08-22-2015, 12:36 PM
The problem I have with your whole argument is it both assumes intent, and it assumes a black and white choice where it isn't necessarily so.
Also, I would also ask about the energy transfers regarding human interactions as I don't think 'horrible, heinous' is so clearly defined in reality as it is for you, but I'm sure I would get the same explanation.
Plus, I just don't agree with some of your 'facts', and the way you line things up. You associate things together in a way that I do not.
No, I don't agree that Ra has given us enough to be able to identify the polarity of a choice from the outside because we miss all of the internal factors at play which are certainly involved in choices. It appears to me you are basing polarity strongly in behaviour which isn't something I really agree with. Certainly to an extent, but I think that polarization isn't just a matter of behaviour but intent as well.
The major disagreement it seems I have is that you seem to assume that all meat-eating and everything leading to it is purely and intentionally callous, uncaring and uncompassionate and that most people are conscious of these things. I don't think this is at all the case and that eating meat doesn't automatically assume that someone has a closed heart and lacks compassion. That seems to me to be a character you have created as the 'archetype' of meateaters.
(Funny how it's so black and white, either you're vegetarian or a meat-eater, both emotionally charged ideas, whereas omnivores are simply lumped with the latter.)
Also, I would also ask about the energy transfers regarding human interactions as I don't think 'horrible, heinous' is so clearly defined in reality as it is for you, but I'm sure I would get the same explanation.
Plus, I just don't agree with some of your 'facts', and the way you line things up. You associate things together in a way that I do not.
No, I don't agree that Ra has given us enough to be able to identify the polarity of a choice from the outside because we miss all of the internal factors at play which are certainly involved in choices. It appears to me you are basing polarity strongly in behaviour which isn't something I really agree with. Certainly to an extent, but I think that polarization isn't just a matter of behaviour but intent as well.
The major disagreement it seems I have is that you seem to assume that all meat-eating and everything leading to it is purely and intentionally callous, uncaring and uncompassionate and that most people are conscious of these things. I don't think this is at all the case and that eating meat doesn't automatically assume that someone has a closed heart and lacks compassion. That seems to me to be a character you have created as the 'archetype' of meateaters.
(Funny how it's so black and white, either you're vegetarian or a meat-eater, both emotionally charged ideas, whereas omnivores are simply lumped with the latter.)