I have no proof of your intentions and I certainly have no idea why you babble on with poetry over and over again. Questions are asked in an attempt to understand and you go off on some obscure passage or convoluted poem.

Poems belong in your blog, not in the forum. If you cannnot start to give clear, concise, appropriate, direct responses to the questions and comments in this thread then there is no point in keeping this thread open.

I do not doubt your conviction, only your methods. If you cannot respond to questions in a manner which is promotes the purpose of the thread, the thread is pointless.

Poetry? Question? What question?
If you want me to try to answer a question, you should ask One?

=
MJA

Many questions have been asked and you have ignored or talked around many of them. Also, many points have been raised that you have ignored blatently.

Poetry? Question? What question?
If you want me to try to answer a question, you should ask One?

=
MJA

Still eating meat?

Check out Sue Coe's art work:

http://graphicwitness.org/coe/prntlist.htm

She tells it like it is!

=
MJA

Let me ask you this:

When we say something is equal, we must have some sort of quality or frame of reference for judgment (unless we are dealing with some sort of tautology).

What is your reference for when you judge everything to be equal?

Then will you understand that "Other people agree with me" is not an argument? Or are you trying to hide the fact you cannot explain your views? If you cannot explain, admit it rather than hiding.

I'm sorry to say this is quite true.

I've just finish plodding through every post in this thread. There are *numerous* points contending this higher view; and only some have been addressed by other respondents (some quite well actually)
[INDENT]I think a case (no matter how spurious) could be made for health benefits or through the unethical treatment of animals (cases of unnecessary suffering). But after reading this entire subject I've been emboldened and reassured that vegetarianism, as framed, is far from a "higher" level view.
[/INDENT]From your responses, MJA, I sense your reasoning comes simply from the compassion you feel towards animals and their helplessness to human tools of killing. There's nothing wrong with this view; it has great compassion! But your initial claim to this "higher" or superior morality is unjustified with some of the best points sitting in this thread unaddressed by you.

The reason for this wave of "Con" responses has to do with the way you've framed it; what unmistakably comes across as an elitist, supremacist claim to being "higher". A gentle caution from a friend: You might not want to do that if you want people to be open to what you have to offer. Such claims to arrogant superiority inflame people; thereby hamstringing any attempt you might have at spreading a good word.

Despite much of the negativity within this thread, I think it contains numerous good points (each of which could spawn its own substantive discussion).

Hope this helps - thanks

The Universe.

=
MJA

Many questions have been asked and you have ignored or talked around many of them. Also, many points have been raised that you have ignored blatently.

:perplexed:

Are you saying that everything within the universe is equal.

Why does your way forbid eating animals but permit burning firewood?

Is this cold cup of coffee I am drinking equal to the sun?

Oh, but you want to divide the parts inequitably right?
And you do this by judgement or measure, Right?

1) Immeasurability does not show equality, it precludes equality. You cannot say on one hand that measurement is impossible then on the other say that all is equal.

2) The universe is a closed system. It cannot change without cannibalizing some of its parts.

3) How do you know that humans eating meat is not better for the universe as a whole?

Equality is an interpretation, not a state of being.

However, if the universe were infinite then all things would be equal and be truly one. We could possibly assert that the cosmos is in actuality this oneness, but in reality for the sake of potential, extends to infinity based on our perception of such.

But this is just a bunch of improvable nonsense. MJA, Nietzsche provides a really good perspective on Stoicism you should read some time.

Is this interconnectedness the cosmos by default, or just a subjective analysis of such? I mean sure you could say that all forms have an effect on eachother, but in this sense, form itself is an illusion.

But you understand you're uniting all parts with judgment and measure (=), too, right?