Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 >for to hate is not to understand ... a truly compassionate person does not >hate anyone... there are few truly compassionate people around ... (and i >do not profess to being one of them....) Why? Is it not a person who denies their true feelings that does not hate. You can hate and still understand. It is only a particular view which makes you say that hate is incompatible with being compassionate, or that even that you should strive to be 'truly compassionate' in the sense you mention. Aren't all emotions valuable, both positive and negative. As Sartre would say of you desire to be truly compassionate, you are living in bad faith. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 if your friend is late to meet you ... and you get angry with them that is fine ... but if you carry that anger on after they have explained why they are late then you are in the wrong... if a person is late they have a good reason... it does not make them a 'bad' person ... it is the circumstances which cause that person to be late... and your emotions arise because you do not know the circumstances which make that person late... if you imagine whilst waiting that there could be a million things that could keep your friend from being on time ... then you will find that you do not get angry ... (except perhaps with the circumstances you have imagined....) i agree that a person who hides his true feelings does not hate (but really they hide the fact that they hate too)... but this is not what i mean ... i am saying that a person who considers all possible circumstances does not feel angry and therefore has no feelings to hide and thus does not hate... hate ... " Do you love anything? Do you know what it is to love? You know, when you love something completely, with your whole being, that love is not sentimental, it is not duty, it is not divided as physical or divine. Do you love anyone or anything with your whole being - your parents, a friend, your dog, a tree? Do you? I am afraid you don't. That is why you have vast spaces in your being in which their is ugliness, hate, envy. You see, the man who loves has no room for anything else. We should really spend our time discussing all this and finding out how to remove the things that are cluttering our minds that we cannot love; for it is only when we love that we can be free and happy. It is only people who are loving, vital, happy, that can create a new world - not the politicians; not the reformers or the few ideological saints. " [Krishnamurti -Think on these Things] (Krishnamurti is a very good read for vegans and non-vegans alike - nothing at all to do with Hare Krishna nor religion .. he is a philosopher ... friend of Aldous Huxley and various other eminent thinkers throughout the 20th century (he was born in 1895 died in late 80s (??) )... ) yes, emotions are valuable Sartre ... explain to me what 'bad' means...? - " Mavreela " <nec.lists Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:30 AM Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] > > >for to hate is not to understand ... a truly compassionate person does not > >hate anyone... there are few truly compassionate people around ... (and i > >do not profess to being one of them....) > > Why? Is it not a person who denies their true feelings that does not > hate. You can hate and still understand. It is only a particular view > which makes you say that hate is incompatible with being compassionate, or > that even that you should strive to be 'truly compassionate' in the sense > you mention. Aren't all emotions valuable, both positive and negative. > > As Sartre would say of you desire to be truly compassionate, you are living > in bad faith. > > Michael > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 ---No one should be forced to eat animals in little corners of the world as if they don't belong here! all the plant type foods should be shared among everyone! If people in Tibet have not got food they should be allowed food, not isolated and left to believe that they are ment to eat the bloody flesh of creatures! Plant-eaters are the salt of the Earth, The present day saviours! I gratefull to the plant- eaters throughout history who have known this basic truth as the foundation,the seed, the beginning of true peace,the love a lion or a fox or a cow would give to us and each other would overwealm us, if only we allowed it to happen!!! Live and let live!! SP, , " Oliver Slay " <oliver@l...> wrote: > if your friend is late to meet you ... and you get angry with them that is > fine ... but if you carry that anger on after they have explained why they > are late then you are in the wrong... if a person is late they have a good > reason... it does not make them a 'bad' person ... it is the circumstances > which cause that person to be late... and your emotions arise because you > do not know the circumstances which make that person late... if you > imagine whilst waiting that there could be a million things that could keep > your friend from being on time ... then you will find that you do not get > angry ... (except perhaps with the circumstances you have imagined....) > > i agree that a person who hides his true feelings does not hate (but really > they hide the fact that they hate too)... but this is not what i mean ... i > am saying that a person who considers all possible circumstances does not > feel angry and therefore has no feelings to hide and thus does not hate... > > hate ... > " Do you love anything? Do you know what it is to love? You know, when you > love something completely, with your whole being, that love is not > sentimental, it is not duty, it is not divided as physical or divine. Do > you love anyone or anything with your whole being - your parents, a friend, > your dog, a tree? Do you? I am afraid you don't. That is why you have > vast spaces in your being in which their is ugliness, hate, envy. You see, > the man who loves has no room for anything else. We should really spend our > time discussing all this and finding out how to remove the things that are > cluttering our minds that we cannot love; for it is only when we love that > we can be free and happy. It is only people who are loving, vital, happy, > that can create a new world - not the politicians; not the reformers or the > few ideological saints. " > [Krishnamurti -Think on these Things] (Krishnamurti is a very good read for > vegans and non-vegans alike - nothing at all to do with Hare Krishna nor > religion .. he is a philosopher ... friend of Aldous Huxley and various > other eminent thinkers throughout the 20th century (he was born in 1895 died > in late 80s (??) )... ) > > yes, emotions are valuable > > Sartre ... explain to me what 'bad' means...? > > > - > " Mavreela " <nec.lists@m...> > > Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:30 AM > Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] > > > > > > >for to hate is not to understand ... a truly compassionate person does > not > > >hate anyone... there are few truly compassionate people around ... (and i > > >do not profess to being one of them....) > > > > Why? Is it not a person who denies their true feelings that does not > > hate. You can hate and still understand. It is only a particular view > > which makes you say that hate is incompatible with being compassionate, or > > that even that you should strive to be 'truly compassionate' in the sense > > you mention. Aren't all emotions valuable, both positive and negative. > > > > As Sartre would say of you desire to be truly compassionate, you are > living > > in bad faith. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > > --------------------------- > > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > > Un: send a blank message to - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > if your friend is late to meet you ... and you get angry with them that is > fine ... but if you carry that anger on after they have explained why they > are late then you are in the wrong Even if they say " I'm late because frankly it doesn't bother me if you are inconvenienced. I could have called but I couldn't be bothered. " We can trade counter examples all day but it does not explain why those who have the means to be vegan chose not too out of pure self interest. So where does lack of understanding come into cancelling out someone to choosing to hate such people. > i agree that a person who hides his true feelings does not hate I never said that people who hide their feelings do not hate, of course they do, I'm saying if people do not hide their feelings then they shoud be free to hate. > i am saying that a person who considers all possible circumstances does not > feel angry and therefore has no feelings to hide and thus does not hate... But are emotions connected to reason in that way? Do I get happy because I understand and unhappy because I do not? Aren't emotions are something distinct from rationality? You can find someone falling over both funny and still feel sympathy for them because you understand that it hurt. Psychology still can not explain the emotions, yet you seem so sure that you can? > Sartre ... explain to me what 'bad' means...? Well done, you've spotted the big mistake in Sartre, that he places a value judgment on choosing to reject your freedom and hiding from your true self as though there is something objectively wrong, even though he did not believe in objective values. But then if you are rejecting such objective values then there can't be anything wrong in hating. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > Even if they say " I'm late because frankly it doesn't bother me if > you are inconvenienced. I could have called but I couldn't be > bothered. " > We can trade counter examples all day but it does not explain > why those who have the means to be vegan chose not too out of > pure self interest. So where does lack of understanding come > into cancelling out someone to choosing to hate such people. your example does not necessarily presuppose hate ... i can say i wouldn't hate in that example... is it really pure self-interest that stops someone choosing to become a vegan? > > i agree that a person who hides his true feelings does not hate > > I never said that people who hide their feelings do not hate, of > course they do, I'm saying if people do not hide their feelings > then they shoud be free to hate. You wrote " Is it not a person who denies their true feelings that does not hate. " then people should be free to kill? > But are emotions connected to reason in that way? Do I get > happy because I understand and unhappy because I do not? > Aren't emotions are something distinct from rationality? You can > find someone falling over both funny and still feel sympathy for > them because you understand that it hurt. Psychology still can > not explain the emotions, yet you seem so sure that you can? no ... they are connected... i feel angry... i think i hate it ... i really hate it ... my heart beats faster ... i raise my voice... i think i hate everything ... i think ... and the feelings grow ... as i work myself up into more and more