Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Maybe if there is such a thing as incarnation, in your next life you'll come back as a chicken, a pig or a cow.
Another Way to enlightenment I suppose.
But by then I would hope we stop killing and eating them, and you would be spared.

Chances of me coming back as a plant of bacteria are almost infinitely greater. And I believe a being cannot reincarnate with less inteligence anyway, so I would just start dancing. If I reincarnated with less inteligence, I wouldnt be me and I wouldnt therefore mind.

MJA wrote:

We are All part of One Universe. Yes?
Then All is or equals One (Universe).

Wrong. Can the wings of a plane fly winhout the rest of the plane?

MJA wrote:

But = was the constant of the equation that never was in doubt.

Abstract concepts are never in doubt. An abstract 2 is 2, a real 2 can be 3, but an abstract 2 is 2.

MJA wrote:

So show me the certainty of the measure of nature

Nothing is certain, this doesnt stops us from making measures that work, does it? There is no such thing as truth.

MJA wrote:

I'll find myself better than the other animals on this planet, and start killing and eating those of lessor value than me.

That is how things are supposed to be. How we know we are better than then? We are the ones eating, so obviously in the criteria that is being demanded we are better. And I find it funny that you dont consider yourself above animals but consider yourself above plants.

MJA wrote:

The hell that we have brought down on the animals we eat, the hell we are creating of a Once beautiful planet or paridise called Earth.

I can see you dont know much about natural history. And, what good is a paradise when we are not here to apreciate it?

MJA wrote:

We're killing this planet, mankind is because we were taught we were better than it.

We are taugh it is an huge chunk of rock floating around the sun we depend from to live. We are not messing it up because we can, we are messing it up because our numbers and social organization are too screwed to avoid it.

@manored,

MJA, this oneness and equality seems to be your moral aim, and is not really a truth of the way things are. As an interpretation, and a little tinkering with the context, sure that could be considered your own subjective truth.

@Holiday20310401,

suppose all of the world decided to stop eating meat. How would we deal with the changes of the echo system? And if we rid the world of all machines how would we support the metropolises of people that we save? How would we provide power and water to regions to far to get there own? When someone is hurt how do we get thousands of people everyday to the hospitals?

Would it not be more productive, if humanity would get off of this pendulum of industrial verses natural. And focus on developing tools and methods that are not strenuous on the environment. As well as promote positive growth for our species. To use recycled material in mainstream products rather than put them on a specialty shelf that cost more. You tell everyone that green is the way to go. That it is more efficient than raw material and better for us to use. Then they up the price and make it a fad. Do you honestly think that people are going to give half a crap about saving the environment when they are lied to from the beginning.

I guess what I am getting at is that it takes a lot more than telling someone the are wrong to get the world to change. I don't disagree that eating healthy and preserving the very nature that made us is the right thing to do. But you half to have a lot more evidence than some old writings and some sketch art. I commend you for trying to make the world a better place. I just want simple questions answered in a common manor. If you dress something up before you sell it. It is probably bull dung after you take all the pretty stuff of it.

This is not an attack. These are genuine questions that I would like answered. If I am to change my life I want to know why. Book passages are just some old guy on a rock. I would rather hear it from the one actually here doing it.

Thank you for your time and have a VWUNDERFULL evening.

@manored,

savagemonk wrote:

suppose all of the world decided to stop eating meat. How would we deal with the changes of the echo system? And if we rid the world of all machines how would we support the metropolises of people that we save? How would we provide power and water to regions to far to get there own? When someone is hurt how do we get thousands of people everyday to the hospitals?

Would it not be more productive, if humanity would get off of this pendulum of industrial verses natural. And focus on developing tools and methods that are not strenuous on the environment. As well as promote positive growth for our species. To use recycled material in mainstream products rather than put them on a specialty shelf that cost more. You tell everyone that green is the way to go. That it is more efficient than raw material and better for us to use. Then they up the price and make it a fad. Do you honestly think that people are going to give half a crap about saving the environment when they are lied to from the beginning.

