Why I am not a vegan

[isis]

bacon

Is this just funny to you?

To all the people who 'enjoy the taste of meat' is this really and truly irrelevant to you? You seriously just think it's all about the taste?

let's not forget about the texture

I like the taste and texture of meat too much.

Kim-Chi is delicious.

[Monica]

bacon

Is this just funny to you?

To all the people who 'enjoy the taste of meat' is this really and truly irrelevant to you? You seriously just think it's all about the taste?

let's not forget about the texture

I like the taste and texture of meat too much.

Kim-Chi is delicious.

It really blows my mind that, in a presumably STO-oriented community, people actually joke and brag about how much they are centered on serving self.

[isis]

in case that image breaks:

yummy

[Spaced]

Service to others is about acceptance. Do you accept the right of others to make their own choices Monica?

[Matt1]

This thread has become beyond a joke. I cant even express how tried i am of hearing what i can only seem to describe as "fundamentalist" views.

[Monica]

Service to others is about acceptance.

Yes but it's also about...heeeellllllooooo...Service to Others. Why do people here so often leave that part out?

Do you accept the right of others to make their own choices Monica?

Sure, as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

---

This thread has become beyond a joke. I cant even express how tried i am of hearing what i can only seem to describe as "fundamentalist" views.

If you are tired of the discussion, there are many other discussions on the forum.

Were those working to free the blacks from slavery 'fundamentalists'?

[Spaced]

How are you serving others by endlessly browbeating them about their choices?

[Monica]

How are you serving others by endlessly browbeating them about their choices?

How are meat-eaters serving others by contributing to their torture and death, and then enjoying the 'taste and texture' of their flesh, and then joking and bragging about it?

(and then insulting those who are trying to answer the victims' cries for help.)

[Matt1]

(I know you believe there is a difference in the sentience of plants and believe that plants "offer" themselves whereas animals do not, but I think that is a nonsense cop-out of your own projection of "morals".)

Have you ever had a garden, Unbound? I do. When I tear a few lettuce leaves off the plant, I always marvel at how the plant seems to double in size by the next day! With my purslane plants especially, it seems that the more I pick, the faster they grow!

Have you ever done that? Harvested some greens?

Now, have you ever killed a cow? Did you try cutting one of her legs off first to see what might happen? Then the other leg. Did the cow seem to enjoy it and offer up more legs for you to 'harvest'? Did you look the cow in the eyes as you dismembered her?

Have you ever mowed your lawn? Did each blade of grass writhe in agony, as the cow did? Was the smell of the freshly cut grass similar to the stench of the cow's blood as it spurted from the cow's body, or the stench of the cow's bowels as they loosened in terror?

Did the freshly-cut grass smell like that?

[Spaced]

How are you serving others by endlessly browbeating them about their choices?

How are meat-eaters serving others by contributing to their torture and death, and then enjoying the 'taste and texture' of their flesh, and then joking and bragging about it?

(and then insulting those who are trying to answer the victims' cries for help.)

Is someone's identity completely wrapped up in whether or not they eat meat? Is that the only thing that defines a person?

[Monica]

Is someone's identity completely wrapped up in whether or not they eat meat? Is that the only thing that defines a person?

No

[Spaced]

Do you think it's possible for someone to eat meat and still be polarized towards service to others?

[Rhayader]

How are you serving others by endlessly browbeating them about their choices?

How are meat-eaters serving others by contributing to their torture and death, and then enjoying the 'taste and texture' of their flesh, and then joking and bragging about it?

(and then insulting those who are trying to answer the victims' cries for help.)

Last time I checked, death and murder is a service to others. May not be a pleasant or necessary one to certain parts of the population, and thats fine also, but it is still a service. I think its been mentioned quite a few times, but there will be little polarisation of STO or STS whether one eats meat or not. We know its all to do with intention. Now someone being compassionate and giving it much deep thought may well be on a path to STO but that doesn't mean the people who eat meat who arn't even thinking about it are even processing the catalyst at hand to go in either direction.

[Monica]

Do you think it's possible for someone to eat meat and still be polarized towards service to others?

Yes

---

Last time I checked, death and murder is a service to others.

How so?

I think its been mentioned quite a few times, but there will be little polarisation of STO or STS whether one eats meat or not.

