In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Hmm. You certainly questioned what I'd feel if I killed someone.

I did the same thing awhile back, with someone else, and I know what my motivation was at the time. I was quite certain the person would feel something, so I asked the question in exactly the same way, hoping to trigger some response in the other person.

Here's why I'm questioning whether participation in this thread makes any sense. Monica, if I understand you, you're saying that eating meat once consciously aware is depolarizing. I disagree, but I don't have any evidence to suggest that anything I or anyone else posts could possibly convince you otherwise. So what's the point? It's not really a dialog but rather a continual restating of positions.

It's not about 'winning' a debate. Nor is it about 'convincing' anyone of anything. It's about exchanging ideas, and learning from others.

If your mind is made up, then you're right: there is no point for you to continue discussing. Discussions are for those who are interested in expanding their understanding by considering other perspectives. If you feel there is no value for you in reading the thoughts of vegetarians, but are here only to try to convince us to change, then you're right: there is no point.

The vegetarians are driven by something else, so for us, there is a point.

I invite you to consider that there might be value in the exploration of ideas, rather than viewing it as an effort to convert someone to one's own stance. Stance can change, but first the mind must be open to other perspectives. Then it might happen naturally. We can all learn and grow from one another; we needn't dig in our heels on this or that stance.

Having said that, I will tell you honestly, my stance on the killing of animals won't change. I am upfront about that. And I am acutely aware that, after 3 years, there has been very little change in stance from any of the meat-eating participants. So clearly, there must be some other value in this for me, other than expecting anyone to change. If I expect anyone to change, I will be disappointed. In my belief, service must be offered without any expectation of return.

---

My opinion on this is that judgement is catalyst for the mind, whereas eating is catalyst for the body.

Why do you seem to always leave out the killing part?

[βαθμιαίος]

If your mind is made up, then you're right: there is no point for you to continue discussing. Discussions are for those who are interested in expanding their understanding by considering other perspectives. If you feel there is no value for you in reading the thoughts of vegetarians, but are here only to try to convince us to change, then you're right: there is no point.

It's not that there's no value in your thoughts, just that there's no movement. You think it's depolarizing to eat meat. Is there anything anyone could say that would cause you to rethink that?

[Monica]

It's not that there's no value in your thoughts, just that there's no movement.

Please explain what you mean by movement.

You think it's depolarizing to eat meat.

For an entity who is aware of the suffering and supports it unnecessarily, yes. Key word here being unnecessarily.

Is there anything anyone could say that would cause you to rethink that?

Nope. Just as there is nothing anyone could say that would cause me to rethink my belief that someone harming other humans, with no regard for them, is depolarizing. Declining an opportunity for compassion is the same - depolarizing - whether it's to humans or to animals.

Note: I just added to my last post, that is relevant to what you just asked.

[βαθμιαίος]

Declining an opportunity for compassion is the same - depolarizing - whether it's to humans or to animals.

Thank you for your honesty.

Is there any chance you would ever see eating meat as compassionate? Because I see it as part of a compassionate life. I have tried to articulate why, but when I do I seem to become the topic of conversation rather than the points I'm trying to make.

If you think about your position, you might see why some participants in this thread have felt judged. If it's considered depolarizing to eat meat, and if the goal here is to polarize, then those who eat meat are by definition doing something... if not wrong, then certainly, shall we say, not helpful.

That's why, I think, a lot of the dialog in this thread has followed the form "It's OK to eat meat because X" "No it's not because Y." "Yes it is because Z." And then, a few pages later, back to X. You seem to know, deep in your bones, that eating meat is not good. I feel similarly strongly that it can be good. It's hard to see how to bridge the gap.

[3DMonkey]

My opinion on this is that judgement is catalyst for the mind, whereas eating is catalyst for the body.

Why do you seem to always leave out the killing part?

Because this thread is about eating, not killing.

---

My opinion on this is that judgement is catalyst for the mind, whereas eating is catalyst for the body.

