Apparently, there has been some misinterpretation of my use of an analogy, and some conclusions mistakenly drawn that I was equating the eating of animals with acts of violence towards humans.
I attempted, several times, to clarify:
My intention was to ask a philosophical question: At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect and a life free from violence and oppression?
I had hoped, by comparing the suffering of animals to human suffering, that I might succeed in generating some compassion for our younger brethren who suffer daily and are slaughtered by the millions.
I was surprised and confused that at least a couple of members, and maybe more that I don't know about, were offended by my analogous illustration!
Despite my reassurance that I consider humans more important than animals, still they were offended.
This puzzled me. Why would anyone feel offended, much less attacked, by a philosophical question that was not directed at them personally?
Today, realization dawned! :idea:
Did some member(s) interpret the analogy to imply that those eating animals were cruel/heinous/criminal/STS like those intentionally harming other humans?
Notice the key word here: intentionally
That someone could think this is what I was implying by my use of analogy, didn't even enter my mind!! It is such a given, so obvious to me, that most meat-eaters are completely unconscious of the suffering they are unwittingly supporting, that it never even occurred to me that someone could think I held them in the same regard as a murderer, rapist or child molester.
The analogy was intended to compare the suffering of animals to the suffering of human victims, NOT to compare the intentions of those who eat animals with the intentions of those who victimize humans. :exclamation:
This is an important distinction and one that seems to have gotten missed! And I only just now realized that it got missed, so taken for granted did it seem to me.
Eating meat is culturally acceptable. It's taken for granted by the vast majority of the world's population. With the exception of hunters, farmers, ranchers, and slaughterhouse workers, most people make very little connection between an animal and the stuff they buy wrapped in plastic at the grocery store, or the stuff between the 2 slices of bread they get at McDonald's
How can anyone be blamed for doing something they've done all their lives...something so taken for granted? How could someone be considered in the same regard as a violent criminal, when all they're doing is planning a holiday feast that just happens to include a dead bird, the way Mom and Grandma did before them? Meat. It's tradition. It's got fond memories and associations. It's part of everyday life.
The answer is that they're not being blamed. At least not by me!
How could I compare normal people doing normal, routine things to sick people doing sick, violent things?
I don't and I didn't.
Normal people eating meat isn't heinous. Because it's unconscious.
If they give it any thought at all, they have a vague, reassuring balm they put on any pangs of guilt: Animals are raised and slaughtered humanely...We were meant to eat animals so that's just the way it is.
This, of course, simply isn't true. Most farm animals aren't raised or slaughtered humanely. It's simply not possible, because of the volume. Why? Because cows, pigs and chickens are slaughtered in succession. Each animal hears the cries and smells the blood of the animal who got slaughtered before him. This puts them in a state of anxiety and terror, and floods their body with fear hormones (which, incidentally, end up in that steak).
This is in sharp contrast to the deer in the forest who didn't see the bullet coming, and was dead before he knew what hit him, or the cow on the small family farm, whose life is taken with compassion and appreciation by the farmer.
So yes, it is possible to reduce the suffering by supporting small, local farmers and hunters. But any meat purchased at a fast food restaurant or at your supermarket wasn't slaughtered humanely. It's just not possible to slaughter humanely with mass market meat production. (Assuming, of course, that there is such as thing as humane slaughter at all. Or is it an oxymoron?)
But most people don't know this. So they continue to think that "milk comes from contented cows," because that's what it says in the milk commercial. They have no concept of the pain a dairy cow endures, because they've never been made aware of it.
How, then, could I or any of the other vegetarians possibly lump most of the world's population in with child molesters, murderers and rapists?
Child molesting, murdering and raping are all conscious acts. They are acts of control, domination and violence. The perpetrators are either polarizing to STS, or really messed up emotionally and mentally, to be able to initiate such despicable acts.
How could I possibly compare these monsters to my neighbor next door, or my best friend, or my dear friends on this forum, who have been buying meat wrapped in plastic all their lives and never given it any thought?
I didn't compare them.
Some member(s) mistakenly thought I did, but I didn't.
