posted September 04, 2009 12:44 AM         

Why do I bring this up? Your pix of Nazi Germany and insinuating that people who eat meat are the same, in kind and/or degree, as people who run death camps. Yet in this case these are humans killing humans, which would be like piranha killing piranha.

Well why don't piranha eat each other, or a pride of lions or pack of wolves turn on each other in their group? The general thought is that cooperation is important in order for a society to survive (animal, human, otherwise), and with that some level of trust is necessary, which prohibits killing--at least of your own tribe. Nature shows that this isn't "all are one." Packs of wolves, prides of lions, and even rival groups of chimps will terrorize those outside their immediate tribe or species (and even wolves & lions and such can attack those of their species in which they're not familiar with the scent, and lionesses generally have to protect the cubs from male lions, especially a strange one new to the territory).

Ironically, modern society tends to dull the social bonds so that it's easier to kill each other (as there's much less community spirit), even within the (in theory) same "tribe," especially with proper conditioning. OTOH, moral absolutes regarding things like pacifism, veganism, and the like can generally only be practiced, or even preached with any chance of others listening, in a peaceful & prosperous society. And once the resources become scarce, so does the zealotry of moral absolutism.

Want to know what depths you're capable of sinking? Leave your shelter and everything to live on the streets and refuse to go to any shelters or food shelters. It will change you, some more than others. But you can learn a lot about yourself and also about others that you wouldn't otherwise have any ability to understand. People trapped in that lifestyle virtually always throw away their moral absolutes (I suppose the few who don't die, or maybe return to some home). Perhaps the fact that I had no choice but to endure such an experience myself (as a teen runaway, since any shelters that fed or sheltered me would be breaking the law if they didn't turn me in to the cops, meaning I couldn't go to them in most circumstances) is why I'm a lot less confrontational about my own ideals.

And a problem that arises from moral absolutes is that there are always those both in the society and from outside of it who don't have it so good, and are much more amoral (or lean that way) as a result, and when they prey upon, or even outright attack a society that has become heavily idealized, the law of the jungle will reign over the law of the compassion, and dirty tactics will prevail over fair play. History has born this out many times great & small, and I suspect it's why people like you--and me, too, in my own way--are very much in a minority, and always will be. Because when people like you or me become dominant, then we also fall to those who are less enlightened & more amoral, and everything we accomplish is wiped out. It's why I believe clinging zealously to absolute morals is a mistake.

And I recall my granny telling me about the hippie commune she lived on that was run by moral absolutes of pacifism (with the stink of hypocrisy), which led to all kinds of people preying upon them for kicks. Men were beaten & robbed out of boredom. Women gangraped, sometimes left in need of surgery. The ones who ran it refused to allow for self-defense as they operated under moral absolutes (btw, they were also vegetarian, if not vegan) and would not surrender them, and for their inability to adapt, they suffered until their commune failed. To imagine if they could've at least adopted the Nonaggression Principle (which prohibits INITIATING force, but allows for violent self-defense), as well as learning & adapting in other ways instead of clinging to moral absolutes that were not working. That is, moral absolutes led to their ruin, and nothing was gained in the long term at all because of it.

Heck, there's a case made for how war advances a species and makes it possible for a society to not only grow, but advance technologically until we can leave our planetary cradle. I don't follow with this school of thought myself, but I've heard pretty good arguments for it (but I believe I can make a pretty good counterargument).

But I do know that Nature/God/Goddess set up Nature that was red in tooth, talon, and claw as much as love, self-sacrifice, play, and beauty. Perhaps Creation is "flawed" and we should strive to correct it. If so, good luck with that.

As for me personally, to put it very short & sweet, I see all thought, deed, and matter (including time, space, and our own bodies--and the minds & bodies of those we see as separate from ourselves) as One, ultimately. Best to see how that Oneness affects me individually & seeing myself as part of the storm itself rather than the storm/Oneness as something external for me to fight. In learning how it shapes me, I learn how to subtly shape it back, mindful of unintended consequences (especially backlash). The difference leads to me, hopefully, riding the Storm to where I want to be (I don't think I can rewrite the entire Storm myself though, not even indirectly or even with many others helping me), rather than being beaten down and crushed by it.

