The act of eating is a service.

[Monica]

The subject is allowed. But up to this point (and we're actually getting closer with these recent threads because the process espoused by new ways of thinking - that is many people in a community becoming aware of an issue and directing their conscious attention towards solving it for the good of all, is being played out), the topic has not been discussed in a harmonious manner consistent with the guidelines.

If that is the case, then specific examples of guideline violations could be given.

I don't think guidelines have been violated in a tangible way. Rather, there has simply been very strong disagreement, and some people have gotten offended by the disagreement and by the differing opinion itself.

In other words, if someone said "you are an idiot for thinking that" then that is clearly a guideline violation.

However, if someone said "I think it's wrong to eat animals" then that is just an opinion, not a guideline violation.

What has happened is that some people got offended when some other people expressed their opinions.

That's not guideline violation; that's simply lack of acceptance of others' viewpoints.

The discord itself isn't coming from the opinions being expressed; it's coming from the lack of acceptance.

It is the honor and duty of a moderator when a thread is experiencing discord to fix the situation in the most balanced way possible.

Perhaps the role of the moderator has changed since I had the job. In my day, I never considered it my duty to fix any discord. My duty was only to enforce the guidelines. If people experienced discord amongst themselves, that was their catalyst and there was no way I could control that, even if I wanted to.

The people within the thread and even the topic being discussed are secondary to this concern of keeping the peace and harmony in this sacred space of sharing and seeking which is so dear to our hearts.

That exact opinion was recently expressed by another member.

I disagree that this statement is a given, because "keeping the peace and harmony" is very subjective.

How is such a thing defined, and who gets to define it?

If we have perfect peace and harmony, there is no growth.

What is the purpose of this forum? Is it to have a 'safe haven, a sort of inn for weary Wanderers' as another member has suggested?

Or, is it for stimulating thought, questioning preconceived ideas, and growing and evolving?

Perhaps the purpose of this forum should be reevaluated. Or, at the very least, if the objective has been changed, then members should be apprised of that. Because, some might erroneously think the forum has a different objective than what the moderators have agreed upon.

I contend that the forum is different things to different people, and these differing needs can easily be met by allowing different threads on different topics. That way, people can simply choose which ones they want to participate in.

The goal is to allow these energies to come together and be discussed in a mutually beneficial and harmonious way.

That's a tall order. The only way to pull that off is to follow guideline #1: to be able to accept others and treat them with respect even while disagreeing. The problem is, as I see it, that some are unable to accept the viewpoints of others. They are requiring that viewpoints be watered down before they can be accepted. Meanwhile, those with strong convictions aren't willing to water down their views; hence, it's a stalemate. That's what happens with volatile topics.

If anything, our community's handling of this volatile topic has been much more peaceful and harmonious than it would be handled anywhere else. It might even be accurate to say that nowhere on Earth has this topic ever been discussed so amicably!

It's all relative, of course. What is amicable on some other forums, is considered discordant here.

The question then becomes: Are volatile topics allowed here at Bring4th?

As you said, members want to talk about this. The energies are seeking to be expressed. But it is the moderators' duty to see that this expression is not harmful to the body of Bring4th.

Aaron, it would be helpful to us if you could explain how disagreement is harmful to the body of Bring4th.

I understand that some people don't like the thread. Why, then, have they not been told to simply avoid the thread? (In the same way I avoid threads about tv shows, which I have zero interest in.)

Why must the moderators take responsibility for the discomfort of someone who chooses to venture into a thread they don't like, and then chooses to complain about it? Especially when the only way to appease this person is to censor others who do wish to participate in the discussion?

Why is the disgruntled person(s) not simply asked to do what other members are expected to do: Take responsibility for his/her choices?

It always boils down to this: No one has ever been forced to participate in the meat discussion. Each person who has done so, has done so voluntarily.

One idea that was emerging towards the end of the meat thread was to kind of make group posts representing ideas for finality.

Finality? Do you mean some summaries posted, then the thread is permanently locked?

If so, then why? That seems rather arbitrary to me. What if some new members may wish to voice their own opinions?

Being that, as far as I can tell, the only complaints were from those who eat meat, it seems that the moderators have a bias against the vegetarians. No vegetarians have ever complained about the thread.

So any locking of the thread will automatically show a bias in favor of the meat-eaters, since they are the ones who are complaining, rather than just accepting those with differing opinions or opting out of the thread.

The idea was present to capitalize on this by organizing the effort and allowing it to happen on the meat thread. However, we also thought that to organize the effort in that specific way would in fact encourage division, and to take the view away from the big picture. (by big picture I mean what Tenet Nosce is often saying about how there is no right and wrong in this - every situation and diet and person is absolutely unique)

Even that is debatable. This question came up on the radio show recently: Is there right and wrong in 3D? See, that is a topic unto itself! It's not a given. We don't all agree on that.

So discussion stalled out on that and we are now trying to brainstorm on that plan while simultaneously watching what is developing here and trying to deal with it in the most balanced way.

Respectfully, it seems inconsistent to disallow those other threads, while allowing this one.

Our highest and best selves would like to see all of us put our conscious efforts together and harmonize on this catalyst. So... what's your input? And anyone reading this? How can these things be respectfully and carefully discussed without damaging the wellbeing of our site and community? How can we come together on this?

Well first, we'd need to agree on what is meant by harmonize.

Apparently, to some people, harmonize means no disagreement.

Secondly, I think we need a clearer definition of what is meant by respectful.

For example, I was told that my statement "eating meat contributes to the suffering of animals" was disrespectful.

I am baffled by this.

If I said "driving a car contributes to air pollution" would that also be disrespectful?

I was also told that my statement "cancer rates in children have risen dramatically in the last few decades" was disrespectful and insensitive.

I was baffled by that too.

How, then, are we to discuss anything?

I can understand a statement such as "you are an idiot" because that is clearly disrespectful. I contend that enforcement of such a blatant violation of the guidelines should be swift and firm.

But when a small but vocal minority complains about statements such as the 2 examples I just gave, as being disrespectful, and entire threads are taken offline, that sends a very clear message of inconsistency...and bias.

That's just my 2 cents' worth.