Bring4th

Full Version: Promoting 'Humane' treatment of 2D animals
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
A few days ago, a farmer/rancher on facebook posted this, rejoicing that the farmers defeated PETA et al, and got into a heated debate with one of her other friends over this issue.

Quote:Oklahoma's 50-year-old ban on horse slaughtering was lifted Friday, March 29, when the governor signed a new law that will allow facilities to process and export horse meat, despite bitter opposition by animal rights activists.

Supporters argue that a horse slaughtering facility in Oklahoma will provide a humane alternative for aging or starving horses, many of which are abandoned in rural parts of the state by owners who can no longer afford to care for them.

Gov. Mary Fallin also noted that horses are already being shipped out of the country, including to facilities in Mexico, where they are processed in potentially inhumane conditions.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 166,000 horses were sent to Canada and Mexico last year alone.

"In Oklahoma, as in other states, abuse is tragically common among horses that are reaching the end of their natural lives," the Republican governor said. "Those of us who care about the wellbeing of horses - and we all should - cannot be satisfied with a status quo that encourages abuse and neglect, or that rewards the potentially inhumane slaughter of animals in foreign countries."

Oklahoma lifts horse slaughter ban

I didn't enter the fray, but found myself siding with the farmer's logic, on the basis of consistency, despite disagreeing with her code of ethics (or lack thereof). If cows are slaughtered, why not horses? I didn't understand the person with the opposing view, who raised cows for slaughter, but objected to killing horses. I found that contradictory.

Then, I saw this. It's quite trendy now for spiritually-conscious people to buy meat from 'organic, humanely produced' sources. This is from the Onion but it's accurate, as far as I can tell.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-rais...and,30983/

Are these measures - allowing equal opportunity for all hooved creatures to become meat on humans' dinner tables - and promoting a 'humane' butchering after a 'carefree, natural life' - improvements in regards to raising the vibration of the planet overall?

Onion articles are usually satirical, but not this time.
its hard for me to say that any butchering could be humane. i mean if i was the one being butchered how would i feel about it. truth is these beings have feeling, they feel fear, and imho we are in total denial about them and the way we treat them. perhaps alien abduction and experimentation is a little karmic payback for what we do to these beings.
the only honest way to eat meat imho is to hunt it yourself. raising animals for consumption is brutal, absolutely brutal. we kid ourselves if we think otherwise. just being honest i am not a vegan. but i dont deny the suffering these beings are going thru. sigh beam me up to another reality. i am so ready to go ha ha and be somewhere where people actually care about one another and other forms of life. where there is gentleness. gentleness on this plane is viewed as weakness.
i just saw a video on the news of two young men mugging a 50 year old women . brutal . how the hell do we do this stuff to one another. to me someone who would do that has no soul . just my thoughts.
but to get back to the topic of the thread there is no such thing as humane butchering. there just isnt. if u are the one being butchered it is not humane.

norral Heart
If we had the respect for animals like Native Americans did, I wouldn't mind a painless death (not slaughter--mind you) and use of animal products to reduce waste. But to legalize it in our society, where no one respects the sanctity of life, would only increase pain and suffering of horses in the big picture.
I think both of the options presented are very sad.

I have seen first hand the plight of abandoned horses in Oklahoma. We found a dead horse on our land when we visited in December. Two horses had been abandoned there and didn't have enough water to thrive. So it died a very slow, painful death. We called the authorities to have the one still living removed, and I feel sure it was probably taken to a slaughter house, but that was my only option at the time since we no longer live on the land. So which option was worse for the animal?

Many of these animals wouldn't exist at all if they weren't being raised specifically for consumption.

So I would say that the current trend toward educating consumers about the benefits of a healthy diet are, ultimately, the way to make this change happen in our world.
The entire planet is a slaughterhouse. Not just for hooved animals but for humans too. How many humans are treated like nothing more than livestock to be exploited for profit?