It's not the eating that matters. It's the conscious participation in cruelty.

We know its all to do with intention. Now someone being compassionate and giving it much deep thought may well be on a path to STO but that doesn't mean the people who eat meat who arn't even thinking about it are even processing the catalyst at hand to go in either direction.

Of course. I'm not talking about those who eat it unconsciously. This is all about those who are aware. Everyone here participating in this discussion is aware.

[Spaced]

Do you think it's possible for someone to eat meat and still be polarized towards service to others?

Yes

Then we are agreed

[Monica]

Do you think it's possible for someone to eat meat and still be polarized towards service to others?

Yes

Then we are agreed

Maybe not in the way you think we are.

The requirement for STO polarization is only 51%. That means someone can be 49% STS and still be eligible for STO graduation.

Knowingly contributing to the suffering of others is inherently STS.

[Diana]

bacon

Is this just funny to you?

To all the people who 'enjoy the taste of meat' is this really and truly irrelevant to you? You seriously just think it's all about the taste?

let's not forget about the texture

I like the taste and texture of meat too much.

Kim-Chi is delicious.

@ Isis: I have been reading a variety of your posts. Do you just post things for shock value? I can't quite make out any mindset you have other than that.

@ Gemini: You have so much identification with wolves/anthros. It seems you have empathy for the animal kingdom (this is my perception though). So how can you just participate in a cruel system because you like the taste and texture?

It really blows my mind that, in a presumably STO-oriented community, people actually joke and brag about how much they are centered on serving self.

Well, I for one am used to that. Over the years of being vegetarian (since 1994), I have heard the "bacon" taunts ad nauseum. And "I had baby seal for lunch" and other nice statements pointed directly at me on a continual basis after someone finds out I don't eat meat. (Bear in mind that I never, ever lecture about it or even say why I'm vegetarian unless I'm asked—and even then I tread lighly. Only HERE do I discuss it.)

I feel it is childish and heartless and unconscious (the bacon/baby seal crap). Sorry to offend if I have here, but that's my opinion. And if someone wants to call me out on it, look to what I am responding to first.

This thread has become beyond a joke. I cant even express how tried i am of hearing what i can only seem to describe as "fundamentalist" views.

My dear Matt1, why is it a joke? This is a discussion. What would you have us say? Are we not here to express our opinions? Why is this a joke? It is obvious catalyst to me, and I think that's great, for everyone involved.

How are you serving others by endlessly browbeating them about their choices?

No one is brow-beating. That is your perception. You may express what you feel, Monica may express what she feels, and so on. If you feel brow-beaten, then look to yourself for why. Otherwise, let verbal free will reign here in a discussion with words.

Last time I checked, death and murder is a service to others.

From what perspective?

And how does this relate to the torture and slaughter of animals?

[Monica]

Last time I checked, death and murder is a service to others.

You seem to be confusing catalyst with service to others in the context of polarity. Yes, ultimately, everything is catalyst. It is the task of the STS entities, primarily, to provide that catalyst. (We experience catalyst in other ways as well, and one doesn't have to be STS polarized to trigger catalyst, but STS entities expressly create catalyst.)

Knowingly causing death/suffering/murder is definitely not an STO action; it's STS. It may ultimately result in catalyst, and thus service, to the victim, but that is exactly how the STS polarity operates. That describes how STS entities serve the Creator.

Again, I am unabashedly bised to STO, so I speak in terms of STO service. In this context, no, murdering an other-self is definitely NOT serving the other-self! It is the opposite! Killing another entity against their will is the ultimate act of control and violation. It is STS.

[Unbound]

The questions I am being asked are a twisted convolution of my thoughts and I will not be answering so as to not have my intentions further sullied by ridiculous thinking.

It is your choice whether to participate or not, but I do find this rather 'convenient.' It is a commonly employed tactic to insult the other person rather than engage in honest, respectful discourse. I asked you some honest questions, in an effort to understand your points. Such as: Inviting you to consider the effect of killing the animal, rather than only eating the animal. That is NOT ridiculous! That is an intelligent and thoughtful question, in response to your elaborate explanation of how you 'transmute' animal suffering by eating their flesh ritualistically. To focus only on the eating part is to miss most of the equation here. It isn't only about eating. It's about killing. That meat on your plate was a sentient being's body that had to be killed before you could eat it. That cannot be ignored. Yet you seek to ignore it by conveniently saying my thinking is 'ridiculous.'

