(02-17-2015, 10:34 PM)Monica Wrote: [quote pid='171342' dateline='1424226680']


My point about 'common sense' was in reference to spiritual or ethical considerations. When a dogma is hardwired, people believe and do things that they otherwise wouldn't.

(02-17-2015, 10:48 PM)Shemaya Wrote: Well, ya, that's what dogma is.  It's a rigid belief system, often involving a moral stance. Rigidity implies a person is not making ethical considerations, he/she is stuck in her thinking.  

Beliefs/dogmas have pretty much screwed up the world, I think we could probably agree that the world will be a better place when people can move past their dogmatic beliefs.

(02-17-2015, 10:52 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 10:48 PM)Shemaya Wrote: Well, ya, that's what dogma is.  It's a rigid belief system, often involving a moral stance. Rigidity implies a person is not making ethical considerations, he/she is stuck in her thinking.  

Beliefs/dogmas have pretty much screwed up the world, I think we could probably agree that the world will be a better place when people can move past their dogmatic beliefs.

Agreed! But having a conviction isn't necessarily a rigid dogma. As it expresses so well in the meme in my OP.

(02-17-2015, 11:01 PM)Shemaya Wrote: I think there is nothing wrong with convictions.

But as you have seen, holding your convictions as a moral standard for "spiritual people" has not been received well.  Honestly, I think it is a veiled perspective on the issue, it doesn't take the whole picture into consideration, and you already know that dogmatic and rigid belief systems do not work well, they end up causing more pain and suffering for humans who are in the "outgroup" (who don't fit into the belief system). 

(02-17-2015, 11:10 PM)Monica Wrote: The Law of One isn't even a religion and we don't even have any sort of moral code. Nor am I in any position of authority, so I couldn't hold my own convictions as a moral standard for others even if I wanted to.

(02-17-2015, 02:39 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote: I'm trying not to get drawn into this drama, but I would say this:

Doesn't the Confederation's philosophy espouse the viewpoint that an STO entity would never tell another-self what not to do?

This situation therefore seems somewhat ironic to me!

Or is it just me? 

(02-17-2015, 11:23 PM)Shemaya Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 11:10 PM)Monica Wrote: The Law of One isn't even a religion and we don't even have any sort of moral code. Nor am I in any position of authority, so I couldn't hold my own convictions as a moral standard for others even if I wanted to.

You certainly can within your own mind.

A moral standard is not by way of "authority", it is just a personal or collective standard of conduct as I am using the term.

Clearly, you have a personal standard that eating animals/ animal products is immoral.  And many of your posts express incredulity that "spiritual people" do not hold the same conviction.  Correct me if I am wrong.

(02-17-2015, 11:34 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 02:39 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote: I'm trying not to get drawn into this drama, but I would say this:

Doesn't the Confederation's philosophy espouse the viewpoint that an STO entity would never tell another-self what not to do?

This situation therefore seems somewhat ironic to me!

Or is it just me? 

Whilst considering all of this in my intoxicated state, the following has occurred to me:

In the above comment, I was making a thinly veiled complaint about Monica's conviction about humans eating meat and using Confederation philosophy to disagree with her standpoint, which was part of the same complaint I was inferring about Monica using Confederation terminology in a manner that I perceived and accused of being contradictory...

In the process, I was sort of telling Monica what not to do...

And so we go round the merry-go-round in circles!

Monica, please accept my sincere apologies for being a hypocritical judgemental twat!

I know you care deeply about this subject and I'm sure you are aware that everyone else is also genuinely passionate in their own ways, about their own concerns, but having said that, this thread has got a bit shitty, and for my part in that I do again apologise! But please also understand that for a few of us, you can seem a bit full-on about us eating meat. ( And I mean that as no criticism whatsoever! )

L & L

Jim        

(02-17-2015, 11:01 PM)Shemaya Wrote: But as you have seen, holding your convictions as a moral standard for "spiritual people" has not been received well.  Honestly, I think it is a veiled perspective on the issue, it doesn't take the whole picture into consideration, and you already know that dogmatic and rigid belief systems do not work well, they end up causing more pain and suffering for humans who are in the "outgroup" (who don't fit into the belief system). 