Why do you seem to always leave out the killing part?

Because this thread is about eating, not killing.

To me, it reduces down to what one thinks about what one chews, and whatever one thinks is relevant to that one's polarization. Therefore, if one goes on to carry the weight of the world on one's shoulders in their mind, my compassion is to relieve them of this duty.

[Patrick]

Yes. Now finding a human who truly believes it is ok to kill humans is not going to be easy.

Many entities who think it's ok to kill other humans, are indeed polarizing - to STS.

It's a question of what is meant by "ok". I'm pretty certain that an STS entity is not neutral when it comes to killing another human being. It does not chose do this because it believes it is natural to kill another human being. An STS entity does this killing with the intent to polarize negatively.

I respectfully disagree. IMHO polarizing is 100% dependent on intent and context.

I believe the Ra material supports my claims on this subject.

Yes, that's true. What, then, is the context of continuing to support the torture and slaughter of sentient beings, when it's not necessary?

One who is truly ignorant won't polarize from such support, but those who are consciously aware of what they're doing...their polarity will be affected. How could it not? To be presented with an opportunity to have compassion and reduce suffering, and turn one's back on that opportunity...would be depolarizing.

I don't know about other meat eaters, but I certainly do not support the torture of animals. At least for some of us, I do believe it is necessary to eat meat.

Also, we do not seem to have the same definition of what a sentient being is. For me, this means self-aware and this comes in 3d. I also believe everything is conscious even if not self-aware.

I understand this. But still according to Ra the simple act of giving an opinion is judging. So in this context, we are all judging each others here. From my experience, this is more so in this thread than in any other I read on this site so far.

I don't recall Ra saying that. But if Ra did indeed say that, then that would mean Ra was judging too, and Q'uo too, for they did offer opinions.

I remember thinking that this was a paradox. But it would not be the first paradox I encounter.

I will try to find the quote, maybe the word "opinion" is not the one I am looking for.

Ra did say that service to others is the determining factor in harvestability. Animal activists are trying to serve others. If some people feel 'judged' by their service, it's coming from within, not from the animal activists.

The reason I say this, is because we are trying to free the oppressed. We aren't trying to control anyone. We just want to free the oppressed! We cannot refrain from doing that, because that would be declining an opportunity to answer a call for service.

Absolutely! I do understand this. (except for the "'judged' by their service" part)

Personally, I am focusing on the path of acceptance. Even accepting that it is "ok" for the Elites to enslave me. It is "ok" for humans to go to war with each others. It is "ok" for us the judge each others. For all this provides extremely potent catalysts for our collective evolution and also ALL path ends with the Creator.

My service is accepting, to the best of my ability, that which is, exactly as it is. In so doing I channel the Unconditional Love and Light of the One Infinite Creator on our planetary sphere.

Incidentally, STS entities are also serving the One Infinite Creator which they are.

You believe that eating meat, while knowing that animals have to die for it, will automatically polarize someone negatively. I believe intent and context is crucial here. I do not know any adults who is not aware that animals are killed to provide them with meat. I would argue that if there is automatic negative polarization, it's minimal.

Are you implying that eating meat would prevent one from being harvested in 4d positive?

We can choose to not participate in the money system. It's a very difficult decision to make, but we can. If I chose this myself, I would hurt all my loved ones so I do not.

Exactly. But it wouldn't hurt anyone to quit eating meat. In fact, it would actually help...it would help the person by improving health, it would help the environment, and it would actually help promote sustainability on the planet overall. (Oh yeah, and as an aside, it would help the animals.)

You are right for the meat part, but if you mean the vegan way, then I do not agree that it wouldn't hurt anyone.

I find this amazing. Let's try this with humans substituted:

I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than killing innocent children in wars ever could.

The killing of innocent children in wars comes directly from the act of judgment. Without judgment, there is acceptance. With acceptance there are no disagreements. And without disagreements there are no wars.

OK, but your statement was that judgment was more harmful than the actual killing. When applied to humans, does that still hold true?