It never entered my mind that someone would think I was saying that a person who eats meat is the same as a rapist or child molester! That is just so outrageous, that it didn't even occur to me to clarify the point further. It was a given to me, that I wasn't comparing the people; I was comparing the bloodshed.
The bloodshed is the same. People bleed. Animals bleed. People feel pain. Animals feel pain. People feel fear. Animals feel fear. People have a survival instinct. Animals have a survival instinct. People try to escape when someone is chasing them. So do animals.
The movement is the same. Some people championed the rights of human slaves. Now, some people are championing the rights of animals.
The process of education is the same. Less than 2 centuries ago, slavery was acceptable. Now, the slaughter of animals is acceptable. Will the slaughter of animals still be acceptable a century from now? That remains to be seen. If not, then it will be because of the people who are speaking out now against animal slaughter, just as slavery is no longer acceptable due to the efforts of those who spoke out against it, when it was fashionable.
These analogies are legitimate, imo. They are not intended to offend anyone! They are intended to illustrate a philosophical question:
At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect and a life free from violence and oppression?
However, what is NOT legitimate is to equate the people eating animals, that they bought wrapped in plastic from their supermarket, or stuffed between a bun at the local burger place, with murderers, rapists, and child molesters.
That is NOT a legitimate comparison!!!
And it was never intended to be. They're not the same. Not even remotely!
What makes them different?
Simple. Intention.
When people shop for groceries and pass by the meat aisle, they're not gleefully thinking about the shedding of that cow's blood. They're not replaying the slaughter of that chicken, and delighting in its pain!!!
They are nothing like the sick, perverted child molester!
No, they are just thinking about what they're going to cook for dinner tonight...or maybe about how hungry they are. Or they might not even be thinking about food at all, despite being surrounded by it. They might just be shopping out of routine, while talking to a friend on their cell phone.
Meat. It's not an act of violence to them. It's just part of everyday life.
So, to anyone who got offended because you thought I was comparing you to a child rapist, please, please, can we please clear this up?
NO, I did NOT think you were a sick, twisted pervert like the child rapist!
NO, I never meant to imply that at all.
In fact, I am incredulous that anyone could have thought that I thought that!!! That would make most of my friends, loved ones, co-workers, neighbors, business associates, and nearly everyone else I know, reprehensible people. Wow, that would be rough, just living in a world populated by the equivalent of child molesters! How could I look them in the eye day to day?
Again, NO, the people eating animals for lunch aren't in the same category as child molesters. I don't know how much clearer to make it, so I hope this clears up this misconception finally!
So, if that's not what I meant, then what did I mean? Why did I paint such a graphic illustration?
Because I wanted to probe more deeply the concepts given to us by the Law of One.
We are told that 2D entities will be human one day. They are our younger brethren. We are also told that, in 4D, we will consume a nectar.
I am curious: How do entities get from point B (2D) to point C (3D)? And, how do entities get from point C (3D) to point D (4D)?
Do we all go poof one day and no longer desire animal flesh?
Or...is it a process?
I've now come full circle, to my original question. I will restate it here, one last time, and then I'm going to take a break from this discussion, lest I be misunderstood yet again. I promise I will never, ever again use the child rapist analogy to make my point about eating animals. (That horse is long ago beaten and dead, to use an obviously tasteless pun.)
But my original question still, at this point, remains unanswered:
At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect?
Is it when it becomes human? If the answer is yes, when it becomes human, then at what point in the human's life? At conception? At birth? Or somewhere in between? What about dolphins? They aren't human, yet Q'uo tells us they were a race more advanced than humans. Dolphins are routinely killed by fishermen. Who decided that an entity becomes an other-self only when it's human? How do we know that? What if we're wrong? What if an almost-3D entity is an other-self? What if advanced aliens thought of us the way we think of animals? (This last question has been probed by many sci-fi flicks.)
These are just further delineations of the same question: At what point does an entity become an other-self?
