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

[Jade]

Sounds delicious. I want to go foraging for wild mushrooms when we go camping this weekend, I should try to get a hold of a good field guide instead of trying to trust my memory. A lady keeps bringing in giant bags and they are so beautiful...

[Matt1]

Keep an eye out for the magickal kind hehe

[Jade]

ALWAYS

[JustLikeYou]

So-called 'humane' meat is just killing, or maybe raping and killing, without the torture. Yeah, it is less cruelty, but is that really saying a whole lot? "Oh, I just don't torture them first before I kill them." Does that farmer get a medal? Does the person buying it get a medal?

This question is similar to the abortion question. Where do we draw the line? Obviously, we've all considered that you can't live without incidentally killing something else, whether it's a bacterium, a carrot, or an animal. Monica, you seem to have a specific concept of where that line is drawn, but I don't see why that line is engraved in stone. It seems to me to be a sliding line. Some say you shouldn't eat anything that isn't offered for your consumption---i.e. fruit. Similarly, nuts and seeds have evolved to be difficult to digest precisely so that creatures do not eat them before they germinate.

I have raised chickens. We raised them for eggs, though we slaughtered one or two when they got injured. It was an interesting experience because my brother and I were their primary caretakers (the girls were afraid of the rooster), but they never felt quite like pets. You couldn't make them pets if you wanted to. The rooster's presence might have contributed to our distance from them. In any case, even in retrospect, it didn't feel violent or cruel to eat their eggs, whether fertilized or not. To not do so would have been similar to not spaying or neutering an outdoor cat. On the occasions when we slaughtered a chicken, it was only disturbing because my father didn't know what he was doing, so he made a sloppy job of it. I've since seen humane methods and it's really not disturbing to me at all.

I'm sure you've also heard commentary about life in the wild: animals kill each other all the time. In fact, when we raised chickens, we only stopped doing so because some creature would sneak in at night and take chickens. The one thing that I think was cruel about the whole process was what my parents decided to do with the rooster. We had a coop where we kept the chickens and they were generally safe in it, though it seemed like we sometimes lost them from in there, too. Anyway, when it was down to a couple of hens and a rooster, my parents said f*** it, just leave the rooster out. Apparently there was a pretty brutal fight between the rooster and whatever was hunting the chickens. I thought that rooster deserved a more noble death. A gunshot to the head would have been far better, but my dad didn't have a gun.

What do we owe these creatures whom we tend? What do we owe the grass beneath our feet, the cabbage in the garden, and the millions of bacteria that are born and die everyday? If we are STO, then we owe them what service we can provide. My fiancée and I were working on an aquaponics project in which we'd use fish water to fertilize plants. We abandoned the project for a number of reasons, but ethics was not one. We carefully considered the prospect of killing fish because that would determine what kind of fish we raised. I asked her, "would you kill Holstein [our cat] for food?" This was a repulsive thought. Holstein is a pet. That raised a new question: can you raise animals whom you love and respect in themselves, without them feeling like pets? That is, can you raise animals the way you raise tomatoes? Her reflection on the cattle ranch she was raised upon and my reflection on the chickens my family raised led us to the conclusion that some animals just couldn't be pets---at least not without lots of effort.

The measure for STO is not a specific set of actions. Even Ra said that the more you evolve, the more you turn toward right being rather than right action: "The adept then begins to do less of the preliminary or outer work, having to do with function, and begins to effect the inner work which has to do with being" (75.23). The measure of STO is the attitude you have toward yourself and the world around you. If you view yourself and the world as tools to be manipulated at your own discretion, then your attitudes trend toward STS. If, on the other, you glorify self and world as beautiful and worthy in themselves, you trend toward STO. The specifics of circumstance in which these attitudes manifest are left unstated because they are unique to each individual. To some, it is impossible to kill a certain class of living organisms without viewing them also as an object whose only value is as food. To others, lovingly raising livestock for eventual slaughter brings no value clash with it.

Indeed, to love an animal is an act of service. What makes any of us think that killing is an act of disservice? In the case of human beings, it becomes far more clear because human beings have a self-reflexive sense of free determination. That is to say, you are infringing when you kill someone else. 2D, however, does not have this sense of free determination. Those few animals who clearly do have some form of self-awareness, however, we find ourselves unable to kill: pets. But in the animal kingdom, pets are rare. In raising livestock lovingly, you render a service to those animals that you would not have otherwise rendered. You give a space for human investment of love to animals that you would not choose as pets. If we only kept pets, we'd have the opportunity to invest far fewer animals than if we raise livestock. Livestock is simply not as capable as a pet of returning the favor---otherwise the animal would be a pet. The energy exchange, then, must come elsewise: we give livestock love and tenderness through providing them a peaceful and content existence, while in exchange they provide us with food when we judge the time is right. This may sound cruel, but that is how all farmers harvest, whether they are harvesting animals or plants.

Killing is not STS when done with gratitude. The animal will live again. The species soul is not harmed by death any more than a human soul is. The real service is how you treated that animal while it was alive, because that is the experience the species soul will harvest. I don't enjoy killing ants and termites, nor do I see them exclusively as pests. That did not stop me, however, from setting up poison bait stations around my house because of the potential risks of infestation. We regularly make decisions about which animals live and die because they animals themselves are not capable of making them, which is precisely the reason we are repulsed by making decisions about whether humans and pets live or die: they have a conscious opinion on the matter.

[Monica]

This question is similar to the abortion question. Where do we draw the line?

It is the same, whether we're talking about a baby human or an animal. The only logical place to draw the line is the presence of a heartbeat, pain receptors, and nervous system. Conveniently, those all pretty much go together.

Obviously, we've all considered that you can't live without incidentally killing something else, whether it's a bacterium, a carrot, or an animal.

True. And we must eat something. Which is precisely why we need some sort of guidelines. The logical guideline is what I just said, especially in light of the fact that we do NOT need to eat animals or their secretions AT ALL.

From a spiritual perspective, doesn't it make sense to minimize the killing we must do? Rather than arbitrarily deciding that the animals we think are cute shouldn't be killed but the ones that aren't cute can be killed, a more responsible guidelines is to avoid killing any being with the obvious signs of sentience: heartbeat, pain receptors and nervous system.

Microbes aren't killed when we breathe them in. WE are their natural habitat! Our bodies are 90% microbes. Our bodies have more microbes than human cells! So microbes don't count.