I guess what I am getting at is that it takes a lot more than telling someone the are wrong to get the world to change. I don't disagree that eating healthy and preserving the very nature that made us is the right thing to do. But you half to have a lot more evidence than some old writings and some sketch art. I commend you for trying to make the world a better place. I just want simple questions answered in a common manor. If you dress something up before you sell it. It is probably bull dung after you take all the pretty stuff of it.

This is not an attack. These are genuine questions that I would like answered. If I am to change my life I want to know why. Book passages are just some old guy on a rock. I would rather hear it from the one actually here doing it.

Thank you for your time and have a VWUNDERFULL evening.

Your trying and that is good.
But you can't be seriously questioning the humaneness of a vegetarian diet, are you?
Do you think killing is right or good?
Your turn, tell us why.
Make the case for the slaughter of animals like us.
Have you ever been to a slaughter house?
You want me to prove something to you?
Go have a look yourself, I think it best.
Thanks,

=
MJA

Holiday20310401 wrote:

MJA, this oneness and equality seems to be your moral aim, and is not really a truth of the way things are. As an interpretation, and a little tinkering with the context, sure that could be considered your own subjective truth.

I know my truth is universal what is yours?
= isn't true to you?
What is truth?
What does equal mean to you?
What is the universe?
Oneness, do you ever think that Way?
Your turn!

=
MJA

manored wrote:

Chances of me coming back as a plant of bacteria are almost infinitely greater. And I believe a being cannot reincarnate with less inteligence anyway, so I would just start dancing. If I reincarnated with less inteligence, I wouldnt be me and I wouldnt therefore mind.

Wrong. Can the wings of a plane fly winhout the rest of the plane?

Abstract concepts are never in doubt. An abstract 2 is 2, a real 2 can be 3, but an abstract 2 is 2.

Nothing is certain, this doesnt stops us from making measures that work, does it? There is no such thing as truth.

That is how things are supposed to be. How we know we are better than then? We are the ones eating, so obviously in the criteria that is being demanded we are better. And I find it funny that you dont consider yourself above animals but consider yourself above plants.

I can see you dont know much about natural history. And, what good is a paradise when we are not here to apreciate it?

We are taugh it is an huge chunk of rock floating around the sun we depend from to live. We are not messing it up because we can, we are messing it up because our numbers and social organization are too screwed to avoid it.

"There is no such thing as truth"?
Wow!!! You got a long Way to go, but you came to the right place.
Way to go!

=
MJA

@MJA,

This thread is starting to represent why I consider subjects of philosophy. Is everything contained on one path or do i have to take many of them? A path to what? If theres a path, am I wrong for having to take it without knowing if it leads anywhere. Does it lead anywhere?

What I find interesting about you MJA, is that you've decided to stick to what you want to. If it is wrong, then everything is wrong. I like that. Its almost like the ultimate argument. The rebuttals are always there, but who can detour your belief? Then theres the issue of what you use your beliefs for. Pertaining to the topic at hand, you dont kill animals, you treat them as you would a human pier. I could ask you if you saw a rabid dog sinking its jaws into a child, how would you react(would you kill it)? But this question is not fair. I only use it to better understand your rationalizing. But I think i have a good handle on that already, so questions like that do seem like backwards thing. or circles, whatever. So now I have to come to the point that circumstances cant be used as objective topics with subjective questions. Meaning, We are one, but separate. You know? Damn!

...... To be honest ...... my personal objections really dont hold any ground. I do not think I could give a answer to the entire world if they asked me whether to eat meat or not and would listen to my advice.

You sir, have a trait that I want but know I can never have. Certainty. I'm not being sarcastic either. For I cant your certainty is wrong or right from a subjective/objective point of view. Neither can the others in this thread. So we condemn your tools from with you express your certainty. i think you already know that.

Now I have question.I know, I thought i could get passed the question type debate, but hey.

Do you ever wonder if your beliefs cause others to suffer?