And also...while I can see how you equate meat eating (especially the industry that supports it that even many omnivores find shocking and avoid, looking for alternatives as best they can) with Nazi death camps, I also disagree: the death camps were about killing one's own species (granted, about the same as chimps who kill other chimps) with the goal of utter eradication, whereas the extinction of animals are not the goal (especially as that would end their profits), and that as much as animals DO have feelings and such, they can never be (without some radical change anyway) partners with us in our society as say Jews, Gypsies, gays, and Jehovah's Witnesses (all sent to the camps) can be.

posted September 04, 2009 12:18 PM         

also

Valus is using the same tactics as PETA

Holocaust comparisons
Main article: Animal rights and the Holocaust

Some of the campaigns have been controversial. The 2003 Holocaust on your Plate exhibition consisted of eight 60-square-foot (5.6 m2) panels, each juxtaposing images of the Holocaust with images of factory farming. The campaign was inspired by the Nobel Prize-winning Jewish author Isaac Bashevis Singer, a vegetarian and animal rights supporter.[24] Singer wrote (as the main character in one of his novels): "In relation to them [animals], all people are Nazis; for them it is an eternal Treblinka."[24] Photographs of concentration camp inmates were shown next to photographs of caged chickens, and piled bodies of Holocaust victims next to a pile of pig carcasses. Captions alleged that, "like the Jews murdered in concentration camps, animals are terrorized when they are housed in huge filthy warehouses and rounded up for shipment to slaughter. The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps."[25][26] The Anti-Defamation League denounced the campaign, its chairman, Abraham Foxman (himself a Holocaust survivor[24]), calling the exhibition "outrageous, offensive and tak[ing] chutzpah to new heights... The effort by PETA to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent."[26][27]

The PETA Holocaust exhibit was created by Matt Prescott, himself a Jew who lost several relatives in the Holocaust.[26] Prescott said: "The very same mindset that made the Holocaust possible - that we can do anything we want to those we decide are 'different or inferior' - is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day. ... The fact is, all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness. We're asking people to recognize that what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every day in factory farms."[26] The Guardian subsequently reported, however, that "the appeal has done little to calm the fury of Jewish groups."[26] In May 2005, Newkirk issued a response, in which she apologized for the pain the campaign had caused some people, while defending the goals of the campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

Raymond

------------------
“It is absolutely the perfect name,” Dr. Brown said, given the continuing discord among astronomers and the public over whether Pluto should have retained its planetary status.

In mythology, Eris ignited discord that led to the Trojan War.

“She causes strife by causing arguments among men, by making them think their opinions are right and everyone else’s is wrong,” Dr. Brown said. “It really is just perfect.”

posted September 04, 2009 04:40 PM         

the Nazis were tried for war crimes and were given long prison sentences including life sentences

so I guess people that eat meat should be given long prison sentences including life sentences

I don't think so.

there is also the fact that many animals kill and eat other animals.

there are even meat-eating plants that exist.

Raymond

Raymond

------------------
“It is absolutely the perfect name,” Dr. Brown said, given the continuing discord among astronomers and the public over whether Pluto should have retained its planetary status.

In mythology, Eris ignited discord that led to the Trojan War.

“She causes strife by causing arguments among men, by making them think their opinions are right and everyone else’s is wrong,” Dr. Brown said. “It really is just perfect.”

posted September 04, 2009 05:28 PM         

I honestly believe my sense of ethics is unlike anything you've ever encountered before. It's complicated, to say the least, and I myself am constantly struggling with it. You're talking to someone with a Pisces South Node, and (ruler) Neptune in the 12th, in dynamic aspect to a 2nd house Aquarius Moon.... Should I bring my Uranus/VenusRx into it, or is this enough to suggest to you that I don't recognize any alleged obligations to align myself with others' value systems? So, the last thing you want to be doing here is throwing Nuremberg at me, as if that's some kind of argument a man like myself is likely to recognize. I won't go into how I believe that ought to've been handled, but I will tell you that punishment, as such, is not a part of my ethics.

Perhaps more than anyone you've ever met, I'm capable of excusing (even eager to excuse) people for the most atrocious crimes, while still struggling for an end to those crimes, and a realization of them in the mind/heart of the perpetrator. For one thing, I dont see people as responsible for their actions, but that's quite a lengthy discussion in itself. Nor do I think it's possible for a person to knowingly do wrong, but, again, this is something which it would take me a very long time to explain. Maybe even longer than it took for me to understand it myself. I will say that, for the majority of meat-eaters, if they were to watch a documentary like "Earthlings", it would probably suffice to arouse their conscience and good sense in this matter, and to provoke a lifestyle change, as it has for me. So, if I were "in charge", I would not be locking people up, but sitting them down, and having them watch this footage. For most people, the problem is that they really just don't know, and never think about, what's really going on. They do the popular thing unless/until something provokes them out of that rut. The rest, who cannot see it (or don't care) even when it's shown to them, are equally blameless and ruled by common habit, though something should be done to raise their consciousness, or, at least, to stop their brutality.