Plants clearly have some sort of consciousness, but there isn't any indication that an individual plant has individual sentience. That is the difference. Until we become Breatharians, it is spiritually more responsible to limit our consumption to plants only, and avoid the Unnecessary killing of sentient beings. The human body does NOT need meat, so ALL animal slaughter for food is Unnecessary.

Her reflection on the cattle ranch she was raised upon and my reflection on the chickens my family raised led us to the conclusion that some animals just couldn't be pets---at least not without lots of effort.

Cows can be pets too

Confused Cow Thinks She Is A Dog

Cow (Rory) my pet

Man and his pet cow

PolyCentric - Cows as Pets at Cal Poly Pomona

Bull saved from bullfight becomes a docile pet

Home Pet Cow and Pet Goat

cuddling chicken

Chicken loves cuddling

My chicken likes to cuddle

Pet Chicken Snuggles with Lauryn

Cute cuddles with pet chicken

I like these the best:

Chicken purring like a kitten!

Happy Chicken Purring

Purring Chicken Baby  <<== OMG!

More chicken purring

Silkie Chicken Purring

Cute child and very relaxed, purring chicken

and fish too!

Man's pet fish thinks it's a dog and loves to be stroked

Bob, The Fish That Loves To Be Petted, And Does Not Mind Being Lifted Out Of Water!

fish likes being petted

More fish that like being petted

Fish plays fetch like a dog

Friendly Fish! This Fish acts like a DOG!

There are TONS more! and that's not even looking for pet pigs and cows, of which there are MANY! and that's not even getting into the deer, foxes, and other wild creatures too.

Any animal can show love and affection. It is just humans' societal conditioning that says chickens, cows, pigs and fish aren't supposed to be pets. In China, they treat dogs and cats the way they treat chickens here - burning them alive and eating them. It's all completely arbitrary.

I had pet chickens, ducks, and even quail as a child, in addition to cats. They were all my pets until my dad butchered them.

Sure, it might take more effort on the part of the human to think of an animal as a pet, but that is only because of societal conditioning, and it depends on how much love the human wants to share, Not on how much love the animals is capable of receiving and reciprocating.

The measure for STO is not a specific set of actions. Even Ra said that the more you evolve, the more you turn toward right being rather than right action: "The adept then begins to do less of the preliminary or outer work, having to do with function, and begins to effect the inner work which has to do with being" (75.23).

Being and doing aren't opposites. Doing without being is outer work. But being may include doing.

To others, lovingly raising livestock for eventual slaughter brings no value clash with it.

If there is no value clash, then sentient life isn't being valued. That reflects on the level of awareness of the killer, Not the killed.

What makes any of us think that killing is an act of disservice?

Simple. The animal makes it very clear that s/he doesn't want to be killed. Therefore, it's a violation of free will.

In the case of human beings, it becomes far more clear because human beings have a self-reflexive sense of free determination. That is to say, you are infringing when you kill someone else. 2D, however, does not have this sense of free determination.

Whatever gave you that idea? OF COURSE they do!

Those few animals who clearly do have some form of self-awareness, however, we find ourselves unable to kill: pets.

You are seeing this through a very narrow lens. Do a search for 'burning cats alive' and you will see people who think of cats the way you think of chickens. You have no trouble killing chickens; they have no trouble killing cats and dogs. The cats, dogs, pigs, cows and chickens all resist death equally. The species of animal or whether s/he is a pet or not has nothing to do with it. Only the human perception is different. That is the very definition of Speciesism.

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

Well I gotta say, I thought I'd heard all the possible attempts at justification for eating meat, but I was wrong. I had never heard that one before!  

Now that you've watched the videos I posted of chickens and fish showing affection, you now know that you were mistaken. Of course they are capable of returning love and affection! Most people just have never noticed before because societal conditioning is so strong that it never even entered their minds to show affection to 'food' animals...just like some Chinese have never thought that cats and dogs could be pets...to them, they are food.

The energy exchange, then, must come elsewise: we give livestock love and tenderness through providing them a peaceful and content existence

Does this look like a 'peaceful and content' existence?

Meet Your Meat

while in exchange they provide us with food when we judge the time is right.

They don't give it. It is taken from them.

This may sound cruel, but that is how all farmers harvest

It does sound cruel, because it IS cruel.

whether they are harvesting animals or plants.

Farmers know it's Not the same. They know there's a huge difference between harvesting plants and slaughtering animals.

Killing is not STS when done with gratitude.

If that is true, then the principle should hold true when applied to ANY animal, right?

So try it with a human: Can you kill a human 'with gratitude' and it Not be STS?

The animal will live again. The species soul is not harmed by death any more than a human soul is.

Then why not just go ahead and kill humans any time you want to? After all, they'll just live again, right?

The real service is how you treated that animal while it was alive, because that is the experience the species soul will harvest.

Again, if that is true, then the principle should work when applied to humans. So is it ok to rape and kill a woman as long as you don't torture her first?

I don't enjoy killing ants and termites, nor do I see them exclusively as pests. That did not stop me, however, from setting up poison bait stations around my house because of the potential risks of infestation. We regularly make decisions about which animals live and die because they animals themselves are not capable of making them, which is precisely the reason we are repulsed by making decisions about whether humans and pets live or die: they have a conscious opinion on the matter.

Does this cow look like she doesn't have a conscious opinion on the matter?

I am scared and don't want to die.

How about this one?

One Cow's Heartbreaking Trip to Slaughter

...

[Monica]

animals kill each other all the time.

You can't have it both ways. You can't first argue that it's ok to kill animals because they aren't self-aware, implying that we are more highly evolved than they are, and then turn around and argue that we should behave like animals.

If we are STO, then we owe them what service we can provide.

Killing them against their will, all to satisfy our own lust for the taste of their flesh, isn't serving them in any way, shape or form.

If we 'owe' them anything it's compassion and enough respect to let them live their lives, instead of selfishly taking their lives when we don't even need to at all.

...

[JustLikeYou]

...

Not convinced. You're arguing against a straw man, but that doesn't really matter anyway because my conscience is clear. And, as one of your images suggests, you can't argue against a clear conscience. I welcome you to have your own moral stance on the matter as concerns your diet. You are also welcome to perceive how my moral stance is coherent.