Yes simply because without judgment there would be no murders. And in this context, even if a human would be to kill another human, we could not call it murder.

[BrownEye]

Also, we do not seem to have the same definition of what a sentient being is. For me, this means self-aware and this comes in 3d. I also believe everything is conscious even if not self-aware.

They have shown elephants to be self aware. Although these are captive animals, so it could also have come about through human interaction.

---

Yes simply because without judgment there would be no murders. And in this context, even if a human would be to kill another human, we could not call it murder

Is it judgement if it was said "the person is defective, please return to sender".?

[Patrick]

...It's not about 'winning' a debate. Nor is it about 'convincing' anyone of anything. It's about exchanging ideas, and learning from others...

Indeed and I do hope that anyone posting in this thread is aware of this.

Personally, I am here simply to explain my point of view of how and why some humans seriously believe it is natural to eat meat. That we are not more insane for it than all the other insanity with which the human collective is infected.

I don't know why some metabolism needs to consume meat on this Earth, but I simply accept that it is so.

Did negative entities change our DNA in the past purposefully to make us, at least some of us, dependent on meat? Or is this really the intended design of our sub-logos ? Interesting questions without answers that I know of.

[Diana]

Also, we do not seem to have the same definition of what a sentient being is. For me, this means self-aware and this comes in 3d. I also believe everything is conscious even if not self-aware.

Merriam-Websters:
Definition of SENTIENT: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sentient

Wikipedia:
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to have sensations or experiences (described by some thinkers as "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which entails certain rights. In science fiction, non-human characters described as "sentient" typically have similar abilities, qualities and rights as human beings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

[Patrick]

Also, we do not seem to have the same definition of what a sentient being is. For me, this means self-aware and this comes in 3d. I also believe everything is conscious even if not self-aware.

They have shown elephants to be self aware. Although these are captive animals, so it could also have come about through human interaction.

Yes then they are harvestable to 3d. In this case it's possibly their last 2d incarnation.

Yes simply because without judgment there would be no murders. And in this context, even if a human would be to kill another human, we could not call it murder

Is it judgement if it was said "the person is defective, please return to sender".?

We would have to define "defective". I think we are all "defective". We are all distorted. We are all the Creator trying to become once again without distortions.

---

Also, we do not seem to have the same definition of what a sentient being is. For me, this means self-aware and this comes in 3d. I also believe everything is conscious even if not self-aware.

Merriam-Websters:
Definition of SENTIENT: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sentient

Wikipedia:
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to have sensations or experiences (described by some thinkers as "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which entails certain rights. In science fiction, non-human characters described as "sentient" typically have similar abilities, qualities and rights as human beings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Using this definition, I would consider everything sentient. Yes seriously. Especially for the "subjective experiences" part.

[Monica]

Is there any chance you would ever see eating meat as compassionate?

How animals are raised, yes. But eating meat itself, a compassionate act? No. Acceptable, yes, in cases where it truly is necessary. But compassionate? No, that's just not a word I would use.

I can see how, if one must kill another being, there is a more compassionate way of doing that. That is where I would classify 'humanely' raising animals, as you and Austin apparently do. It is more humane to let the animals have a good life before killing them, than to confine them in miserable, horrible conditions as the factory farms do.

So in that respect, I see 'humanely' raised animals as being far, far more compassionate than factory farming, no doubt about it. But it's relative.

I don't see eating meat in itself as being compassionate, because how could killing another being be a compassionate act, when it wasn't necessary to kill it to begin with?

(I could use an analogy here to better make my point, but I don't dare do that.)

Because I see it as part of a compassionate life.

Well, to me the term compassionate means having some feelings of empathy towards another being. So in this case, to whom is compassion being extended?

When a person who could exist just fine without meat, chooses to eat meat anyway, how is that extending compassion to the animal?

I have tried to articulate why, but when I do I seem to become the topic of conversation rather than the points I'm trying to make.