(02-18-2015, 12:50 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 11:01 PM)Shemaya Wrote: But as you have seen, holding your convictions as a moral standard for "spiritual people" has not been received well.  Honestly, I think it is a veiled perspective on the issue, it doesn't take the whole picture into consideration, and you already know that dogmatic and rigid belief systems do not work well, they end up causing more pain and suffering for humans who are in the "outgroup" (who don't fit into the belief system). 

The objections to my sig aren't because it's a 'rigid dogma.' It's because they don't agree with it.

No one would be objecting if my sig said Knowingly, unnecessarily raping and killing little children is STS.

No one would be crying "Dogma! Dogma! You are trying to impose your beliefs on us!"

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote: That is rather audacious, for you to tell me why I think a certain way, after I repeatedly told you that I don't think that way. Who are you to tell me what I think?

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote: Gary, you walked into this conversation with veiled jabs, and immediately fanned the flames of discord.

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote: OMG NO!!!! WHY do you keep insisting it's about disagreement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????

I don't care if others disagree! I don't expect agreement!

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: and one of your conclusions, it seems, is explained in Post 225. Your conclusion, though, is exactly what I was saying.

WTF??? Post 225 does the exact opposite! It lists examples of fundamentalist thinking! It says NOTHING about disagreement!

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Diana, am I just way out in left field here? Am I grievously misreading Monica?

Gary, you are crossing a line here. Have things changed so much since the days when I was mod? Back then, I would NEVER have asked another member to analyze some other member publicly!

And as mod, I would NEVER have analyzed any member publicly! We handled matters privately as much as possible. I haven't violated any guidelines, and you know that. And even if I did, this isn't the right way to go about it. You don't have any right to add fuel to the fire, and let people think it's OK to start analyzing someone. A lot of what happened in this thread started with you and got perpetuated by you, by your continual insistence that I expect others to agree with me, despite me telling you repeatedly that it has nothing to do with agreement.

I am stunned!

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: There are different ways to explain why you clash with others here.

From my own limited view in the corner of a very big room, it’s not so much the convictions, per se, but how you go about the discussion process.

That's just bullshit and you know it, Gary. You know damn well that in the early days of the meat discussions, my comments were exceedingly polite and it DID NOT MATTER. It never mattered how nicely I stated my views. I got exactly the same reaction back then as I do now.

So don't start telling me it's because of 'how' I 'go about the discussion'. That's just BS.

You are showing your own biases here, Gary. You dare to publicly confront me...for WHAT??? For remaining firm on my convictions? While you ignore people who directly, blatantly call me names? which is a direct violation of the guidelines!

So it's ok for people to call me a bigot and other vile things - that is OK??? But it's not ok for me to express my own views in my signature?

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: PS: I seldom create threads, but were I to create one, and were it to veer from its intended course, I might diligently and gently shepherd it back to its original course. Or attempt it.

I DID attempt it! REPEATEDLY!!! I am astounded that you dare to tell me that, when I attempted it numerous times and you are one of the people who took it off-course!

I direct you once again to this exchange:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10367&pid=170808#pid170808

(02-17-2015, 04:37 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 04:09 PM)Parsons Wrote: You are creating your own dogma then attempting to control this community through moral guilt (you said it was "wrong" to eat meat). JUST LIKE RELIGIONS DO.

It is disrespectful to continue to accuse me of having the motivation to control this community. Rude, disrespectful, and offensive.

http://www.planetdeb.net/spirit/cvovercoming.htm Wrote:The Poor Me

The most passive of the control dramas is the victim strategy, or what I have called the Poor Me. In this drama, rather than competing for energy directly, the person seeks to win deference and attention through the manipulation of sympathy.

We can always tell when we enter the energy field of a Poor Me because we are immediately drawn into a particular kind of dialogue in which we are pulled off center. Out of the blue, we begin to feel guilty for no reason, as though we are being cast into that role by the other person. The individual might say, "Well, I expected you to call yesterday, but you never did," or "I had all these bad things happen to me and you were nowhere to be found." He might even add, "All these other bad things are about to happen to me, and you probably won't be around then, either."

