xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx

Wow, I never thought a group of philosophers you know, lovers of truth would turn into a pack of crying immature name callers threatening to close or quit a simple vegetarian thread. A higher level thread of truth, a thread that is probably one of the most successful and truthful ever to appear on this forum. Your reaction to nature's most simple truth, the truth of equality spelled out in numerous post by me both scientifically, empirically, religiously and justly, with the helpful wisdom of quotes and poems by my like-minded closest friends has buckled you all to you knees.

The power of truth is Just this Way,

=
MJA

Keep trying, Equal is the right Way to go.

Prove, through the scientific method, vegetarianism is a "Higher level view", and I'll become a vegetarian4life.

MJA, you still have not answered my question. What do you feel is your moral intention in concluding upon this 'inevitable' truth of this oneness. And then please share. I'm eager to hear.

Some number of pages back I offered a prayer that this thread die. I see others are writhing in the pain I expressed then.

There's nothing more obstinate than someone who makes an elitist, arrogant claim then when questioned, scoots around tossing bits of the Cat-in-the-Hat around. When called to question on their response, we get a feigned, "what? me?! Why can't you guys understand?!" - and the loop begins anew.

Yea, it needs to be closed. I'll not do so since I'm not in any semblance of a disinterested position to judge accurately. I'd asked before, if perhaps some other vegetarian wouldn't mind offering some points in defense of this "higher view"; and answer with something more than reciting "humpty-dumpty".

The issue has real interest; and some ethical implications that concern us all. In its current form and protagonist, it'll continue careening out of control with more desparate calls of frustration.

Thanks

Well put, Khethil.

The Universal Solvent is Truth

Mankind has yet to comprehend the truth, the true nature of equality, the true equitable Oneness of All. It is only that single simple truth of equality that will resolve our inequitable problems, our inequitably divided and self-destructing Ways. Equality is the self-evident truth this great nation of the United States of America was founded on. But inequity is the Grand Canyon, the great divide, or the abyss of greed that we the people of not only this nation but the people of the world have terribly become. It is the wrongs of inequity that is destroying not only our free markets and our Democracy, but more gravely this planet which is equally ourselves. If the planet dies we die too. Nothing is more true than the statement:" united we stand and divided we fall", and only equal that truly unites us so.

In a Democracy of the people for the people, it is the people that must first and foremost be equal themselves. We so incorrectly teach our children as we were taught the uncertainties of theories and faiths, and it is those complexities and inequities that obscure the simple absolute truth of us All. All we really need is the enlightenment of truth, the light, the lessons of Oneness that equally unite us All.

Equality is simply self-evident, but how many of us truly know it, practice it, and live it? How many people know their true selves? How many know they are truly One? The Universe is One as God is One as All is One as Plants and Animals are One as the Air and Water are One as the Sun and You are One as We are One. We are what we are taught, so then it is the lesson of truth taught in our homes, our schools and churches that will set us ultimately free.

Equal 101:

Equal is the Universal solvent of truth.

=
MJA

Prove it. Please. Don't say it -- PROVE it in a way that all us ignorami can understand.

No, it was founded on equality of human rights -- not on a metaphysical Oneness of All.

Except for the truism that evolution picks winners and wipes out losers. Divided we stand, united we fall.

Then show me where to look. There isn't even equality in this thread. You see the rest of us are beholden to a logical train of thought. You are content with epiphanies and revelation. If your thesis about equality is true, then we should all agree with you a priori. As it happens, we don't. So you're either wrong about equality, or you're afraid to subject it to a logical discourse (for fear that someone might find holes in the logic).

This is the reason. Your ever post is equal so there is no point in reading then, so much that I myself mostly dont read then anymore. If the host's ever post is equal and the others have lost interest in the thread, there is no reason for it to remain.

But I think this thread is still worth it, im interested into seeing where it is going.

That is not what I said, what I said was: "If you can take it, take it if you want". This is the base of decision making. Morals consist of trying to agree in what we are or not taking, even then we have an opportunity, so that it is not taken from us or something we care for by someone else.

You can see the selfishness, but not the reasons behind it. You have changed, but others might be unable to or not ever want to.

The relevance is that you may be different from everone else and fell things not everone fells, such as the existence of an special morality arising from feeling united with all life.

I think this thread should be closed, and if people want to discuss the topic of vegetarianism further, it should be done in a different thread. The last handful of pages, from what I have seen, have little to nothing to do with vegetarianism.

In retrospect, I should have seen this coming.

The thread started off bandwagoning:

It was quite obvious this thread was not intended for proper logical discourse. The proposition reads no different than "I like vanilla ice cream. Tell me your thoughts on vanilla ice cream."

I still vote close, but I'd enjoy a proper vegetarianism thread.

If only to be an echo, I agree with the other thread patrons that this thread ought to be closed.

Your remarks make it obvoius to me that the blind will never see.
You remind of the guys chained in Plato's cave.
After I escaped from the cave we were chained in and found the light of truth it only seemed right to comeback and release you to see the light too. But hearing your responses I think it best to leave you chained in the cave watching shadows go by.

Good Day,

=
MJA

If you're outside the cave and we're inside, are we still equal?

Was Plato a vegetarian?

Isn't Oneness and Equality a Redundancy error?

MJA, if there is to be equality you must give us a chance as much as you give yourself credit for your self-perceived prestige. It is obvious you feel compelled (just like many others on this forum I might add) to find some sort of unity or symmetry to the way of all things, the cosmos and all, or whatever it is in your case.

But please tell me what your intention is in this kind of mindset? Do you even know, or do you wish to share? Perhaps the best way to defend the ego is in selecting a set of values(people to interact with) which the subject can observe as clouded from the intent of the ego's aims. This inevitable bias effectually causing perceived superiority is hypocrisy of the conscience; for if one has values then they are good desires are they not, desires which ought to be? What job does the conscience have in this though? I do not see one anymore, when I wonder why the ego needs defending? Sometimes I conclude it must be because the ego tends to be evil (if we should become aware of the good).

The problem is this bias becomes so subconscious, and ordained to the mindset. People are more taken in by frames and stereotypes rather than logic. Look at the election between Obama and McCain. When someone goes to make their vote I wouldn't be shocked if the deciding factor was determined by the frames of the candidate rather than the logic behind voting for them. Logic battles to have an emotional cause in the decision making process and what determines one's beliefs, but if there was some traumatic experience then the ego must retaliate.

So in leaving the thread, the motive is always about defending the ego, and statistically speaking (based on number of intellectuals on either side of the opinion) would probably be evil in it's motive (unless actually superior,... because nobody wants equality). The consciousness acts as a filter to processed, subconscious thought so as to protect the 'integrity' of the conscience, when indeed the conscience plays no logical/moral role. It is simply there to create a comprehension of the word justice, that the self is good while intentions seek certain desires which are kept innate to a logical identity. The conscience is there for the bias to be maintained, like its some survival adaptation.

So hopefully I can revise this and more coherently prove that this naturalist attitude is the result of a cognitive bias which contradicts the desire for equality itself.

MJA --

You have a unique point of view, and it's a sincerely benevolent point of view. You believe only in good things, and you have great hope for people.

That's a very inspiring life philosophy.

I want you to keep participating, but work on finding ways to communicate your point of view that resonate with people who don't necessarily share your outlook. We need to be shown what is right, not told what is right.

Thank you for all your efforts in this and other threads. I hear your frustration, but I think it can be overcome. So let's call this thread over and done with, and work on the next one.