The fundamental issue is that of Powerful Entities objectifying Less Powerful Entities and using those less powerful ones--grinding them up in the various planetary meat grinders whether it's the food industry or just everyday capitalist exploitation.

How can you address the fundamental fact that Powerful Entities treat Less Powerful poorly?

All compassionate people are outraged and dismayed at the exploitation. But isn't that exploitation fundamental to nature itself? Isn't that exploitation absolutely EVERYWHERE in nature?

I submit that it is not humans who are evil. It is not powerful entities who are evil. It is nature itself that is evil.

Humans treat horses like animals... humans treat all animals like animals... yet those same animals treat other animals like animals too. Horses treat other horses poorly to benefit themselves.

As much as I care about horses, you have to acknowledge that most horses would just as quickly turn around and abuse a smaller horse if it meant some benefit to them. Powerful animals bully weaken animals just as badly as humans bully animals.

All I'm saying is that these horrific things are fundamental to nature. They are fundamental to life. Has there ever been a carbon based lifeform that wasn't host to countless abuses? It's debatable whether any 2D entities even became 2D entities without first engaging in some kind of struggle with others to achieve that.

To enter a human body on earth your soul had to fight off the souls of others who also wanted that body. Is that not a fact? You won out thru the strength of your vibration and in the process put down the other souls that wanted in.

It's not just the Earth that is a meat-grinder. It's the universe.

The 4D ideal of universal love, compassion, brotherhood only comes about through the exclusion of others. That exclusion is itself an expression of power. The 4D social memory complex is an elite cabal that creates a Heaven together by kicking out those it deems unworthy of Heaven. Then this 4D social memory complex blames the victim and says that the people it pushes outside the circle did it through their own failure to conform to the norms demanded by the 4D social memory complex.

Show me any phenomenon in the universe that isn's brutal, exploitative, condemning, exclusionary.

Consciousness itself is a struggle. Individuation is consciousness cutting into itself to create two where there were one. Isn't that cutting painful? Yes. That cutting is brutal, violent.

Vegetarians recognize the brutality of existence and dream of a world where the brutality is reduced or eliminated. It's just a fantasy. The vegetarian heaven itself can only come around thru violence of one kind of another.

Saving entities from abuse is noble and yet all it does is create more abuse when those saved entities engage in abuse. The best way to stop all exploitation would be to exterminate all life. Maybe to destroy the universe as a whole. You can raise someone up, make them powerful, and now they will exploit those weaker than them by pure instinct. So by creating life you increase the sum total of exploitation and abuse. The best way to stop abuse is to not have children. Abuse and life go hand in hand.
Yossarian, you've made some very good points, while others I find disconcerting.

I have felt as you do, about this planet. Just look at Nature. Beautiful, yes, but brutal also. A former member (your probably remember), unity100, pointed out that wild animals live in constant discomfort, never getting relief from the itching and biting of fleas and other parasites. And their life is a constant struggle for survival.

I have found solace in the knowing that this planet is unusual; it's basically a school for juvenile delinquents. So I dream of higher realities that don't have such suffering.

I never thought of a social memory complex as being brutal, since the members are there by vibration, rather than being explicitly excluded. If a group of people interested in a certain genre of music gather for a concert, are they being brutal to others who don't share their taste in music?
It's not about the action as much as the vibration. Action is important insomuch as it furthers the vibration you are seeking the moment (be it polarization, or comfort).

What I mean by this is, I can't eat meat with the love I have for animals. I think it's possible, with great thanksgiving, and humanely raised food, but it is incompatible for me personally.

Similarly, I could never raise a pet and have it neutered. I just couldn't. I would not want to horribly surgically modify anyone like that, regardless of the reasons. But similarly, I think it's possible to live with great thanksgiving and do it.

On the other hand, I'm ok with thanksgiving for the use of leather and other animal related skin products, though I try to only maintain what I have and buy fake leather when I can.