anger... we don't separate mind from body ... mental from emotional from physical ... there is no boundary .. no fragmentation ... it is one continuum ... it is not about happiness and unhappiness ? where do you get that from? if you make something distinct from something else then you fragment reality .... once reality is fragmented we begin to defend the parts... land fragmented into nations that fight over imaginary borders ... ideas fragmented into philosophical schools who debate with each other... there is no fragmentation ... rationality leads into emotions ... if i cannot understand why someone does something .. i get angry ... perhaps the first step would be frustration ... then i get angry with the person because i am frustrated... in the end i cannot change them ... so i hate them ... perhaps it becomes obvious - understanding and hate when you look at the questions we use: " Why on earth did you do that? " " How could you do that to me? " - is that not our desire to understand the situation? ... if that is not fulfilled then we will be in confusion ... we will not understand .. we will probably hate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 I'd stop if this wasn't so much fun on a very bad day. > is it really pure self-interest that stops someone choosing to become a > vegan? Can you think of a better reason for all those people who have no excuses about being Tibetan or poor yet know about the production of meat? > You wrote " Is it not a person who denies their true feelings that does not > hate. " Maybe my double negative was confusing then. > then people should be free to kill? Hate is a feeling, killing is an action. Most different. Incomparable even. > we don't separate mind from body ... mental from emotional from physical ... > there is no boundary .. no fragmentation ... it is one continuum Descartes thought so and had a profound affect on the way most people see body and mind. Anyway I never said that emotions and physical symptoms are unconnected but that emotions and understanding are. Very different. Incomparable. > if you make something distinct from something else then you fragment reality > ... once reality is fragmented we begin to defend the parts... Are you an idealist (in the philosophical Berklian sense?) > ideas > fragmented into philosophical schools who debate with each other... Is debate a bad thing? If anyone sticks with one tradition and strikes out against anything because it belongs to another they are a fool. The history of philosophy though is one of very different ideas coming together so that something new can come out. If anything it is the search for something unifying to defragment reality, supposing such a thing exists. > " Why on earth did you do that? " " How could you do that to me? " - is that > not our desire to understand the situation? ... if that is not fulfilled > then we will be in confusion ... we will not understand .. we will probably > hate... I will accept that confusion can lead to hate, but that does not mean hate is necessarily the result of confusion. By the way, you do realize I am not necessarily expressing my own opinion but examining problems I have with what you say in order to better understand your position and maybe learn something new? Although I do believe that hate is not solely the result of a lack of understanding. Emotions are all too easily dimissed in favour of rationality and in making hate a by-product of ignorance you are reducing people to rational beings, but if that were the case then there would be nothing to distinguish one person from the next, why they have different preferences. You can't even cite culture because ultimately everyone within a culture should be identical, but they are not. There is a " something else " that flavours our rational side. I for one think we can benefit a lot more from feeling hate than we can from dismissing and diminishing it. Michael (Whose parcel has finally arrived so I can now have a shower and make some lunch, though not at the same time I add) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > I'd stop if this wasn't so much fun on a very bad day. me too :-) > Can you think of a better reason for all those people who have > no excuses about being Tibetan or poor yet know about the > production of meat? they can't be bothered? they've lived that way all their lives... and they have 5 years left to live ... and who am i to tell them what to do? > > You wrote " Is it not a person who denies their true feelings that > does not > > hate. " > > Maybe my double negative was confusing then. looked like a colloquial single negative interrogative to me... my misunderstanding... > > then people should be free to kill? > > Hate is a feeling, killing is an action. Most different. > Incomparable even. imcomparable but not inseparable... what do most people do with this hate? faced with the object of one's hatred? ... some time ago some animal rights activists staged a protest outside my flat... apparently someone else in the house (divided into nine separate flats) worked in the trade... being on the ground floor they could look in and see me... watching them... i found the experience intimidating ... i felt like the object of their protest... i was being irrational, yes... but they did not know that i am an ethical vegan ... and they are human ... they can make mistakes ... and they can direct their anger anywhere they like ... they can associate me with the person they were protesting against... a simple association that could cause innocent people harm... but intimidating people is