[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."

[Monica]

I buy meat and dairy from local farmers whom I know and trust and whose farm I can visit. The dairy farmer uses bulls to impregnate (and they do get around), not a rape machine. The meat farmers raise their animals without recourse to cheap grain and kill chickens by severing the spine. The chickens never even knew anything happened. I've seen it. It's shocking how clean and simple it is. Cattle are killed with the skull puncturing machine. I didn't ask about pork, though I will.

For a principle to be sound, it must work when applied in other situations.

Applying your 'clean kill' principle to humans, how does that hold up? ie. is it ok to kill humans as long as it's clean and quick, and you don't torture them first?

I dislike and avoid restaurants. The reasons I eat as I eat, though, are not entirely moral. That is to say, I didn't get here through moral outrage. Rather, it was a combination of palate sensitivity and desire for a different way of life. I believe in a local economy because in a local economy you can't remove yourself from the consequences of your actions. If you're killing your own animals, you have to be okay with how you do it.

Small 'local' farmer talks about the difference between meat from factory farms and meat from small, local farm <<== NOT graphic - just a farmer talking

I maintain that point. Your evidence to the contrary is evidence against the claim that certain species of animals couldn't be pets. I am not making that claim. I am making the claim that certain specific animals can't be pets---or at least not without a prohibitive degree of investment. I am also making the claim that certain species are much more conducive to pethood than other species, though there are always exceptions.

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I thought you were talking about the species used for 'livestock' when you said this:

Livestock is simply not as capable as a pet of returning the favor---otherwise the animal would be a pet.

The theory underlying these claims is that individual portions of an animal group soul reincarnate, leaping from species to species until they land in the home of a human being. Most animals that become pets are cats, dogs and the like. Others can also, but they are the exception. Until these individual portions of an animal soul reach the point in their evolution where they are ready for the final investment of consciousness by devotion to a human, they move progressively closer to the experience. The claim I'm staking out is that livestock, when treated respectfully, presents an intermediate option that is not easily available otherwise. Could these animals become pets with sufficient investment? Sure. But it takes a rare person to have the patience to domesticate a stubbornly feral animal.

Firstly, it seems to me that you have misunderstood what Ra said about 2D entities being invested by 3D entities. Ra never said that that was the only way they could be harvestable to 3D! On the contrary, Ra even directly said that entities could reach that level of awareness without said investiture from humans.

More on that here:

Bring4th Forums One > Strictly Law of One Material  v > Ra's Statements About 2D Entities

Secondly, farm animals ARE getting interaction from humans! But is that the kind of interaction we want to give them? Do we want their awareness increasing as a direct result of suffering? Is that what Ra meant by investing in them? Enslaving them, torturing them, and killing them?

Thirdly, you seem to be putting a great deal of importance on animals being 'pets.' I just showed that deciding which species of animal, or which animal within a species, is suitable as a pet is entirely arbitrary. You said yourself that not every human has the inclination to work with feral animals. But, where did you get the idea that they only have value if they are pets? That seems to be putting way too much importance on humans' assessment of a being's worth. Just like when blacks were slaves...did they only have worth if their white 'owners' thought so? Do you see how this reeks of speciesism? Blacks had worth regardless of whether the whites thought they did. So too do animals! You don't get to decide whether they have worth or not!

Fourthly, why does their suitability as a pet have anything to do with whether it's ok to kill them or not? Bottom line is that we NO LONGER NEED TO KILL THEM AT ALL. Our ancestors did, yes. They had to kill animals for survival. WE DON'T. That is the difference!

So, it boils down to this: Whether you are right or not about animals being suitable for 'pets' is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you don't know which of those animals have reached xyz level of self-awareness, so, at best, you are taking a chance that the animal you just killed (or paid someone to kill) isn't yet self-aware. Are you sure you want to take that chance? And that's just 'best case' scenario. Worst case scenario (for the meat-eater) is that EVERY animal with pain receptors IS AWARE. This seems much more likely to me. What would be the use of pain receptors if there was no consciousness there to register the pain?

No matter how you slice it, attempts to justify meat/dairy eating based on the idea that some of those animals 'might not' be aware, are very, very flimsy.

Meet the farmers around you. You'll see how they treat their animals.

No, you'll see how they want you to think they treat their animals. Of course they have their own marketing and will show their best image to visitors. See the video I posted above, of the 'humane' farmer. Let him speak for himself.

When I said you were arguing against a strawman that was because you were using information about practices I don't support and, on the very rare occasion when I have found myself eating restaurant food, am very conscious of.

If you thought I was referring to only factory-farmed meat, then you misunderstood. That is just the worst of the worst, but I have always been referring to ALL meat and dairy consumption, including the so-called 'humane' meat/dairy which you admittedly do support.

There is no handbook for a correct moral stance.

There is, actually. It's called the Law of One.  

I only wish you could see the sincerity of mine.

You seem to be giving us mixed signals, by saying your reasons "are not entirely moral" so I wasn't sure if you had a moral stance on this issue.

...