Depending on the kind of relationship we have with the person, the phrases might be shaped around a wide range of subject matter. If the person is a work associate, the content may refer to his or her being overwhelmed with work production or meeting deadliness situation with which you are not helping. If the person is a casual acquaintance, he or she may just pull you into a conversation about how rotten life is going in general. Dozens of variations exist, but the basic tone and strategy are the same. Always it is some kind of bid for sympathy and an assertion that you are somehow responsible.

The obvious strategy in the Poor Me drama is to throw us off balance and win our energy by creating a feeling of guilt or doubt on our part. By buying into that guilt, we are stopping and looking through the other person's eyes at his or her world. As soon as we do this, the person gets to feel the boost of our energy added to his or her own and so feels more secure.

Remember that this drama is almost completely unconscious. It flows from a personal view of the world and a strategy for controlling others adopted in early childhood. To the Poor Me, the world is a place where people can't be counted on to meet one's needs for nurturing and well-being, and it is too scary a place to risk pursuing these needs directly or assertively. In the Poor Me's world, the only reasonable way of acting is to bid for sympathy through guilt trips and perceived slights.

Unfortunately, because of the effect on the World of these unconscious beliefs and intentions, very often the same kind of, abusive people the Poor Me fears are exactly the ones that they allow into their lives. And the events that befall them are often traumatic. The universe responds by producing exactly the kind of world the person expects, and in this way, the drama is always circular and self validating. The Poor Me is caught unknowingly in a vicious trap.

Dealing with the Poor Me

In dealing with the Poor Me, it is important to remind ourselves that the purpose of the drama is to win energy. We must begin with the willingness to consciously give the Poor Me energy as we talk with him; this is the fastest way to break the drama. (Sending energy is a precise process that we will discuss in Chapter 9.)

The next thing we must do is to consider whether the guilt trip is justified. Certainly, there will be plenty of cases in our lives when we should feel concern over having let someone down or sympathy for someone in a difficult situation. But these realities must be determined by us, not by someone else. Only we can decide to what extent and when we are responsible to help someone in need.

Once we have given the Poor Me energy and determined that we are facing a control drama in action, the next step is to name the game - that is, to make the control drama itself the topic of conversation. No unconscious game can be sustained if it is pulled into consciousness and placed on the table for discussion. This can be done with a statement such as, "You know, right now I feel as though you think I should feel guilty."

Here we must be prepared to proceed with courage, because while we are seeking to deal honestly with the situation, the other person might interpret what we say as a rejection. In this case, the typical reaction might be "Oh, well, I knew you really didn't like me." In other cases, the person may feel insulted and angry. It is very important, in my opinion, to appeal to the person to listen and to continue the conversation. But this can only work if we are constantly giving this person the energy he wants during the conversation. Above all, we must persevere if we want the quality of the relationship to improve. In the best case, the person will hear what we are saying as we point out the drama and be able to open up to a higher state of self-awareness.

(02-18-2015, 01:11 PM)Bluebell Wrote: again, Monica u imply many here r as STS as rapists & child killers. just say it already. u'll feel better.

i found the sig offensive because it's dogmatic & accusing.

(02-18-2015, 05:34 PM)Monica Wrote: Parsons, I'm not interested, other than to say that victims don't stand up for themselves. Victims let others vomit on them. I don't. So your analysis is rather amusing.

Regardless, at the end of the day, anything you can accuse me of pales in comparison to supporting the rape, torture and slaughter of sentient beings.

So if you're proposing a contest, you can find someone else to play with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality#Features Wrote:A victim mentality may manifest itself in a range of different behaviors or ways of thinking and talking:

• Blaming others for a situation that one has created oneself or significantly contributed to. Failing or being unwilling to take responsibility for one's own actions or actions to which one has contributed or for taking action to ameliorate the situation.
  
  
• Ascribing non-existent negative intentions to other people (similar to paranoia).
  
  
• Believing that other people are generally or fundamentally luckier and happier ("Why me?").
  
  
• Gaining short-term pleasure from feeling sorry for oneself or eliciting pity from others. Eliciting sympathy by telling exaggerated stories about bad deeds of other people (e.g. during gossip).
  
  

People with victim mentality may develop convincing and sophisticated arguments in support of such ideas, which they then use to convince themselves and others of their victim status.