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Your trying and that is good.
But you can't be seriously questioning the humaneness of a vegetarian diet, are you?
Do you think killing is right or good?
Your turn, tell us why.
Make the case for the slaughter of animals like us.
Have you ever been to a slaughter house?
You want me to prove something to you?
Go have a look yourself, I think it best.
Thanks,

=
MJA

I think killing is necessary, especially of mankind. If I had my way, 70% of the worlds population would be either wiped out or exported to other planets. Frankly, our biggest problem is that we don't have a natural predator other than ourselves. This is why we are consuming resources at a rate far greater than we can produce them and why we are running out of things like water and food. Frankly, killing IS a good thing. Without death, over population of every species is more than a possibility, it is a reality. This is also why I am an opponent of extending human life.

Life is something which should be held dear and in the highest regard. With that being said, death is the same way. Death is a beautiful and wonderous thing. It is the final process of giving back to the world which cradled you to life in the first place. It is the gift of minerals and life for other organism who then provide life to other organisms over and over again until it reaches another human being. If we stopped eating meat and animals, it would be a crime against the natural process of the birth death cycle. It would mean that the final sacrafice of beast and man alike would be a waste. I refuse to accept that. I have tried your vegetarianism and I admit that it felt good for awhile. But it was not for me.

I've been to a slaughter house. As a matter of fact, I have slaughtered my own meat and taken it to a butcher. I am not a religious man but I thanked the animal for giving to me the gift of life.

So yes, I am not only questioning the humaneness of a vegetarian diet, I am saying that it is a terrible sin according to the laws of nature and the life death cycle.

[quote=MJA]I know my truth is universal what is yours
= isn't true to you?
What is truth?
What does equal mean to you?
What is the universe?
Oneness, do you ever think that Way?
Your turn!

=
MJA[/quote]

Let us evaluate this for a moment.
My first question... Who do you think that you are?
What in the world could have happened to make your ego so large that you think you have unlocked the truth of the universe?
I would wager that you read a couple of books, maybe even a text or two on taoism and think you know it all and that YOUR truth is the universal one. You sir, have fallen into the philosophers trap. Many philosophers warn about this and Nietzsche is one of my favorites. He states that the Philosophers Trap is in thinking that he could be globally correct in a science based around the discovery of the self.

Your ignorance of the subject is almost as impressive as you overwhelming ego on it. There are so few things that you have considered and yet you make outlandish claims to know the truth behind universal equality. Let me tell you something. The universe is NOT equal. Balanced, yes. Equal, no.

If you cannot understand that then I am amazed at your ability to remain stubborn in a supposedly open minded science.

[quote=MJA]"There is no such thing as truth"?
Wow!!! You got a long Way to go, but you came to the right place.
Way to go!

=
MJA[/quote]
You have no right to make meassure of others in this regard. If everything is equal then you are no better than him which means you are no closer to truth than him. You have no right to judge and no right to conclude. If all is equal then you need to learn some humility because there are MANY people on this forum who have a far greater quality of humility than you have ever considered and thus you are less than them and they are capable of more than you.

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Do you ever wonder if your beliefs cause others to suffer?

Wow Joe,

Equality, Oneness, truth is something you can't have Joe? Why not?
Truth causes others to suffer? Ignorance is the cause isn't it?
What would I do with a rabid dog?
I can't believe some of this, some of you?
Philosophy is truth, that's why I am here.
If there is no such thing, why are you here?
What is this forum about? Theories and faiths? Gage me!
Truth is!
Telling meat eating people their wrong is a suffering thing to you?
Does the truth hurt?
Wouldn't an animal heading to slaughter hurts more than the discussion of truth? Perhaps you should compare truth to the suffering mankind extends to it's fellow animals on this planet.
The ingnorance of this thread is hurting me.
There is no question about the humaneness of a vegetarian diet being right,
The only naging questions on this thread are coming from those defending the wrongfullness of their own meat eating ways.