I don't think this question is any deeper than any other of the MANY profoundly deep questions that have been asked and discussed on B4. If I can't ask this question at B4, where can I ask it? This question affects MILLIONS of lives each and every day. MILLIONS of beings are suffering, each and every day. This bothers me. It bothers others, like Pablisimo. If we are being ridiculous to be bothered by it, then we'd like to know that now, so we can shed this ridiculous burden we've been carrying on our hearts all this time. It is a profoundly SPIRITUAL issue. If we're right, and those millions of beings' suffering DOES matter, then this issue concerns us all. It concerns the planet. It concerns the Harvest.
This question has relevance, according to the Law of One. It's a valid question to ask.
I apologize, once again, for inadvertently offending anyone. That was never my intention. I hope I am correct in my realization as to why my analogies were interpreted as offensive. And I hope that anyone who was offended by my analogies will choose to forgive me, and try to understand what I was trying to convey (instead of taking it personally when it was never directed at them personally).
To be clear: I don't think you're a bad person if you eat animals. I do, however, invite you to get educated on the subject. Look the cows and chickens in the eye. These beings are of the same essential divinity that we are composed of. Have the courage to watch the videos posted here on this thread. Get beyond hurt feelings and get acquainted with the realities of the slaughterhouse, so that you can no longer act unconsciously with your food choices, and begin to act consciously.
I have no agenda here. I learned 29 years ago that I cannot turn meat-eaters into vegetarians. If I had that agenda, I'd be spending my time painting billboards with animal rights groups instead of posting long, philosophical discourses. Trying to spread the word about the vegetarian cause on a spiritual forum is inefficient. There are better ways to do that if that's what I wanted to do. But we have a community here. We each have something valuable to offer. And this is a thread about meat eating.
So I offer my thoughts. I offer my apologies. And now I will retreat, until someone takes me up on my offer to probe these as-yet-unanswered, difficult questions, at which time I will eagerly participate.
blessings to all
And God bless all our furry, feathered and finned younger selves.
I attempted, several times, to clarify:
(03-30-2010, 04:23 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: ...the reason I offered the example of the rapist was to illustrate a point that seems to be lost here:
Why is it acceptable and even noble to champion the human victims of oppression, but considered 'pushy' or 'self-righteous' to champion the non-human victims of oppression?
I should clarify here that I never intended to equate animals with humans. I readily admit that, if I were in a situation to save a child or a dog, I would save the child first! That is a given. There is no need to draw distinctions because the importance of the child over the dog is not being disputed.
...
Put simply, a 3D entity and a 2D entity are being oppressed. Why is it ok to oppress non-human entities?
My intention was to ask a philosophical question: At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect and a life free from violence and oppression?
I had hoped, by comparing the suffering of animals to human suffering, that I might succeed in generating some compassion for our younger brethren who suffer daily and are slaughtered by the millions.
I was surprised and confused that at least a couple of members, and maybe more that I don't know about, were offended by my analogous illustration!
Despite my reassurance that I consider humans more important than animals, still they were offended.
This puzzled me. Why would anyone feel offended, much less attacked, by a philosophical question that was not directed at them personally?
Today, realization dawned! :idea:
Did some member(s) interpret the analogy to imply that those eating animals were cruel/heinous/criminal/STS like those intentionally harming other humans?
Notice the key word here: intentionally
That someone could think this is what I was implying by my use of analogy, didn't even enter my mind!! It is such a given, so obvious to me, that most meat-eaters are completely unconscious of the suffering they are unwittingly supporting, that it never even occurred to me that someone could think I held them in the same regard as a murderer, rapist or child molester.
The analogy was intended to compare the suffering of animals to the suffering of human victims, NOT to compare the intentions of those who eat animals with the intentions of those who victimize humans. :exclamation:
This is an important distinction and one that seems to have gotten missed! And I only just now realized that it got missed, so taken for granted did it seem to me.
Eating meat is culturally acceptable. It's taken for granted by the vast majority of the world's population. With the exception of hunters, farmers, ranchers, and slaughterhouse workers, most people make very little connection between an animal and the stuff they buy wrapped in plastic at the grocery store, or the stuff between the 2 slices of bread they get at McDonald's
How can anyone be blamed for doing something they've done all their lives...something so taken for granted? How could someone be considered in the same regard as a violent criminal, when all they're doing is planning a holiday feast that just happens to include a dead bird, the way Mom and Grandma did before them? Meat. It's tradition. It's got fond memories and associations. It's part of everyday life.
The answer is that they're not being blamed. At least not by me!
How could I compare normal people doing normal, routine things to sick people doing sick, violent things?
I don't and I didn't.
Normal people eating meat isn't heinous. Because it's unconscious.
If they give it any thought at all, they have a vague, reassuring balm they put on any pangs of guilt: Animals are raised and slaughtered humanely...We were meant to eat animals so that's just the way it is.
This, of course, simply isn't true. Most farm animals aren't raised or slaughtered humanely. It's simply not possible, because of the volume. Why? Because cows, pigs and chickens are slaughtered in succession. Each animal hears the cries and smells the blood of the animal who got slaughtered before him. This puts them in a state of anxiety and terror, and floods their body with fear hormones (which, incidentally, end up in that steak).
This is in sharp contrast to the deer in the forest who didn't see the bullet coming, and was dead before he knew what hit him, or the cow on the small family farm, whose life is taken with compassion and appreciation by the farmer.
So yes, it is possible to reduce the suffering by supporting small, local farmers and hunters. But any meat purchased at a fast food restaurant or at your supermarket wasn't slaughtered humanely. It's just not possible to slaughter humanely with mass market meat production. (Assuming, of course, that there is such as thing as humane slaughter at all. Or is it an oxymoron?)
But most people don't know this. So they continue to think that "milk comes from contented cows," because that's what it says in the milk commercial. They have no concept of the pain a dairy cow endures, because they've never been made aware of it.
How, then, could I or any of the other vegetarians possibly lump most of the world's population in with child molesters, murderers and rapists?
Child molesting, murdering and raping are all conscious acts. They are acts of control, domination and violence. The perpetrators are either polarizing to STS, or really messed up emotionally and mentally, to be able to initiate such despicable acts.
How could I possibly compare these monsters to my neighbor next door, or my best friend, or my dear friends on this forum, who have been buying meat wrapped in plastic all their lives and never given it any thought?
I didn't compare them.
Some member(s) mistakenly thought I did, but I didn't.
It never entered my mind that someone would think I was saying that a person who eats meat is the same as a rapist or child molester! That is just so outrageous, that it didn't even occur to me to clarify the point further. It was a given to me, that I wasn't comparing the people; I was comparing the bloodshed.
The bloodshed is the same. People bleed. Animals bleed. People feel pain. Animals feel pain. People feel fear. Animals feel fear. People have a survival instinct. Animals have a survival instinct. People try to escape when someone is chasing them. So do animals.
The movement is the same. Some people championed the rights of human slaves. Now, some people are championing the rights of animals.
The process of education is the same. Less than 2 centuries ago, slavery was acceptable. Now, the slaughter of animals is acceptable. Will the slaughter of animals still be acceptable a century from now? That remains to be seen. If not, then it will be because of the people who are speaking out now against animal slaughter, just as slavery is no longer acceptable due to the efforts of those who spoke out against it, when it was fashionable.
These analogies are legitimate, imo. They are not intended to offend anyone! They are intended to illustrate a philosophical question:
At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect and a life free from violence and oppression?
However, what is NOT legitimate is to equate the people eating animals, that they bought wrapped in plastic from their supermarket, or stuffed between a bun at the local burger place, with murderers, rapists, and child molesters.
That is NOT a legitimate comparison!!!
And it was never intended to be. They're not the same. Not even remotely!
What makes them different?
Simple. Intention.
When people shop for groceries and pass by the meat aisle, they're not gleefully thinking about the shedding of that cow's blood. They're not replaying the slaughter of that chicken, and delighting in its pain!!!
They are nothing like the sick, perverted child molester!
No, they are just thinking about what they're going to cook for dinner tonight...or maybe about how hungry they are. Or they might not even be thinking about food at all, despite being surrounded by it. They might just be shopping out of routine, while talking to a friend on their cell phone.
