Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

You are illustrating bias here. You say those actions wouldn't be consonant with the Law of One? Why not?

No bias.  And because they aren't in line with STO (the path of unity -- though, to be fair, it is more a spectrum than a binary situation).  You think that eating animals is inherently STS, hence you think this is a bias on my part.

Naturally, I disagree with said assertion.

You have misunderstood why I mentioned bias. You said:

If it was my custom to lie, would Ra then incorporate the advice of lying into my behavior if I asked advice on how to better my situation in life?  Or if it was my custom to murder humans (and furthermore believed it was the right thing to do, lets say I thought I was protecting my people by performing some kind of sacrifice (i'm thinking of tribal ancient humans)) would they incorporate that into advice about someone?  Would they not say anything? To respect or cater to my free will decisions/beliefs?  I sincerely doubt that.  These actions would not be consonant with the Law of One.

You just said that those actions aren't consonant with the Law of One. Why not? The only reason to assume that lying or killing humans isn't consonant with the Law of One, but killing younger other-selves IS consonant with the Law of One, is societal bias.

In our current society, it is deemed unacceptable to kill humans, but acceptable to kill animals. That is societal bias, and you just illustrated it.

So, my question to you was, why are lying and killing humans not consonant with the Law of One? (other than societal bias)

It is impossible to eat meat without abusing the animal. Killing a sentient entity is the ultimate abuse.

Disagree.  Strongly.  You can't make blanket statements about was is STS and what is STO.  

But you just did yourself. You just said that lying or killing humans wasn't consonant with the Law of One...presumably you meant the STO path. Why not? Because those actions are inherently STS?

If you had a sick animal, that you loved and cared for, and it was suffering, would you just let the suffering continue, or would mercifully kill that sentient entity?

 

That is an entirely different situation. That is mercy killing. Killing animals for food is abuse, because it's unnecessary.

I thought it was understood that I meant for food when I said that killing animals is the ultimate abuse. I will edit my previous post to say for food. No animal wants to be killed, except maybe one that is dying and in pain, just as with humans. Animals make their wishes known, quite clearly.

I don't disagree they feel pain, and that they desire to live, but you're kidding yourself if you think animals have the same perspective as being used for food as you do.

You're kidding yourself if you think farm animals joyfully line up to be slaughtered.  

Do you maybe think the animal consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near humans.

Obviously, I can't prove that to you, just as you can't prove otherwise.

Let's apply your theory to humans and see if your logic holds:

Do you maybe think the human rape victim's consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near rapists.


How does that work? Does this give us free license to rape women?

Carnivorous animals take care of old and diseased animals. They don't need us to help them with that. 

Furthermore, carnivorous animals hunt the old and diseased prey; whereas, human hunters tend to go after the biggest trophy, thus weakening the herd.

Humans have upset the balance of Nature.

Carnivorous animals?  You mean animals that crave that sort of protein, because they feel a call from their bodies for a particular nutrient or another?  Like people for example?

If you can find any human who has sharp fangs, designed to tear apart flesh, and is able to kill a cow using only his teeth, and then delights in the taste of blood, and devours the bloody flesh of the cow, then that person might qualify as a carnivore.

Though, I'm sure you probably don't subscribe to the YCYOR idea, because you don't like the implications.

You are wrong in your assumptions.