in my mind, but that book wasn't sufficient to get me to change. And, I had already quit eating junk food and red meat, a year before that! And I'd had a few conversations with vegetarians who spoke of animal suffering. (Though this was before youtube slaughterhouse videos.)

I even had memories of my dad making me help him butcher chickens as a child. I was a vegetarian until age 11 or so, not sure why. I just would not eat any meat. (But, to be fair, I didn't eat veggies either.)

But none of that was enough to get me to go veg as an adult. It took Jesus telling me to not eat animals, that got me to quit eating animals. So strong was the Bible programming.

Never mind that countless spiritual leaders of other cultures advocate ahimsa, non-violence. Never mind that I was already a fan of Gandhi, a famous spiritual leader and vegetarian.

It took Jesus to break thru the concrete in my mind.

This makes me wonder how much of this is because of the Christian heritage.

Which brings up a whole 'nother point, given what we know about the STS Yahweh influence of the Bible...

Hmmm....

[3DMonkey]

People care. Same way we care about starving villages. Same way we care about who the $20 bill belongs to that we just found in an empty lot. Same way we care about the girl that walked into an airplane propeller. Same way we care about grandma in the nursing home. We care. We don't readily carry the yoke of others' catalyst. I think this is an okay way for society to function.

[Bring4th_Austin]

PETA is very unpopular, but, like it or not, their approach does work. Any advertising pro can attest to the effectiveness of shocking people to get their attention. It's the 'getting attention' that has to happen, before they are receptive to raising their awareness.

It's the "vandalizing my property" approach I'm not too fond of...

[Monica]

It's the "vandalizing my property" approach I'm not too fond of...

Oh, of course! But that's only a very small fringe group. It's a shame that people automatically associate PETA with the fringe people who do violent things. Sort of like the fanatical pro-lifer shooting abortion doctors...not representative of all pro-lifers.

When I refer to PETA, I'm mostly referring to in-your-face ads and billboards, not vandalism.

[drifting pages]

Monica i don't mean to antagonize but are you aware that last year Peta killed 95% of the animals they "saved" ?

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof/


I am all for helping animals but Peta is not the organization they say they are.

---

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/download...nimals.pdf

Here is the pdf. IT includes the non-pet animals as well.

---

[Pablísimo]

I'm sorry to sound cynical, but I have concluded that most people just really and truly don't care. They might be really good people, and care about many other things, but their caring and compassion just don't extend to farm animals. Dogs and cats maybe, but not farm animals.

Do you really think that they don't care at all? That it's that simple, that they simply can't extend compassion towards farm animals? You could well be right, but that feels pretty bleak to me. I suspect the resistance from them is a complex blend of causes.

I've found that many meat eaters really just don't understand the actual living conditions that factory-farmed animals are raised under. We are insulated and isolated from that reality by shopping for little circles and squares of meat at the grocery store and restaurants. It's not like the fast food industry goes out of their way to show us how they can manage to produce all those burgers that get sold for $1 a piece. When the conversation is not accusatory or judgemental of themselves as people, I've found meat eaters to be usually very receptive to the idea of improving their conditions and reducing the suffering. They may believe it's OK for humans to eat meat and perfectly acceptable, but I doubt very many believe the way that most meat animals are raised and slaughtered is acceptable from either a moral or a health standpoint. IF and once they become aware of the reality, that is.

I can only speculate that it's because they're hardwired to believe that farm animals are for food, and dogs and cats are for pets. That's what they've been taught, and it's so deeply ingrained that it takes great effort to modify that program.

This is a good point. This is one of those other complex reasons that I referred to. We are all subject to very strong cultural programming and bias. It's very difficult to question ANY commonly accepted societal norm, and the second anyone steps outside of the 'normal social paradigm', about any topic, they encounter fierce resistance from those still within that paradigm. I know I have had to do an enormous amount of work on myself over the years to de-program the crap I've picked up from movies, society, religion, politicians, etc. So it's not so difficult to me to extend some compassion in this space. However, I think really people are only going to change of their own accord and free will. We can plant seeds, gently try to raise awareness, be an example, but ultimately no amount of convincing or cajoling is going to change others behavior if they don't agree. So I'm trying to create a loving and non-judgemental atmosphere to discuss what is basically a painful topic for everyone, and respect other people's processes and free will to make up their own mind.

PETA is very unpopular, but, like it or not, their approach does work. Any advertising pro can attest to the effectiveness of shocking people to get their attention. It's the 'getting attention' that has to happen, before they are receptive to raising their awareness. Getting cancer is an effective attention-getter. More vegetarians changed their diet because of health challenges, than because of someone telling them about animal suffering.

Does their approach really work? I think that in some ways, those shocking images do help raise awareness. There are times when even I have felt it appropriate to share those images. And yet I feel that PETA has given a bad name to a cause I believe in. They are using guilt, controversy, and shame on many occasions to get their point across. I think this judgemental, full on frontal attack approach that they take is detrimental to raising awareness. When you make others feel guilty, angry, and defensive with your approach, then they aren't going to really HEAR your message. Most likely they'll shut down, block it out, or counter-attack. I suspect that it is precisely because of some of their ad campaigns that I run into people who explode about vegetarians and fanatical vegans all the time now.