Meat. It's not an act of violence to them. It's just part of everyday life.
So, to anyone who got offended because you thought I was comparing you to a child rapist, please, please, can we please clear this up?
NO, I did NOT think you were a sick, twisted pervert like the child rapist!
NO, I never meant to imply that at all.
In fact, I am incredulous that anyone could have thought that I thought that!!! That would make most of my friends, loved ones, co-workers, neighbors, business associates, and nearly everyone else I know, reprehensible people. Wow, that would be rough, just living in a world populated by the equivalent of child molesters! How could I look them in the eye day to day?
Again, NO, the people eating animals for lunch aren't in the same category as child molesters. I don't know how much clearer to make it, so I hope this clears up this misconception finally!
So, if that's not what I meant, then what did I mean? Why did I paint such a graphic illustration?
Because I wanted to probe more deeply the concepts given to us by the Law of One.
We are told that 2D entities will be human one day. They are our younger brethren. We are also told that, in 4D, we will consume a nectar.
I am curious: How do entities get from point B (2D) to point C (3D)? And, how do entities get from point C (3D) to point D (4D)?
Do we all go poof one day and no longer desire animal flesh?
Or...is it a process?
I've now come full circle, to my original question. I will restate it here, one last time, and then I'm going to take a break from this discussion, lest I be misunderstood yet again. I promise I will never, ever again use the child rapist analogy to make my point about eating animals. (That horse is long ago beaten and dead, to use an obviously tasteless pun.)
But my original question still, at this point, remains unanswered:
At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect?
Is it when it becomes human? If the answer is yes, when it becomes human, then at what point in the human's life? At conception? At birth? Or somewhere in between? What about dolphins? They aren't human, yet Q'uo tells us they were a race more advanced than humans. Dolphins are routinely killed by fishermen. Who decided that an entity becomes an other-self only when it's human? How do we know that? What if we're wrong? What if an almost-3D entity is an other-self? What if advanced aliens thought of us the way we think of animals? (This last question has been probed by many sci-fi flicks.)
These are just further delineations of the same question: At what point does an entity become an other-self?
I don't think this question is any deeper than any other of the MANY profoundly deep questions that have been asked and discussed on B4. If I can't ask this question at B4, where can I ask it? This question affects MILLIONS of lives each and every day. MILLIONS of beings are suffering, each and every day. This bothers me. It bothers others, like Pablisimo. If we are being ridiculous to be bothered by it, then we'd like to know that now, so we can shed this ridiculous burden we've been carrying on our hearts all this time. It is a profoundly SPIRITUAL issue. If we're right, and those millions of beings' suffering DOES matter, then this issue concerns us all. It concerns the planet. It concerns the Harvest.
This question has relevance, according to the Law of One. It's a valid question to ask.
I apologize, once again, for inadvertently offending anyone. That was never my intention. I hope I am correct in my realization as to why my analogies were interpreted as offensive. And I hope that anyone who was offended by my analogies will choose to forgive me, and try to understand what I was trying to convey (instead of taking it personally when it was never directed at them personally).
To be clear: I don't think you're a bad person if you eat animals. I do, however, invite you to get educated on the subject. Look the cows and chickens in the eye. These beings are of the same essential divinity that we are composed of. Have the courage to watch the videos posted here on this thread. Get beyond hurt feelings and get acquainted with the realities of the slaughterhouse, so that you can no longer act unconsciously with your food choices, and begin to act consciously.
I have no agenda here. I learned 29 years ago that I cannot turn meat-eaters into vegetarians. If I had that agenda, I'd be spending my time painting billboards with animal rights groups instead of posting long, philosophical discourses. Trying to spread the word about the vegetarian cause on a spiritual forum is inefficient. There are better ways to do that if that's what I wanted to do. But we have a community here. We each have something valuable to offer. And this is a thread about meat eating.
So I offer my thoughts. I offer my apologies. And now I will retreat, until someone takes me up on my offer to probe these as-yet-unanswered, difficult questions, at which time I will eagerly participate.
blessings to all
And God bless all our furry, feathered and finned younger selves.