Exactly.
The pain of your death would be a lot more intense but it would be shorter lived.
Indeed it would. Vegetarianism is something I consider from time to time, but never with enough seriousness. I think it could happen one day though. I think that would be all around a good thing for me.
James, just a question out of curiosity: do you think there’s any hope for the common man? Any hope that he can, on his own accord, free himself from the control of the manipulators? I mean, by the sounds of it, if I were to even hope that I could somehow escape, that hope would be pre-planned and put into me by the manipulators. Any attempt at escaping the control on anyone’s part would have been not only predicted but deliberately made to happen. ← Is this the way it is?
The “common man” must have a reason to hold faith and confidence in his chosen course. All such reasons are taken away except the simplest and most mindless. It is those mindless behaviors that form the hierarchical world of power which in turn ensures the mindlessness of behaviors so as to ensure the hierarchy of power (John Nash).
The story of Lot in the Bible/Torah is about those fated cities that once infected by certain ideas (“angels”) could not help themselves but to use the ideas (“know the angels”) and thereby unwittingly utterly destroy their cities. The capitalization of psychology is one of those angels. You call it “marketing”, “selling the public”, and more specifically “hypnosis”. The “common man” has nothing to do but walk away and not look back.
One cure would be what I have called the “SAM Coop” (“Noah’s Arc”). But what chance has any man of holding onto that concept sufficiently to survive the onslaught of misinformation and most clever deception (the “Flood” or “the rising sea of Atlantis”)? The prognosis is not favorable. Who comprehends the reason?
You know the film The Matrix. It is about this very subject, merely updated into a higher technology age. The “common man” is unwittingly engaged in a struggle brought about through carefully designed fantasies, “the Perception of Hopes and Threats”, PHT, given to him by the greed of power mongers inspiring themselves with competition among themselves (aka “the System”). To abandon the matrix of perception/deception, the System, requires a very rare and special “red pill” from which life becomes far less convenient. Only those of a very rare quality, “uncommon”, have any hope for spawning the later survivors of the calamity (“Lot’s family”). To “take the red pill” is to become an outcast, black-balled, accused at every turn, disallowed any participation, unemployed, unacceptable.
You had a very good thread about the US Constitution. You went into fine detail, as is worthy to do. You believe that the US Constitution is real. But is it really? Surely it exists. But how much of it is merely show vs actual power? There are a variety of US Senators (Ron Paul, Ran Paul, JFK, and many others) who have spoken of its betrayal and powerlessness. But what does the media, the source of [mis]information for the “common man” say? What the media says is all the “common man” knows to believe. The US Constitution did not prevent the media, nor money, from being monopolized into foreign controllers of law. The US Constitution is merely a part of the show, the perception of constraint (“hope”) that isn’t really there. There is no democracy because there is no truth given to the populous.
So for the “common man” — lemmings into the sea.
That is the way it is.
Agreed.
with love,
sanjay
May be. But, displaying the process is only one aspect. To me, the more important issue is whether all that killings (and, in that way also) should happen in the first place or not. The issue of displaying all that is different and comes later too.
with love,
sanjay
Another “sucker” or the end-consumer or the last man.
“»We have discovered happiness«- say the last men and blink.” (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche).
Think about it:
Political correctness in a globalistic phase is the most fatal behavior. Globalism destroys everything on this planet, thus also and especially humans.
The video is trying to get an emotional reaction to the suffering of animals. It’s not asking whether or not people should eat animals in order to survive.
Got some spare time after a long interval.
Actually, it is asking though not directly. Deduction will eventually lead to that very question, no matter in which way you see the vid.
Secondly, forget about vid, i am asking the same question.
with love,
sanjay
Gone through the thread again and found three questions that emerge mainly.
1 -
2 -
3 -
Can we find answers to those three?
with love,
sanjay
In this world we all have to eat what once was a living organism–plant or animal. We have no alternative. We kill and eat.
So does every other organism, perhaps with the exception of plants.
For 1 and 2, no
For 3. Not so universal and it comes with what ifs and ors and buts.
What is cruelty at its basic?
Enjoyment doing harm?
Actually, we could become as plants and survive via photon energy only.
The question that bothers me, is why are there no super predators? Ie. a superior lifeform that ate everything, then became extinct because it ate everything? Well, the answer is obvious, both its prey and itself became extinct, leaving room for the microbes it never touched to evolve. I wonder how many times this has happened before the ecosystem balanced. And if the ecosystem never balanced, that world never spawned consciousness, and thus we are Earthbound.
No because alternative diets may be just as practical if not as healthy. Also human beings who eat meat do not see it as a moral issue
Since I eat meat and have no objections about doing so because I was not involved in any killing and so cannot be responsible for that
Though we do have a moral responsibility as a society to ensure that the killing of all animals for food is done as humanely as possible
Hook me up to a solar panel, baby!
Like solar energy?
Oh, well that settles it.
That’s like a psychopath saying “We must torture our victims as humanely as possible.”
Yes / Carnivores need omnivores and herbivores / Omnivores need herbivores and plants
Herbivores need plants / Plants need insects / Insects need plants and every animal type
So then everything in the food chain is directly or indirectly connected to everything else
Those at the top of it would die if those at the bottom of it died too so equality does exist
There is no simple objective answer to this question other than what is acceptable to any individual
And this is because morality is subjective by default and so any universal metric is beyond its means
Psychopathy is a psychiatric disorder where as eating meat is not
So why do you think eating meat is wrong yet eating plants is not
Now why is your imaginary line in the sand morally superior to my imaginary line in the sand
Why is eating one living thing any different at all in principle to eating any other living thing