If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. But saying my thinking is 'ridiculous' and 'sullying your intentions' is quite insulting and only illustrates my point that those who attempt to justify cruelty to animals tend to have cognitive dissonance. It is easier to just lash out at vegans, rather than actually considering another perspective.

---

Although, I will say the significance of any killing is a matter of what the circumstances are, although it is, by nature, destructive. Everything must die on this plane, it is only a matter of the way in which one goes that will change the significance of death.

All humans must eventually die too. But we don't go around saying that it's ok to kill humans just because they're going to die anyway.

---

I eat and enjoy meat.
There are arguments that say I should stop doing this.
I decide to continue.

This is the discussion.
In a hat.

Try and stop me.

No, you have no desire to understand my points, that much is clear, because you are still framing my thoughts with your own interpretations that have nothing to do with my actual thoughts. You are crusading.

I don't kill animals, so I cannot answer your question. The one time I saw a cop shoot a deer whom was injured on the road I burst in to tears and a rage at the injustice, so I can only imagine the difficulty I would have killing an animal myself.

What is the significance on an energetic level? It is a transition. The karma must be dealt with by the killer, and the trauma must be dealt with by the entity whom was killed. Were I to kill the animal, thus it would be my responsibility to assume the karma for the killing. I would then have to find forgiveness within myself for myself and gratitude towards the animal.

The veggies you eat are also the body of a sentient being, so your whole approach through emotional aggrandizement in an attempt to dramatize the horrific nature of death and killing is little more than a projection of your own fears/discomforts.

If you had actually considered and looked at what I was trying to express, it is the effects of the killing on the planetary mind that I seek to alleviate through my methods. You only saw the eating, but that was not the core of my explanation nor is it the focus of the technique.

---

Last time I checked, death and murder is a service to others.

You seem to be confusing catalyst with service to others in the context of polarity. Yes, ultimately, everything is catalyst. It is the task of the STS entities, primarily, to provide that catalyst. (We experience catalyst in other ways as well, and one doesn't have to be STS polarized to trigger catalyst, but STS entities expressly create catalyst.)

Knowingly causing death/suffering/murder is definitely not an STO action; it's STS. It may ultimately result in catalyst, and thus service, to the victim, but that is exactly how the STS polarity operates. That describes how STS entities serve the Creator.

Again, I am unabashedly bised to STO, so I speak in terms of STO service. In this context, no, murdering an other-self is definitely NOT serving the other-self! It is the opposite! Killing another entity against their will is the ultimate act of control and violation. It is STS.

There is a story of a monk whom is traveling on a ship. The monk hears that there is a man on board who intends to kill all the passengers and take over the ship and that he is indeed capable of doing this. The Buddhist monk is then faced with the challenge of what to do with the man as the man is a skilled warrior and so will likely not be easily captured or subdued, but the vows the monk have taken include no killing. The monk eventually decides that in order to save the lives of the rest of the passengers it is better to approach the man and in the resulting scuffle the monk ends up killing the man.

Filled with remorse when the ship finally docks the monk seeks out the Buddha to try and seek forgiveness. He finds the Buddha in his retreat and approaches and explains his immense guilt over having taken a life and his regret over it.

The Buddha looks at him and then tells him that what he did was entirely out of love, not only for the many passengers whom he saved but also for the man, whom he saved from incurring the karma of killing all of those people so even though he took the man's life, it was actually more beneficial for that man to start a new incarnation.

Thus, I don't think killing is always, ever an STS action. What if your family was being threatened by someone and it comes down to kill or be killed, would you defend your family? Would you kill the person who is threatening you even if that isn't what you want to do if it means saving the lives of other innocents?

I am making this point completely out of the context of animals and meat-eating, I am not talking about that kind of killing, I am just addressing your thought that killing is always rooted in STS intentions.

---

Oh, also, I would like to ask you Monica, what do you think of wild game hunting?

[Monica]

No, you have no desire to understand my points,

You are wrong.

because you are still framing my thoughts with your own interpretations that have nothing to do with my actual thoughts.

Does anyone see the irony here?

You are crusading.

I am working to free the oppressed, to answer the call of those who are crying out for help. Were it not for activists, we'd still have legal human slavery here in the US.