[Diana]

I don't enjoy killing ants and termites, nor do I see them exclusively as pests. That did not stop me, however, from setting up poison bait stations around my house because of the potential risks of infestation. We regularly make decisions about which animals live and die because they animals themselves are not capable of making them, which is precisely the reason we are repulsed by making decisions about whether humans and pets live or die: they have a conscious opinion on the matter.

You don't need to kill ants. All you have to do is keep your house clean and keep all the food put away. If there is nothing to eat they will leave.

I don't know about termites. But if I had a problem with termites I would look for a natural deterrent. Why use poison when you don't have to?

If you think animals don't have a conscious opinion on the matter, go to a slaughterhouse and see if the cows/pigs want to be killed.

The bottom line is: what is necessary? Is it necessary to use fish to grow plants hydroponically? No. So why kill them? When is killing life forms EVER a good thing? Some think they may be being of service to do so—well, have at it if it makes anyone feel better about taking life. 

I get that a pet means more to a person personally than a wild animal. But this is an arbitrary line drawn that makes no sense when objectively observed. 

[JustLikeYou]

If you think animals don't have a conscious opinion on the matter, go to a slaughterhouse and see if the cows/pigs want to be killed.

All life seeks to persevere. That is one of the inborn directives of 2D. I'm saying that most do not choose so for themselves because it is a choice one can only consciously make. Think of a dog that dies of grief. That dog has chosen to die; it is not simply responding to an instinctive directive because the directive is to live.

You don't need to kill ants. All you have to do is keep your house clean and keep all the food put away. If there is nothing to eat they will leave.

Yeah, you'd think that would be enough, but they find the weirdest things to eat, like cat food and toothpaste. I really didn't mind them until I was informed that as many ants as we had entering the house, we'd begin to see structural damage from their lines.

The bottom line is: what is necessary? Is it necessary to use fish to grow plants hydroponically? No. So why kill them? When is killing life forms EVER a good thing? Some think they may be being of service to do so—well, have at it if it makes anyone feel better about taking life.

I'm still not sure why killing is a bad thing. It becomes a fantastic thing when we have a pathogenic illness or a parasitic infection. In those cases, there's nothing we want more than to kill the critters.

How do you define necessary? Is it necessary to build our houses out of wood? Is it necessary to turn the soil that worms and mites live in, thus destroying their homes? Is it necessary to walk a trail on grass, thus killing that specific portion? Is it necessary to turn trees into books? Or fire? What would you strip away from our culture in the name of necessity?

Monica is knocking down a strawman because the practices she rails against are mass-production practices. I find the inhumane treatment of animals in these factories as offensive as anyone else. That's not what I'm talking about. That plus she introduces all manner of fallacious rhetorical devices like burning alive and rape. I have no desire either to change your mind or to defend my position against all attack.

What follows is in response to Monica and Diana, but it's not really written for them because I don't expect to change their minds. What follows is written for those less decided on the matter. Perhaps my own experience and reflection can help.

Why it is STO to kill livestock

1. Mercy killing is STO.

Perhaps it would help if I explain a little better how killing animals is actually a service to them. Consider Peta. I don't like the organization for reasons I'm sure I don't need to get into. In any case, they do a lot of mercy killing. The motivation behind the mercy killing is that if they do not put these strays down, they will starve out on the streets and die of hunger, illness, or trauma. That is to say, death is better than the lives they will lead.

While members here may not believe in mercy killing, it is a logical consequence of consciously seeking to alleviate suffering: if you can't take care of an animal that you can see is destined for a painful or even cruel end, killing it becomes an act of service. On the flip side of this coin, I've known people who wanted to alleviate the suffering of animals but couldn't suffer the killing. One of them had ten cats and two dogs in a one bedroom apartment. They ruled her life because she couldn't say no.

2. Not all animals are fit to be pets.

Monica gave a string of instances of persons making unusual animals into pets. That was a red herring. Of course you can make just about anything into a pet. That's not what's at issue here. What is at issue is that most animals that incarnate are not at a stage in their evolution that is conducive to pethood. That is to say, the animal species soul chooses how its individuated mind/body complexes will incarnate, with an eye toward giving that unique signature of self the experience appropriate to it. Those who become pets were probably ready to become pets. I have direct experience with this, myself. My first wife and I used to take in stray cats. We gave shelter to a pregnant one so that we could keep or give away the litter. One of the kittens, though, was different. You couldn't domesticate her. It was as if she was born feral: she'd bite and scratch you for no reason than that you were near, she wasn't interested in a litterbox, and probably other unsavory behaviors that I can't remember. We had to put her out of the house: she was unfit to be a pet. Monica's examples do not shed light on the phenomenon that some animals just aren't suitable pets.

My experience, and the experience of most I think, is that pets will choose their masters. When she was younger, my fiancée knew a family who raised sheep. She was particularly attached to one of them who had a name and would go in and out of the house. One day, she came over and noticed that the family was grilling lamb chops and that her friend was nowhere to be found. They had slaughtered the pet. While this particular pet was meant to be livestock, it chose to be a pet. I am trusting that animals who are ready for pethood make it known.

3. All animals benefit from human investment.

What, then, are we to do with animals not suitable for pethood? Peta's solution is mercy killings. Another solution is to maintain a sharp distinction between the City and the Wild. We could interact with only pets. All other animals would then belong in their natural wild habitat. This, however, does not leave space for broad human interaction with animals. It would be a service to animals if we found a middle-ground between wilderness and pethood. That middle-ground is humanely raised livestock. We do not cultivate pet relationships with livestock, but we do care for them and tend them as we would a garden. This is investment and, considering that 3D investment is necessary for 2D graduation, it is a service even to those animals who are not harvestable. The same extends to dairy cows and chickens raised for eggs, as long as they are humanely treated.

4. If we did not kill livestock, we would not raise livestock.

This one is pretty obvious. The opportunity for an intermediate form of human investment can only exist within a certain paradigm: we would never keep so many non-pet animals in a domestic setting if they were not furnishing us with food. We could, perhaps, go visit animals in the wild, but that context is dramatically different. In the wild, we do not protect and feed the animals; rather, we are merely visitors. Visiting an animal in the wild is a also an intermediate stage of human investment, but it is further removed than livestock.

