Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions

Frequently Flogged Misconceptions

Eating Meat is not Harmless

As of now I am a vegetarian, if I discard this belief, what would happen? Would I eat meat without guilt? The reason I am vegetarian is that I don’t think I should cause pain and suffering to fellow sentient beings just for a burger. So what would happen to this belief and action if I self-immolated?

[Richard: freeing oneself to the enjoyment of the harmless pleasures of life. Like eating a hamburger ...] Neither is eating a hamburger. Just ask the cattle.

I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless. They feel empathy (a dirty little emotion) for harmless animals that have not done anything to anyone and they do something about it. I think it is you who are rearranging deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’ with these lame defences (something you don’t do) of your version of peace on earth and good will toward ... well man. Bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice. The animals will be so happy to know. Also he goes on a big rant about how you are bound to kill things, and even vegetable must undergo distress when pulled from the earth. I have never heard a more obvious evasion of a question in my life. You don’t have to eat meat. No one is forcing you to. You don’t just walk down the street and accidentally kill animals, you choose to eat them or not. If it is ok to kill in one instance it is ok to kill in all instances.

Just because some religion says something about vegetarianism does not make it per-se a un-liveable highly selective ‘ethics’. Why do you bring religion into the picture? I was talking about being vegetarian. Can we evaluate vegetarianism on its own merits (or de-merits)? Does it take any energy to refrain from eating meat?

I am not sure I understand the actualist attitude toward vegetarianism. Once the predator within is no longer extant I would have thought the main reasons we cause unnecessary suffering to our fellow sentient beings would go with them. Are feeling/ belief the only reasons to want to spare a fellow mammal the experience of an abattoir? I don’t get this.

Harmlessness; what is the actualist definition of harmlessness? Do you eat meat and therefore kill life to sustain your own? Do you unsuspectingly step on insects or do you unintentionally hurt someone?

This physical organism rebels, not because of any belief, but because it has its own intelligence about what it will tolerate and what it will not. Cigarette smoking is completely intolerable to a sensitive body, as is eating carrion. * And, I used the word ‘carrion’ specifically for the meat consumed for food because the bacterial decomposition of an animal begins immediately upon its death – other words, it begins to rot. Those are not prejudices. They are facts. You eat meat; you are responsible for of the practice of animal mistreatment and ecosystem destruction. I’m not saying that is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

If I may ask you a question, pertaining to diet; is not an actualist supposed to be harmless, but eating meat won’t he still be participating in harmfulness? I say this because of my background, particularly with animals ... for example, I know of a parrot which expresses pain linguistically; and I’ve always been fond of ‘Leonardo DaVinci’ and ‘Socrates’ who both were, to my knowledge, vegetarians.

That which is alive can hardly breath without bringing harm or destruction to some aspect of the environment, yes? The whole exercise of personal existence must be a heavy measure on the side of silliness when a larger view is taken toward its effect. Does it not seem silly that this body should eat while another starves?

Design ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity