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

[Monica]

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.

Did you miss the qualifiers? I specifically said intentional, unnecessary, conscious for that very reason.

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.

Clearly, meat/dairy-eaters don't associate the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of animals with the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of humans. They draw a line in their minds separating the 2. Maybe you are an exception, but most people agree that enslavement/torture/rape/killing of humans is inherently wrong (in mainstream terms) or inherently STS (in Law of One terms).

But not only do they refuse to say the same about the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of animals, but they even get indignant or even offended when we dare to associate the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of animals with the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of humans.

Why?

Because of societal conditioning: Speciesism. It's cognitive dissonance. They literally cannot make the connection in their minds because their brains lack the neuropathways. This isn't a judgment but simple physiological fact.

I do make the association, and some do eventually 'get it' and new neuropathways get connected.

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.

If that's what you thought I was saying, then I didn't make myself clear or you misunderstood. I never said that an action could be assessed from the outside, with No regard to internal factors such as intention. In fact, I have repeatedly stated the opposite: No single action can be assessed from the outside.

It seems that maybe you are confusing inherently with an absolute.

Generally speaking, knowingly participating in the enslavement/rape/torture/killing of others tends to be an attribute of the STS polarity, just as, generally speaking, being loving and compassionate tends to be an attribute of the STO polarity.

If you disagree that Ra has made this clear, then the chasm between our understanding is larger than we thought.

Notice that I said "generally speaking" and "tends to be". Of course intention plays a role! Notice that even Hitler - largely considered to be one of the most cruel people on the planet - failed to reach harvestability. He was, according to Ra, a negatively polarized entity, no question about that. He certainly wasn't STO! But because of his confusion and his 'good intentions' even those heinous acts on a large scale failed to get him to the point of harvestability. So yes, of course intentions play a role!

...which is precisely why I've made the distinction between someone who eats meat/dairy without ever questioning it, and someone whose eyes have been opened to the reality of where that meat and dairy came from, yet chooses to continue eating it, even while knowing that it's unnecessary.

There's a big difference. One is unconscious and the other is conscious.

Even then, I don't make a black-and-white assessment of the sum total of that person's polarity! I have never done that and won't ever do that, so please quit implying that I do. (I say that to others also, who tend to keep saying that despite it being untrue and ludicrous.)

But I can say that conscious disregard for the suffering of others, to the point that the person knowingly continues to needlessly contribute to the suffering of others, requires a certain amount of blocking the heart, and that, dear friends, is the very definition of STS.

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.

Had you read all my comments from the beginning, you'd know that wasn't true. Even just with recent comments, I've repeatedly made the distinction between knowingly and unknowingly.

On the contrary, 'most' people are still unconscious about the reality of how their meat and dairy are produced. They vaguely know that chicken is from a bird with feathers, and that hamburger is from a cow, but they dissociate living chickens and cows from the substance wrapped in plastic in the grocery store or the stuff served on their plate at the restaurant. Societal conditioning has erected a wall in their minds, a literal blocking of neuropathways in the brain. Eating meat and dairy is just so 'normal' and established in society, that they do it without even questioning it.

That is rapidly changing, though, due to the internet and the efforts of vegan activists. It's getting increasingly difficult to feign ignorance.

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.

As I just said, their heart might be open in other areas, and they might be very compassionate towards other humans, but if they have been presented with an opportunity to express compassion and declined it, then that indicates a blockage. Selective compassion = blockages.

...