In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

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

True. And it's pointless to pretend that some degree of judgment doesn't enter into the equation. Yes, it's true that it's easier to feel compassion for cute, furry animals than for ugly insects.

But not impossible. I remember when my husband and I first moved into our house, nearly 30 years ago, and discovered cockroaches. Horrors! We promptly bought some 'roach motels...where they check in but never check out.'

We thought nothing of it.

Then, the next day, we decided to peek into that roach motel. And were horrified to witness a roach chewing off its own leg!

We felt sickened. We despised roaches, we really did. But we wouldn't wish such pain on even a nasty creature like a roach.

We never bought roach motels again.

Did we ever kill roaches after that? Yes. But not in such a cruel way that they would be forced to chew off their own legs! That was just too, too horrible!

We had compassion for roaches.

All I am pointing to is overemphasis on the form. When the soul decides it is time for the body to croak, it croaks.

Right. But I'm not going to be the one to facilitate that croaking. I'll leave that task to an STS entity who, I'm sure, will be more than happy to oblige.

Often times in very uninspiring ways.

Humans die in uninspiring ways too, like car crashes and brutal murders. But I'm not going to knowingly participate in their demise via intentional car crashes or brutal murders!

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?

That gets into a whole 'nother topic, which is the reason for suffering in the first place. We already have a thread for that topic.

I have a similar agreement with spiders.

Cool! yes, spiders, and snakes, and ants, etc. It works! Just takes some practice and dedication.

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.

Well actually I am doing exactly what you propose. I tried telling people to not eat animals because they suffered...it didn't work. So now I mostly tell them to not eat animals because it's better for their health. No question that this approach is waaaaaay more effective! Why? Simple selfishness. People won't make changes for the animals, but they will for themselves. And oftentimes, not even then. They don't make changes at all until they're desperately trying to heal from cancer or whatever...then suddenly they make those changes!

But this is a Law of One forum...so I would think we can be a little freer in our discussion. So yes, I am being more open about the 'real' reasons for not eating animals, than I am in everyday life.

For the record, I'm not involved with PETA (though I left them something in my will.) I don't always agree with their tactics. But I do understand their motivation. In my everyday life, I am much more low-key. I only mention the issue when it is very obvious.

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.

Cool! I'm glad to hear someone is getting some value from them! I was beginning to wonder...

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.

Agreed. Which is why, most of the time, I tell others about the health benefits and don't even mention the animals. It's sad, but that's the way it is.

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 )

Yup. Agreed! Look at how people can't even agree on baby humans!

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..

I don't think it's about numbers. I think it's about consciousness. Again, we can't control the killing of bugs and microbes (unless we're spraying insecticides of course). But we can control the unnecessary suffering of animals.

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?

Would you apply that logic to humans who work for humanitarian causes?

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

Only in terms of how it affects humans.

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 cannot speak for all PETA members. But I don't see how compassion for animals could ever be STS.

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.

Yeah, that is sad.

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?

I don't see it as hypocritical. But I agree it's not very efficient or effective. In practice, I do as you suggest.

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.

If you're praying for the cow, then sure. But in this discussion, people were talking mostly about sending love to the dead meat so it would be healthier for them.

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?

Oh, maybe to serve...by awakening humans to compassion?

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?

Very possible! Still, I don't want to participate in that, any more than I would want to participate in a murder.

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.

The process of individuation may involve more than we realize. Like, what is the purpose of animals killing one another in the first place? I admit I greatly dislike the design of this planet.

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.

Cool! You aren't the first person to tell me that. So this thread isn't for naught...

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.

Maybe. Or just do what they can to keep them in denial, so they'll keep spilling blood...

---

Love Me!!!

Ugh! Now that is a dirty tactic! You should join PETA!