not the way forward... fear only leads to anger and hate... hate leads to harm ... be it mental physical or emotional ... it never leads to healing... and killing is merely an extension of harm... > > we don't separate mind from body ... mental from emotional > from physical ... > > there is no boundary .. no fragmentation ... it is one continuum > > Descartes thought so and had a profound affect on the way most > people see body and mind. Descartes was wrong ... he had to separate mind from material to make his arguments work in the time that he was writing and to the audience for whom he was writing... and he made an error that had a profound effect on the way people see body and mind, which many have spent decades trying to resolve... it is well known that our emotional world is a fluid neurochemical one that interacts at a very basic level with our brain and all our thought centres... and these neurochemicals travel in our blood to every other part of our body ... so that when we imagine the death of an animal (thought) we feel upset (emotion) and our hearts beat faster (physical) ... we can think ourselves well (see Herbert Benson, M.D., founding President of the Mind/Body Medical Institute; the Mind/Body Medical Institute Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; and Chief of the Division of Behavioral Medicine at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.) ... Descartes is interesting from an historical point of view... why/how the mind/body split came about ... but it is no longer relevant ... it's misleading... > Anyway I never said that emotions and physical symptoms are > unconnected but that emotions and understanding are. Very > different. Incomparable. you love the word 'incomparable'... but things that are incomparable aren't necessarily inseparable... emotions and understanding aren't connected?.. really? > Are you an idealist (in the philosophical Berklian sense?) no > > ideas > > fragmented into philosophical schools who debate with each > other... > > Is debate a bad thing? If anyone sticks with one tradition and > strikes out against anything because it belongs to another they > are a fool. The history of philosophy though is one of very > different ideas coming together so that something new can > come out. If anything it is the search for something unifying to > defragment reality, supposing such a thing exists. how do you define bad? i applause people coming together on ideas ... but mainly people defend their ideas as the only way ... > > then we will be in confusion ... we will not understand .. we will > probably > > hate... > > I will accept that confusion can lead to hate, but that does not > mean hate is necessarily the result of confusion. i said probably ... most times confusion leads people to clarify... (through understanding....) > By the way, you do realize I am not necessarily expressing my > own opinion but examining problems I have with what you say in > order to better understand your position and maybe learn > something new? Although I do believe that hate is not solely the > result of a lack of understanding. i can see you are doing this ... if you had an opinion we would get nowhere... :-) ... for an opinion is already a conclusion... > but they are not. There is a " something else " that flavours our > rational side. I for one think we can benefit a lot more from > feeling hate than we can from dismissing and diminishing it. is that " something else " our emotions then? (i do not favour rational over emotional...) then there is a connection between our emotions and our rationality? maybe that's true .. so how do we benefit from hate? > Michael > (Whose parcel has finally arrived so I can now have a shower > and make some lunch, though not at the same time I add) enjoy your lunch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > > I'd stop if this wasn't so much fun on a very bad day! > me too :-) Well I'm off to bed after this and won't be back until tomorrow evening now 8-( > they can't be bothered? they've lived that way all their lives... and they > have 5 years left to live ... and who am i to tell them what to do? The person standing up for the animals who shouldn't have to die just because someone has five years to live. I guess that's the thing about veganism, you can say and think what you like but at the end of the day it's not about yo, it's about those who are unable to defend their own interests, and it is them we should stand up for. > imcomparable but not inseparable... what do most people do with this hate? > faced with the object of one's hatred? ... But you can kill with hate, and hate without killing. And if someone's hatred does lead to their killing then the question of them understanding their hate is just as important (if not more so) than trying to erradicate it. > intimidating people is not the way forward... fear only leads to anger and > hate... On that I agree, though it seems a minority view in these parts at times. > hate leads to harm ... be it mental physical or emotional ... it never leads > to healing... How I wish I was brave enough to tell a little story about myself, but I've learned how uncarring people can be and I don't want to open myself like that again, still I can assure you the person who I hate the most, and what they did to cause it, has done me more good than you could imagine. Say what you like but, no matter how hard it is at times, I would not want to lose that hurt and hate. > Descartes was wrong ... he had to separate mind from material to make his > arguments work I agree that he was wrong, and that