I don't kill animals, so I cannot answer your question.

Anyone who eats meat is killing animals indirectly. Demand feeds industry.

The one time I saw a cop shoot a deer whom was injured on the road I burst in to tears and a rage at the injustice, so I can only imagine the difficulty I would have killing an animal myself.

So you pay someone to do it for you.

What is the significance on an energetic level? It is a transition. The karma must be dealt with by the killer, and the trauma must be dealt with by the entity whom was killed. Were I to kill the animal, thus it would be my responsibility to assume the karma for the killing. I would then have to find forgiveness within myself for myself and gratitude towards the animal.

In a court of law, the person who pays the assassin is just as guilty as the assassin.

The veggies you eat are also the body of a sentient being,

This has been addressed previously. Apparently you either missed the earlier posts or chose not to read them...?

so your whole approach through emotional aggrandizement in an attempt to dramatize the horrific nature of death and killing is little more than a projection of your own fears/discomforts.

Nope. Wrong again.

(Funny how you are doing the very thing you accused me of doing...do you not see that?)

If you had actually considered and looked at what I was trying to express, it is the effects of the killing on the planetary mind that I seek to alleviate through my methods. You only saw the eating, but that was not the core of my explanation nor is it the focus of the technique.

I read all of it and understood it. I think that would be wonderful, except for 1 tiny little detail: It seems incongruous to pay someone to kill animals for you so that you can 'enjoy the taste of meat' and then try to heal and transmute the animal's trauma.

There is a story of a monk whom is traveling on a ship. The monk hears that there is a man on board who intends to kill all the passengers and take over the ship and that he is indeed capable of doing this. The Buddhist monk is then faced with the challenge of what to do with the man as the man is a skilled warrior and so will likely not be easily captured or subdued, but the vows the monk have taken include no killing. The monk eventually decides that in order to save the lives of the rest of the passengers it is better to approach the man and in the resulting scuffle the monk ends up killing the man.

Filled with remorse when the ship finally docks the monk seeks out the Buddha to try and seek forgiveness. He finds the Buddha in his retreat and approaches and explains his immense guilt over having taken a life and his regret over it.

The Buddha looks at him and then tells him that what he did was entirely out of love, not only for the many passengers whom he saved but also for the man, whom he saved from incurring the karma of killing all of those people so even though he took the man's life, it was actually more beneficial for that man to start a new incarnation.

Thus, I don't think killing is always, ever an STS action. What if your family was being threatened by someone and it comes down to kill or be killed, would you defend your family? Would you kill the person who is threatening you even if that isn't what you want to do if it means saving the lives of other innocents?

I am making this point completely out of the context of animals and meat-eating, I am not talking about that kind of killing, I am just addressing your thought that killing is always rooted in STS intentions.

When I said killing was STS, I was referring to initiated violence, not a response to violence. In the context of this discussion specifically, I was referring to unnecessary killing.

In the Acceptance and Will thread, it was I who was arguing the very same point that you just made: that there are times when violence is acceptable, such as in the story of the monk, or in any situation of imminent threat. Direct self-defense is the stopping of a violent act, and is entirely different from initiating a violent act upon a victim. Even if the situation requires violence to stop the violence, the intent is still to protect the victim; therefore it's completely different from the aggressor whose intent is to dominate/control/violate/harm the victim.

The aforementioned thread explores this in great depth.

The killing of animals for meat is inherently STS because it's entirely UNnecessary. Being aware that meat is unnecessary, and still choosing to support the atrocities anyway by buying meat, is an STS act.

Oh, also, I would like to ask you Monica, what do you think of wild game hunting?

It is an obscenity. The hunter seeks a trophy, and brags about his 'sportsmanship' when in fact he used modern technology to defeat a beautiful creature. There is nothing sportsman about it. It is the same as any unnecessary taking of life, and worse, because it is consciously about the ego.

This is not to be confused with Native peoples who had to hunt to survive.

We don't.

[Unbound]

I never once said that the reason I eat meat is for the taste (although I do like the taste), so I don't really see why you keep bringing that up. I pretty clearly stated that when I eat meat it is because it feels natural and balancing to my body and vital energies, the taste is just a bonus (and even then, I certainly have times when I have no taste for meat.) Also, when I said wild game hunting, I meant in the context of for food, not for sport. Killing for sport is stupid.

