Eating Meat is Barbaric

[LuckyR]

But I did not miss what you call and claim here is the 'key word'.

I was only curious and interested in the 'minority' word, and in regards if 'that word' had any actual bearing at all on the soundness and/or validity of things, to you, or not.

And, by the way, I am, still, curios, and interested.

I just now wait to see if you actually answer and clarify this.

Also, if you want to 'look at' the 'opinion' word as being the so-called 'key word', then, obviously, that was 'the opinion' of 'one only', and so an, obvious, minority', but, again, if there was absolutely any thing in what I said and wrote, there, that you agreed with, or disagreed with, then by all means lets.

See, what you said and wrote is very ambiguous, and so it is impossible to 'discuss' without you first clarifying what you Truly meant.

Well it has importance in the sense that arguments such as yours (which are pretty well understood in mainstream society) fail to convince a majority of people. Obviously the reasons for this reality are not solely because many find them unconvincing, though that's clearly a large part of that answer.

As to my opinion of your writings, I completely understand and appreciate the situation that drives you to your conclusion. I too, seek to address this situation, though I happen to take a less drastic, but in my experience, more attainable pathway. I guess I can sum up my approach as "perfect is the enemy of better". I'm satisfied with "better" since I've seen so much "no improvement ".

[henry quirk]

67CE677A-2450-42C5-93FD-FDEFA4FAFBDD.jpeg

[Age]

What a surprise, Age thinks his assertions self-justify.

Well if anyone actually decides to put them to the test, then what the actual Truth is, exactly, will come-to-light.

Until then there will be people like "iwannaplato" who will just continue to presume and believe that they already know. Which, to some, is 'quite surprising'.

A confusion held by some at the time this is being written.

Well, obviously, if you disagree with things here as being 'justified', then just show and prove how they are 'not justified'.

you just saying or claiming that they are 'not justified' is, really, not saying much at all, and, literally, not proving nor 'justifying' your claim or nothing at all.

Why do you believe that what I, supposedly and allegedly, think here is 'a conclusion'?

One can see Age as a batch of human-brain created algorithms to get people to create text, which Age responds to in any way that will get people to create more text.

Yes, one, or more, of you human beings could 'see' this. But, why any one of you would even want to, is another thing.

Common Age Tactics:
endless clarification question
requests for justification met with clarification questions
attempts to shame people into doing what he wants - often beginning with 'This one'

Once again;

What one 'sees' or 'believes' is always not necessarily true. you 'seeing' and 'believing' that I am attempting to shame you people is, obviously, not necessarily true.

If one is feeling shame, then there may well be very good reason for this.

And,

When one 'sees' some thing in another, then this may well be just a 'reflection' of "oneself".

Assertions that the other person's argument/statement is False and Wrong, without justification - this adds steps to the process, and is repeated ad infinitum

But, it is not 'ad infinitum' at all. This is just another one of your own jumped to conclusions, based on absolutely nothing at all other than your own made up, unverified, assumptions.

quite poor mind-reading attempts, always ego-syntonic - to trigger more text disagreeing or defending or explaining that that was not the
motive-------->which is more text, but also can now be challenged to get justification.

Talking about this one here providing lots of examples of adding 'more text'.

Do I think Age is aware of what he is doing here? No, I don't. Perhaps he is, but I think he is unaware. There are some not very powerful AIs designed similarly. Of course, they tend to be more supportive and do not express so many negative judgments of human beings.

Okay.

But what 'we' appear to have here is just another one who is Truly perplexed and bamboozled.

[Age]

But I did not miss what you call and claim here is the 'key word'.

I was only curious and interested in the 'minority' word, and in regards if 'that word' had any actual bearing at all on the soundness and/or validity of things, to you, or not.

And, by the way, I am, still, curios, and interested.

I just now wait to see if you actually answer and clarify this.

Also, if you want to 'look at' the 'opinion' word as being the so-called 'key word', then, obviously, that was 'the opinion' of 'one only', and so an, obvious, minority', but, again, if there was absolutely any thing in what I said and wrote, there, that you agreed with, or disagreed with, then by all means lets.

See, what you said and wrote is very ambiguous, and so it is impossible to 'discuss' without you first clarifying what you Truly meant.

Well it has importance in the sense that arguments such as yours (which are pretty well understood in mainstream society) fail to convince a majority of people.