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Wow Joe,

Equality, Oneness, truth is something you can't have Joe? Why not?
Truth causes others to suffer? Ignorance is the cause isn't it?
What would I do with a rabid dog?
I can't believe some of this, some of you?
Philosophy is truth, that's why I am here.
If there is no such thing, why are you here?
What is this forum about? Theories and faiths? Gage me!
Truth is!
Telling meat eating people their wrong is a suffering thing to you?
Does the truth hurt?
Wouldn't an animal heading to slaughter hurts more than the discussion of truth? Perhaps you should compare truth to the suffering mankind extends to it's fellow animals on this planet.
The ingnorance of this thread is hurting me.
There is no question about the humaneness of a vegetarian diet being right,
The only naging questions on this thread are coming from those defending the wrongfullness of their own meat eating ways.

=
MJA

I think you missed the gist of my implications. So here they are.

1. I have no Truth. I have no judgments. These are constructs of my mind that I dont hold much credit too. Not to say I dont react and am without falsehoods (which in all likely hood is most things we contemplate)

and

2. My words were mostly trying to draw more description of your thought process so as to ease the tension of the others in this thread. As I said I find your stance interesting. To think I know your perception when you describe things is merely a mixture of relation and history. Thats all, I posted so we could kick start something more here. It seems Both sides of the argument have interesting points and yet lines are being drawn everywhere. No one can take a step. You know?

Icon wrote:

I think killing is necessary, especially of mankind. If I had my way, 70% of the worlds population would be either wiped out or exported to other planets. Frankly, our biggest problem is that we don't have a natural predator other than ourselves. This is why we are consuming resources at a rate far greater than we can produce them and why we are running out of things like water and food. Frankly, killing IS a good thing. Without death, over population of every species is more than a possibility, it is a reality. This is also why I am an opponent of extending human life.

Hey Icon,

I think you have alot of merit in these statements but when you mention killing off a large portion of the human race and how we don't have a predator in which to "control" our growth, it seems you identified that we do have a predator. We are selves kill each other without question, every minute. Are you saying that we are a cycle and must rise and fall in population? If so, I think your thinking is more progressive then that. If thats not what you were saying, my bad.

@MJA,

I am saying that we must fall in population. There are simply too many of us for the planet to support us any longer. If we are going to continue to grow then we need to spend a considerable amount of our resources and ability to populate other worlds. If we do not then every child born and every year that is added to the average human life span is another nail in our coffin.

I am not humane and am often accused of not being human. I refuse to look at myself as anything special or unique. I am a member of a species of creature who managed consciousness and rationality. I also happen to be someone watching us kill ourselves slowly because we are concerned with the poor animals and the all this other politically correct BS. Frankly, I'm tired of people like MJA coming into a conversation thinking that they know what is best for all of mankind because they read the Dhammapada or the Tao. I have read these too and it is funny how reading something can make someone believe in it. Well I don't believe in anything which is not necessary to the human condition and I can honestly say that, as a human being, I am concerned about our species. We have become ignorant, self concerned, reprobates. I am under the thought process that a tragic loss of about 70% of the population through some form of disaster is exactly what we need. We need something bigger than our petty differences to unite us as a species and that will never happen until we are given a very rude and emotionally destructive wake up.

Vegetarianism doesn't happen in third world countries because they eat what they have, period. By MJA's thinking, all third world people are immoral. There is a flaw in this thinking. As a matter of fact, many people cannot afford to be vegetarians. These people are forced into immorality as well. This entire conversation comes from the view point of a spoiled, ignorant life style and frankly, I find it to be disgusting and narrow in both view and scope.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

I am saying that we must fall in population. There are simply too many of us for the planet to support us any longer. If we are going to continue to grow then we need to spend a considerable amount of our resources and ability to populate other worlds.