Yes, I believe people should explore any feelings of guilt they have and convert it into positive action. But continually trying to make others feel guilty and shove their ads down people's throats doesn't seem to have the impact that we really want -- which is awareness and more humane treatment of our younger Brothers & Sisters.

Throwing fake blood on people, destroying property and using almost terroristic tactics just isn't cool in my book, even if I do agree with them about meat eating in general. For me, PETA's means don't justify their ends.

Don't get me wrong, PETA does some good, and I've seen some encouraging signs that they are getting better. If Slaughterhouses had Glass Walls with PM was very well done...and I've seen those ads you posted here before on the subways showing pictures of cute baby animals. This is a changed approach, shifting from guilt to awareness and reason.

But their bad stuff is REALLY significant, and I can't honestly say that they represent me as a vegetarian. I happen to be a vegetarian who is appalled at the suffering and yet does not wish to judge others or make them feel bad about what they do.

I guess overall, I'd just have to say that PETA is a mixed polarity, mixed blessing. They do some real good, but I also feel like they do some real harm to a cause I hold dear.

Then there is the "Jesus ate fish so God must want us to eat meat" thing. A triple whammy!

I wasn't immune to this programming. What got me to go veg was The Essene Gospel of Peace, attributed to Jesus. At that time, I was still quite Christian. I had already read Survival into the 21st Century 6 months prior, so he idea had been planted in my mind, but that book wasn't sufficient to get me to change. And, I had already quit eating junk food and red meat, a year before that! And I'd had a few conversations with vegetarians who spoke of animal suffering. (Though this was before youtube slaughterhouse videos.)

I even had memories of my dad making me help him butcher chickens as a child. I was a vegetarian until age 11 or so, not sure why. I just would not eat any meat. (But, to be fair, I didn't eat veggies either.)

But none of that was enough to get me to go veg as an adult. It took Jesus telling me to not eat animals, that got me to quit eating animals. So strong was the Bible programming.

You make another incredibly good point here about the religious angle. There are many who are taught that animals are created so we could have dominion over them and use them for our ends. That programming is very deeply ingrained. It has to do with the old idea that man is dominant over nature, instead of the new paradigm that mankind can be a steward of nature.

I would combine this though with other "resistance factors" such as memories of Grandma's home cookin', some degree of social ostracizing, the idea they would have to give up things that they really enjoy the taste of, all the practical concerns, the social conditioning, and then the plain old guilt that some of them feel and don't want to face.

All this forms a complex tapestry of resistance, and I can really understand why. So for me, I want to use a gentle approach. I also have to be careful not to see people as just one thing and separate myself. It's not a fair spiritual litmus test, it is just one issue among many. People are complex, and I've known many meat eaters who are absolutely wonderful people. The animal suffering situation on this planet is appalling, but there are many other dynamics going on and we are all working on our evolution and processing complex catalyst that are not related to diet. Life is so hard here, in this crazy 3D world, I have to cut everybody some slack. We're all evolving in our own ways, and I am well aware that I don't have perfect understanding. Thus, non-judgement of the PEOPLE eating meat and a gentler approach works best for me.

Because these conversations get so charged and polarizing, I think it behooves those of us who are advocating change to go the extra mile and strive to be compassionate, considerate, and respectful to those who don't agree with us on this issue.

There is value in some of the work PETA does, but I shudder to think at how many people they have totally turned off about animal rights who might otherwise have given it a fair hearing, had it been done more gently and more respectfully.

Love to all

[drifting pages]

Here is another video talking about Peta in general

The ending tells you how many animals they killed and how many they found homes for.

yea...

[Pablísimo]

Here is another video talking about Peta in general
The ending tells you how many animals they killed and how many they found homes for.

yea...

You know, I don't really agree with much of what PETA does, but I feel like videos like these are not simply criticizing PETA, they also belittle animal rights and vegetarians in general.

This is a gross oversimplification of the vegetarian perspective, and I feel is just as inconsiderate and hateful as some of what PETA produces.

Interesting how what one puts out gets echoed back in a different form?

Love to all

[Monica]

Monica i don't mean to antagonize but are you aware that last year Peta killed 95% of the animals they "saved" ?

PETA has been brought up many times in this thread, usually in a negative way, so I was just making the point that their ads probably do more good to raise awareness than dry facts and figures. That was my only point.

There is obviously a lot of controversy about the organization. I don't know how much of that is true and how much is propaganda. I'm not really interested in analyzing PETA.

[drifting pages]

Taking out what they said about vegans feeling hungry all the time(they don't), i don't think this video was an inaccurate report of Peta principles.

Add the fact they are killing almost all animals they take for "their own good" sealed the deal for me.

They don't want to help animals, they want to remove them from society all together in a vacuum as if we weren't sharing thousands of years of history.

I am for interrupting most of human caused animal suffering, with well fare treatment farms, less or no testing on animals for cosmetics and etc.

And yea i think i have participated enough on this thread for now. Good day for everyone.