5. Therefore, It is a service to raise livestock and a service to kill livestock.

It is a service to kill livestock because if we did not, they would multiply beyond our means to keep them. The same is true of eggs. In killing livestock and eating eggs, we preserve the integrity of a context in which animals unready for pethood can benefit from human investment. If we set livestock free in the wild or allowed them to live out their lives to old age, they would meet with famine and disease. Frankly, I still fail to see where the cruelty of this way of life for an animal lies. Death is not suffering. Suffering is something that happens while you're alive, and humane treatment of animals on a farm is an excellent midpoint between wild and pethood.

In this context, asking "Is eating meat necessary?" misses the point. It doesn't matter whether it's necessary. What matters is that we render a service unto each other. It's true that livestock cannot inform us that they are willing to feed us if we treat them well, but I trust that the exchange is equal and acceptable. The litmus test for my act of faith on the matter is how settled I am about it. And I am settled.

Besides, I find it perfectly plausible that an animal that was livestock in one life incarnates as a pet in the next.

[Monica]

Not convinced. You're arguing against a straw man, but that doesn't really matter anyway because my conscience is clear. And, as one of your images suggests, you can't argue against a clear conscience. I welcome you to have your own moral stance on the matter as concerns your diet. You are also welcome to perceive how my moral stance is coherent.

Seriously? Did you even look at the videos I posted?

You just built a case on the point that 'livestock' animals "can't be pets because they don't have self-determination" and I just proved you wrong. Not with mere opinions, but actual visual PROOF. And you have no comment to that?

...

[Matt1]

Logically there isn't any painless way to kill something. If you kill an animal you are causing harm. Now i would understand this course of action if it was based upon a hunter gatherer culture but if you consider it on a mass farming level it seems to be rather cruel when you have an alternative of eating a Vegan or Vegetarian diet. I recently went back to being a vegetarian after i thought it through, it basically boils down to desiring something that causes harm, which isn't necessary because there is an non harmful alternative available.

If you can eat a healthy and varied without causing harm to animals, then wouldn't it simply be logically to do so if one is wishing to develop compassion?

[Monica]

All life seeks to persevere. That is one of the inborn directives of 2D. I'm saying that most do not choose so for themselves because it is a choice one can only consciously make. Think of a dog that dies of grief. That dog has chosen to die; it is not simply responding to an instinctive directive because the directive is to live.

It's easy to think that dogs are smarter than 'livestock' animals because we have more interaction with dogs, and because societal conditioning tells us that 'livestock' animals are 'just for food.' It doesn't appear that you watched the videos in my previous post, which prove otherwise.

Here are more:

Grieving mother Cows (Not graphic)

Cows Smart and acting like dogs <<== Does this look like instinct??

Cows grieving after being separated from best friend

I'm still not sure why killing is a bad thing. It becomes a fantastic thing when we have a pathogenic illness or a parasitic infection. In those cases, there's nothing we want more than to kill the critters.

It's the UNnecessary killing that's bad. Killing parasites is necessary for life and health. Plus, they are are parasites, invading another person's body. So they have crossed a line.

Killing animals for meat/dairy is, however, Not necessary. That is the difference.

How do you define necessary? Is it necessary to build our houses out of wood? Is it necessary to turn the soil that worms and mites live in, thus destroying their homes? Is it necessary to walk a trail on grass, thus killing that specific portion? Is it necessary to turn trees into books? Or fire? What would you strip away from our culture in the name of necessity?

At this point in time, yes, most of that is necessary to some degree. As we evolve, we will surely find better ways to live in harmony with the Earth. The first step is to quit killing animals for food!

It's important to note, however, that walking on grass doesn't kill it. That is a CLUE about what is acceptable and what isn't.

Monica is knocking down a strawman because the practices she rails against are mass-production practices. I find the inhumane treatment of animals in these factories as offensive as anyone else.

Yet you still support it when you buy meat and dairy. Just like most other meat-eaters who agree it's offensive, and claim to buy only 'humane' meat, yet still continue to eat at restaurants which of course use commercially-produced meat and dairy from those abominations called factory farms.

Furthermore, there is No such thing as 'humane' meat.

That's not what I'm talking about. That plus she introduces all manner of fallacious rhetorical devices like burning alive and rape.

Not fallacious or rhetorical at all! but literally true! Here's proof:

MILK=RAPE

More Details about how they use the Cow Rape Rack

This is what you support when you buy cheese, milk, yogurt or any dairy product. Cows are routinely raped every year. They have to artificially inseminate them to get them pregnant. Then the calf is taken away, and the process begins again. They must have a baby to produce milk, see?

Chickens routinely scalded alive <<== ROUTINELY, to the tune of about 90 still-conscious hens dunked in scalding hot water every HOUR. Some survive the scalding hot water so the torture isn't even over yet! These are the ones that the blade missed. And this is NORMAL.

And of course, we all know that crabs and lobsters are routinely boiled alive too.

In China, they routinely boil dogs and cats alive. They also torch them and hold them to the flame for many minutes, causing unimaginable suffering. All routine. But No different than what is done to millions of 'livestock' animals here in the US every day.

What follows is in response to Monica and Diana, but it's not really written for them because I don't expect to change their minds. What follows is written for those less decided on the matter. Perhaps my own experience and reflection can help.

Why it is STO to kill livestock

1. Mercy killing is STO.

Perhaps it would help if I explain a little better how killing animals is actually a service to them. Consider Peta. I don't like the organization for reasons I'm sure I don't need to get into. In any case, they do a lot of mercy killing. The motivation behind the mercy killing is that if they do not put these strays down, they will starve out on the streets and die of hunger, illness, or trauma. That is to say, death is better than the lives they will lead.

While members here may not believe in mercy killing, it is a logical consequence of consciously seeking to alleviate suffering: if you can't take care of an animal that you can see is destined for a painful or even cruel end, killing it becomes an act of service. On the flip side of this coin, I've known people who wanted to alleviate the suffering of animals but couldn't suffer the killing.

I actually do believe in mercy killing - when it really IS an act of mercy and the animal really IS suffering horribly and there really is NO hope. Those are the animals PETA kills - the extreme cases. It is tragic but there is no other choice in such cases. It is the final act of compassion to an animal, but only if it truly is a last resort.

But what does that have to do with killing animals for meat?

Nothing. Artificially inseminating animals so that they will produce more babies than they normally would in the wild, only to enslave them and then kill them, is NOT mercy killing!

If a man repeatedly rapes and tortures a woman for months and then years, until he finally murders her, do we call that mercy killing? Of course not! He is the cause of her suffering! Killing her is just his final act against her free will. Not the same as mercy killing at all!