he was forced to make that seperation rather discover it as it seems in the meditations, but... > he made an error that had a profound effect on the way > people see body and mind, which many have spent decades trying to resolve... ....I don't agree that that was his error. I may not be a dualist myself but for one thing it is the only way to escape determinism. > it is well known that our emotional world is a fluid neurochemical one that > interacts at a very basic level with our brain and all our thought > centres... But are neurochemical changes the cause of emotion, or the result of them? (Okay I ripped that from the argument over cause of depression but it still kind of works.) And even if the changes are the cause of emotion, what causes those changes, it can't be rationality because that itself is caused by neurochemical changes. We get caught in a circle of the cause of emotions being a prequisite of itself. > Descartes is interesting from an historical point of view... why/ how the > mind/body split came about ... but it is no longer relevant ... it's > misleading... A brave statement considering how easy it would be to say that the interaction between the non extended thinking thing and the physical body manifests itself in those neurochemical changes thus using neurology to solve the problem that plagued Descartes. The fact is nothing has been proved in philosophy of mind, and Descartes reasoning may be irrelevant now but his conclusions have as much validity as monism which is equally flawed. > you love the word 'incomparable'... Once I get a word in my head I use it often without realizing. Don't get me started on a story about someone catching pneumonoultramicroscopicsciliovolcanoconisosis in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwryndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. > but things that are incomparable aren't > necessarily inseparable... > emotions and understanding aren't connected?.. really? But inseparabilty does not mean they have to be connected, but they could both be separate and independant results of something else, and at other times occur independantly. Emotions and understanding may be connected but not in a direct causual sense of emotions being the result of understanding. Who can claim to understand true love? > > Is debate a bad thing? > how do you define bad? In this case something negative, something which detracts from rather than adds to. > i applause people coming together on ideas ... but mainly people defend > their ideas as the only way ... Of course they do, and they should. If people believ they are right they should defend them. The point was about schools of thought, not individual ideas, if people didn't cling to them they would not be advanced. > is that " something else " our emotions then? Maybe the " something else " flavours both our rationality and our emotions. I can't say, but there has to be more than rationality that makes up who we are. > then there is a connection between our emotions and our > rationality? If the something else is the emotions, but in a one way path where our rationality cannot control the emotions, otherwise rationality would be all there is. > maybe that's true .. so how do we benefit from hate? Because we can learn a lot about ourselves from it, it can help us grow and overcome our short fallings. It can also cause people to achieve great things. Yes it can lead to terrible things too but it's like the argument about depression and bipolar disorders, think of all the art that resulted and would have been lost had they not existed. Maybe without hate there could be no love. And as easy as it is to love everyone through understanding it makes us vulnerable while it is hate that installs in us the doubt that protects us. The questions is not whether we should hate, but that we should learn to use it and channel it better. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Intimidation closes places down . Have you done as much ?. We have to fight from all angles to be successful . If we criticise those who are supposed to be on our side we weaken the movement - Oliver Slay ' ' Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:56 PM RE: Re: Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] some time ago some animal rights activists staged a protest outside myflat... apparently someone else in the house (divided into nine separateflats) worked in the trade... being on the ground floor they could look inand see me... watching them... i found the experience intimidating ... ifelt like the object of their protest... i was being irrational, yes... butthey did not know that i am an ethical vegan ... and they are human ... theycan make mistakes ... and they can direct their anger anywhere they like ...they can associate me with the person they were protesting against... asimple association that could cause innocent people harm... butintimidating people is not the way forward... fear only leads to anger andhate...hate leads to harm ... be it mental physical or emotional ... it never leadsto healing...and killing is merely an extension of harm... > > we don't separate mind from body ... mental from emotional > from physical ...