These things are complex, and are not based purely on logic. Part of it is the feeling it raises in people. Does it make sense that I can't eat an animal but I could buy a leather product if there is no other non-leather product available? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that we as individuals are also other selves to show love, and there is a degree of difficulty in any non-societal conforming action we take, and the balance of our compassion for the other 2d self and the compassion for the other self that is us, is to a certain extent a personal balancing act. Thus, well I don't think this means we end the discussion, I think it is important to realize there is no right or wrong answer, just value judgments we make on faith as a society regarding these issues.

Horses are much closer to most people's heart than other animals. They are seen in many cultures as much more majestic animals (among many other reasons). Is it logical? Perhaps, perhaps not. But is it something that is included in the balancing of compassion between other 2d selves and the compassion for ourselves in our own tastes, affection, and conformist/nonconformist beliefs? Absolutely.
(04-11-2013, 10:24 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I never thought of a social memory complex as being brutal, since the members are there by vibration, rather than being explicitly excluded. If a group of people interested in a certain genre of music gather for a concert, are they being brutal to others who don't share their taste in music?

Being excluded by vibration is an act of nature. It's just as brutal and indifferent as when a flea bites an animal, or when a hyena eats the intestines of its living prey.

People who are killed by nature, like bears, are eaten alive. The bears don't kill them first, they just dig in.

Nature treats people worse than people treat nature.

The exclusion by vibration mechanism is just as sharp as a bear's tooth. It cuts into you and you have no choice in the matter. Your desire to join that Heaven is not considered. The nature chooses for you.

You could say that it's not the social memory complex that is choosing to exclude. You could say that it's nature itself--the nature of the vibrations and whatnot--that excludes. But this just means that the social memory complex is not an escape from nature.

Don't you think it hurts those who are denied entry into Heaven? How does it feel to be told that you aren't loving enough to go to the Heaven of the social memory complex, that you have too much anger and hatred and negative vibrations. How do you think the people who are told this feel? How do you think it feels to fail to make graduation and be kicked back down to Earth where nature will now bite you with fleas?

When a social memory complex denies a person entry, it is like kicking someone out of a warm house and making them homeless. It's an act of cruelty and barbarity.

If the social memory complexes cared about us, why would they send us here? Why would they tolerate people's suffering?

The social memory complexes blame humans for humans lack of compassion. That's easy to say when you live in Heaven. But humans don't lack compassion, they simply are trying to cope with a bad situation. It's hard enough to even stay alive on the Earth--the social memory complexes say that humans must, in addition, be totally self-denying and selfless. And anyone who can't achieve this will not gain entry into Heaven.

Would you believe in a loving God that would send someone to Hell?

Would you believe in a loving social memory complex that would send someone to Earth?
yossarian... Your points would make sense if we didn't literally get in line to experience incarnation on Earth. Nearly all other places and dimensions in this Creation are quite happy and harmonious. If all is harmonious, there is almost no impetus to change and progress is extremely slow or non-existent. We all came here to learn in an extremely accelerated fashion through 'that which is not', or experiencing negative catalyst. In other words, we came here to learn the hard way.

Nobody forced you to incarnate here. No social memory complex 'sent you here'; YOU sent you here.

As you seem to have learned quite well, 'waking up' doesn't reduce the amount of extremely tough catalyst anyone incarnate here experiences. So it is up to the individual how easily they digest catalyst. If you see the whole world (or even the entire Creation) as negative or an unloving, uncaring 'meat grinder', you only make it grueling on yourself and your experience here will reflect that.

I'm not claiming this place isn't extremely tough. I often temporarily lose sight of the Creator in all things and become engulfed in the Illusion. I have my dark, angry, sad moments. Recently, I projected my selfish 'want' of us having a 'terminal harvest', an abrupt switchover to 4th density. I was caught up in all the channeled messages that were telling us what we wanted to hear, not what is Truth. That was one of the toughest chunks of catalysts I have ever dealt in this incarnation. I was frustrated and even angry for several weeks afterwards, but eventually I got through it. I have digested the situation fully and feel blessed for learning such a hard lesson so thoroughly.

