In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

This is true. A lot of it is based on judgment, no doubt about it.

Some would appear incredulous that others would judge the situation differently. Yet any time judgment enters into the equation there will be multiple sides.

We know from Ra that higher-density STS entities routinely use lower 2D critters to do their bidding. So although I do consider 'all life precious' and that includes respecting STS entities, because they have their place too, that doesn't mean I'm going to invite them into my home. I'm cool, they're cool, but just leave me alone, ya know?

All I am pointing to is overemphasis on the form. When the soul decides it is time for the body to croak, it croaks. Often times in very uninspiring ways. Is the soul compassionate? Would it be more compassionate to allow a form to go on so long past when the consciousness has ceased to evolve?

Then, I talk to the oversoul of the cockroaches. Not an individual roach, because I don't think it can think. But the oversoul can. I offer it a pact. I won't kill them outside or in the garage, if they don't come into my house or get into my washing machine.

I have a similar agreement with spiders.

It's strictly pragmatism, nothing more. If PETA activists can't even get people to care about furry baby seals (who are killed only for a luxury item, not even for meat), then what hope is there for beetles?

You seem to be implying that animal rights activists are hypocrites. No, it's not that. It's strictly pragmatism.

This is kind of bizarre because I think that I am being more pragmatic than you! LOL. I am trying to say forget about what doesn't work, and focus on what does work. Which you are doing by linking to those videos... I haven't made the time to watch them yet but I already think I agree.

If humans truly don't need to eat meat, and moreover are healthier when they do not eat meat, then such things are demonstrable facts. There is no need to argue from a moral standpoint, because the impact on public health will stand for itself.

The minute anybody tries to apply human moral systems to animals, there is going to be a ruckus. That's just the way it is. I don't see anybody agreeing on the moral question anytime soon. (Maybe in mid-6D )

That's not fair. Many PETA people try too hard to save animals that are beyond saving. Personally, I see no point in trying to rescue a single lab rat. Better to spend my efforts trying to educate people about new technologies that make the old lab rat methods obsolete.

Of course it is fair! Actually, I would like to see some numbers. Because if we are just talking about numbers of entities then insect massacre surely would eclipse lab rat slayings by at least an order of magnitude. We could compare biomass? I dunno the little buggers might still come out on top..

Love Me!!!

What would be "fair" is to present all the facts, and for an organization about animals to fairly represent all animals. Or just simply let the "animals" thing go. If ethics apply to animals, then what is the principle by which we discern what is ethical?

What about the bees, for example? I've gotta say this is a much more dire situation than the cows.

If anything, they are so overwhelmed because they take on too much, not too little.

Take on too much = taking an hard ethical stance. I will say it again. It is a battle which need not be fought. Wasted energy. I point this out, not as an attack, but meant as support.

Why fight a battle that you are never going to win? Where does that energy come from? Sounds STS to me.

I know people who think 'meat' means only beef, and as long as they don't eat beef, they're vegetarian. I have politely corrected many, many people on that point over the years. It's a pet peeve among vegetarians.

Sadly, if somebody tells me they are "vegetarian" I have to ask specifically about fish, seafood, poultry, even lamb. So the term has become kind of empty.

Try this: Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end violence to humans? Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end war? or champion unborn babies, or human torture victims?

Why hold to a principle that makes one hypocritical, if another one serves the same purpose without making the same compromise? What is the value in this?

However, it does nothing for the cow.

No? So when I prayed for my grandmother's soul after her death, this also did nothing for her? Because she was separated from her body? Or?? I don't follow you.

How can you be sure about that?

I don't know. How can we?

Or a cow...to trigger some compassion in humans.

I suppose. I still wonder why a soul with such potential for individuation would choose to be a cow out in the middle of some Texas ranch. What purpose would that serve?

There is a certain percentage of the human population that likes being controlled and manipulated. They prefer it to true freedom and responsibility. Perhaps their attitudes are reflected in the cattle of the world. How would we know?

If I were going to individuate, I might choose to be an eagle. Or maybe a polar bear. Even a spider. Something which has a high degree of individuality. A cow just wouldn't be on my list really. But everybody is free to individuate as they prefer.

Exactly! And, in addition to that, the bloodshed kept the overall consciousness of humans down, stuck in orange/yellow, and reduced the harvest?

Could be. Despite some of the more philosophical banter, I have really felt more strongly moved away from buying any sort of meat in the store.

Actually, it has been an interesting experience. We just got a lamb. It was raised organically on a nearby farm, just for us. So basically, the farmer raises the lamb for us, then takes it to get slaughtered and packaged, and right to the freezer.

So I figured how long this lamb will last us, and if we consume it at a rate of a pound a week, it will be six months. And it is only one life "lost", rather than however many hundreds of cows might be in a McDonald's hamburger.

We also eat about one organically raised chicken per week- about three pounds. And then a couple pounds of seafood.. half canned, half frozen.

So the total meat consumption comes out to six pounds a week for two people. That's over 300 pounds a year! See things like that are much more impactful to me...

Now when I start thinking of cost, that comes out to around $2000 per per year, which would be about 40% of our total food costs. Probably another 10% is animal products... eggs, cheese and yogurt.

What are you talking about?

What I mean to say is... if it really is true that there are some freak-nasties out there feasting off of spilled blood, then most of the other points become moot. So it would make sense that the freak-nasties would attempt to get everybody arguing over side-issues.