> > there is no boundary .. no fragmentation ... it is one continuum> >only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 > But are neurochemical changes the cause of emotion, or the > result of them? (Okay I ripped that from the argument over > cause of depression but it still kind of works.) And even if the > changes are the cause of emotion, what causes those changes, > it can't be rationality because that itself is caused by > neurochemical changes. We get caught in a circle of the cause > of emotions being a prequisite of itself. yes... it's a two way thing... the more you think the more the neurons fire and create the neurotransmitters.... the more neurotransmitters there are the easier it is for neurons to fire... [see Susan Greenfield or Candis Pert...] fluid neurochemical changes are emotions for the most part... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 > Once I get a word in my head I use it often without realizing. > Don't get me started on a story about someone catching > pneumonoultramicroscopicsciliovolcanoconisosis in > Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwryndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. sounds like someone with a chest infection in North Wales... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 > Maybe without hate there could be no love. And as easy as it is > to love everyone through understanding it makes us vulnerable > while it is hate that installs in us the doubt that protects us. The > questions is not whether we should hate, but that we should > learn to use it and channel it better. what?! ... where there is love there can be no hate.... ! is this not clear enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 and those places stayed shut or moved locations afterwards? ... you shut one down they move elsewhere... whoever pays them, asks for their research will ask another .... that's how it works ... you make several people jobless... and cause a bit of a problem for a company caught up in practices that misuse animal life... but the operation just gets moved elsewhere... and more barbed wire gets put up ... more cc tv ... more security .... i have no time now to take this arguement to its extremes... i judge that many people can use their imagination to do so... it's like squeezing a balloon.... - Angie Wright Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:07 AM Re: Re: Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] Intimidation closes places down . Have you done as much ?. We have to fight from all angles to be successful . If we criticise those who are supposed to be on our side we weaken the movement - Oliver Slay ' ' Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:56 PM RE: Re: Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] some time ago some animal rights activists staged a protest outside myflat... apparently someone else in the house (divided into nine separateflats) worked in the trade... being on the ground floor they could look inand see me... watching them... i found the experience intimidating ... ifelt like the object of their protest... i was being irrational, yes... butthey did not know that i am an ethical vegan ... and they are human ... theycan make mistakes ... and they can direct their anger anywhere they like ...they can associate me with the person they were protesting against... asimple association that could cause innocent people harm... butintimidating people is not the way forward... fear only leads to anger andhate...hate leads to harm ... be it mental physical or emotional ... it never leadsto healing...and killing is merely an extension of harm... > > we don't separate mind from body ... mental from emotional > from physical ...> > there is no boundary .. no fragmentation ... it is one continuum> >only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Oliver Slay <oliver wrote: > Once I get a word in my head I use it often without realizing. > Don't get me started on a story about someone catching > pneumonoultramicroscopicsciliovolcanoconisosis in > Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwryndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.sounds like someone with a chest infection in North Wales... :-)~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 ---Love and hate are opposite entities,like right and wrong!If we love what is right and hate what is wrong,then surely we will surly win the battle! SP, In , " Oliver Slay " <oliver@l...> wrote: > > > Maybe without hate there could be no love. And as easy as it is > > to love everyone through understanding it makes us vulnerable > > while it is hate that installs in us the doubt that protects us. The > > questions is not whether we should hate, but that we should > > learn to use it and channel it better. > > what?! ... where there is love there can be no hate.... ! > > is this not clear enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 , " vegicate1 " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > ---Love and hate are opposite entities,like right and wrong!If we > love what is right and hate what is wrong,then surely we will > win the battle! > SP, > > > In , " Oliver Slay " <oliver@l...