It's unnecessary to destroy the body of anything, and just because the point of plants being sentient "has been addressed" doesn't mean I am in any way in agreement or satisfied with the explanations? Just because it has been address doesn't mean it has been resolved.

Also, you haven't understood my point if you are still suggesting I am attempting to "heal and transmute the animal's trauma" as that is not what I am doing with my practice and indeed doesn't even make any sense in the context of my practice.

For me, it is like picking up litter. Sure I can choose to just leave it on the ground and 'let the Earth take care of it', but I can also just as easily pick it up and put it in the trash. The planetary mind is full of emotional and mental litter, and I work to clean this up.

You are indeed correct that it is better to try and alleviate the trauma and suffering before there has been killing, by all means and that was included as part of the explanation of my technique so once again I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas from that I am only focusing on the eating and my own pleasure gained as such. (Which is really more just an enjoyment of sustenance rather than specifically being about meat.)

---

Also, if "paying the killer is a crime the same as the killing" is part of your argument, then everyone who pays taxes is guilty of killing due to the funding of the wars in the world.

---

I'm not even sure why the discussion goes this way, I thought STO was about thoughtfulness and consideration of others and I see it that we both want the same thing, for there to be less suffering, but instead we waste endless energy in debates and discussions regarding methods. How about we actually put our minds towards the actual issue of the fact there there are numerous PHYSICAL walk-to-able places where these things are occurring by physical people and we are instead living our day to day lives and chatting on a forum while these things are occurring. Guilty as charged here, I'll give you that.

[Monica]

Also, when I said wild game hunting, I meant in the context of for food, not for sport. Killing for sport is stupid.

I'm glad we agree about sport hunting! Hunting by primitive people for survival, which was necessary, is entirely different from modern hunting, which isn't necessary.

It's unnecessary to destroy the body of anything, and just because the point of plants being sentient "has been addressed" doesn't mean I am in any way in agreement or satisfied with the explanations? Just because it has been address doesn't mean it has been resolved.

I posted links to my earlier comments, as well as comments by others, regarding plants. I don't really have time to retype all that, so I directed you to those posts. If you read them and then comment, I'm happy to respond. But I see no reason to spend time repeating what has already been said.

For me, it is like picking up litter. Sure I can choose to just leave it on the ground and 'let the Earth take care of it', but I can also just as easily pick it up and put it in the trash. The planetary mind is full of emotional and mental litter, and I work to clean this up.

Trying to clean up litter, while simultaneously tossing out more litter, makes no sense.

You are indeed correct that it is better to try and alleviate the trauma and suffering before there has been killing, by all means and that was included as part of the explanation of my technique

To say that you are trying to alleviate suffering before any killing, while simultaneously paying someone to kill animals for you (which is what you do when you buy meat) is a contradiction.

so once again I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas from that I am only focusing on the eating and my own pleasure gained as such.

In your post #346, you mentioned eating a total of 15 times. You never mentioned killing at all.

The inconvenient truth remains that animals must be killed before they can be eaten. Those who don't kill themselves, pay others to do it for them.

It is a subtle but important difference in perspective: Eating describes what is done to the dead matter, whereas killing describes what is happening to the still-alive victim (who is feeling fear and pain).

Also, if "paying the killer is a crime the same as the killing" is part of your argument, then everyone who pays taxes is guilty of killing due to the funding of the wars in the world.

Similar, but not quite. We cannot legally choose to quit paying taxes. (We can, but at risk.) We can, however, easily quit buying meat.

I'm not even sure why the discussion goes this way, I thought STO was about thoughtfulness and consideration of others

It is. The difference, apparently, is that I consider animals to be other-selves also...they are our younger brethren. I have learned that many people here on B4 don't consider animals to be other-selves. They think Service to Others applies only to humans. I think that is the crux of the disagreement.

and I see it that we both want the same thing, for there to be less suffering, but instead we waste endless energy in debates and discussions regarding methods.

I see your point. I think there is value in these discussions, and apparently others find value too, going by the large number of hits these 'meat' threads always get. A lot of lurkers are reading our words. This isn't about you and me.