2. Not all animals are fit to be pets.

Completely arbitrary, on the whim of humans, and therefore irrelevant. The only relevant point is: Can they suffer? If they have pain receptors, then they have the awareness to register pain, meaning that they can suffer. THAT is the point.

Plus, I just proved that 'farm' animals can show just as much awareness as 'pet' animals.

Monica gave a string of instances of persons making unusual animals into pets. That was a red herring. Of course you can make just about anything into a pet.

Ah, then you are retracting your previous statement that 'livestock' couldn't be pets. Thank you.

That's not what's at issue here. What is at issue is that most animals that incarnate are not at a stage in their evolution that is conducive to pethood. That is to say, the animal species soul chooses how its individuated mind/body complexes will incarnate, with an eye toward giving that unique signature of self the experience appropriate to it. Those who become pets were probably ready to become pets. I have direct experience with this, myself. My first wife and I used to take in stray cats. We gave shelter to a pregnant one so that we could keep or give away the litter. One of the kittens, though, was different. You couldn't domesticate her. It was as if she was born feral: she'd bite and scratch you for no reason than that you were near, she wasn't interested in a litterbox, and probably other unsavory behaviors that I can't remember. We had to put her out of the house: she was unfit to be a pet. Monica's examples do not shed light on the phenomenon that some animals just aren't suitable pets.

Feral cats simply require more patience. Of course they bite and scratch at first; they're scared! But they CAN be tamed. I've done it many times and so have many other people. It simply takes a great deal of time and patience.

But whether we win over the heart of that cat or not is irrelevant. Just because the cat is still scared doesn't mean it's ok to torture and kill her!

Nor is it any proof at all of the animal's level of awareness. Case in point: Some human children who were abandoned or abused are scared like that, and behave much the same way. They simply need patience...and love! It says nothing about their level of self-awareness.

Anyway, why should a being's worth be based on whether humans decide they are good pets or not? That reeks of speciesism!

My experience, and the experience of most I think, is that pets will choose their masters. When she was younger, my fiancée knew a family who raised sheep. She was particularly attached to one of them who had a name and would go in and out of the house. One day, she came over and noticed that the family was grilling lamb chops and that her friend was nowhere to be found. They had slaughtered the pet. While this particular pet was meant to be livestock, it chose to be a pet. I am trusting that animals who are ready for pethood make it known.

Well you sure are putting a lot of trust in your theory. But again, it's a completely arbitrary notion that only 'pets' are worthy to be free from suffering and unnecessary killing...only 'pets' should be granted the basic right to not be tortured and killed.

That sounds a lot like the notion that only whites should have basic human rights, and it's ok to torture and kill blacks, because if they were ready to be treated like humans then they would have been born white.

Racism=Speciesism

We do not cultivate pet relationships with livestock, but we do care for them and tend them as we would a garden.

Small-scale farmers might take better care of the animals before slaughter, but then they slit their throats just the same. They also steal their babies and rape them just the same.

Your analogy to a garden reminds me of pedophiles who claim to 'take care of' little girls out of 'love'. It's Not love. It's sick and self-serving, No matter how you slice it.

This is investment and, considering that 3D investment is necessary for 2D graduation, it is a service even to those animals who are not harvestable. The same extends to dairy cows and chickens raised for eggs, as long as they are humanely treated.

Oh, so we get to decide which animals are 'worthy' of life and which aren't? I just showed you how 'livestock' animals can be just as loving, affectionate, and smart as 'pet' animals. There is NO distinction other than the arbitrary line drawn by humans.

And, there is No such thing as 'humane' slaughter. That is a myth.

4. If we did not kill livestock, we would not raise livestock.

This one is pretty obvious. The opportunity for an intermediate form of human investment can only exist within a certain paradigm: we would never keep so many non-pet animals in a domestic setting if they were not furnishing us with food. We could, perhaps, go visit animals in the wild, but that context is dramatically different. In the wild, we do not protect and feed the animals; rather, we are merely visitors. Visiting an animal in the wild is a also an intermediate stage of human investment, but it is further removed than livestock.

Animals don't need human investment if that investment is slavery and slaughter.

5. Therefore, It is a service to raise livestock and a service to kill livestock.

It is a service to kill livestock because if we did not, they would multiply beyond our means to keep them.

Not true. The only reason there are so many billions of 'livestock' animals is the artificial reproduction imposed by humans.

The same is true of eggs. In killing livestock and eating eggs, we preserve the integrity of a context in which animals unready for pethood can benefit from human investment.

How does enslavement have any 'integrity' at all?

Your references to 'ready for pethood' sound very elitist to me.

If we set livestock free in the wild or allowed them to live out their lives to old age, they would meet with famine and disease.

Of course. Humans' lust for animal flesh and created a huge mess and no one's saying it will be easy to clean up the mess. But that doesn't justify continuing to support the machine that is creating the monster mess in the first place...which is also destroying the planet, by the way.

It doesn't matter whether it's necessary. What matters is that we render a service unto each other.

Indeed. Offering the 'service' of enslavement and murder is the task of STS-oriented entities. Is that the kind of 'service' you wish to support?

It's true that livestock cannot inform us that they are willing to feed us if we treat them well,

Sure they can, and they do! Every. Single. Time.

They tell us by the look of fear in their eyes. They tell us by frantically trying to escape the killer. These are basic signs of "I don't want to die! I want to live!" but you'll notice these signs only if you are paying attention.

but I trust that the exchange is equal and acceptable. The litmus test for my act of faith on the matter is how settled I am about it. And I am settled.

Are you sure? Why are you participating in this discussion then?

Besides, I find it perfectly plausible that an animal that was livestock in one life incarnates as a pet in the next.

Does that make it ok? A raped/murdered woman will surely incarnate as another baby human. Does that make it ok to rape and murder her?

It's equally plausible that the tortured, raped, murdered woman will reincarnate as a sociopath, embittered and hateful.

It's equally plausible that the tortured, raped, murdered cow will reincarnate in her first life as a human: an embittered, hateful human...and the meat/dairy industry is populating a planet of sociopaths.

Humans will have to answer for their part in this.

...

[Rhayader]

All life came from one, from the infinity, and im sure if I chose to be a plant or an animal going into 2D, I knew the risks and accepted it for what it is. We chose the experience we wanted, we wanted this 3D, they wanted 2D and what it entails, including being live stock for something else. If someone were to kill me, for food or whatever purpose, I would see it as a service to both entities involved, there is experience to be gained from both sides.