But, so-called 'convincing' absolutely any one, of absolutely any thing, is the very last thing I am wanting to do, here.

I just sometimes express my views here, in a philosophy forum, to find out if what is being expressed can be refuted or not. I seek to be questioned and challenged over all of my views if one is not sure about them or disagrees with them. And, if my views cannot be refuted, then they stand, exactly, as they are forever more.

Now, if a majority, a minority, or even just one, of you people, (in so-called 'mainstream society), understand what I am saying and pointing out is of no real importance, well to me anyway.

What is Truly important to me is that all of you 'adult people' learn how to be accept and take absolute full responsibility, change away from your Wrong doings, learn how to do only what is Right, in Life, and start teaching what is actually Right, in Life, through and by 'your words' and 'your behaviour'.

And, if 'arguments', such as mine, (which are, supposedly, pretty well understood in 'mainstream society', in the days when this is being written), are not so-called 'convincing' 'the rest', nor 'all', of you, then something else besides just 'arguments' needs to be done.

Which as I have been saying, and alluding, to here, is just learning, and obtaining, the 'know-how' of how to find/uncover what is actually True and Right, in Life, so then you can, and will, only do what is True and Right, in Life, and so in turn only speak and teach the Truth, and on do and teach what is Right, in Life, only. So, the following generations will see and hear only what is True, and Right, in Life.

Obviously the reasons for this reality are not solely because many find them unconvincing, though that's clearly a large part of that answer.

Many find arguments, which back up and support that to the earth is not flat and that the sun does not revolve around it, for example, also unconvincing.

But, again, whilst you human beings, individually and collectively, keep having and maintaining beliefs, what is actually irrefutably True cannot come-to-light and be seen by those ones.

As to my opinion of your writings, I completely understand and appreciate the situation that drives you to your conclusion.

And, what, exactly, is 'that situation'?

I too, seek to address this situation, though I happen to take a less drastic, but in my experience, more attainable pathway.

What, exactly, is my so-called 'drastic pathway'?

I guess I can sum up my approach as "perfect is the enemy of better". I'm satisfied with "better" since I've seen so much "no improvement ".

Okay.

But, and just so you are fully aware, I have absolutely no idea nor clue at all as to what you are even talking about and referring to here?

So, would you like to elaborate and clarify here now?

[Iwannaplato]

Well if anyone actually decides to put them to the test, then what the actual Truth is, exactly, will come-to-light.

Until then there will be people like "iwannaplato" who will just continue to presume and believe that they already know. Which, to some, is 'quite surprising'.

The irony

From the thread: How to know everything:

Age:

How to, exactly, understand everything was, and is, done through, and by, just being Truly open always, while just wanting to learn and understand every thing always, as well.

Harbal:

You can't possibly know that to be the case. Only someone who understands everything would know.

Age:

And, why could not 'I' possibly know that to be the case?

Why do 'you' presume or believe that 'I' do not, already, understand everything?

By the way, once 'you', if 'you' do, come to 'know' who and what the 'I' is, exactly, then 'you' will also understand how what 'you' say and claim could not possibly be the case, is actually 'the case'.

Harbal:

Because to speak with any authority on how it is possible to understand everything, you would have to understand everything yourself, or at least be informed by someone else who understood everything, otherwise what you said would just be theoretical.

Age:

Yes obviously.

But, why do you presume and/or believe that 'I' could not possibly understand everything?

See, once 'you' understand who and what the 'I' is, exactly, then 'you' will learn, and understand, why 'your presumptions and views' here gave 'you' 'the belief', which you 'currently' have here, which, as far as 'you' 'know', 'you' do 'not know' if it is true or not.

'you' are just presuming that (the) 'I' could not possibly, already, understand everything. And, in fact, 'you' 'currently' believe this to be true, right?

If one reads from this point forward, Age hints at a muddled metaphysics where human beings as inviduals cannot know everything, but what Harbal is addressing, it is implied, is not a human being. When Harbal points out that it is clear in his dealings with humans here at the forum that "age" doesn't understand things, Age challenges this, and the key response is....

Now, if 'you' do define the 'people' word here, then 'I' will challenge 'you' to define the 'human being' words, the 'you' word, the 'me' word, and the 'I' word, and present them all in a way that fits 'perfectly together', and which then will align with, and fit 'perfectly together', all the other words, which in turn will present a Truly Accurate and, perfectly, crystal clear picture of all-there-is, or in other words, Everything.