And thats where I cant understand that your solution would be to wipe out %70 of the population. I agree that the way we are structured (The economic powers of the world) will not safely sustain everyone. But their is a false illusion spreading in recent years that it is laid in stone and they way resources are used up and distributed is the only way. Its almost laughable. To be honest, we could discuss what the possibilities are of a global shift of intent and sharing without exceptions to growth and gain, but I dont see the use in saying this is how it could be, but instead, this is how it should be. It wont happen until large movements of people can trust their NATURAL growth as humans. Its really depressing to see so many hypnotized that they think their in a race of some kind. And with all the talk about how overpopulation is a problem and all I here is people naturally have to die? I'm sorry but for such a huge problem I see laziness or attachment to false conceptions generating a slow cop out to working towards a answer. Its one of my main struggles figuring out how I can let go of unneeded sources and yet learn the mechanics to help everyone else. The real nail in the coffin is the systems that make that a near impossibility.

Quote:

I am not humane and am often accused of not being human. I refuse to look at myself as anything special or unique. I am a member of a species of creature who managed consciousness and rationality. I also happen to be someone watching us kill ourselves slowly because we are concerned with the poor animals and the all this other politically correct BS. Frankly, I'm tired of people like MJA coming into a conversation thinking that they know what is best for all of mankind because they read the Dhammapada or the Tao. I have read these too and it is funny how reading something can make someone believe in it. Well I don't believe in anything which is not necessary to the human condition and I can honestly say that, as a human being, I am concerned about our species. We have become ignorant, self concerned, reprobates. I am under the thought process that a tragic loss of about 70% of the population through some form of disaster is exactly what we need. We need something bigger than our petty differences to unite us as a species and that will never happen until we are given a very rude and emotionally destructive wake up.

I feel the same way towards MJA's approach. With thinking like his it brings up an important question for me and I was wondering if you ponder the same thing. Is his choices for improving man kind all that different? I here him say equality and I think we agree that some forms of equality should have merit. We know that when he says that EVERYONE should be a vegetarian, he is making that statement based on the hope that if everyone stopped eating meat then humanity would work out a way to feed the hungry still. It may seem fanciful, but to say his idea is wrong is not exactly true, its just contextual. His case is just more simple and so is naturally frustrating to work out in real life.

I guess my final thought is that None of the views expressed here in this thread are worth more then the other. I think we need all of them in a very honest way.
I cant deny that Philosophy angers me because of such important conversations. But the most important thing to realize is something that MJA said that is very true and hard to deny. We are One. The entire species.

@MJA,

Nice edit.

I was about to comment that you are right, I don't let my leg fall off because of gang green. I cut it off to save the rest of my body.

You say that we are one species united. This is true but we are also part of a larger cycle which is part of a still larger cycle.

Vegetarianism is not only just as immoral as omnivorism but also a completely pretentious idea.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Nice edit.

I was about to comment that you are right, I don't let my leg fall off because of gang green. I cut it off to save the rest of my body.

You say that we are one species united. This is true but we are also part of a larger cycle which is part of a still larger cycle.

Vegetarianism is not only just as immoral as omnivorism but also a completely pretentious idea.

I know I got going so much that something slipped through that was a natural call. And I dont deny that. But I dont think humanity is sick believe it or not. I know I know. i guess what Im saying is were still here and that were not sick because it is not true for every and so we have the ability to heal ourselves.

We are indeed part of bigger cycles then us. If our one purpose in life is life itself then we must learn to interact with those cycles while still holding regard for expanding life itself.

It can really make you feel small but F that. We've evolved with some great tools that the cycles around us have provided. Life isnt easy and yet its so easy to imagine it is. The comedy and tragedy of itself.

I have too say I agree that assuming the natural order of our environment has it wrong, is placing a fake problem in order for a solution that doesn't need it to be fixed. If its Sustaining life, it is so for a reason.