I remember now how the Creation is set up, and don't see it in the negative light that you seem to. I don't find the intense catalyst we experience to be all negative, but what I make it to be; always a learning opportunity. I am not telling you what to be or how to feel; I am merely sharing my recent experience that I feel are similar and suggesting you not be so hard on yourself.
(04-16-2013, 10:44 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]if we didn't literally get in line to experience incarnation on Earth...We all came here to learn in an extremely accelerated fashion through 'that which is not', or experiencing negative catalyst. In other words, we came here to learn the hard way.

I wonder if we really understood what we were getting ourselves into. This is something I've grappled with. If 'nothing of value is lost' ie. the personality shell is sloughed off like detritus, do our Higher Selves really comprehend what the personality endures, in order to achieve this growth?
Earth is a school.

Is it violence to tell children that they have to go to school and learn the material before they can graduate to a job?

It's easy to learn to love people who are full of love.
It's not too hard to learn to love people who are generally giving, but occasional are full of selfishness.
It's hard to learn to learn people that are full of selfishness, and wish to inflict pain on others.

We're here to learn. Yossarian, the secret is, to see the slaughter around you, and learn your lesson: do you become one with the selfishness, and follow the examples you are given? (sts) Or do you learn your lesson differently, and decide that the a single candle in the darkness can illuminate it for all who wish to see the light and selfless serve others? (sto).

The darkness you see is catalyst. Our souls are infinite, and eternal, and outside of time. These incarnations are but a moment. They do not define creation. They are merely an experiential playground for you to learn your lesson. Which lesson you learn, or when you decide to learn it, is up to you.
Calling hell a school doesn't stop it from being hell
but it is SO SO SO SO SO freaking painful here. and its so unconcious here. i mean the lack of connection just plain flat out hurts. that is why i spend most of my time either with kids, animals or family. look around us at the insanity ha ha. it is insane here ha ha and its funny but its not because we be trapped here. and yes we bring a certain vibe , a vibe of oneness to this earth but many times i feel like so what. does anybody care if i wasnt here would it matter at all. my family would survive i dont really have any close friendships outside of my family my grandkids and our birds and pets are my closest friends ha ha. and i like it like that. and dont feel any desire to expand much beyond that. this earth is a lonely place because as wanderers we remember at some level what it was like where we came from. and then we look at this crapola and we say u has gots to be kidding me. all the lies all the injustice it sucks ha ha plain and simple it just plain sucks.
i tend to lack patience. and ive been here for 65 plus years and i am out of patience . when oh when oh when are we ever going to really love one another. when ?

norral Heart
Where I believe I come from (some incarnations ago) it was a lot darker physically (probably further out from the Sun). I have the experience negativity is a lot tamer here, not a constant struggle like some jungle animal. I had dream suggesting the last harvest was negative. I believe I had the distortion of "crusading for good" (an anachronism, which Hitler and Bush also believed in).
Everything on earth is eating everything else all the time, I believe.

That doesn't mean I like it.

I wonder if we are becoming "lighter" in our bodies, and more able to access energy more directly, with less reliance on chemical food. As Jesus said, "I have food to eat that you know not of." I have always assumed this was his ability to assimilate energy directly.

Edgar Cayce was not a vegetarian, and he frequently went against his own dietary advice in his personal life.
This cause is very good I think, aside from the problem of the price it is a way of increasing ethics without desiring to violate the free will of those who do wish to eat meat.
(04-18-2013, 10:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]This cause is very good I think, aside from the problem of the price

What do you mean by 'aside from the price?' Eating vegetarian is a lot cheaper.

