Stosh

I agree with Mh , the idea that eating meat one day dropped humanity from some higher status than he once had, is nonsensical ( grace in who's eyes?) Men have always relied on meat as food. In taoist view , the diminishment of men comes with the transition to a non traditional lifestyle of artifical mores. This fall associates with the advent of agricultue or urbanization , or with the socialization of the young . Yes lots of people have pointed at killing animals as not compassionate. And some say that compassion is man's greatest trait. But compassion is only a FEELING that might motivate. Pointing that feeling in wrong directions is not a mark of some superior -ness. One can still exercise benevolent behavior without the 'carrot and stick' mentality of compassion . Its a buddhist or christian thing , it is still an application of a dualistic worldview...right wrong nice mean good bad and bias judgements like telling people that they aren't as good as you because they eat bacon.

If yall could decide what deserved compassion most people or animal-persons, or if they were interchangeable value wise , you might make a cogent argument. Might,, but either way there is no wrong in eating animals by humans.

If the effects of ones efforts are zero , then functionally speaking there is No reason to do things to have a self gratifying sense of compassion.I know its not doing anything beneficial, so a deficiency in compassion is not indicated.

The issue has never been the definition of compassion. It has been that those who eat meat are less good than those who don't That the prohibitions have some legitimacy because they recur As I already said there are no free lunches, to give to one is to take from another. Your compassionate feelings are belied by the effects that they have which is zero sum. It is not tao virtue to sacrifice one thing for another. You eat the cow that eats the corn that takes up the land that feeds the bison that feeds the wolf ad. Infinitum Or you eat only the corn which takes up the space that feeds the deer that fed the wolf , and so on. The only difference is what life forms one considers important.

Is that you admitting you were wrong all along? I doubt it , but, .. I never claimed perfection- in the colloquial sense. Look for it , go ahead , you wont find me saying that anywhere What I have said is that all things are perfectly -the thing that they are which includes you too. To see things as perfect ( again colloquial speech) one has to have some expectation,, some image that can fulfill the term and other image-expectations which can be -other than fulfilled. Usually this revolves around homogenaity She is always right , always beautiful , always kind etc etc and then other folks can get called imperfect, he isnt always right, he isnt handsome to all , he isnt always kind IF When a situation calls for you to be nice ,and you have that in your repetior , and do be nice ...great ! When a situation calls for you to protect your loved ones ,,, you ,being the baddest ass in town can also be said to be great ! Thats you fulfilling your roles and responsibilities, but its not homogenous behavior, you are not stuck in a zombie mode always happy ,always nice, always stubborn, ,,etc whatever! It is the situatuation which dictates what traits are most advantageous to have so there is no "perfect" other than to say you always fulfill -being you - perfectly. Flexibility is key, it is being responsive adaptive etc but sometimes it means 'being the mountain' other times it can be just plain innocent , or lucky rather than a brilliant tactician Neither you, nor I, will ever be 'perfect' . get used to it ,,let that particular illusion go

Thats all beside the point , your thread wasnt started describing the health benefits of "grain free" living So its still your turn. I have now come across a number of texts that attribute eating meat with a fall from grace of some kind. Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, Islam - I am assuming they all have a similar Genesis + Garden of Eden story) - Before the fall man lived in harmony with all animals / was a steward of the earth. Vedas - Kali Yuga... fall of man began with the slaughter of cows. Many references to a Golden Age East to West (Harmony) I think Zoroastrianism sums things up pretty nicely though.

DRT and I were able to find common ground , we're not fallen. To persist when one isnt really in opposition , is often acting out of pride, but anyway you slice it , Its still not reflecting 'right' the way things are , so it is still a distortion the brother of 'outright wrong'. But by all means carry the flag onward the whole meat subject needs to be squashed flat for a while. Yes it will rise again to plague mankind But thats how it all works right?

Well lets just say there isnt an inherent connection between the compassion that one can have and the food they consume because I think thats what you are meaning. Which would leave us two in agreement on the great majority of points made. Now If we could just get WWROA to come down from the mountaintop ...

Fools go where angels fear to tread.

Ok Ill bite , " What prison ?" the tragic prison of my narrow world view?