I don't recall you ever being the topic of conversation, but I can certainly sympathize with feeling that way! It's happened to me quite a few times here on this thread.

Maybe the problem is one of terminology. Perhaps if you were to use the word 'balanced' or 'sustainable' or 'responsible' I could see it being used in this context. But, based on the definition of the word compassion, I'm not seeing how it's applied in this case.

If you think about your position, you might see why some participants in this thread have felt judged. If it's considered depolarizing to eat meat, and if the goal here is to polarize, then those who eat meat are by definition doing something... if not wrong, then certainly, shall we say, not helpful.

Sure. I see that.

My point has always been, though, that the feeling judged is coming from within, not from the vegetarians. If the meat-eaters truly felt good about eating meat, they wouldn't feel judged regardless of what the vegetarians say.

I previously gave the example of me not feeling guilty about eating plants. Plenty of people have tried to make the case that plants have feelings too, and that I am causing suffering by eating plants, just as much as they are to animals.

Yet, I haven't felt a single twinge of guilt, even though some people might even have intended to judge me, in retaliation for their feelings of perceived judgment. Why? What is the difference here?

I do, however, confess to feeling some guilt over occasionally eating cheese at restaurants, knowing full well that dairy cows are subjected to intense suffering too. We're not vegans, but we always buy the 'organic' cheese from free ranging cows. I actually don't eat cheese much anymore, and am gravitating more and more to raw vegan. But I confess to not always being strict about cheese when options are limited at restaurants.

This thread has helped me to face this contradiction, and I'm vowing to no longer eat cheese unless I know for sure it's humanely produced. I don't need cheese anyway. It's fattening and has no redeeming value, other than as a comfort food. But cheese has always been a reliable standby in restaurants, when there was nothing else edible (to a vegetarian) except salads.

But I can live without cheese. My body doesn't need it. I don't think any body needs cheese. Eggs, yes. Cheese? No. It's just got that yummy texture so it's a good comfort food. But it has very little food value. It's mostly just bad for our health. It'll be more inconvenient in restaurants, but I think I'm ready to take on that commitment.

So I did feel a bit of guilt on that, and I am endeavoring to act on it. I believe guilt comes from within, and it's something to pay attention to. The guilt I felt was a signal to me from my conscience, that I could do better. So I intend to. I might fail sometimes, and if I do, I trust that my conscience will let me know.

I felt no such guilt over my lovely salad today.

That's why, I think, a lot of the dialog in this thread has followed the form "It's OK to eat meat because X" "No it's not because Y." "Yes it is because Z." And then, a few pages later, back to X. You seem to know, deep in your bones, that eating meat is not good. I feel similarly strongly that it can be good. It's hard to see how to bridge the gap.

Well, in my opinion, the arguments from the meat-eaters have failed to address the core issues raised by the vegetarians. In my perception, the arguments from the meat-eaters have, for the most part, either been defensive ("I like meat and I have the right to eat it...it's my free will") or retaliatory ("well you eat plants, so you're causing suffering too!").

None have, in my opinion, succeeded in explaining how it can be 'good' or 'compassionate' to kill a being who is crying out in pain and struggling to live. It really boils down to that.

I am always open to considering any new thoughts on this, but I'm just being honest about how I perceive the arguments given thus far.

By the way, you said you were going to take a stab at my questions. I am still interested in your answers, if you are still interested in sharing. I think we got sidetracked. Or maybe I missed them?

[indolering]

...It's not about 'winning' a debate. Nor is it about 'convincing' anyone of anything. It's about exchanging ideas, and learning from others...

Indeed and I do hope that anyone posting in this thread is aware of this.

Personally, I am here simply to explain my point of view of how and why some humans seriously believe it is natural to eat meat. That we are not more insane for it than all the other insanity with which the human collective is infected.

I don't know why some metabolism needs to consume meat on this Earth, but I simply accept that it is so.

Did negative entities change our DNA in the past purposefully to make us, at least some of us, dependent on meat? Or is this really the intended design of our sub-logos ? Interesting questions without answers that I know of.