@Joe,

The Dogs of Inequity

The dogs of inequity, not the dogs but rather the ignorant people who train the dogs, the same people who taught us to attack Dr. King and the true equality of color, of black and white some 40 years ago, are ever present today. But rather than the microcosm of color blindness, the dogs today are far far worse. These dogs of inequity are blind to the universal truth of Oneness, the equitable truth of the universe, the truth that Oneday will set the dogs free. Free from injustice, free from the chains that hurt us and divide us, the chains that mankind has so inequitably been taught to wear. So trained in inequity, we've become blind to the truth; blind to the universal equality of All. People think the truth doesn't even exist and have been taught it can't even be spoken. Well it's being spoken right here and right now. Oh for the sympathy of those so ignorantly blind and for those they so inequitably harm or kill. Mankind has been taught this vicious inhumane inequity, seen today in the inequitable destruction of our air, our water, the plants, and the continued slaughter of helpless animals to eat, or for there parts, or testing and experimenting on, or worst of all, for simply sport killing.
Oh for the humanity!
But the first step in a recovery is the awareness of the problem, awareness of the inequity of ourselves. That is Step One along the right Way. That first step, the awareness of inequity is the true point of this thread, awareness of mankind's inequitable damage that we cause. And step two: It is only the truth, the truth of universal equality, not only of color, or gender, or only the equality of mankind, but rather the true equality, which is the unity of all things, must be taught, practiced, and then lived. Only that single simple truth taught shared and lived will set us free. Only that truth will right the wrongs, remove the chains of inequity that harm us, save this planet which is ourselves, only that truth will we ever find our true destiny, the Way, our true salvation.

We've got a long long Way to go, and awareness is the first step. Truth is the light that will lead us the right Way. Is it uncomfortable to shed light on the inequities and inhumanities of the dogs of today? It is by that painful process, that difficult step we must all take, that One day will set All free.

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

The Dogs of Inequity

The dogs of inequity, not the dogs but rather the ignorant people who train the dogs, the same people who taught us to attack Dr. King and the true equality of color, of black and white some 40 years ago, are ever present today. But rather than the microcosm of color blindness, the dogs today are far far worse. These dogs of inequity are blind to the universal truth of Oneness, the equitable truth of the universe, the truth that Oneday will set the dogs free. Free from injustice, free from the chains that hurt us and divide us, the chains that mankind has so inequitably been taught to wear. So trained in inequity, we've become blind to the truth; blind to the universal equality of All. People think the truth doesn't even exist and have been taught it can't even be spoken. Well it's being spoken right here and right now. Oh for the sympathy of those so ignorantly blind and for those they so inequitably harm or kill. Mankind has been taught this vicious inhumane inequity, seen today in the inequitable destruction of our air, our water, the plants and animals, and the continued slaughter of helpless animals to eat, or for there parts, or testing and experimenting on, or worst of all, for simply sport killing.
Oh for the humanity!
But the first step in a recovery is the awareness of the problem, awareness of the inequity of ourselves. That is Step One along the right Way. That first step, the awareness of inequity is the true point of this thread, awareness of mankind's inequitable damage that we cause. And step two: It is only the truth, the truth of universal equality, not only of color, or gender, or only the equality of mankind, but rather the true equality, which is the unity of all things, must be taught, practiced, and then lived. Only that single simple truth taught, shared and lived will set us free. Only that truth will right the wrongs, remove the chains of inequity that harm us, save this planet which is ourselves, only that truth will we ever find our true destiny, the Way, our true salvation.

We've got a long long Way to go, and awareness is the first step. Truth is the light that will lead us the right Way. Is it uncomfortable to shed light on the inequities and inhumanities of the dogs of today? It is by that painful process, that difficult step we must all take, that One day will set All free.

=
MJA

You addressed none of my points AGAIN!

I am done with this thread and suggest the same for everyone else. Not only is this nonsense going no where but the OP should be a politician rather than a philosopher. Amazing at talking around the issue without ever addressing a question or commen and an ego to match high level politics.

MJA, you're wrong. Period. I am so terribly sorry that you have closed your mind in this manner because it is terrible to see someone dedicated so purely to such a flawed idea with nothing to back it up other than a self assured claim to higher meaning.

Reminds me of every other religious zealot I know.

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

"There is no such thing as truth"?
Wow!!! You got a long Way to go, but you came to the right place.
Way to go!

=
MJA

I could say the same thing about you

Do you understand it now?

Joe wrote:

What I find interesting about you MJA, is that you've decided to stick to what you want to. If it is wrong, then everything is wrong. I like that. Its almost like the ultimate argument. The rebuttals are always there, but who can detour your belief?