How about we actually put our minds towards the actual issue of the fact there there are numerous PHYSICAL walk-to-able places where these things are occurring by physical people and we are instead living our day to day lives and chatting on a forum while these things are occurring. Guilty as charged here, I'll give you that.

That sounds like a good note to end this on! Peace!

[Unbound]

I don't even know why I'm in this argument because I don't agree with you on fundamental basis' of "ethics", so I am just going to bow out.

Also, this is really, really condescending and passive-aggressive sounding and is exactly why I stopped wanting to discuss this with you in the first place.

It is. The difference, apparently, is that I consider animals to be other-selves also...they are our younger brethren. I have learned that many people here on B4 don't consider animals to be other-selves. They think Service to Others applies only to humans. I think that is the crux of the disagreement.

You are talking "generally" to avoid the fact that you are including me in your generalization so as to not seem like you are chastising me when you really are. I am leaving this thread, adieu.

[Parsons]

{Redacted}

[Shemaya]

Agree with Unbound.

Ridiculous, condescending, etc.

That being said, i think something positive can come out of the conversation. More awareness and consciousness which is always good. Having said that, i am appalled. i feel that basically accusing people of murder, assassination or whatever you want to call it is the epitome of self- righteous, fundamentalist attitudes.

Taking to the extreme, those kinds of mental ego traps are what is wrong with this world imo and causes the worst kind of separation which is in consciousness/ awareness rather than the material realm.

I can't discuss either because of that reason, there is abolutely no point in bringing an alternative viewpoint , or something else to seriously consider because you will end up being accused of murder! REALLY!!!?

I say all that even after having tofu for dinner last night. Discussing this has been good for me to gradually takes steps forward, but certainly not in a moralistic fundamentalist way, my purpose being to help others who know me open in awareness, not to judge them. And certainly not for me to consider myself more STO or spiritually evolved than them. The epitome of arrogance!!

[native]

This whole.."paying others to kill for you" argument is one of the reasons I'm working on becoming a vegetarian. I've personally made the choice that if it's not something I could do, I don't think I should consume meat.

Having said that, I've come to realize that there are many things I don't want to do but survive because others do them for me. Farming is hard, which I don't have the patience for (beyond a large garden) but plenty of people make that sacrifice so I can eat. Carpentry and being on your knees all day is something I could never ever do, but I'm glad others build that foundation. Then there's something like roofing, one of the most back breaking jobs that exists, and I'm thankful for the roof over my head. And of course I'm wearing slave-made clothes, even though I'd rather not be.

So we give and take..we're all selfish and use each other but we don't have to look at it that way. It's functioning as a unit. In one of Sandor Katz's books he says he's "..thankful for those who have the courage to slaughter." I think that's a nice way of putting it..and I'm sure he's referring to humanely raised animals.

[Monica]

I don't even know why I'm in this argument because I don't agree with you on fundamental basis' of "ethics", so I am just going to bow out.

Also, this is really, really condescending and passive-aggressive sounding and is exactly why I stopped wanting to discuss this with you in the first place.

It is. The difference, apparently, is that I consider animals to be other-selves also...they are our younger brethren. I have learned that many people here on B4 don't consider animals to be other-selves. They think Service to Others applies only to humans. I think that is the crux of the disagreement.

You are talking "generally" to avoid the fact that you are including me in your generalization so as to not seem like you are chastising me when you really are. I am leaving this thread, adieu.

WHOA. (Just when I thought we were making some progress towards understanding.) Major MISunderstanding here! When you said:

I'm not even sure why the discussion goes this way, I thought STO was about thoughtfulness and consideration of others and I see it that we both want the same thing, for there to be less suffering

I interpreted your words to mean:

Why do the meat discussions always get so heated?

NOT just about the discussion between only you and me. I thought 'discussion' meant ALL of the meat discussion, all along, which includes the original meat threads that lasted several years, so I included ALL participants in it, NOT just you! It IS the crux of the disagreement, overall, and has been since the beginning, several years ago. Most of the meat-eaters don't see animals as other-selves, so they were more concerned about the vegetarians respecting their choice to eat animals, than they were about the animals themselves. Why? Because they considered themselves other-selves, but didn't consider the animals other-selves.