People with victim mentality may also be generally:

• negative, with a general tendency to focus on bad rather than good aspects of a situation. A glass that is half full is considered half empty. A person with a high standard of living complains about not having enough money. A healthy person complains of minor health problems that others would ignore (cf. hypochondriasis).
  
  
• self-absorbed: unable or reluctant to consider a situation from the point of view of other people or to "walk a mile in their shoes".
  
  
• defensive: In conversation, reading a non-existent negative intention into a neutral question and reacting with a corresponding accusation, hindering the collective solution of problems and instead creating unnecessary conflict.
  
  
• categorizing: tending to divide people into "goodies" and "baddies" with no gray zone between them.
  
  
• unadventurous: generally unwilling to take risks; exaggerating the importance or likelihood of possible negative outcomes.
  
  
• exhibiting learned helplessness: underestimating one's ability or influence in a given situation; feeling powerless.
  
  
• stubborn: tending to reject suggestions or constructive criticism from others who listen and care; unable or reluctant to implement the suggestions of others for one's own benefit.
  
  
• self-abasing: Putting oneself down even further than others are supposedly doing.
  

(02-18-2015, 05:34 PM)Monica Wrote: Parsons, I'm not interested, other than to say that victims don't stand up for themselves. Victims let others vomit on them. I don't. So your analysis is rather amusing.

Regardless, at the end of the day, anything you can accuse me of pales in comparison to supporting the rape, torture and slaughter of sentient beings.

So if you're proposing a contest, you can find someone else to play with.

(02-12-2015, 11:37 PM)Monica Wrote: No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now,...

(02-18-2015, 05:34 PM)Monica Wrote: Victims let others vomit on them. I don't.

(02-18-2015, 11:05 PM)isis Wrote:

(02-12-2015, 11:37 PM)Monica Wrote: No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now,...

(02-18-2015, 05:34 PM)Monica Wrote: Victims let others vomit on them. I don't.

(02-18-2015, 10:37 PM)Minyatur Wrote: IMO, there's a difference between accepting that it is a reccuring natural part of human societies and supporting it.

(02-18-2015, 11:06 PM)Monica Wrote: Parsons and Shawna, can you not think of anything constructive to contribute to the topic?

If you're trying to offend or hurt me, you have failed. You did, however, give me a good laugh, so thanks for that!  

mjlabadia, thank you for your comments and for trying to get the discussion back on topic.

(02-18-2015, 11:19 PM)Shawnna Wrote: I'm unclear why you've addressed me in such a negative way Monica.  Is there something specific I've said that you feel was said to 'offend or hurt' you?  That was never, ever my intent.  

Rather, I'm praying your heart will soften and your mind opened.  

Many here have shared very insightful and helpful things, should you choose to engage them with a sincere desire to grow.

(02-18-2015, 11:27 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-18-2015, 11:19 PM)Shawnna Wrote: I'm unclear why you've addressed me in such a negative way Monica.  Is there something specific I've said that you feel was said to 'offend or hurt' you?  That was never, ever my intent.  

Rather, I'm praying your heart will soften and your mind opened.  

Many here have shared very insightful and helpful things, should you choose to engage them with a sincere desire to grow.

Shawnna, this is a thread about religious dogma...not "Let's dissect Monica's personality." I addressed you as well as Parsons, because you liked Parsons' post.

Love-based prayers are always welcome. I too am praying for the softening of the heart and the opening of the mind, for all those here who are in denial about the suffering that their dietary 'choices' cause.

(02-18-2015, 11:35 PM)Shawnna Wrote: I see.  So I cannot like a post that I believe is well thought out and informative without being subject to your derision?  

(02-19-2015, 12:59 AM)Monica Wrote:

(02-18-2015, 11:35 PM)Shawnna Wrote: I see.  So I cannot like a post that I believe is well thought out and informative without being subject to your derision?  

I should have addressed that to Parsons only. I apologize for including you just because you liked what Parsons said. I may have been wrong about your reasons for liking it. I made an assumption about your 'like' of Parsons' post, probably based on your previous comments and pattern of 'likes'. I was wrong to do that and for that I apologize!