See, 'I' claim, and 'know', that 'I' have already done this, and can do this for 'you' human beings as well.

He has already done this.

If one points out that he has claimed to know everything he will say this is False and Wrong.

Is this because one should put citation marks around 'you'...who cares?
Is this because he was representing the One True Mind, who cares?

What arrives next is a simple statement by Age that the above is False and Wrong. Which in the naive might elicit more text trying to get some kind of explanation, which would like elicit clarifying questions and long with insults and/or lols, eliciting more text. Age is Waiting for Godot in App form.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, obviously, if you disagree with things here as being 'justified', then just show and prove how they are 'not justified'.

In this case I was saying they were not self-justified. But nice onus shift attempt.

you just saying or claiming that they are 'not justified' is, really, not saying much at all, and, literally, not proving nor 'justifying' your claim or nothing at all.

You saying they are self-justified is not really saying much at all.

Yes, one, or more, of you human beings could 'see' this. But, why any one of you would even want to, is another thing.

It highlights the pattern in your communication patterns.

Common Age Tactics:
endless clarification question
requests for justification met with clarification questions
attempts to shame people into doing what he wants - often beginning with 'This one'

Once again;

What one 'sees' or 'believes' is always not necessarily true.

Which, of course, applies to your self-evaluation as well.
And,

When one 'sees' some thing in another, then this may well be just a 'reflection' of "oneself".

Thank you for the example of the implicit not quite claim. You'll spend more energy not saying something than actually communicating. Which fits the model of the create more text Age. Now do I think the main goal of Age's is to get people to create more text - unlikely. The secondary gains of considering himself in the position of superiority, however, follow from this tactic.

[LuckyR]

I guess I can sum up my approach as "perfect is the enemy of better". I'm satisfied with "better" since I've seen so much "no improvement ".

Okay.

But, and just so you are fully aware, I have absolutely no idea nor clue at all as to what you are even talking about and referring to here?

So, would you like to elaborate and clarify here now?

The current situation is: a spectrum of agribusiness practices from small family free range ranching on the "better" side and industrial feed lots (cowschwitz) on the "worse" side. Your (more drastic) solution is shut them all down and veganism goes from 1% of the population to 100% of the population. That would be a "perfect" solution to the problem of domesticated animal suffering. My (less drastic) solution is either shut down or change industrial feed lots, while keeping and even expanding small, free range ranching operations. Veganism would probably change from 1% to 5% of the population, meat consumption would decrease per person as the cost of meat products would reflect the real costs of more humane ranching. This isn't a "perfect" solution to domesticated animal suffering, but would be "better" than the current situation. The third alternative is what's happening right now, "no improvement", ie the status quo.

[attofishpi]

I think if the meat on the bone is still alive whilst you are chewing on it, is a tad barbaric.

[henry quirk]

bird sez...

3AEFDC36-5DA2-4972-A669-E962212888F5.jpeg

...eat me

[henry quirk]

6F9FD4E0-DE7A-4504-9DCF-4ABD3A7D4993.jpeg

[Age]

Well if anyone actually decides to put them to the test, then what the actual Truth is, exactly, will come-to-light.

Until then there will be people like "iwannaplato" who will just continue to presume and believe that they already know. Which, to some, is 'quite surprising'.

The irony

From the thread: How to know everything:

Age:

How to, exactly, understand everything was, and is, done through, and by, just being Truly open always, while just wanting to learn and understand every thing always, as well.

Harbal:

You can't possibly know that to be the case. Only someone who understands everything would know.

Age:

And, why could not 'I' possibly know that to be the case?

Why do 'you' presume or believe that 'I' do not, already, understand everything?

By the way, once 'you', if 'you' do, come to 'know' who and what the 'I' is, exactly, then 'you' will also understand how what 'you' say and claim could not possibly be the case, is actually 'the case'.

Harbal:

Because to speak with any authority on how it is possible to understand everything, you would have to understand everything yourself, or at least be informed by someone else who understood everything, otherwise what you said would just be theoretical.

Age:

Yes obviously.

But, why do you presume and/or believe that 'I' could not possibly understand everything?