The evidence is mounting that our DNA has been tampered with in the distant past. It may well have produced a psycho-physico change which encouraged a proclivity for blood consumption.
I disagree that human metabolism needs animal products - the urge for blood is, in my opinion, a conditioned response and habit.
True compassion eventually dispels one's lust for lower vibrational consumption. Infinite Love is the antidote for blood lust.

Having said all that, I respect your opinions. I would even go so far as to say that eating animals in the manner of our earlier ancestors would not necessarily hinder one's spiritual progress. But I believe that the further one proceeds toward realization of the One, then all these lower vibrational activities must, perforce, fall away.

[Monica]

Because this thread is about eating, not killing.

They can't be separated, because a being has to be killed before it can be eaten.

[3DMonkey]

Well, to me the term compassionate means having some feelings of empathy towards another being. So in this case, to whom is compassion being extended?

That's just it. Compassion is a feeling. Eating meat and thinking about an animal being killed are not the same thing, and they need not be joined.

[Monica]

I don't know about other meat eaters, but I certainly do not support the torture of animals. At least for some of us, I do believe it is necessary to eat meat.

Experts and statistics say otherwise.

Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence- based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates.

For more guidance, see also:

http://www.vegetariannutrition.org/food-pyramid.pdf

Also, we do not seem to have the same definition of what a sentient being is. For me, this means self-aware and this comes in 3d.

My understanding from Ra is that self-awareness happens in 2D. It is the criteria for graduation to 3D. (Just as compassion/love happens in 3D, and is the criteria for graduation to 4D.) To verify this, just live with any dog or cat!

I also believe everything is conscious even if not self-aware.

I agree! But the difference is in group consciousness vs individual consciousness.

Personally, I am focusing on the path of acceptance. Even accepting that it is "ok" for the Elites to enslave me. It is "ok" for humans to go to war with each others. It is "ok" for us the judge each others. For all this provides extremely potent catalysts for our collective evolution and also ALL path ends with the Creator.

My service is accepting, to the best of my ability, that which is, exactly as it is. In so doing I channel the Unconditional Love and Light of the One Infinite Creator on our planetary sphere.

Incidentally, STS entities are also serving the One Infinite Creator which they are.

Yes, all true. But, in my understanding, Acceptance must be balanced with Choice.

Are you implying that eating meat would prevent one from being harvested in 4d positive?

No, not at all. Harvestability is determined by the overall percentage, the sum total of all our choices, not by a single choice.

You are right for the meat part, but if you mean the vegan way, then I do not agree that it wouldn't hurt anyone.

I agree that the vegan diet requires a bit more education, and the raw vegan diet even more education. But no, I wasn't referring to vegan. I was referring to simply quitting meat.

Note: Unless otherwise stated, all my comments are about vegetarian, which may include eggs and dairy, not vegan.

The killing of innocent children in wars comes directly from the act of judgment. Without judgment, there is acceptance. With acceptance there are no disagreements. And without disagreements there are no wars.

I don't see the relevance here. No one is killing anyone here on this thread. You were referring to the perceived 'judgment' here on this thread, right? To say that judgment, in and of itself, contributes to more negativity on the planet, than knowingly allowing the suffering of other beings...That is the part I disagreed with.

OK, but your statement was that judgment was more harmful than the actual killing. When applied to humans, does that still hold true?

Yes simply because without judgment there would be no murders. And in this context, even if a human would be to kill another human, we could not call it murder.

I disagree. People kill others all the time for myriad reasons. But that would be a whole 'nother discussion, to analyze the role of judgment in violence. At any rate, I still find it irrelevant, to your point about perceived judgment in a discussion forum being more negative than knowingly contributing to suffering. That doesn't compute for me.

[3DMonkey]

the urge for blood is, in my opinion, a conditioned response and habit.

Salt is also a major factor in conditioning. Remove the salt, and I'm out.