[Monica]

All life came from one, from the infinity, and im sure if I chose to be a plant or an animal going into 2D, I knew the risks and accepted it for what it is. We chose the experience we wanted, we wanted this 3D, they wanted 2D and what it entails, including being live stock for something else. If someone were to kill me, for food or whatever purpose, I would see it as a service to both entities involved, there is experience to be gained from both sides.

That's not the point. The point is: Do YOU want to be the person who supports the enslavement and killing of another entity?

...

[Rhayader]

All life came from one, from the infinity, and im sure if I chose to be a plant or an animal going into 2D, I knew the risks and accepted it for what it is. We chose the experience we wanted, we wanted this 3D, they wanted 2D and what it entails, including being live stock for something else. If someone were to kill me, for food or whatever purpose, I would see it as a service to both entities involved, there is experience to be gained from both sides.

That's not the point. The point is: Do YOU want to be the person who supports the enslavement and killing of another entity?

...

At present, I don't mind taking responsibility for all things including such murder, past, present or future. Happy to do so or not, emotions aside, I support the existence of enslavement and killing. They would not exist if we, one and all, didn't want the experience of it. However, I also respect those with passion who wish to impose a better ethical system, I think it seems to be a very polarizing path for whomever takes it and I commend it and wish them well. At the moment my feelings can only be that everything is perfect as it is, as I straddle a very central balancing line. I try not to perceive any good or evil from any act. I imagine this wont be useful forever, but it gives me peace right now.

[Monica]

I support the existence of enslavement and killing.

By 'support' do you mean that you:

a.) accept that it exists, for the reasons you cited

or

b.) are ok with actually participating in the enslavement and killing?

...

[Diana]

@ JustLikeYou: If you are interested in this subject matter, read the other threads devoted to it, such as the infamous and closed, In Regards to Eating Meat. All your points have been discussed ad nauseum (in the extreme). For someone who claims to be into rigorous study, you seem not to study up much here and rather, just think you're "right." I can hear responses such as all is one and why that makes this subject moot and there is no right or something to that effect (the same sort of circular logic Christians employ to justify something that makes no sense). Don't bother on my account. You won't be talking to a neophyte, someone who can't think things out for herself, someone who doesn't listen to other points of view, or someone who is stuck in a groove.

Everyone here, please forgive my harshness. I may be coming to the end of my tether here at B4. I do come here for different reasons. But this one subject has continued to baffle me in the extreme. I will probably be judged for this; something like, oh, she is mirroring, or this is her distortion, or she just can't see the bigger picture. Think what you will. I am what I am. 

There have been some valid and mind-expanding points of view on the side of consuming animals. I have listened and considered. But I can't get past the cruelty. The plant vs. animal argument just doesn't hold up, within the context of BEING HERE. Perhaps if we were living in 6D it makes sense. But we are here. Meat animals are treated cruelly. The question becomes: Do you want to participate in that? Not, is it okay. Of course it isn't okay! Just like it isn't okay that there are homeless people, starving children, wars. But all is one, right? We are everything, so why not just go along with all the horror because it's all one anyway. What a gigantic cop-out. I totally understand that we are all things, that we need to "accept the shadows" and all that. But aren't we here to make choices? And I don't give a remote dam about being harvestable. That isn't the point either, unless you only care about yourself.

[Monica]

@ JustLikeYou: If you are interested in this subject matter, read the other threads devoted to it, such as the infamous and closed, In Regards to Eating Meat. All your points have been discussed ad nauseum (in the extreme). For someone who claims to be into rigorous study, you seem not to study up much here and rather, just think you're "right." I can hear responses such as all is one and why that makes this subject moot and there is no right or something to that effect (the same sort of circular logic Christians employ to justify something that makes no sense). Don't bother on my account. You won't be talking to a neophyte, someone who can't think things out for herself, someone who doesn't listen to other points of view, or someone who is stuck in a groove.

Everyone here, please forgive my harshness. I may be coming to the end of my tether here at B4. I do come here for different reasons. But this one subject has continued to baffle me in the extreme. I will probably be judged for this; something like, oh, she is mirroring, or this is her distortion, or she just can't see the bigger picture. Think what you will. I am what I am. 

There have been some valid and mind-expanding points of view on the side of consuming animals. I have listened and considered. But I can't get past the cruelty. The plant vs. animal argument just doesn't hold up, within the context of BEING HERE. Perhaps if we were living in 6D it makes sense. But we are here. Meat animals are treated cruelly. The question becomes: Do you want to participate in that? Not, is it okay. Of course it isn't okay! Just like it isn't okay that there are homeless people, starving children, wars. But all is one, right? We are everything, so why not just go along with all the horror because it's all one anyway. What a gigantic cop-out. I totally understand that we are all things, that we need to "accept the shadows" and all that. But aren't we here to make choices? And I don't give a remote dam about being harvestable. That isn't the point either, unless you only care about yourself.

Well said!

I will add this:

The "oh we just need to accept the darkness" doesn't fly because accepting isn't the same as participating in it.

I can accept that, despite my best intentions to help make the world a brighter place, there are still people out there doing heinous things. I get that. But that doesn't mean that *I* have to also DO those heinous things!!

THAT is the point that keeps getting lost! It's a cop-out to say "Oh but there will always be bad things happening" and then actually DO those bad things! When someone chooses to buy meat or dairy, even 'organic' or 'humane' meat or dairy, THEY are DOING those things vicariously! They are simply paying the torturer/assassin. They are still responsible, just as in a court of law the person who pays the assassin is just as guilty of murder as the assassin.

...

[JustLikeYou]

Yet you still support it when you buy meat and dairy. Just like most other meat-eaters who agree it's offensive, and claim to buy only 'humane' meat, yet still continue to eat at restaurants which of course use commercially-produced meat and dairy from those abominations called factory farms.

You don't know anything about my buying habits because I haven't said anything about them.

Are you sure? Why are you participating in this discussion then?

Because I had a perspective I felt was unique. You even admitted that it was.

For someone who claims to be into rigorous study, you seem not to study up much here and rather, just think you're "right."

I don't think I'm right. I've told you I have no intention of convincing you of anything. You are perfectly welcome to your moral stance, but you don't get to have a monopoly on morality any more than I do.