See, once 'you' understand who and what the 'I' is, exactly, then 'you' will learn, and understand, why 'your presumptions and views' here gave 'you' 'the belief', which you 'currently' have here, which, as far as 'you' 'know', 'you' do 'not know' if it is true or not.

'you' are just presuming that (the) 'I' could not possibly, already, understand everything. And, in fact, 'you' 'currently' believe this to be true, right?

If one reads from this point forward, Age hints at a muddled metaphysics where human beings as inviduals cannot know everything, but what Harbal is addressing, it is implied, is not a human being. When Harbal points out that it is clear in his dealings with humans here at the forum that "age" doesn't understand things, Age challenges this, and the key response is....

But, "harbal" does not 'know' this. "harbal" is only 'presuming' this.

And, as 'we' all here already 'know', what one 'presumes' or 'believes' is true is not necessarily true at all.

Or, do you here presume and/or believe otherwise "iwannaplato"?

Now, if 'you' do define the 'people' word here, then 'I' will challenge 'you' to define the 'human being' words, the 'you' word, the 'me' word, and the 'I' word, and present them all in a way that fits 'perfectly together', and which then will align with, and fit 'perfectly together', all the other words, which in turn will present a Truly Accurate and, perfectly, crystal clear picture of all-there-is, or in other words, Everything.

See, 'I' claim, and 'know', that 'I' have already done this, and can do this for 'you' human beings as well.

He has already done this.[/quote]

Why are you calling and labeling 'I' as a "he" here, now?

you sound like "immanuel can" when it calls and labels God a "he", as well.

you people here really need to learn how to express just the actual Truth only, instead of continually spreading Falsehoods.

By the way, if and when you do, then you will also 'see' how and why you have been 'missing' the actual irrefutable Truth of things, for so long 'now'.

If one points out that he has claimed to know everything he will say this is False and Wrong.

Of course I will. And, for the obvious reason I just provided.

It is like these people, back then, never even just stopped for a second, let alone a minute, to consider what they were actually thinking, and would express to, and share with, each other.

Is this because one should put citation marks around 'you'...who cares?

Notice how this one does not ask 'me' for clarification, but will ask 'others'?

This was done in 'a way' to garnish support from others in an effort to try to humiliate and make 'the other' look stupid, different, or not 'one of us'.

Is this because he was representing the One True Mind, who cares?

Why are 'you' asking 'the readers' here 'one question', and then immediately asking, 'who cares'?

Do you want 'them' to tell 'you' the 'actual answer' to the 'first part' in your question, and then answer the second part as well?

If no, then what is 'it', exactly, what you are asking and/or seeking here, exactly,

What arrives next is a simple statement by Age that the above is False and Wrong. Which in the naive might elicit more text trying to get some kind of explanation, which would like elicit clarifying questions and long with insults and/or lols, eliciting more text. Age is Waiting for Godot in App form.

And, what 'we' obviously see here is more and more 'strings of texts', which, in all honesty, is not really saying nor pointing out any actual thing.

[Iwannaplato]

Well if anyone actually decides to put them to the test, then what the actual Truth is, exactly, will come-to-light.

Until then there will be people like "iwannaplato" who will just continue to presume and believe that they already know. Which, to some, is 'quite surprising'.

The irony

From the thread: How to know everything:

Age:

How to, exactly, understand everything was, and is, done through, and by, just being Truly open always, while just wanting to learn and understand every thing always, as well.

Harbal:

You can't possibly know that to be the case. Only someone who understands everything would know.

Age:

And, why could not 'I' possibly know that to be the case?

Why do 'you' presume or believe that 'I' do not, already, understand everything?

By the way, once 'you', if 'you' do, come to 'know' who and what the 'I' is, exactly, then 'you' will also understand how what 'you' say and claim could not possibly be the case, is actually 'the case'.

Harbal:

Because to speak with any authority on how it is possible to understand everything, you would have to understand everything yourself, or at least be informed by someone else who understood everything, otherwise what you said would just be theoretical.

Age:

Yes obviously.

But, why do you presume and/or believe that 'I' could not possibly understand everything?

See, once 'you' understand who and what the 'I' is, exactly, then 'you' will learn, and understand, why 'your presumptions and views' here gave 'you' 'the belief', which you 'currently' have here, which, as far as 'you' 'know', 'you' do 'not know' if it is true or not.

'you' are just presuming that (the) 'I' could not possibly, already, understand everything. And, in fact, 'you' 'currently' believe this to be true, right?