[Monica]

That's just it. Compassion is a feeling. Eating meat and thinking about an animal being killed are not the same thing, and they need not be joined.

OK. To me, to not join them, is to miss an opportunity for compassion.

[BrownEye]

Compassion is a level of vibration. Not a "feeling".

[3DMonkey]

Compassion is a level of vibration. Not a "feeling".

That's an empty statement. What isn't vibration?

[BrownEye]

If the heart chakra is not activated, i doubt there can be understanding of compassion. I know there are meat eaters with activated heart chakras.

[3DMonkey]

That's just it. Compassion is a feeling. Eating meat and thinking about an animal being killed are not the same thing, and they need not be joined.

OK. To me, to not join them, is to miss an opportunity for compassion.

Okay. To me, to join them means I need to join every move I make to murder because it's all connected to my choice.

I don't wanna live that way, and I have never read Ra to indicate that I should. In fact, I think Ra wanted me to do everything in my power to not live that way.

---

If the heart chakra is not activated, i doubt there can be understanding of compassion. I know there are meat eaters with activated heart chakras.

That's good, Pickle. Good job.

[BrownEye]

Compassion is a level of vibration. Not a "feeling".

That's an empty statement. What isn't vibration?

Missed the other part of the message did ya? The hidden word is "level". I guess i could embellish or define frequency or rate, even throw in numbers in order to pull your eyes away from seeing only one word. LoL!

Does an animal "feel" compassion?

[indolering]

the urge for blood is, in my opinion, a conditioned response and habit.

Salt is also a major factor in conditioning. Remove the salt, and I'm out.

[3DMonkey]

Compassion is a level of vibration. Not a "feeling".

That's an empty statement. What isn't vibration?

Missed the other part of the message did ya? The hidden word is "level". I guess i could embellish or define frequency or rate, even throw in numbers in order to pull your eyes away from seeing only one word. LoL!

Does an animal "feel" compassion?

levels are for hierarchies

I'm for equal opportunity

---

the urge for blood is, in my opinion, a conditioned response and habit.

Salt is also a major factor in conditioning. Remove the salt, and I'm out.

That's a true statement from me too



funny: maybe the compassion-for-slaughtered-movement would cover more ground if they put a stop to salt production. LOL, after all, it is the salt producers that are promoting the slaughter industry. Or is it the vinegar manufacturers that provide the industry with steak sauce that is to blame for all this? Or... etc.

[Monica]

Okay. To me, to join them means I need to join every move I make to murder because it's all connected to my choice.

I don't wanna live that way, and I have never read Ra to indicate that I should. In fact, I think Ra wanted me to do everything in my power to not live that way.

I don't know how you get that from Ra, but that's your choice.

[3DMonkey]

Okay. To me, to join them means I need to join every move I make to murder because it's all connected to my choice.

I don't wanna live that way, and I have never read Ra to indicate that I should. In fact, I think Ra wanted me to do everything in my power to not live that way.

I don't know how you get that from Ra, but that's your choice.

I know you don't. I've been pretty consistent with my explanations. I can only hope one day, one of you will have an "aha" and realize my point of view. Not agree with it, just kinda "see" it for a few seconds.

[BrownEye]

levels are for hierarchies

Are you saying you missed all of that in the transcripts?

[3DMonkey]

levels are for hierarchies

Are you saying you missed all of that in the transcripts?

Missed the other parts of the message, did ya?

[Monica]

I can only hope one day, one of you will have an "aha" and realize my point of view. Not agree with it, just kinda "see" it for a few seconds.

How would you tell the difference between someone realizing your point of view and disagreeing, and someone not realizing your point of view?

[BrownEye]

levels are for hierarchies

Are you saying you missed all of that in the transcripts?

Missed the other parts of the message, did ya?

No. Your other message applies to capitalism which happens to be what eliminates barter. A fat slob can get paid eating chips on a couch because i pay taxes. Equality is how the animal kingdom works, eliminating the weak.