The problem of such faith is that it leads to conflict. We are just discussing ideas in a "recreational" spirit in this forum, but if we analyze how each of us is trying to influence the world to act in the way we find correct, we will notice there are opposing ideas, and if no side changes its beliefs a conflict is inevitable.

Aka: I flag that we shouldnt hold any moral values towards animals. MJA flags that we should treat animals like we do humans. Obviously our ideas are at conflict through the influence we exert in the world, and will remain so until one of us changes its mind.

@MJA,

Quote:

Aka: I flag that we shouldnt hold any moral values towards animals. MJA flags that we should treat animals like we do humans. Obviously our ideas are at conflict through the influence we exert in the world, and will remain so until one of us changes its mind.

I don't see anything wrong with verbal conflict. That is, opposing viewpoints. It appears natural, and even though I have passion concerning some ideas, I'm happy the opposing ideas are still there (guarded by those that may be as passionate as I!); this would be a stale, stale world if everyone thought the same.

If, however, you were going to kill eachother over whether animals should have 'rights' or not, well, that'd be crossing the line Smile

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

You sir, have a trait that I want but know I can never have. Certainty. I'm not being sarcastic either. For I cant your certainty is wrong or right from a subjective/objective point of view. Neither can the others in this thread. So we condemn your tools from with you express your certainty. i think you already know that.

You stick around me long enough Joe, it will rub off on ya and you'll be as certain as me. I am certain of it!

=
MJA

Icon wrote:

You addressed none of my points AGAIN!

I don't think I ever will. Your to negative and abusive to me and equality.

=
MJA

manored wrote:

I could say the same thing about you

Do you understand it now?

The problem of such faith is that it leads to conflict. We are just discussing ideas in a "recreational" spirit in this forum, but if we analyze how each of us is trying to influence the world to act in the way we find correct, we will notice there are opposing ideas, and if no side changes its beliefs a conflict is inevitable.

Aka: I flag that we shouldnt hold any moral values towards animals. MJA flags that we should treat animals like we do humans. Obviously our ideas are at conflict through the influence we exert in the world, and will remain so until one of us changes its mind.

The difference between you and I manored is as you say: you " ...are just discussing ideas in a "recreational" spirit in this forum" and I'm talkin truth. Philosophy son, and I love it. Its as simple as that batman!

and your morality about other animals is a sin!:Not-Impressed:

=
MJA

Zetherin wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with verbal conflict. That is, opposing viewpoints. It appears natural, and even though I have passion concerning some ideas, I'm happy the opposing ideas are still there (guarded by those that may be as passionate as I!); this would be a stale, stale world if everyone thought the same.

If, however, you were going to kill eachother over whether animals should have 'rights' or not, well, that'd be crossing the line

Hey Z, don't worry about me, I'm Just like Gandhi.
I am the change I wish to see in the world, I am a vegetarian.
Oh, and like to help others go the right Way to.
Try it you'll see!

=
MJA

@MJA,

Shall I tell you what other things Gandhi did... (great guy though, truly a genius)

MJA, I just have a simple question. Where is the equality. Why do you want equality? It may (for some reason) seem like equality is good, but I am afraid I need an explanation as to why you feel there is or desire equality in such an objective sense your naturalist perspective seems to convey.

And explain or show or do something here that you deep down know would allow me to understand your conception of oneness, because I am unsure what you are getting at with it.

Have you asked yourself what kind of aim you desire to get from sharing this concept, this revelation you must've had with us. And does this aim seem permissible to all our feebler minds, like me.

@Holiday20310401,

Patience Holiday, the light is comin truly to a world near you.
Enjoy the ride, I promise its true.

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Patience Holiday, the light is comin truly to a world near you.
Enjoy the ride, I promise its true.

=
MJA

+5 to MJA's evasiveness

Dude, your evasive stat is crazy - you should really get a DnD board, you'd make a good rogue.

Philosophy Forum

Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know