> wrote: > > > > > Maybe without hate there could be no love. And as easy as it is > > > to love everyone through understanding it makes us vulnerable > > > while it is hate that installs in us the doubt that protects us. > The > > > questions is not whether we should hate, but that we should > > > learn to use it and channel it better. > > > > what?! ... where there is love there can be no hate.... ! > > > > is this not clear enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 love and hate are not opposites ... and right and wrong are not opposites... when someone loves completely with their whole body ... there is no room for hate... can you hate someone you love? ... someone you really love... can you hate them? ... is there room for it? subjectively speaking, right and wrong for you are opposites... and right and wrong for me might be opposites... but what you call right and wrong, and what i call right and wrong, are not the same ... will never be the same... so why not question whether right and wrong are opposites... let's question whether opposite is the right word to be using here... what is the wrong way to do something ? ... is the wrong way to do something the way that i have been educated to do it? ... are you going to stand in front of someone and tell them that? let's use a little science knowledge ... if you are doing an experiment ... to test your theory ... most results fit your theory ... but there are some results that do not fit ... are they wrong? ... or is your initial theory wrong? ... it's a 'sin' (hamartia) when the results do not fit 100% with your theories... and in order to repent (metanoia) you must adjust your own theories until the results fit ... so you have values... you have values that you have created in your lifetime due to the (relatively) immediate environment in which you live ... the village the town the area... the society .. the country ... the continent .... and yet we place these values on the universe ... a universe where there is no mercy for any part... stars die just because they might get sucked into a black hole ... stars are born ... some plastic surgery and some stars are reborn ... where tidal waves kill people ... and tornadoes rip up homes... (don't you just hate tidal waves?) so what is right and what is wrong? ... in 15th century Korea boys of 9 years old were married to 14 year old girls... you might say that is wrong... but 4-20 million Koreans would have put you in the corner and laughed at you for being so silly... they don't do it now ... because some self-righteous missionaries came along and told them they shouldn't do it because it was wrong... > > vegicate1 [simonpjones] > Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:59 AM > > Re: Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] > > > ---Love and hate are opposite entities,like right and wrong!If we > love what is right and hate what is wrong,then surely we will surly > win the battle! > SP, > > > In , " Oliver Slay " <oliver@l...> wrote: > > > > > Maybe without hate there could be no love. And as easy as it is > > > to love everyone through understanding it makes us vulnerable > > > while it is hate that installs in us the doubt that protects us. > The > > > questions is not whether we should hate, but that we should > > > learn to use it and channel it better. > > > > what?! ... where there is love there can be no hate.... ! > > > > is this not clear enough? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 roy heath <royheath wrote: NO I didn't Oliver Slay <oliver wrote: > Once I get a word in my head I use it often without realizing. > Don't get me started on a story about someone catching > pneumonoultramicroscopicsciliovolcanoconisosis in > Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwryndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.sounds like someone with a chest infection in North Wales... :-)~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 > what?! ... where there is love there can be no hate.... ! Love and hate are the positive and negative versions of the same emotion, you're just focusing on those two extremes. Don't fragment it! Consider boderline personality disorder. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2002 Report Share Posted March 30, 2002 Ok so you do nothing Then they can carry on using animals without any inconvenience I wonder how women ever got the vote !!! Angie - Oliver Slay Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:56 AM Re: Re: Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] up in practices that misuse animal life... but the operation just gets moved elsewhere... and more barbed wire gets put up ... more cc tv ... more security .... i have no time now to take this arguement to its extremes... i judge that many people can use their imagination to do so... it's like squeezing a balloon.... - Angie Wright Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:07 AM Re: Re: Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] Intimidation closes places down . Have you done as much ?. We have to fight from all angles to be successful . If we criticise those who are supposed to be on our side we weaken the movement - Oliver Slay ' ' Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:56 PM RE: Re: Hate (was tibetans vegan?) [OT] some time ago some animal rights activists staged a protest outside myflat... apparently someone else in the house (divided into nine separateflats) worked in the trade... being on the ground floor they could look inand see me... watching them... i found the experience intimidating ... ifelt like the object of their protest... i was being irrational, yes... butthey did not know that i am an ethical vegan ... and they are human ... theycan make mistakes ... and they can direct their anger anywhere they like ...they can associate me with the person they were protesting against... asimple association that could cause innocent people harm... butintimidating people is not the way forward... fear only leads to anger andhate...hate leads to harm ... be it mental physical or emotional ... it never leadsto healing...and killing is merely an extension of harm... > > we don't separate mind from body ... mental from emotional > from physical ...> > there is no boundary .. no fragmentation ... it is one continuum> >only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.