Ok

Yes men are more associated with hunting and the significance of meat. And some folks abuse animals as a prelude to being violent to other people True true true personally the chick who hides behind a fake aura of salad eating is annoying I had sisters I remember them eating - they didnt live on salad alone and liked bacon as much as I did. But folks have lots of ideas they would be better off losing . The idea that 'my' spiritual beliefs and customs are 'righter' than yours requires some objective standpoint to anchor it. Those who believe in Gods have an anchored perspective on their morality this is what the anchors look like God says its Ok to eat any meat God says its bad to eat any meat God says you shouldnt eat red meat on sundays God says its ok to eat meat but not cows god says its Ok to eat cows but not pigs god says its ok to eat fish with scales ,but not fish without scales god says its only ok to eat meat killed halal so the thing doesnt suffer needlessly and so forth Getting a kick out of suffering , beast or human , is a perversion and feeds back negatively on society. This is the reason why abuse is made taboo. It is a practical stance driven in with the emotional weaponry called guilt. But tao suggests that there is no perspective from which one can derive the moral and righteous anchors that cause folks to intrude on one another. Maturely considering ones food as an adult does (or should) doesnt require guilt as a motivational enforcer. Eat whatever the heck you are comfortable with eating is what I say I just say it doesnt make you better- more compassionate -right.

In the wild ocean, fish get swallowed alive and wriggling I go fishing , I put those beautiful pompano on ice, and they slowly go to a sleep from which they never wake up. Would you eat those?

Yeah its hard to see how creatures survive , but they do . The rain is needed to fill our lakes , and it isnt requiring tropical storm so far. I like rain I like storms I like sunny days I think will never end.

I would rather not bible or buddhist bash , but I can take only portions as valid.

Killing the meat is indeed violent, waves can toss violently but there is no wrong in it.

Untrue, till now it has been about guilt trips.

yes but I don't meditate on compassion to"drive the paradigm into my own thick skull" because that compassion isn't based on doing things that work out well, kind, harmonious. Feeling without doing leaves the kindness in a situation of fantasy. Jumping away from the guilt trip does allow more respect for your argument. But I doubt you have abandoned the selfrighteous stace that eating meat is causal or resultant from the FALL OF MAN. Well see as we go on and it should become clear.

The hilter argument doesn't hold water but wanting others to feel bad until they agree with your own personal righteousness based argument isn't what tao is about. You can have your own bias, but you should understand that it is only that, your personal bias.Which makes your hostile wish for guilt of others rather disgusting- in my own biased opinion. WWROA and DRT are also making intolerant and ugly argument , again in the misguided attempt to force your' compassion 'down other peoples throat. Remove the sefrighteous stance, and you no longer need to have others comply with your personal fantasies that you know what is right and wrong.

Still making christian argument ? Even so , That refers -to people towards people. Christianity isn't making a statement about how to regard ones food. ( and neither does it do so in the reputed confucian version. )You are still making the same error of equating yourself with an animal , humans are animals plus an abstract mind sentient, and therefore special.And I repeat if humans are no better than animals, we can guiltlessly eat animals like they do. If we are better tha beasts we can still eat beasts and still not be cannibals.

I guess you are at least moving into the bargaining stage of grief , but after the guilt trip , and plain ol nasty vids it doesn't sound legitimate. You made argument that seemed convincing to YOU, and it consisted of fantasy relationships of leopards compassion. And we were treated to the halal version of preparing cows for consumption to lay-on the guilt trip you feel'should' be convincing. Now you make a straw man argument , that god made animals for us to eat. And tthen make an attempt to twist the argument from it isn't moral to eat meat as in the term FALL , To it is just a reasonable choice in the light of your personal warmth toward animals. The argument was, that animals were people, but if people ate animals they weren't good people. I have been said to be without feeling essentially heartless. You need to take back the vids , admit they are a shameful bid at a guilt trp, and then I could believe that you are making your argument from a detached rational standpoint.

I like the subtle differences, but the final ,, conclusions are they ? dont seem to follow inevitably , (as a conclusion ) any more than Having abundant chi ,jing, and shen, doesnt neccessarily do any thing having no desires or hunger or need for sleep are the benefits of the dead. Detatched already from the physical ,( dead ), one has nothing to suffer Which seem to stand as fact, on their own. Since the thread says proofs in the title I deem it ok to say that all there. but "proofs" dont neccessarily mean that the subject becomes proven logically speaking , so if my comment doesnt fit with the use of the word proof here just ignore it.

Oops baby woke up

Its not that we dont have feelings , its just they arent guilt, shame over eating food, and a desire to feel superior.

I dont find it very appealing or normal, but maybe her breasts hurt. If she has a kid already ,that kid is losing his lunch. Should I post a vid of some dude banging a calf ?