In regards to eating meat

[Bring4th_Austin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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