(04-18-2013, 10:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]it is a way of increasing ethics without desiring to violate the free will of those who do wish to eat meat.

That's a sticky dilemma, being that those who eat meat are violating the free will of those who don't wish to be eaten.
(04-18-2013, 11:52 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-18-2013, 10:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]This cause is very good I think, aside from the problem of the price

What do you mean by 'aside from the price?' Eating vegetarian is a lot cheaper.

(04-18-2013, 10:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]it is a way of increasing ethics without desiring to violate the free will of those who do wish to eat meat.

That's a sticky dilemma, being that those who eat meat are violating the free will of those who don't wish to be eaten.

I wonder if all 2D beings have free will or only those which are transitioning into 3d. For example, I have never felt bad about eating fish (as long as the water they lived in was cleanish.) It is obvious to me that cetaceans, apes, many or most dogs and cats, are not strictly 2D. Cetaceans may be completely 3d. Don't know exactly where the others on my list here fall.

The Bible would seem to suggest that Jesus ate fish - but who knows.
(04-18-2013, 11:58 AM)caycegal Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if all 2D beings have free will or only those which are transitioning into 3d. For example, I have never felt bad about eating fish (as long as the water they lived in was cleanish.) It is obvious to me that cetaceans, apes, many or most dogs and cats, are not strictly 2D. Cetaceans may be completely 3d. Don't know exactly where the others on my list here fall.

The Bible would seem to suggest that Jesus ate fish - but who knows.

All life is sacred, and all things are connected as far as I can tell. For those who wish to move along the evolutionary path, and for those who think they are wanderers especially (who come from a more evolved dimension), it seems to me the respecting of all life would be basic. Therefore, the taking of any life for survival here in 3D (or 4D as the case may be at this point) would flow from a desire to do the least harm, and from the intention of moving toward higher densities. And the free will of a human, from the perspective of a higher evolutionary viewpoint, would be considered, but not to the exclusion of all else.

I think all life has free will, even if it is in a collective sense. Even a microbe moves this way or that. And in all things is the potential to evolve, which also suggests free will at any stage.

Whether there is any substance or truth in the bible is dubious to me, but as far as I know, Jesus was a fisherman of "people" or "souls." The idea of fish was probably metaphorical, and certainly the bible stories are allegorical.
The Bible is probably wrong about Jesus eating fish. After all, the gospels were all written several decades after Jesus' death! Another document, that many believe to be more accurate, is the Essene Gospel of Peace, in which Jesus spoke at great length about diet.
(04-18-2013, 11:52 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-18-2013, 10:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]This cause is very good I think, aside from the problem of the price

What do you mean by 'aside from the price?' Eating vegetarian is a lot cheaper.

I understood the article to be about humane farming methods. I was thinking that the meat would be more pricey.

(04-18-2013, 11:52 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-18-2013, 10:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]it is a way of increasing ethics without desiring to violate the free will of those who do wish to eat meat.

That's a sticky dilemma, being that those who eat meat are violating the free will of those who don't wish to be eaten.

The law of free will doesn't modify itself if we don't like the other persons decisions.

(04-18-2013, 11:58 AM)caycegal Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if all 2D beings have free will or only those which are transitioning into 3d. For example, I have never felt bad about eating fish (as long as the water they lived in was cleanish.) It is obvious to me that cetaceans, apes, many or most dogs and cats, are not strictly 2D. Cetaceans may be completely 3d. Don't know exactly where the others on my list here fall.

The Bible would seem to suggest that Jesus ate fish - but who knows.

Hey Caycegal. I don't think I've ever spoken with you before.

I don't precisely know the inns and outs of free will. I imagine that the orange ray prana or whatever it is called, includes killing and being killed so perhaps entering the environment is a free will choice. But I don't really know with these matters.

I know with dogs though, the general gist is people apply more emotion to animals than they actually have. They kind of project onto them.
(04-18-2013, 03:54 PM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]The law of free will doesn't modify itself if we don't like the other persons decisions.