---------------------

Perhaps it is important to add here that argumentation doesn't lead to truth. We argue to establish the internal coherence of the perspectives we are already beholden to. Similarly, we argue to knock down perspectives we are already opposed to. Monica, I'm saying you're arguing against a straw man because you are looking for the interpretations of my perspective that do not hold water rather than the interpretations that do. I've given ample information to support a coherent perspective, but no amount of commentary will make a case that appears watertight to you, so I'm not going to try. Besides, I really don't want to convince you. I simply wanted to add a perspective. I did so in response to you and Diana, only because it is easier for me to speak in response to someone else. BTW, I've watched some of your videos.

[Monica]

You don't know anything about my buying habits because I haven't said anything about them.

I admit I made an assumption. I have never met a single meat-eater claiming to buy only 'humane' (sic) meat who never ever ate at restaurants.

If you never do, then you'd be the first one I've met.

Because I had a perspective I felt was unique. You even admitted that it was.

It was a valid question. Many people frequent these threads because they feel conflicted, so it's understandable.

I was referring to your assertion that certain animals couldn't be pets (which, by the way, I effectively refuted with visual proof).

Perhaps it is important to add here that argumentation doesn't lead to truth.

That's true. What leads to truth is being willing to consider other viewpoints, and considering all angles of an issue, and the exchange of ideas and honest assessment by those on both sides of the debate...as well as being willing to discard one's own preconceived ideas when presented with new information.

I have answered most of your comments point-by-point, and have backed up my assertions.

You haven't done that. You have made many assertions without any evidence at all, but instead based on arbitrary demarcations, and you have ignored many of my points.

Monica, I'm saying you're arguing against a straw man because you are looking for the interpretations of my perspective that do not hold water rather than the interpretations that do.

I didn't see any of your interpretations that hold any water. I have already explained why.

I've given ample information to support a coherent perspective,

Where?

but no amount of commentary will make a case that appears watertight to you, so I'm not going to try.

That's smart because it would be a waste of time, being that it can't be done. It's quite impossible. It's impossible for a carnist to win an argument with a vegan, just as it's impossible for a slave 'owner' to win an argument with an abolitionist. Can't be done.

BTW, I've watched some of your videos.

OK good to know! I hope you got some value from them.

...

[Diana]

For someone who claims to be into rigorous study, you seem not to study up much here and rather, just think you're "right."

I don't think I'm right. I've told you I have no intention of convincing you of anything. You are perfectly welcome to your moral stance, but you don't get to have a monopoly on morality any more than I do.

---------------------

Perhaps it is important to add here that argumentation doesn't lead to truth. We argue to establish the internal coherence of the perspectives we are already beholden to. Similarly, we argue to knock down perspectives we are already opposed to. Monica, I'm saying you're arguing against a straw man because you are looking for the interpretations of my perspective that do not hold water rather than the interpretations that do. I've given ample information to support a coherent perspective, but no amount of commentary will make a case that appears watertight to you, so I'm not going to try. Besides, I really don't want to convince you. I simply wanted to add a perspective. I did so in response to you and Diana, only because it is easier for me to speak in response to someone else. BTW, I've watched some of your videos.

Okay. I do see that you aren't trying to be "right." This was a bad choice of words. On the other hand, which is fine too, you obviously have no idea of the how much this topic has been canvassed, and that indicates to me that you were posting with no reference to what had already transpired. I can't think of one other subject here that has garnered more interest or posts (unless one includes threads such as The Treehugger's Treehouse). The thing is, for a topic to go anywhere or evolve, it would be better if anyone posting had some idea of what had already transpired (just as members here would presumably have some idea of the Ra Material). That is what I was referring to in saying you hadn't studied. In this case "study" means looking at the whole progression, rather than just jumping in.

As far as argumentation, this is a debate and discussion. There are times when it devolves into something less, such as when I responded to you. I will be honest here and say that your seeming callousness provoked me into reacting (completely my responsibility), which was on top of the long haul here on this volatile, important, many-faceted subject. The way you talked so cavalierly about killing ants and termites bothered me. I am one of those very few people who does not kill "pests" or see them as such.

Debate and discussion CAN lead to truth. For instance, I have heard points of view I never thought of before these threads—really expansive thoughts making the subject not so black and white in my mind. These opinions and thoughts would never lead me to eat meat agin, but they did make me see a wider view, a bigger picture. So it ISN'T about convincing anyone for my part. It is about enlightenment. We are hopefully shedding light here on a subject very important to us, the animals, and all life on the planet including the planet itself. And by the way, using insecticide poisons isn't any good for any of it or us.

[JustLikeYou]

I admit I made an assumption. I have never met a single meat-eater claiming to buy only 'humane' (sic) meat who never ever ate at restaurants.


If you never do, then you'd be the first one I've met.

While hypocrisy might be par for the course, that doesn't make it a necessary element of meat eating.

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.

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.

I also don't trust organizations that inspect for how animals are treated. I trust people whom I can look in the eye and whose hand I can shake. I find you can read a good heart that way.

Morality for me has proven to be a simple matter of preference. I am kind because I dislike the way it feels when I am anything else. I am careful about my food because I don't like the way it feels (or tastes) when I eat food whose sources are questionable. Coke is disgusting to me because it doesn't taste like food.

Unfortunately, though, few if any of us can afford to be purists. I don't like eating anything whatsoever at restaurants, whether animal or plant. I do not trust the quality of any of it. But sometimes I find myself at a restaurant because of the company I've chosen to keep. How I handle those moments is a matter of instantaneous decision. You make a fine point about restaurants and I agree. If today you ask me about my attitude about restaurants, I'd say, "I don't need them." However, if I never eat at a restaurant again, it will not be because I took a principled stance against them. Rather, it will be because I don't like the way it feels when I do eat there. That is to say, it will be because I am done with the experience. Perhaps I am already done with the experience.

I was referring to your assertion that certain animals couldn't be pets (which, by the way, I effectively refuted with visual proof).

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.

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. We have our own problems to contend with, so I don't see this as a plausible 3D scenario---not on Planet Earth anyway.

You have made many assertions without any evidence at all, but instead based on arbitrary demarcations, and you have ignored many of my points.