Yes, there are animals whose natures are violent, but that doesnt mean we are equally justified in using violence towards the gentlest creatures. The ideal I seek is not some circle of life where the lion (or the man) gobbles up the lamb, but, where the lion lies down with the lamb. We are talking about a higher evolution here. Vegetarianism is possible and practicable, and therefore, the torture and murder of animals is unnecessary. When people can be convinced of this, I believe they will make the right choices. Most of them. As for the others, they should be prevented by the law, which is supposed to be there to protect the innocent from violent exploitation. I've probably answered, in the past, nearly every argument you can imagine in favor of flesh-consumption, so I'll refer you to some of my past posts on the subject, rather than repeat myself here:

"Do People Eat Meat To Be Cruel"
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/010934.html

"Meat Addiction"
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000366.html

"Speciesism"
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000348.html

posted September 04, 2009 08:07 PM         

Also in that vegan alternative communities can barely last (and many fail) in a land of plenty whereas people in the unforgiving arctic regions live, as have their ancestors since before recorded history, almost solely on meat. But I suppose there are many forms of intelligence...just as there are varying educated opinions.

But since you quoted Jesus, I got to wondering...what if you found yourself back in time so that you could see the real living Jesus? Let's say the Bible is accurate and the miracles really happened, and you get to see one. But it's the one where Jesus breaks bread and fish to feed thousands.

posted September 04, 2009 08:23 PM         

That many vegan communities fail (as I'm sure many arctic communities have) is not an objection, to my mind. Although I agree we ought to be figuring out how to make it work. We have been going the wrong way for so long, it will take some adjustment to learn how to marshall our resources in a nonviolent way.

Yes, I would ask Jesus how he condones those things, if indeed he does (since his philosophy appears to strictly abjure them). I do not have to agree with everything he is reported to have said and done just because I agree with and quote him on occassion, do I?

posted September 04, 2009 09:12 PM         

quote:

---

Plants are living things. That is an excellent point. Ideally (and I believe certain saints have attained this condition), it would be best to recieve our nurishment entirely from sunlight. But this is quite a lot to ask of the average person, and I will not go so far. There has been much talk lately about differences of degree, as opposed to differences of kind. While I agree that there is no difference in kind, between us and animals, and between animals and plants, I will argue strongly that there is a difference of degree. Animals are much, much closer to our state of consciousness than plants, and since this difference of degree between humans and animals is apparently significant to the majority of you, certainly you will agree that the difference between animals and plants is equally, if not far more, significant.

---

posted September 04, 2009 09:15 PM         

I am staying out of the debate
This is becoming like religion.

but I want to add one thing

The Inuit people are known to be very peace-loving people. They are not known for violence and war. These people have an ancient history of diet on seals.

In Inuit mythology, it was said that Sedna gave the sea creatures to the people to hunt and eat.

transiting retro Sedna is opposing my Venus,ruler of my 2nd/9th in synchronicity with Inuit culture.

with the history of the Inuit community sharing food and other things among in the community, I wonder if the object,Sedna can be a ruler of socialism.

Raymond

------------------
“It is absolutely the perfect name,” Dr. Brown said, given the continuing discord among astronomers and the public over whether Pluto should have retained its planetary status.

In mythology, Eris ignited discord that led to the Trojan War.

“She causes strife by causing arguments among men, by making them think their opinions are right and everyone else’s is wrong,” Dr. Brown said. “It really is just perfect.”

posted September 04, 2009 09:20 PM         

quote:

---

I agree that all matter, which is composed of energy, vibrates in concord with love, gratitude, and respect, as indicated by the experiments of Dr. Emoto and others. The degree to which this concord, or harmony, is consciously felt is unclear, but there is reason enough to assume that plants and buildings do not suffer or rejoice as animals (including humans) do; though their molecules may dance more or less beautifully according to the nature of the influence upon them.

---

posted September 04, 2009 09:37 PM         

quote:

---

I agree to disagree.
vegetarian/vegan diet is not for everyone. There are some people that go anemic when they don't eat meat too. Many people differ in their body chemistries. Just because a lifestyle,diet is good for one person doesn't necessarily mean that it's good for everybody else.

---

I agree with most of this. People need to find what works for them, and one thing wont work for everyone, but i have never been convinced that meat is necessary. The deficiencies you refer to could be caused by any number of things, and most of the examples you have in mind are not in line with the dietary suggestions that I am making. There are all sorts of changes you can make, things you can learn and try. Why immediately slip back into killing?

quote:

---

I am staying out of the debate
This is becoming like religion.

---

You are not staying out of the debate.
And, yes, with any help, this will
acquire the meaning and purposefulness
of a true religious life.

quote:

---

but I want to add one thing

The Inuit people are known to be very peace-loving people. They are not known for violence and war. These people have an ancient history of diet on seals.

---

This is a plain contradiction. However peaceful they may be in other respects, if they are living on a diet of seals, they are living off the flesh of another species. This is parasitic vampirism at its finest.

quote:

---

In Inuit mythology, it was said that Sedna gave the sea creatures to the people to hunt and eat.

---

Of course it was.