No, it sure doesn't!

(04-18-2013, 03:54 PM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]I know with dogs though, the general gist is people apply more emotion to animals than they actually have. They kind of project onto them.

Do you have dogs?
(04-18-2013, 10:15 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have dogs?

My mother has a dog and I live at home. Five year old Staffy. Why do you ask?
(04-19-2013, 09:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]My mother has a dog and I live at home. Five year old Staffy. Why do you ask?

Your statement about dogs' emotions seemed odd to me. I agree that humans project emotions onto their pets (just as they do to other humans) but pets still have their own emotions too. Usually people who have pets will attest to the pets' own emotions and personalities, so I thought maybe you didn't have pets.
(04-19-2013, 03:00 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2013, 09:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]My mother has a dog and I live at home. Five year old Staffy. Why do you ask?

Your statement about dogs' emotions seemed odd to me. I agree that humans project emotions onto their pets (just as they do to other humans) but pets still have their own emotions too. Usually people who have pets will attest to the pets' own emotions and personalities, so I thought maybe you didn't have pets.

I'm not sure if dogs/cats have emotions. I mean sometimes I'm not certain that my wife has them.
Feelings, yes for sure, but emotions?
That would infer the ability to self reflect.

From the wiki defintion:
"emotion is the generic term for subjective, conscious experience.... "
(04-19-2013, 03:10 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if dogs/cats have emotions. I mean sometimes I'm not certain that my wife has them.
Feelings, yes for sure, but emotions?
That would infer the ability to self reflect.

From the wiki defintion:
"emotion is the generic term for subjective, conscious experience.... "

I've had many dogs and cats over the years and yes, they most definitely have emotions. They feel fear, anger, jealousy, love and joy. Those are all emotions! They can be clever, they can intentionally trick their humans, and they can be devious. They can know when they've done something they aren't supposed to, and plan how to do it anyway when their humans aren't looking, and then feel guilt when they get caught.

Emotions don't necessarily require the ability to self-reflect. No one would argue that human babies have emotions. They can feel joy, fear, anger, etc. Even a newborn. But do they self-reflect? Probably not. I don't think animals self-reflect because they live in the present, and a bit in the future, but not the past, just like human babies. But, just like human babies, they definitely feel emotions!

Quote:e·mo·tion
noun
1.an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2.any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3.any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4.an instance of this.
5.something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotions?s=t
This is an interesting thread. I see the growing love and emotional communication with animals as being part of our racial evolution. As far as whether animals have emotions, I personally often feel awash in a great emotional ocean and it seems impossible to distinguish exactly where a particular emotion is coming from. This is evident in my relationship with my husband - usually we are so tuned into the same emotional vibration that it's amazing, although it may take us a while to figure out that's going on. I believe even when wife and husband are quarreling they may be tuning into the same emotional channel and simply be distancing self from the feeling, projecting all onto the other.

We have a beloved God-dog (dog who belongs to the lady upstairs and we often care for it) and I feel so much love going back and forth between us - it wouldn't occur to me to question his love for us, it seems so obvious.

Guess my main point is that I don't know how you can find the cut-off point to where one being's emotions end and another's start because it's all so interconnected.
98.9 Wrote:Questioner: I was wondering if I was correct in my assumption for the reason for the growth was a state of anger in the cat, Gandalf, because of the addition of the newer cats in his environment? Was I correct?
Ra Wrote:I am Ra. The original cause of what you call cancer was the distortion caused by this event. The proximate cause of this growth is the nature of the distortion of the body cells which you call cancer.

Moreover, I can confirm one of our two cats (Screwdriver BigSmile) can feel emotion.
I believe my dog Loki feels emotion. When I raise my voice, he cowers down, or whimpers. It doesn't take much to upset his delicate balance. I think that's why I love him so much. I can't explain the love I feel for him. More than any person.