In regards to eating meat

[Pablísimo]

I think all this talk of extremism is a little unfair in the context of what has actually been written. It's pretty unjust to accuse someone of being an extremist for simply choosing to never eat meat. If she were an extremist, she would be burning down meat packing plants or assassinating cattle ranchers, not engaging in a respectful dialogue to both explain her own position and try to better understand the positions of others. Several people, including yourself, have implied that eating meat somehow is a more balanced way to live, which is fairly judgemental in my view.

This is not a choice between being "balanced" (omnivore) and being "extreme" (vegetarian). You can be a balanced individual on the STO path and choose either option. However, that does not necessarily mean that both options are equal from an ethical standpoint.

One thing that seems to have been missed repeatedly is that Monica has been trying to understand the other perspective.

"As I recall, we did the opposite: several of us went out of our way to say that vegetarianism isn't a prerequisite for STO harvest."

"I am sincerely just trying to understand how the killing of animals can be reconciled with the STO path."

These two quotes are distinct and not contradictory. You only have to be 51% STO to graduate. Which, to me, means you do not have to be perfectly STO to graduate. Thank goodness there is room for error and still be harvestable. Otherwise, I surely wouldn't make it! I see meat eating as incompatible with STO intent, but there is a wider range of considerations beyond diet in judging overall harvestability. This is the point I think Monica was making.

The second quote gets to the heart of what seems to have been missed consistently in this thread. She is trying to UNDERSTAND how you reconcile meat eating with the STO path itself, because from her perspective (and mine) they seem mutually contradictory.

Personally, I have reached a certain amount of peace with this topic. I've decided that while meat eating in this modern era is inherently wrong, that I should not focus on it in other people. For me it's a conscious decision to be non-judgemental about a topic that I do see as rather black and white. It's really intense catalyst and I only found peace by basically making a choice to try to make my own light shine as brightly as I can without worrying about the darkness in others. Raise yourself up and you raise the whole. I also keep a sense of humility about me because while I do have strong opinions on the topic, I am always aware of my own ultimate ignorance while encased in a 3rd density body. What I'm saying to myself is "This path is right for Pablisimo, and seems like it is right for everyone else, but who I am I to say? I don't have all the answers".

Despite this sense of peace that this position has given me, I still to this day truly do not understand how one can be deeply spiritual and yet continue to eat meat. I had hoped that these threads would provide some insight. I strive to be non-judgemental, but I have to admit it is much easier for me in regards to the average person on the street who may not have given the topic much thought. This is a discussion forum, however, filled with people who have pondered the deeper complexities of existence and are consciously striving towards the light. Therefore, it is harder for me to to understand the meat eating position in this context. I really had hoped to read some insightful, thoughtful comments about a meat-eating perspective that might help me increase my own compassion and understanding. While this was briefly touched on, for the most part it has been sidestepped.

So, in short, no I don't think you have to be vegetarian to graduate STO. However I, too, would like to understand how a deeply spiritual, STO-dedicated person reconciles meat eating with the STO path. Not because I think they MUST be vegetarian in order to graduate or be spiritual or whatever, but because I truly don't understand how you can reconcile the two. I do not expect to ever AGREE with a meat-eating stance, but I do believe I have the capacity to UNDERSTAND it, and that understanding would undoubtedly help me to be more non-judgemental and compassionate. Given this is a discussion forum filled with wonderfully loving beings, this place is my best chance for getting that understanding. It sure would be nice if some of the meat eating members would explain that perspective instead of just being defensive or attacking vegetarianism.

I have plenty of specific examples with post #. Here is just a small summary- where meat eating was compared to disgusting crimes like rape (of a child) several times, meat eating being presented as soul killer, meat industry compared to slavery, meat industry as an illegal crime in future, meat eating as repulsive as eating human flesh.

I'd like to hopefully clear up a major misconception. When you sincerely ask other-selves who disagree with you on a subject to explain their perspective, you have a duty to reciprocate. That is, you can't fairly ask for greater understanding about the meat-eating perspective if you are not willing to also explain the ethically-motivated (as opposed to health-motivated or some other kind of ) vegetarian perspective.

The comments you refer to above were said in a sincere attempt to illustrate how an ethically motivated vegetarian sees the issue. It was not intended to actually equate a person who eats meat with a child rapist. It was instead meant to explain that we really do see the treatment and slaughter of animals as a moral crime. Some were hypothetical: "OK, so you guys don't see the keeping of animals in these conditions and then their later slaughter as inherently wrong. Alright, so just as an exercise to better understand how WE see it, just imagine they were human kids instead of animals. Then how would you feel about it?" You see, it is an attempt to explain our perspective and nothing more. You don't have to AGREE, but the point was to try to get you guys to understand how we see it. In the same way that I'd like to see a thoughtful presentation of an omnivore's perspective that I probably won't AGREE with, but can understand at least.

I don't know how you guys feel about gay rights in the US, but a common tactic when discussing them with African Americans is to compare it the struggle for black civil rights, just as with women's civil rights. It seems like a logical comparison (though of course with some differences). However, that approach DOES NOT WORK. The *general* reaction to a comparison of gay rights and civil rights in the African American community is extremely negative, and there are good cultural and logical reasons for this. The Prop 8 people would have been much more effective with their outreach if they had understood this simple fact.

I see using analogies to torture and killing of animals in the same way. To a vegetarian the connection seems obvious. How often when people talk about the holocaust do you hear "They treated us like animals, slaughtered us like cattle, etc etc". It just seems like such a clear and simple analogy. However, it causes very strong negative reactions in meat eaters when you use these kinds of analogies. Perhaps they are inherently inflammatory, perhaps they just make no sense to someone who does not see animals as having inherent value as our spiritual younger brothers and sisters. I apologize for any of these illustrations I used. I know now, from reading this thread, that despite how relevant the analogies seem to me, that it hurts the discussion to use them. So, for the record, please know that the intention when comparing meat eating to rape, torture, slavery, and human murder, was to explain our perspective...to explain how we see the production of meat-based food, not to actually charge that you are killing and raping children.

You mentioned food is not particularly important to you to discuss, which I respect. However, let's keep in mind this is a discussion forum and a thread about meat eating vs vegetarianism. Participation in that thread implies an interest in hearing other perspectives and sharing our own. You are clearly a very thoughtful person, and I would greatly welcome more of your insight into the issue in the spirit of mutual understanding and respectful compassion.

I sort of "opted out" of the other thread because it was getting too contentious and I wasn't actually getting any useful information. I felt that I'd already gone over my perspective and despite my genuine desire to hear the other side, all I really saw in return was defensiveness and unfair accusations. However, I've continued to read this thread and it really struck a nerve for me when I saw all the posts about being an extremist. Monica has been reasonable, loving, humble and kind in her responses, often ignoring personal slights and going out of her way to be considerate. I admire her courage to stand up for what she believes in and try to engage in loving discourse about a difficult issue. You may not agree with her, but calling her position extreme is terribly unfair.