The evidence I'm presenting is a coherent set of concepts whose instances can be easily found in the world. Meet the farmers around you. You'll see how they treat their animals. Don't just look for the farmers who are cruel. Look for the best in humanity. I ignored many of your responses for precisely this reason. It doesn't seem like you're looking for the best in my words. I don't have the time or the patience to try to convince people who are looking for things to criticize.

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.

The thing is, for a topic to go anywhere or evolve, it would be better if anyone posting had some idea of what had already transpired (just as members here would presumably have some idea of the Ra Material). That is what I was referring to in saying you hadn't studied. In this case "study" means looking at the whole progression, rather than just jumping in.

You are right that I have not read that many posts that have preceded this discussion. You'll also notice that I didn't linger on points that I knew had been discussed. I haven't read what came before because I can judge what has been discussed already by the existing nature of the debate. Then I contributed something original. I hope you'll forgive me for not thoroughly investigating the previous material while also recognizing that I was correct in my perception that I could contribute something original.

I am, indeed, interested in rigorous study, but I have to be very careful about where I spend my time. Just as you have seen many of these points raised before, so have I. I do not need to be primed yet again in baseline analysis.

The way you talked so cavalierly about killing ants and termites bothered me. I am one of those very few people who does not kill "pests" or see them as such.

I assert that ants and termites serve a very important function in the natural ecology of Planet Earth. Without termites, we'd have dead trees everywhere. With that said, however, we have to make peace with the necessities of the moment. If I could, I would choose an eco-village that learned of more natural methods for warding off nature's deconstructive influences. I believe in this way of life. It is not, however, accessible to me right now. When the house you own is a very important part of your livelihood, which is difficult enough to secure in this world, certain protective measures become necessary. I have no ill will toward termites, but I won't allow them to eat my foundation. I was also happy to put up with the ants until I was informed that they, too, will destroy the integrity of the wood in this house. With the ants, we've tried all manner of gentle solutions, but the infestation was just too extreme.

Will I eventually recant this stance? Perhaps I will. But I won't do so on an extreme moral ground, because I know the consequences of extremism for me: it becomes impossible for me to not be a hypocrite. My incense was probably made by 6-year-olds in India. I don't really like that. But that 6-year-old's income is crucial to the survival of her family, so how could I possibly feel morally vindicated in boycotting the Indian incense? I could boycott on a protest of principle, but my moral principle comes at the cost of families in poverty. They become the collateral for my moral stance.

There is no handbook for a correct moral stance. The more you investigate the nature of your actions, the more complicated the moral consequences turn out to be. Do I, for example, have a moral commitment to protecting my family's livelihood or a moral commitment to protecting the lives of termites? We bozos here just do the best we can. I respect your moral stance because I know it is sincere. I only wish you could see the sincerity of mine.

And by the way, using insecticide poisons isn't any good for any of it or us.

I agree. I'm still not sure how I feel about it, but I had to make a decision.

[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.

...

[Minyatur]

There is no handbook for a correct moral stance.

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

So this is the only moral stance?

1.7 Questioner: [The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.]

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?

I do think there is a distinction between the Law of One and Ra's individualized set of bias and distortions that the group incarnates as a facet of the One Infinite Creator.

This quote is an undistorted view of the Law of One in which Ra did not put his own bias nor distortions, to explain the Law of One as a whole.

Outside of this notion, each has then to work with his own set of distortions to eventually rejoin with complete unity. This of course cannot be avoided, but is a unique work for each of us.

[Monica]

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point

Key phrase being at some point. If we were already at that point, then there would have been no need for Ra to explain the concept of polarity or even to have mentioned the 2 paths in the Density of Choice.

...

[Minyatur]

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point

Key phrase being at some point. If we were already at that point, then there would have been no need for Ra to explain the concept of polarity or even to have mentioned the 2 paths in the Density of Choice.

...

What I said here was oriented toward that.

Outside of this notion, each has then to work with his own set of distortions to eventually rejoin with complete unity. This of course cannot be avoided, but is a unique work for each of us.

[Monica]

What I said here was oriented toward that.

Outside of this notion, each has then to work with his own set of distortions to eventually rejoin with complete unity. This of course cannot be avoided, but is a unique work for each of us.

OK. It's just that I see that quote used so much here, as a justification to throw all consideration of polarity, right/wrong, discernment, ethics, morality, service, etc. out the window. The only way to do that is to completely disregard so much of what Ra said. I think that quote must be taken in the context of the whole of the Material, rather than as a stand-alone, as is so often done.

...

[Minyatur]

What I said here was oriented toward that.

Outside of this notion, each has then to work with his own set of distortions to eventually rejoin with complete unity. This of course cannot be avoided, but is a unique work for each of us.

OK. It's just that I see that quote used so much here, as a justification to throw all consideration of polarity, right/wrong, discernment, ethics, morality, service, etc. out the window. The only way to do that is to completely disregard so much of what Ra said. I think that quote must be taken in the context of the whole of the Material, rather than as a stand-alone, as is so often done.

...

To me that quotes mean that throughout my path I will always be my own judge just as others will be their own.

There may be no right and wrong, but there are many regrets along the way.

[Monica]

To me that quotes mean that throughout my path I will always be my own judge just as others will be their own.

There may be no right and wrong, but there are many regrets along the way.

Agreed. From the Creator's perspective, or even from our own 6D perspective, indeed there is no right or wrong. Those are very simplistic notions. But, from the perspective effective use in catalyst, right/wrong is more about efficiency. Ie., for an STS-oriented entity, being of service to others isn't effective, ie. could be considered 'wrong' whereas, for an STO-oriented entity, serving self at the exclusion of others, or controlling/harming others for benefit of self, could be considered 'wrong' as it has the opposite effect that they want to accomplish.

A simplified idea of right and wrong originated in the mind of an STO-oriented being; ie., harming others/hate/violence etc. = 'wrong' or bad, whereas serving others/love/peace etc. = 'right' or good. We know it's not quite that simple, but the premise is sound, generally speaking, ie. in terms of general guidelines but Not rigid rules.

[Billy]

You know, I often see the whole 'this is issue is complex, subtle and nuanced' reasoning used quite frequently in debates such as this, and while I do believe there is some merit to such rational, I also think that it is used as a means of avoidance and as a cop out.  The reality of the situation is that eating animals and animal products is at best questionable.

I do agree with JustLikeYou though, that is impossible to not be hypocritical in one way or another, that is just the human condition.  Yet, I think it is important to not let this deter you from making changes and trying to live in friendly and harm free manner.