If one reads from this point forward, Age hints at a muddled metaphysics where human beings as inviduals cannot know everything, but what Harbal is addressing, it is implied, is not a human being. When Harbal points out that it is clear in his dealings with humans here at the forum that "age" doesn't understand things, Age challenges this, and the key response is....[/quote]

But, "harbal" does not 'know' this. "harbal" is only 'presuming' this.

Harbal has conclused, based on his experience of your posts, that you don't know everything.

And, as 'we' all here already 'know', what one 'presumes' or 'believes' is true is not necessarily true at all.

Sure. Even what one concludes is true can be false.

Or, do you here presume and/or believe otherwise "iwannaplato"?

Obviously I think many of your beliefs and presumptions are incorrect, for example. As for my own beliefs and conclusions I have answered this question repeatedly. If you can't remember my answer, after so many repetitions, then there is likely a neurological problem on your part. If you don't believe me, than asking me again and again is a waste of time for both of us and even any target audience.

Why are you calling and labeling 'I' as a "he" here, now?

you sound like "immanuel can" when it calls and labels God a "he", as well.

you people here really need to learn how to express just the actual Truth only, instead of continually spreading Falsehoods.

By the way, if and when you do, then you will also 'see' how and why you have been 'missing' the actual irrefutable Truth of things, for so long 'now'.

If one points out that he has claimed to know everything he will say this is False and Wrong.

Of course I will. And, for the obvious reason I just provided.

You providing no reason. There are hints of possible reason.

It is like these people, back then, never even just stopped for a second, let alone a minute, to consider what they were actually thinking, and would express to, and share with, each other.

What a poor assessment of what is happening and it includes an asssumption. And, of course it is one of the generalized negative assessments that Age claims he doesn't make here.

[Flannel Jesus]

All it takes is one call to the right asylum and age loses internet access.

[Iwannaplato]

All it takes is one call to the right asylum and age loses internet access.

Let me respond aslant. Back when I lived in the US and had just returned from abroad, I was wandering an East Coast city in the middle of the night because there were no busses yet to where I needed to go. I bumped into this woman who started telling me about the conspiracy regarding Johnny Weismuller - you know, one of the early Tarzans. Because of my life story and then also curiosity, I am never thrown off by strange or unique ideas of any kind. So, I just started asking her questions. I didn't even understand what she was on about for quite a while. Now after a while I realized that, despite her excellent hygiene, clear language, noticing well things I had said, etc., she was probably schizophrenic. She loved me. Of course, I treated her very kindly and listened carefully. Patterns she probably didn't experience so often. On the other hand, I wondered what this said about me. Not necessarily negative. I do want to treat unique and fringe ideas with respect, and also the people who bear them, I want to treat with respect - as long as they are respectful, which she definitely was. In part because I have found real value in some fringe ideas.

On the other hand, in the process of trying to understand some people with fringe ideas - or even some abusive patterns in romantic relationships - I have withheld, way too long reactions like yours above. Where is the sweet spot?

I think the sweet spot is around what the other person makes one feel. Age repeatedly denies his negative judgments of people, both at the individual level and his generally aimed negative judgments, even when I've quoted him direclty. Nothing is ever what it seems, even when if someone does what Age does, then it can be very negative. But not when he does it.

It's not the content, it's the interpersonal dynamic. The social cluelessness. The rage at not being accepted as what he or she thinks is his due.

I wished this kind but damaged woman well. She was kind, I was kind. She kept me company for a long promenade through a sleeping city and it was interesting.

Later, much later, when the internet was available, I tried to find out if there was anything to here JW conspiracy. He died at 79. I couldn't find any even fringe nutcase believers in a conspiracy. I doubt she's still with us, but I hope she's ok or even doing well.

[Atla]

I think the sweet spot is around what the other person makes one feel. Age repeatedly denies his negative judgments of people, both at the individual level and his generally aimed negative judgments, even when I've quoted him direclty. Nothing is ever what it seems, even when if someone does what Age does, then it can be very negative. But not when he does it.

It's not the content, it's the interpersonal dynamic. The social cluelessness. The rage at not being accepted as what he or she thinks is his due.

Just remember to swallow the red pill: Age is not a 'person', just a part of one. Interpersonal dynamic usually assumes two complete persons.