You don't know me very well, Unbound. If you go back to all my posts since the beginning of B4, you will see that I tend to speak in general terms, specifically to avoid judging anyone individually. The only time I use the word 'you' is in direct response to a particular action, such as in your littering example or your "But I don't kill animals' example which applied ONLY to you. But when speaking of general concepts, or 'xyz is STS' sort of thing, I avoid mentioning anyone specifically because it isn't my place to do that and I cannot possibly know another person's thoughts, feelings or motivations. I speak in general terms most of the time. It is how I communicate here on B4, specifically to avoid anyone getting their feelings hurt, feeling singled out, or getting defensive.

This part:

I thought STO was about thoughtfulness and consideration of others and I see it that we both want the same thing, for there to be less suffering

...seems to indicate that you might be including animals in your use of the term others, since you then mention suffering, which applies to animals. I wasn't certain though, because by 'thoughtfulness and consideration' you might have been referring to 'being respectful to human other-selves' in the discussion. I wasn't sure exactly which you meant, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and focus on the possibility that you were including animals in your use of the term 'others.' Therefore, if anything, in this particular case, I was actually thinking of other people, less than you, so I made a point to use general terms. You took it the total opposite of what I intended.

---

i am appalled. i feel that basically accusing people of murder, assassination or whatever you want to call it is the epitome of self- righteous, fundamentalist attitudes.

You are confirming what I just told Unbound: This is the crux of the disagreement. We vegetarians consider animals other-selves, and the meat-eaters don't.

See? You just confirmed it. Because, if animals were other-selves, then killng them would be murder, and paying someone else to do it for you would be assassination for hire.

Why, then, are you 'appalled'? Because, apparently, you are reserving those terms for actions against humans only...they don't apply to animals. Why? Because, to the meat-eaters, animals aren't other-selves.

That is the crux of the disagreement. That is what I keep going back to. WHY aren't our younger brethren other-selves? They feel pain and fear just like we do. They have souls. They are individuated. They have personalities. WHY aren't they other-selves?

Taking to the extreme, those kinds of mental ego traps are what is wrong with this world imo and causes the worst kind of separation which is in consciousness/ awareness rather than the material realm.

I can't discuss either because of that reason, there is abolutely no point in bringing an alternative viewpoint , or something else to seriously consider because you will end up being accused of murder! REALLY!!!?

I say all that even after having tofu for dinner last night. Discussing this has been good for me to gradually takes steps forward, but certainly not in a moralistic fundamentalist way, my purpose being to help others who know me open in awareness, not to judge them. And certainly not for me to consider myself more STO or spiritually evolved than them. The epitome of arrogance!!

Oh BLAH BLAH BLAH. How much easier it is for you to just insult me, than to actually consider the ideas and concepts presented! It is you who are making this personal!

Once again, you are illustrating my point: Many (if not most) of the meat-eaters seem to be more concerned that we vegetarians show respect for their 'choices' then they are about animal suffering. Why? Because they consider themselves other-sevles but don't consider animals to be other-selves.

There it is, right there. You just confirmed it.

[Parsons]

Thread hijacker. Passive aggresive. Guilt tripper. Brow beater. Mindless zealot. Crusader. Solicitor. Indignant victim. Bigotry. Delusional. Devil's advocate. Controlling.

I'm not directing these terms at anyone specifically; just saying them out loud to no one in particular. I am being very general, so as not to be judgmental. :p

[Rhayader]

Where did this belief that meat eaters don't see animals as other selves come from? It was my impression that the 'meat eaters' see all life, plant and animal alike, as equal otherselves. I do understand the paradox, for instance in theory I have no qualms with canibalism, but it isn't something I would ever try or do.

Our entire existence is a paradox between ideals. The funny thing is, both sides will always be correct, and both sides need to exist and have people fighting for them. I'm clearly not a vegan, but I would hate a world where there arn't any also. I'm sure unbound touched on this a lot, but there are two paths, and there is no right and wrong. This has nothing to do with perceptions of progress regarding STO or STS.

[Monica]

Thread hijacker. Passive aggresive. Guilt tripper. Brow beater. Mindless zealot. Crusader. Solicitor. Indignant victim. Bigotry. Delusional. Devil's advocate. Controlling.

I'm not directing these terms at anyone specifically; just saying them out loud to no one in particular. I am being very general, so as not to be judgmental. :p

It's easier for you to make it about me, isn't it? than to discuss the actual topic. Anything to avoid the subject matter.